On Einstein's birthday, it is worth considering how Einstein expanded the boundaries of genius (with the help of the Animaniacs).
No wonder Einstein did not want the Warner Brothers's (and sister too) cookies-- Einstein hankered for Pie.
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).
Showing posts with label Pensee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pensee. Show all posts
Sunday, March 14, 2021
Monday, January 25, 2021
Monday, January 18, 2021
Thursday, January 14, 2021
Considering the Consequence of the Snap Second Trump Impeachment
On January 13th, 2021, the US House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald J. Trump for a second time in a mostly party line vote 232 to 197 (with ten Republican voting aye). This second Snap Impeachment in H. Res. 24 (117th Congress) was on a single charge of “Incitement of Insurrection”, predicated on remarks made at a political rally at the Ellipse on January 6th, 2021 as Congress was set to certify the Electoral College results for the Presidential Election.
After certification of the November 3rd election results, President Trump’s term ends on January 20th, meaning that the snap Impeachment, which only acts as a judicial equivalent of an indictment, was in the last seven days of President Trump’s term of office. The Senate was not scheduled be in session until January 19th and current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was unwilling to convene in emergency session, so the earliest that the Senate could take up an Article of Impeachment (presuming that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promptly send it over this time) is 1 p.m. on January 20th, one hour after newly inaugurated President Joe Biden takes his oath of office.
Any astute political observers understand that this Second Impeachment was not meant to evict Mr. Trump out of the Oval Office but to besmirch his place in history and seek him from exercising any political power after January 20th. Unfortunately, this political stunt has some serious repercussions for the polity, the rule of law and even the Constitution.
Firstly, there was a rush to remove President Trump. When the Capitol Siege occurred on January 6th, Trump was only going to be in office for less than two weeks. When the Snap Impeachment was passed, the 45th President would leave office in seven days. But that perspective only looks towards part of the consequences and not the cause. Facts about the violence on Capitol Hill have been fluid. Vital questions such as who were the instigators of the insurrection and why a couple hundred agitators were allowed inside the Capitol. Thus is seems unwise to rush to judgment, but that did not deter Nancy Pelosi’s drive to impeach Trump again.
A day before the Impeachment vote in the House, the House passed a Resolution (on a purely party line vote) which implored Vice President Pence and the Trump Cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment, which would (temporarily) remove President Trump and make Pence Acting President pending Congressional assent. The 25th Amendment was intended for instances when the Chief Executive was incapacitated, not for policy disagreements or “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”.
The proper Congressional role in the 25th Amendment is to ratify the Acting President, not to instigate his or her installation. This Resolution abrogates the Separation of Powers, namely having part of the Legislative Branch leveraging the Vice President with a threat of an Impeachment vote unless Mr. Pence invoked the 25th Amendment. That kind of sounds like Speaker Pelosi was drunk on power for countenancing that Constitutional breach.
The Snap Impeachment of 2021 was done at super speed in less than seven days from the Capitol Siege to passing the Article of Impeachment. The charge “Inciting an Insurrection” is a serious charge, verging on treason, thus one might try to justify an accelerated procedure. But it that were the case, then why didn’t the House stay in session to actuate the Impeachment. Instead, the House took the weekend off. The Impeachment was delayed by a voice vote on Monday January 11th rejecting the 25th Amendment Resolution and then passage of the unconstitutional 25th Amendment Resolution on January 12th before proceeding to the Snap Impeachment on January 13th.
In 1974, the House Judiciary Committee labored seven months drafting the first Article of Impeachment against President Richard Nixon (who resigned before any final Congressional vote). The Impeachment process of President Bill Clinton lasted four months. Even President Trump’s first Impeachment took three months. Yet, the slim Democrat majority in the House lead by Speaker Nancy Pelosi managed to pass an Article of Impeachment with three HOURS of floor “debate” and no committee work.
Unlike in the Impeachment of 2020 when some of President Trump’s staff were allowed to offer some positive input, there was no fact finding or committee hearings before the Impeachment Debate. So the Snap Impeachment ignored precedent.
It can be argued that an impeachment is like an indictment. Some cynically say that a Prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich with a Grand Jury, as the defendant is not entitled to counsel in that forum.
Part of the animus against President Trump is for his brusque manner which agitates people. The Article of Impeachment which passed cited “Inciting an Insurrection” and pointed to Mr. Trump’s rhetoric as part of the charge. With that in mind, it was curious that the rules for debate on the 25th Amendment and Impeachment resolution lifted decorum prohibitions. This allowed members like freshman Representative Cori Bush (D-MO 1st) slanderously referred to the gathering on the Ellipse to the White Supremicist-in-chief addressing White Supremicists (sic). Not surprisingly, this comes from the same Member who proposed expelling any Congressmen who voted against certifying electors (N.B. bill was dropped on January 5th, the day before the ruckus). With actions and language like Rep. Bush, one wonders who is inciting unrest.
One of the things that were done on the first day of the 117th Congress was rules in the House which barred Members from using gender specific language in legislative business. Yet when Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 12th) gave a rare floor speech in favor of the snap Impeachment, she proclaimed “I stand before you as a wife, a mother, a grandmother, a daughter, a daughter...”
Guess that rules are only intended to be applied for peasants or the opposition, even silly ones.
Even though the Snap Impeachment was done in an expedited fashion, it was not immediately walked over to the Senate. While Impeachment Managers were named, including Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA 15th) who was recently exposed as having involvement with Chinese spy Fang Fang, the Article was not conveyed to the Upper Chamber for trial. It is unclear when Speaker Pelosi will send over the Article of Impeachment. For the 2020 Impeachment, Pelosi held the Articles of Impeachment for a month before sending them to the Senate. So much for a supposed clear and present danger.
With these facts in mind, it is reasonable to conclude that essentially this was not a second impeachment of impeachment of Donald Trump but more of a show trial, Soviet style which gave the illusion of some system of justice but had a predetermined outcome dictated by the ruling House legislative majority. Aside from exercising its rightful impeachment power, there were attempts at Congressional dominance over the Executive branch and eschewed principles of due process which have influenced America’s common law heritage.
But that is only considering the ramifications from one chamber of Congress. The Senate is where the Impeachment Trial occurs. This will be made complicated due to timing. Again, it is unclear when the Article of Impeachment will be transmitted. If the House Majority truly wanted to eject President Trump from office, it would be immediately sent. The snag with that is the Constitution requires that the Senate immediately take up the Impeachment and can conduct no other legislative business.
The Senate is not scheduled to reconvene until January 19th, and won’t be put into emergency session sooner. Current Senate Majority Leader McConnell is circulating a draft rule which requires unanimous consent to doing business aside from Impeachment. It is improbable that in such a contentious environment that all 100 Senators grant such a deviation from customary procedure. So when the Impeachment Article is conveyed, it will dominate Senate business.
It is conceivable that if House Impeachment Managers present themselves with House Res. 24 to the Senate on January 19th, that McConnell could press the Senate to immediately consider a Motion to Dismiss which could pass by simple majority vote. Looking at it politically, Democrats can crow that Trump was impeached twice and Republicans are forced to indicate if they still support a besmirched President Trump. But it is unclear if the Republican caucus in the Senate could hold firm to dismiss. If it is a razor thin vote, it might require current Vice President Mike Pence to break the tie. If the motion fails, then the Senate would immediately be broiled into an Impeachment trial.
When the inauguration occurs on January 20th, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) will become Vice President and surrender her seat in the Senate, but constitutionally she will become President of the Senate. This role will allow her to break tie votes, which will be crucial in a 50–50 split Senate, thereby giving Democrats the majority. This means that Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) becomes Senate Majority Leader and will call the tunes for the Impeachment trial, but changing the operational rules again could be a sticking point.
House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC 6th) has suggested that the Impeachment trial be delayed to give President Biden his 100 day honeymoon. That won’t be possible if the House rushes the Article of Impeachment, but that is unlikely. Presuming the Impeachment is held until May, it will hang over the new President’s head and may well force involvement, either to allay the situation or verbally stumble into taking a stance.
There is a significant Constitutional question as to the propriety of the Impeachment of a President after he or she has left office. Impeachment is a process in which the legislature brings charges against a civil officer of the government. Well, after Noon on January 20th 2021, Donald Trump becomes a private citizen again. It is moot as to whether it would be proper for the Senate to try a private citizen. Prominent contemporary legal scholars like Cass Sunstein, Alan Dershewitz and Jonathan Turley argue against impeachment of an ex President. But there is a little historical precedence for it.
In 1876, there is the example of Secretary of War William Belknap who was investigated by the House for corruption. But minutes before the Impeachment occurred, Belknap submitted his resignation to President Ulysses S. Grant. However, the House impeached him anyways and the Senate tried him but failed to get the 2/3ds majority. This issue is not clear cut and would probably prompt judicial consideration which will likely be rejected as a political issue. Then again, it might force Chief Justice John Roberts to consider a difficult issue while proceeding over a Senate trial.
Why would Democrats go through all of the trouble to impeach a President who was essentially a short timer anyways? Aside from trying to blot out a Trump presidency either with black marks or essentially cancel him, it would seem that they are scared about his future viability. Post Presidency Impeachment may not be able to remove Trump but would also barr him from ever holding federal office again. Considering the 74 million plus supporters who seem undeterred by bad press or even a snap impeachment, Democrats do not want strong opposition in 2024 to a weak Biden Administration featuring Kamala Harris. Some establishment Republicans would feel safer if the Populist America First movement goes away with Donald Trump. Thus they might encourage impeachment to dampen his pull on the party and they can continue unimpeded in their quintessential District of Calamity (sic) cocktail party.
There is a practical political consideration about a Senate Impeachment trial. Namely, are there the votes? Unlike procedural issues, the Senate is required by the Constitution to garner a 2/3rds majority to succeed. While there may be a few Republicans who despise Trump enough to vote for Impeachment, it would be hard to win 17 GOP votes. Even if Senate Democrats abolish the filibuster and push through Puerto Rican and Douglass Commonwealth (a.k.a. DC) statehood, they would still have to sway 15 Republicans.
Then there are the procedural problems with Trump’s second impeachment. There is only one Article, and that cites “Inciting an Insurrection”. Aside from the plain language of Trump’s Ellipse speech which never incited his audience, it can be shown that trouble was occurring 1 ½ miles away on Capitol Hill before the President finished his speech. Furthermore, facts from the FBI and mainstream media sources reveal that some agitators who have radical BLM and Antifa connections had been planning for trouble prior to the Capitol Siege. This information will have to be fleshed out in a fair trial.
Moreover, the Resolution’s language points to Trump’s citation of false information about winning the election. Of course, all Americans (even a President) have the Freedom of Speech, even if it is demonstrably wrong. But by citing Trump's prior speeches and claims, that opens the door for Trump’s defense team to further expose and substantiate all of the election irregularities that state courts, Article III courts and the Supreme Court declined to hear on their cases merits. That may take a long time and could upset the apple cart about the 2020 elections, further throwing doubt into the legitimacy of Biden’s presidency.
Then there is the matter of Big Tech. Social Media giants like Twitter and Facebook censored President Trump when questioning the election. To add injury to insult (sic), these Social Media Cyber Nannies banned President Trump from even making statements to tell his supporters to go home peacefully. That may open the door to expose collusion amongst internet companies in Election 2020.
As the Article of Impeachment proof texts Trump’s remarks to find the most inflammatory takes, context might examine social media’s role in the matter. That avenue of defense open the door to expose collusion amongst internet companies in Election 2020. If incoming Senate Majority Leader Schumer resists allowing the Trump team a vigorous defense, it will become clear that it is a show trial worthy of a Soviet state or a banana republic (not the kind selling safari clothing).
Since the first FDR term, Presidents have been historically measured by their accomplishments during their honeymoon period (i.e. the first 100 days). If the second Trump impeachment goes to a real Senate trial, it will overshadow everything. Thus the Biden honeymood will be like looking at a postcard of Niagra Falls and wondering: "If only..."
However, if some wild cards come up during the trial, such as obvious election fraud or collusion, some may prefer visit Niagra Falls over a barrel, with or without Dr. Jill.
Just as the Biden campaign was not about him but all about Donald Trump, the second impeachment trial of Trump may well overshadow the early Biden presidency. While the will to get Trump might be widely held among Democrats (and some establishment Republicans), actuating this animus may well impede the ambitions of “The Great Reset”.
Tuesday, January 12, 2021
Monday, January 11, 2021
Sunday, January 10, 2021
On Polity and Media
Perhaps this illustrates a less cynical vision on preserving American Free Speech in a Democratic Republic
Tuesday, January 5, 2021
Wednesday, December 23, 2020
On Lame Ducks, Christmas Trees and Pocket Vetoes
In response to COVID 19, much of America practically shut down for much of 2020. Many Americans lost their jobs, particularly in the hospitality and restaurant industries. Congress passed a few bills intending to funnel stimulus money as a lifeline to these economically vulnerable Americans. But as the second wave of extreme closures hit parts of America during the holiday season, such payments from Uncle Sam to stem the financial pain are critical.
The fourth COVID stimulus were held up by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for admittedly partisan reasons. Prior to the election, Pelosi demanded $2.5 trillion legislation, which included bailouts of states with underfunded extravagant public pensions. The Trump White House proposed a $1.6 trillion plan but was willing to increase it to $2 trillion to meet Democrats half way. Still, Pelosi was intransigent until it appeared that Joe Biden (D-DE) was the presumptive President-elect. So Congressional Democrats only got serious about another COVID stimulus bill until the December rush from Capitol Hill to be home for Christmas
Lame Duck Congress sessions after an election often take a devil may care attitude since the scrutiny of the ballot box won't happen for another two years and some members are not returning to Capitol Hill.
The Lame Duck 116th Congress was tasked with passing tardy spending bills which were supposed to have been finalized by the end of the Fiscal Year (September 30th). It seems that the plan from leadership of both parties was to pass a couple of stop gap Federal Spending Bills to buy time from a government shutdown, then rush to pass an $2.3 Trillion Omnibus Appropriation Bill that is a Christmas Tree, meaning that there were all sorts of decoration of ancillary legislation which becomes a must pass bill.
To add to the Slapdash Santa spirit, the powers that be agreed to pass a "skinny" COVID stimulus bill of ONLY $900 million of deficit spending, which earmarked a $600 check to Americans earning less than $75,000. Considering the financial insecurity of many Americans due to COVID, the Christmas rush when it was expected that people would not focus on the goings of Swamp City and the desire for President Trump to mitigate damage to his legacy, this must pass bill was expected to go through..
There were two flaws to this legislative strategy. While Congress only had a few hours to review a five thousand page bit of legislation before passage, the details started to leak out. Social media balked when it was discovered that only $190 million the the $900 million is set to go to needy Americans. The rest of it was a pork Christmas tree, with expenditures for earmarks like $25 million to Pakistan for gender studies, funding for an American Womens' History Museum and an American Latino Museum on the National Mall, and nearly $90 million for Senate building maintenance. This raised the rankles of an already agitated American public. The House passed the combined COVID Relief package and Consolidated Appropriations measure (HR 133) by a 359-53 margin and the Senate passed the measure 92-6
The other thing impeding the typical jamming through pork barrel at the end of the year when people won't notice involves the 45th President. President Donald Trump deems himself a disruptor from the swampy ways of the Deep State. Even though the mainstream media has been parsing precious little time to President Trump since after the election, the Disrupter -in-Chief leveraged his social media skills to distribute a viral video.
President Trump demanded that every American ought to get a $2,000 stimulus check and the bill sent to him should be stripped of the other pork barrel legislation. Trump intimated that he may not sign the tripe bill that was sent to him. Since Congress procrastinated to nearly the end of the 116th Congress, the President could have a pocket veto--meaning that by doing nothing (keeping it in his pocket) that the legislation fails.
This puts Congress in a perilous situation. They recognize that there constituents are really hurting and they will lose confidence in them if they fail on a stimulus, especially when their prior bill was laden with wasteful pork barrel projects that have nothing to do with COVID. While the Comprehensive COVID Stimulus and Appropriations legislation passed by veto proof majorities, a pocket veto does not require resubmission to Congress. They let legislative time effectively run out for the customary rule of legislation.
The second problem is timing. The Continuing Resolution only funds the government until December 28th. So if President Trump fails to sign HR 133 and uses a pocket veto, then there will be a government shutdown. Congress may well get the blame for pushing pork barrel pet projects and giving taxpayers a pittance whereas the President wants to give every American adult $2,000. To avoid a pocket-veto, they would have to stay in session during the week between Christmas and New Years Day. And they could not easily do pro forma sessions because the Spending Continuing Resolution expires on December 28th.
A third issue is populist agitation. When the 117th Congress convenes on January 6th, they are supposed to certify the Electoral College results. Since President Trump is positioning his Congressional forces to contest some of the election irregularities in several battleground states. In conjunction with the Congressional vote, President Trump has called for a rally which he promised will be wild. Imagine the animus of a large group of "deplorables" against elected officials who won't "Stop the Steal", but due to their greed and indolence are holding back significant COVID relief packages for ordinary Americans.
It is unclear if and when additional COVID relief payments are doled out, as well as the fate of contested election. But because of lame ducks, Christmas trees and pocket vetoes, the next few weeks in Washington won't be as the Establishment had planned.
Thursday, December 3, 2020
Thursday, October 1, 2020
Wednesday, September 30, 2020
Debating the Debate Take Aways
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.
Friday, September 11, 2020
Remembering the Sacrifices of Surviving First Responders to 9/11
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was a Union General who was awarded a Medal of Honor for his gallantry during the Battle of Gettysburg. Gen. Chamberlain's profound invocation of a Civil War cemetery in 1889 gave solace to a Russ Kleat, a soulful First Responder at Ground Zero after the 9/11 Islamist terror attack on the World Trade Center.
It is easier to mourn the loss of 2606 lives lost in an instant as the Twin Towers imploded. But there are many First Responders who made it out alive but who have been mentally scarred and physically impaired by their dedicated service.
It seems just that the New York Fire Department has been gradually adding names to the 9/11 Memorial Wall of First Responders who have fallen due to illnesses related to their efforts after 9/11.
The valiance of the 9/11 First Responders gives new poignancy to Gen. Chamberlain's invocation. I will think of the line "the mystery of grace" now whenever I see photos of the Tower of Lights remembering 9/11 victims.
Monday, March 9, 2020
Warren Buffet on Fear and Investing
The New York Stock Exchange dropped 7% at the start of trading over continued fears over coronovirus, combined with investors reacting to a glut of crude oil causing benchmark prices to tank.
At the District of Calamity, there is more confidence in political prognostication rather than inklings on investments or immunology. However, with some cognitive (rather than social) distancing, this is not the bubonic plague and America's health system is not medieval medicine. Moreover, media seems to be pushing a crisis, presumably for ratings and as another avenue to imperil the current Administration.
Thus it is prudent to take into account the wisdom of Warren Buffet, the Wizard of Omaha, on fear and investing.
Friday, February 14, 2020
Frederick Douglas on Politics
If only contemporary audiences could really hear the wisdom of "Liberty's Champion":
Wednesday, February 12, 2020
Sifting Through the Rubble from the Granite State Primary
Pundits expected the Democrat New Hampshire primary to be an easy win for Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT). After all, Sanders had name recognition being a Senator from a neighboring state as well as his resounding victory in the 2016 Presidential primaries.
 |
| Senator Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) after New Hampshire primary |
What seems significant is the degradation of support for Sanders in New Hampshire, despite his inherent advantages. For the moment, Buttigeig is the principle competition for Sanders. But the campaign is shifting to the Nevada Caucus on February 22, which “Mayor Pete” may not have the organization to capitalize. For the South Carolina Primary on February 29, Buttigieg seems to have difficulty attracting support from African American voters, which comprise two thirds of Palmetto State Democrat voters.
Sanders is an avowed Socialist, which is anathematic to admit for Establishment Democrats who want to win in November. Considering the malarkey (sic) in the Iowa Caucus tabulation as well as manipulating the debate rules, there seems to be a behind the scenes effort to mute “The Bern”’s momentum to allow for an alternative who the Establishment deems more electable.
Ordinarily, the second place finisher would be the designated competition, but Mayor Pete seems weak in other early primaries. In this cycle, billionaire ex Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R-I-D-NYC) opted to skip the February primaries to vigorously compete in the twelve primaries on Super Tuesday March 3. Thus, “Mitey Mike” (sic) might play the white knight and steal an easy nomination from Bernie Sanders.
Another interesting nugget from the Granite State Primary was the third place finish by Senator Amy Klobachar (D-MN) with 19.8%. Klobachar garnered more than double Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) support, which was surprising as Warren was a neighboring state pol and she expended considerable resources in New Hampshire. Warren is on the far left of the Democrat political spectrum, but it does not appear that Warren voters did not gravitate to her ideological comrade Sanders.
Klobachar seems to have been aided by a stand out debate performance in the New Hampshire debate. Moreover Klobachar won some attention the prior week when she was the first to declare victory (despite placing 5th) in the Iowa Caucuses. Perhaps Klobachar won some support from voters concluding that she is the viable female candidate. It is a safe assumption that Klobachar prospered with the collapse of the Warren and ex Vice President Joe Biden (D-DE) campaigns.
Andrew Yang dropped out after earning 3.3% support in New Hampshire, as well as Senator Michael Bennett (D-CO) with 0.3% of the vote. Ex Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA) is expected to drop out after a 0.4% performance.
Joe Biden left New Hampshire early to kick off his South Carolina campaign, as he sensed the impending doom. In the end, former frontrunner Joe Biden placed fifth in New Hampshire with 8.4%. Paired with his fourth place finish in Iowa, it is almost certain that Biden is the walking dead in the primary process, as it will be difficult to raise more funds with such pathetic early showings. It is dubious if Quid Pro Quo Joe could beat Mickey Mouse.
News coverage of the primary process loves to focus on who won the horse race and not the delegate count. Granted, the delegate stakes are paltry in Iowa and New Hampshire, but the process matters. As long as there is a competitive three person race, the more likely it is for there to be a brokered Democrat convention, as no candidate has a clear majority. If it seems as if Sanders is cheated out of the nomination (again), James O’Keefe's exposes with Project Veritas exposed the violent sentiments of Bernie bros working on the campaign, it could be a hot time in Milwaukee in July.
Friday, February 7, 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)