"I'd love to be nice, but I'm dealing against real garbage." -- New Trump yesterday, on Kamala Harris Well, that didn't last long. I hope that any press who suggested, based on only the first 15 minutes of his RNC speech, there was a new, more uniting Trump do some soul searching and a mea culpa. As I wrote the day after, there is only "Trump," and there has always only been Trump. Not a wisp of anything new. This about "garbage," that is Trump. It’s been Trump ever since he was sued by the federal government in 1973 – half a century ago -- over racial discrimination for not renting to Black people. It’s been Trump since 1989 when he took out a full page ad during the Central Park Five trial and called for the return of the death penalty – before the five young Black men were exonerated. And as the campaign goes on and as his early dementia worsens and the threat of Kamala Harris (and the threat of his remaining trials) solidifies, he will only become Trumpier. Later in the day, Fox host (and former W. Bush press secretary) Dana Perino was talking with Democratic strategist Michael Meehan about the speech President Biden had given the night before. And at one point, she said since Biden had dropped out of the race, discussion of age can now be "put aside." Too hilarious. As the old ad campaign for deodorant said, "Never let them see you sweat." MAGOPs can only wish discussion of age is put aside. Dream on. After all, when your candidate put the meal on the table, it will stay there and be eaten. With gusto. When your candidate is now the oldest presidential nominee in U.S. history, and he made age a campaign issue, it will be an issue. When your candidate shows signs of what psychologists say is early dementia, it won’t – can’t – shouldn’t be put aside. To his credit, Mr. Meehan did not put it aside. And brought it up again. Kamala Harris’s campaign made it plain yesterday morning that Trump’s age would not be put aside – nor would the reality of his crimes. That was when they released an email immediately responding to Trump's Fox interview that morning – and bluntly and accurately entitled it: "Statement on a 78-Year-Old Criminal's Fox News Appearance." A couple of passages in the statement leaped out. The first was -- "After watching Fox News this morning we only have one question. Is Donald Trump ok?" And the second passage that stood out was a quote that came from campaign spokesman James Singer. That was when he stated -- "The dangerous threats of an old man don't create jobs, protect our rights, or keep us safe.” Blunt, pithy and focused on a larger, important issue for deeper context. (I also liked his next sentence: "Vice President Kamala Harris offers something different: freedom, lower costs, and opportunity for all." A very good political statement to build on his theme. Though it’s still the “The dangerous threats of an old man don't create jobs…” that brutally stands out. Obviously, it was racist and hate-filled when Trump called Kamala Harris “garbage.” But it was also really incredibly stupid. After all, unless you’re part of Trump’s extreme right, fascist, white supremacist base, no matter whether you like or hate Kamala Harris’s policies or personality, I’m sure that almost no one else thinks of her as “garbage." So, calling her that only makes Trump look utterly dismal. And racist. And misogynist. And like an old man shouting at the moon and yelling at the kids who kicked their ball on his yard. Also, I don’t think many people listening to Trump on Fox even believed him when he said, “I’d like to be nice.” In fact, most of them probably don’t want him to. Which will contrast throughout the campaign with the two Harris attributes that the Trump team has tried to smear her with – that Kamala Harris loves to laugh and dance. Two other attributes are critical in the race. One for VP Harris and one for Trump. They were both noted in this ad that Nicole Wallace aired on her show yesterday. I couldn’t find it online, but recorded it with my phone off the TV. It’s pithy and pretty much says it all.
0 Comments
There is video going around of a speech J.D. Vance made in 2021 to a conservative group. In it, he says that Americans who don't have children should “face the consequences and the reality” and not get “nearly the same voice” in democracy. (Side note: Why he calls his concept "democracy" is not clear.) But his suggestion on how to rectify what bothers him is even more idiotic. And yes, idiotic is the only way to describe it. Actually, it's idiotic before he even gets to the suggestion. It's already idiotic on the basic concept. Vance's suggestion is -- “Let’s give votes to all children in this country, but let’s give control over those votes to the parents of those children.” Yes, really. Someone on Twitter had an excellent response, putting it in proper perspective. The person wrote, ""This is wild. So young people who have decided they aren’t ready for kids, people who have lost a child, people who are infertile, people who don’t want children, should not have the same voting rights as parents?!?!" For that matter, what about from the other end -- couples who decide they want as many votes as possible and have a baby every year. But then, for that matter, what happens if the parents disagree between them?! Who gets to decide the vote? (Oh, okay, in fairness, I know the answer to that one. This is J.D. Vance, after all, the man who has said that if a woman is in an abusive marriage, she should stay in it. So, of course, to Vance the father would get the tie-breaker vote. Which is another way of saying the father always gets to decide.) Personally, I hope that J.D. Vance keeps saying this over and over -- and that Trump is asked if he agrees with his VP selection. In fact, it's so monumentally stupid that it almost can't be called "divisive" since it's hard to imagine many sane people supporting it. Including children who would get "the vote" their parents would control. (I don't know what's more ridiculous a concept: a two-year old infant having "a vote" or rebellious teenagers aware that they have "a vote," but knowing their parents get to use it.) The speech is even worse than that, by the way. And yes, that's possible. In it, he referred to Democrats as "a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too." And added, "How does it make any sense that we've turned our country over to people who don't really have a direct stake in it?" And specifically singled out Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Hillary Clinton responded to the Vance video and wrote sarcastically “What a normal, relatable guy who certainly doesn’t hate women having freedoms.” For the record, in case you're forgotten sixth grade civics, the U.S. Constitution describes the requirements to be President or a member of Congress. There are three: age, citizenship and residency. Parenthood is not among them. For the record, too, Kamala Harris is a stepmother, raising children. And Pete Buttigieg has adopted children. That doesn't matter, of course, but it's still good to know, just for the sake of accuracy. And Alexandria Ocasio Cortez was only 29 when she ran for Congress. (Just for fun, there was a quote yesterday defending Kamala Harris on not having children. Not that such a defense is remotely necessary, it isn't at all, but this is just too wonderful to let pass by. After all, it was said by Kerstin Emhoff -- the ex-wife of Kamala Harris's husband, Doug Emhoff! "For over 10 years, since Cole and Ella were teenagers, Kamala has been a co-parent with Doug and I. She is loving, nurturing, fiercely protective, and always present.” Comparisons to Trump will be accepted...) After only a week, there have been stories of Republican officials already with misgivings about J.D. Vance being selected as Trump's VP pick. (C'mon, guys, didn't you think there might be problems with a guy who said Trump was "America's Hitler" and that "I"m a Never Trump guy. I never liked him"??!) And that was before it came out the other day that Vance wrote the forward for an upcoming book about the now-reviled Project 2025 (hated by both parties!) written by one of the project's main authors. And now this video has popped up. Surely there will be others. Speaking of videos, I think this is the right way to wrap things up with the proper perspective. Moreover, it's yet another example of why I like and admire Pete Buttigieg. Here he is the other other on Real Time with Bill Maher shredding J.D. Vance -- but as perhaps only Pete Buttigieg can do: politely and thoughtfully, without being vindictive or ad hominen attacks, just expressing his view from observation and experience. Kamala Harris becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee for president has completely thrown the MAGOP for a loop, uncertain what to do after having focused their entire campaign on President Biden. Indeed, it's done so to the degree that it’s made many of them panicked and crazy, and attacking in any way they can grasp. That’s not hyperbole. For starters, the MAGOP wants to literally sue the Democratic Party for making Kamala Harris its presumptive nominee, rather than President Biden. Such an action, as polite as one can be, is monumentally lunatic, especially given that (among many reasons) Democrats hadn't even officially named their nominee -- and still haven't. Further, the MAGOP also have filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission so that Kamala Harris can't get the money previously raised by the Biden-Harris campaign, despite the reality that she's the "Harris" part of Biden-Harris. Years ago, there was an ad that said, "Never let them see you sweat." This the equivalent of the MAGOP going into a sauna, perspiring up a storm and broadcasting it live TV. But that's only a warm-up, the opening act of crazed panic. Because yesterday, Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN) introduced Articles of Impeachment in the House against VP Harris. No, really. The reasons he gives for impeachment are…oh, seriously, who cares? It’s ludicrous -- trying to impeach people, after all, has become the MAGOP default alternative to governing -- but I’ll make it easier for everyone and translate all the various reasons he gave: because Kamala Harris is a Black woman who is challenging Trump. Not just challenging Trump, but Harris just had the biggest single day of fund-raising in political history, and brought in $106 million over the first 36 hours. Perhaps even more importantly, 62% of those giving money were first-time donors in the 2024 election cycle. And 58,000 people signed up to volunteer. A separate PAC, Future Forward, announced that they had additional commitments of $150 million. Further, the smears of Harris have already begun, the latest and perhaps most repugnant being that she slept her way through Democratic politics. (Considering the MAGOP's huge, existing problems with women voters already, this is sure to infuriate women all the more who too often have had to put up with such a charge whenever they succeed.) One of the most aggressive in reprehensively pushing this is Megyn Kelly, who -- given her years at Fox where sexism ran rampant -- you would think would be more sensitive and averse to saying such things. But then “You would think Megyn Kelly…” is a phrase that almost has lost all meaning at this point. Just so people know the actual story – so that, armed with facts and reality, and can response – this is what panicked MAGOPs are trying to twist into the implication is that Kamala Harris is sleazy, a slut and slept around: Thirty years ago, Harris dated a man named Willie Brown, the well-known Speaker of the California Assembly, for a year. It was a long relationship, and they were perfectly open about it. Though Brown was married, he had been separated for a decade. So, basically, it was two “single” people dating, for a year. That’s the story. And of course what the story also leaves out is the reality is that Kamala Harris was elected D.A. of San Francisco, twice elected Attorney General of the largest state in the country, elected Senator of the largest state in the country, and elected Vice President of the United States. You only accomplish any of that, let alone all, by convincing the public to vote for you. When she ran for Senator, she received 7.5 million votes. By Megyn Kelly standards, Kamala Harris must be exhausted. By reality standards, she has long been wildly popular in California. Furthermore, MAGOPs are also pulling out the desperate and racist and misogynistic attacks on Kamala Harris ranging from “She’s dumb as a rock” from Trump to that she’s just a DEI Vice-President hire, which are spreading like wildfire through the party. All of which are basic dog whistle racist codes at their core, as well as an attack on women. Of course, the reality to that is Kamala Harris was elected D.A., twice elected Attorney General, elected Senator, and elected Vice President of the United States. None of those are hires. All are campaigning and convincing the public to vote for you. Yes, I know that’s a repetition of the comment above. It bears repeating. Over and over. Not just to remind the public of the truth, but to drill it into the pea brains of the racist, misogynistic MAGOPs. The MAGOP have gone so crazed about Kamala Harris that its House leaders actually sent out a memo to party members urging them not to make racist comments about VP Harris. Pro Tip: when you have to send out an literal memo to your members begging them not to say racist things, you have already lost the racist battle. The most you can hope for is to stop the racist bleeding and try not to lose the racist war. The MAGOP have had such a meltdown over Kamala Harris and are so uncertain what to do about this accomplished Black woman (which speaks horribly about their skills in planning) that they are flailing around and lashing out at her about almost anything, even the most basic characteristic that we prize in people -- the expression of joy. The crack RNC Research team (which is hilariously incompetent, regularly putting out slams that only serve to help Democrats) has already had two such tantrums since only Sunday. Their first effort was a video of Kamala Harris standing with a big crowd of NCAA women champions to honor the athletes – it was a lovely video. And yet the RNC Research clods for some unknown reason (other than panic) tried to slam Harris for -- are you ready? -- standing in front of a one of the smaller young women, blocking her. Yes, really. Putting aside for the moment how infantile this “charge” would be, if true, in a presidential campaign -- first, the video clearly shows a military aide positioning people where they should all stand, and second…the “charge” show a complete lack of understanding for how the concept of angles work! After all, if the person holding camera simply moved two feet to the left, you would have seen the young woman behind Kamala Harris perfectly. But the MAGOPs are so lost, that this was something they felt they had to go after a Black female presidential candidate about. Never mind that their own party leader has been convicted of 34 felonies, been found liable by two juries for rape, found guilty of business fraud, said he wants to be a dictator, said he wants to throw out parts of the U.S. Constitution, wants to deport millions, wants to build internment camps, and has signs of early dementia. But…but…look where Kamal Harris was told to stand!! And that she laughs. Yes, that’s another issue Republicans and RNC Research are pushing. That Kamala Harris likes to laugh. And has a great laugh. So, in misguided hopes of ridiculing her, they’ve put out videos of her laughing. (Or “croaking” as the ace RNC Research team put it.) No doubt women voters just love seeing MAGOPs slamming a woman for laughing, showing emotion, showing joy. By the way, in response, Democrats online have put out videos of Kamala Harris laughing, as they understand that this is A Good Thing. As is dancing. Yes, Kamala Harris loves to dance. MAGOPs don’t like this. And ridicule it. Only in the party of Trump would dancing and laughing be considered a negative. And not realize that your criticism of it will only backfire on you. Because, again, Democrats online have put out video of Kamala Harris dancing, showing her joy of life. This is an old video, and I think maybe I’d previously seen two seconds from it. But I had never seen the whole thing. However, Democrats have made sure now that people see the whole thing. Because it’s pure joy. By the way, this video clearly is no reason to vote for Kamala Harris, or anyone. If it was, Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire would have had a dynasty in the White House. But it is a reason to make a comparison of personalities if a question like, “Who would you rather to have a beer with?” or “Who would you let babysit you six year old daughter?”, is something a person feels is valuable. Or if age is important to a voter, assuming he or she thinks a candidate is qualified. Because, sometimes, pure joy is considered A Good Thing by many. (By the way, about halfway through, it appears like Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff shows up in a brown sport coat and gray sweater dancing in the upper right. Apparently, the family that dances together advances together.) MAGOPs hand-wringing concerns over Kamala Harris have already become so desperate in their panic attacks that they even got former conservative British Prime Minister Liz Truss to come to their aid. Truss went on Fox and criticized Kamala Harris for not being "brilliant." Putting aside how she would answer if asked whether or not she thinks Trump was "brilliant," here's how needy MAGOPS are at the moment -- in case you've forgotten, Liz Truss served as Prime Minister for only two months! She not only likely had almost no contact with VP Harris, but was herself ridiculed by the British so mercilessly to the point where she was literally compared to a head of lettuce. (Really!!) There is even a Wikipedia page on her and the lettuce. By the way, the head of lettuce won. So, that's how crazed and lost the MAGOPs have become -- and keep in mind: it's only been two days since Kamala Harris has become the presumptive Democratic nominee to be president! No doubt, MAGOP strategists will figure out things they want to seriously campaign on. But the bottom line is that, foundationally, this is who the party is and how little they have ready from the starting point. (Hey, even I've known for the past year it was possible that President Biden might have to withdraw from the race. But the MAGOP didn't figure that out and plan for the possibility??!) And the more these racist, misogynistic panic attacks continue, the more the public is likely to find it creepy, uncomfortable, foolish, and a reminder why they don't like Trump and voted him out of office last time. And why there was no Red Wave last time, either. The MAGOP at its core is racist and misogynist, joyless and empty. But that's not just me saying that, its members have needed to be reminded by their own party leaders not to make racist comments. And it all points to a big problem Trump may face if he and Harris debate. As I've noted here and elsewhere, Trump hates being laughed at. In fact, in a rally speech the other day, he actually said that out loud, how he hates, hates, hates, hates being laughed at. (A sure strategy heads-up to his opponents... Well-played, sir!) And this relates to a family story his niece Mary Trump has related -- how as a boy, Trump was ridiculing his younger brother at dinner, so his father dumped a bowl of mashed potatoes on him. And everyone laughed at him and he was humiliated. She took it a step further yesterday in a new article -- In the article, Mary Trump -- who is a licensed psychologist -- reiterated how her uncle "hates being laughed at." To which she added, "Donald also hates women (especially strong women) and minorities, so you can see why current Vice President and presidential candidate Kamala Harris terrifies him to the point of incoherence. He says she’s 'crazy.' His childish nickname for her is 'laughing Kamala' because she feels joy, and joy is something he has never experienced and doesn’t understand. Faced with the reality that he is now running against a vibrant, intelligent, experienced woman who is fully two decades younger than he is, Donald spent Sunday and Monday flailing, trying to find an angle of attack that would stick." As a result, he's so lost trying to figure out what to do, she added. Imagine now that "laughing Kamala" laughs during their debate, assuming they do have a debate, which seems likely since Trump just suggested having several, which shows his concern. Imagine further if during her pre-debate preparation VP Harris figures out how to find places to not just laugh on stage with Trump, but laugh at Trump... To be clear, none of this is about Kamala Harris. It is about who today's Republican Party has become. Keep in mind, that reminder from GOP House leaders about not making racist comments went to its House members. No doubt they realized that also sending the reminder to their party leader would have no impact. But then, in fairness, they're okay with Trump having been convicted of 34 felonies, been found liable by two juries for rape, found guilty of business fraud, saying he wants to be a dictator, saying he wants to throw out parts of the U.S. Constitution, wants to deport millions, wants to build internment camps, and has signs of early dementia. So, what's another racist comment thrown into mix? And who knows? Maybe they'll pick up those voters who hate accomplished, successful Black women who like to laugh and dance. Before President Biden kablooeyed everything on Sunday, most eyes were still on the Republican National Convention, and notably Trump's acceptance speech Thursday night.
The next morning, an analyst on MSNBC said that Trump’s RNC speech was calm and unifying enough to likely placate Republicans who were on the edge of voting for him. I have no idea whether any on-the-edge Republicans were placated or not. Nor, I'd guess, does the analyst. But I’m certain that any Republican who could watch a Trump speech written by someone else and think that it showed a change in Trump, a “new Trump,” is someone who was planning to vote for him anyway and was looking for a reason they could use to defend their decision at dinner parties. If anyone thinks there is a “new Trump,” a change in Trump because of the early part of a speech that someone else wrote -- which once you got past the opening was still (of course) was full of unrelenting lies (CNN counted at least 20, PBS detailed their own count here) and had more than its share of divisiveness, still slamming witch hunts, “crazy Nancy Pelosi” warning of “bad things ahead” if he loses, attacking LGBT issues, promising mass deportations and more, although, yes, he did read some nice-sounding things at the start which are uncommon in a Trump speech and were likely shocking to an unsuspecting audience -- then all they need do is wait 24-48 hours until he speaks at his next rally, and you will be back on solid, familiar, out-of-control, dystopian ground. Actually, you really don’t have to wait that long, since he got to the darkness and divisiveness before even finishing the speech. Many turned off the 92-minute speech before getting through it all (it peaked at the 15-minute mark, and with a half-hour still to go, 20% of viewers had turned it off), so they missed the discord and Return to American Carnage. For that matter, one-third fewer viewers watched the MAGOP convention than the last pre-COVID event in 2016. Mind you, this is the same party that desperately wanted to fool itself into thinking there was a “New Nixon” and so nominated him to be president, coming back from obscurity with his flim-flam. Only to create an Old Nixon “Enemies List” and become for first U.S. President to resign from office in disgrace. It’s the same party that believed George W. Bush was a “compassionate conservative,” which many would argue is an oxymoron. The man who ignored the Presidential briefing “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.,” sat reading a children’s book to schoolkids when the attack came, lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction, got the U.S. involved in wars that lasted eight years in Iraq and 20 years in Afghanistan, and got dressed up in a flight suit to declare “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq after just six weeks. For starters. But then, you know the Republican phrase: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me again and again and again, that’s the Republican Party. Or as it was expressed so eloquently by the compassionate conservative Mr. W. Bush himself: 'Fool me once, shame on......shame on you. Fool me -- -- -- you can't get fooled again.” The only reason anyone can think there is a “new Trump” is that they haven’t been watching Trump for the past eight years. If they had been, they would have seen Trump. This is the person who fomented an Insurrection to overthrow the government, who was impeached twice, was convicted by a jury of 34 felonies, found liable by two juries of rape, found guilty of business fraud, is currently under three indictments, had his charity foundation (!) shut down for a “shocking pattern of illegality, had 30,000+ documented lies, enabled white supremacists and neo-Nazis, who says he wants to be a dictator, says he wants to throw out parts of the U.S. Constitution, said that if elected “I will be your retribution,” said that if he wasn’t elected there would be a “bloodbath”, received $7.8 million from China which he said publicly was “for services,” has expressed him admiration of despotic dictators Vladimir Putin and Kin Jong-Un, as well as fascist leader Viktor Orban, told the neo-fascist militant Proud Boys (whose four leaders were later found guilty of “seditious conspiracy”) to “Stand back and stand by” before the January 6 Insurrection, For starters. And that’s just the past eight years. It’s been the pattern of his entire adult life the past 60 years. He and his farther settled a lawsuit by the Department of Justice for racial discrimination over not renting apartments to Black families, took out a full-page ad in the New York Times calling for the death penalty during the trial of the Central Park Five young Black men – who were all later exonerated, had his fake “university” shut down, used the fake name ‘John Barron’ to pretend to be his own PR representative to call journalists and pass along stories about himself, has said he lives by the principle that “If you hurt me, I will come back and hurt you 10 times, has been sued over 4,000 times in the past 40 years – which averages out to being sued twice a week, every week, for 40 years!!! For starters. And so, after all that, just watching a speech written by someone else that was filled with lies and divisiveness, with just a handful of more calm statements than you’d normally hear in any other Trump speech, that supposedly is enough to convince people on the edge about Trump that this is a “new Trump.” By the way, anyone on the edge about who Trump is and whether they should vote for him knows who Trump is, knows they’re going to vote for him and have their heads buried in the ground so that they don’t have to see and hear any more and desperately want to point for just one nice sentence that someone else wrote so that they can say, “See, it’s a ‘new Trum’ trying to unify the country!!!” The only way Trump wants to unify the country is if it he can get everyone in it to do whatever he tells them, signs a loyalty oath and then signs a non-disclosure agreement. Trump wants to “unify” the country the same way Kevin Roberts, head of the Heritage Foundation (core authors of the fascist Project 2025), said, "We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be." There is no “new Trump.” There is Trump. There has always only been Trump. He is the same vindictive, dystopian, racist, malignant narcissist, fascist, anti-Semitic, pathological liar he has always been. And at 78, he is not suddenly becoming even a wisp more kindly and gentle just because he read some nice sentences that someone else wrote. He is Trump. Period And the only reason there will be a change is because psychologists and psychiatrists have said that show signs of early dementia, which is degenerative and will only get worse. And anyone who says – or even just thinks otherwise -- not only is trying to fool you, but themselves. Willful ignorance is not a virtue. Well, so much for the article I’d already written for today. Throw that sucker out, and start with a blank page. And Sunday is supposed to be the day of rest... Okay, so Democrats and President Biden have acted for the good of the party and the country, as well. Now it's time for the Republican Party to do the right thing and convince their party leader that he's much too old with even more and greater cognitive issues -- in fact, early dementia -- as well as 34 felony convictions, liable for rape, and guilty of fraud, and should drop out of the race. How big is the news of President Biden withdrawing from the campaign on Sunday? Perhaps for the first time in his Chaos Agent political life, Trump is unable to control the news narrative. Not only is his “I Gave My Life for You” Martyrdom Tour off the front page, the news for the foreseeable future, up to the Democratic Convention a month away and then through it, will be entirely focused on the Democrats, from the biggest decisions down to the smallest hiccup. With two weeks off for the Olympics. Okay, all that out of the way, first things first: the answer to every question and situation to be discussed below is “I don’t know.” Furthermore, anyone who tells you that they know, they are either flim-flamming you, self-delusional, or so over-pumped up with hot-air arrogance that even just one more gulp might cause them to burst. “I don’t know” is the only legitimate answer. So, onward – with random thoughts. After all, there is no structure to dealing with this in real life, so there is no way there can be structure in dealing with it. The biggest question isn’t who will replace President Biden as the Democratic nominee, now that he’s dropped out of the race, but how that process will occur. Though the President has endorsed Kamala Harris, that doesn’t resolve the situation. There are other hopefuls in the wings – will they endorse her, as well? Drop out, but not endorse her? Still keep their name active as candidates? No doubt the party would love to figure out a way to winnow the possible nominees down to one before the convention, so that it can be a launching pad of unity, and avoid floor fights on national television day after day. And that appears likely. However, the challenge is doing that without cries of unfair, underhanded, party-pushed backroom deals. Kamala Harris certainly is the likely nominee (maybe even by this week) for many reasons – notably that she’s been endorsed by President Biden, she’s the Vice President, and she would be the only candidate who can have access to the fund-raising already done by the Biden-Harris campaign. She has access, as well, to the campaign’s national organization already in place, though I’m sure that would be made available to whoever is the choice. The question is not just about the other candidates, but whether she will be accepted by the supporters of all other possible candidates as The Nominee so that they don’t feel unfairly disenfranchised, or if there will still be some manner of rogue “battle.” I don’t know. As a codicil to what the process is, while there will surely be some disappointment and even bitterness for the candidates and their supporters not selected to be the nominee, even if they make a gracious withdrawal and endorsement, I hope it can done in a way that there is no divisiveness (or at least kept to a paper-thin minimum), where almost everyone understands that the party must be unified to defeat the fascism and wannabe dictatorship of Trump, which is the only goal. I hope so, I think so – though this is the Democratic Party, so I don’t know. The question remains, too, is who the vice presidential selection will be. There’s been a lot of possible names mentioned, but no one leaps out as an obvious choice. Nominating a senator risks losing an important Democratic seat (even though there are some possible safeguards to that). Nominating a member of the House likely wouldn’t help. Nominating a governor is possible – but most (while very good) come with some possible “baggage” to a general public. Perhaps someone from the military? (Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley comes to mind.) Or would you put two women on the ticket? A woman and a Jew? A woman and a gay man? Perhaps – or not. (That said, if you haven’t already scared voters off horrified by the idea of a Black woman as President of the United States and most powerful person in the world, then adding a woman, Jew or gay man to the ticket shouldn’t make a difference. If you fill a cup to the brim with angst, anything more is just spillover….) But who will it be – let alone who should it be? I don’t know. And perhaps the most substantive question is would Kamala Harris or whoever the nominee is do better against Trump than President Biden would? And that’s the biggest “I don’t know” of all. Any current polls are meaningless, not only for being much too early, but also for the public not really having the new candidate in serious mind before as a real possibility. Before when asked, everyone knew it was always “Biden versus Trump.” Any other name was merely a distraction. I do think it likely that whoever the Democrat nominee is, Democrats will eventually get over any disappointment (including disappointment that the nominee isn’t Joe Biden) and strongly unite and vote for their candidate. Undecided independent voters are not as certain how they'll react – but anyone who hasn’t yet committed to supporting Trump or President Biden would seem very open to an alternative who (unlike a third party candidate) has an actual chance to win. Especially since the biggest complaints about both men have been their ages, and that they already ran against each other – not to mention Trump’s chaos and felony convictions. Kamala Harris or any other Democrat nominee would seem to change that dynamic instantly. But I don’t know. Even more to the point, the most important group of undecided voters are the “Double No’s” – voters who dislike both Trump and President Biden. Any other candidate could seem to have a better chance of picking up those critical votes, merely for automatically not being either man. But I don’t know. And how will this affect third party candidates, who were seen by many as alternatives to a Biden-Trump rematch? It would seem that Kamala Harris or some other Democrat provides an alternative to third party options. Not just an alternative to Trump now, but one with an actual chance of winning. What I also don’t know is if Trump will agree to have another debate. But if so, and if it turns out to be Kamala Harris, that’s something I’d pay cash money to watch. While I don’t think she’s necessarily a great debater, I do think she’s not only very smart with facts and details at her fingertips, but, critically importantly, as a former two-time Attorney General of California and District Attorney of San Francisco, prosecuting a case against Trump – and doing so directly to his face – is the kind of thing Kamala Harris has spent much of her career doing. Is it a challenge debating a Trump who relentlessly lies (assuming they do debate)? Absolutely, without question. But again, prosecuting criminals and liars is precisely what Kamala Harris spent her life doing. And simply being prepared to say time and again “You’re wrong” and “That’s a lie” and follow that up with whatever case you want to make is ultimately not that big a challenge for any Democratic candidate who is the new nominee. Having said all this, I think the funniest story has been that Republicans are thinking of suing to stop Joe Biden from dropping out of the race. I can’t imagine this lunatic effort not being laughed out of court. The Democratic Party is a private organization that makes its own rules. There isn’t even an official nominee yet -- and won’t be until the delegates decide! And the candidate himself made the decision to drop out, citing his health and physical condition, something Republicans themselves were making a case about. Moreover, assuming Vice President Kamala Harris is the nominee, she not only was on the same ticket as President Biden, but it's a vice president's specific job to serve if the president in unable to! But in the end, making the challenge especially nuts is that if for some utterly inexplicable reason a lawsuit somehow went forward…there would be legal challenges back and forth, would would risk delaying the election. And delaying the election would give the new Democratic nominee extra time to campaign and get better known across the country. After all, the Democratic party wouldn’t stop their process just because Republicans are trying to. And all the while, Republicans would be hard-pressed to even campaign against someone they're suing because the person shouldn't be their opponent, since that would give legitimacy (as it should) to that candidacy. This change of the Democratic ticket has not only upturned the Democratic Party – it has totally thrown the MAGOPs for a complete loop. Everything in their plans – everything for the past three years -- has been to run against Joe Biden. Their impeachment hearings. Cries of the supposed “Biden crime family.” And Hunter Biden and his laptop and conviction. And “Sleepy Joe.” All gone. Poof. The only conviction left on the table is Trump’s. And the only candidate who is old and has cognitive issues is Trump. And now, the MAGOP have to come up with a completely new campaign strategy. Democrats' strategy remains the exact same, running against Trump, fascism, and Project 2025. Now, too, MAGOPs will have to defend their anti-abortion position against a woman likely leading the opposition. Further, this makes the selection of J.D. Vance all the more problematic, given (among many things) his stance that women should stay in an abusive marriage. In the end, there are three things that I do know. One is that President Biden will make a centerpiece speech at the Democratic Convention to unite any lingering hurt and, even more, enthusiastically rouse everyone to aggressively unite behind the new nominee – with a photo of the two on the front page of newspapers around the country and world. And perhaps he will even be introduced by former President Barack Obama, who will surely speak at the Convention. A second thing I know is that if Kamala Harris is the nominee, then having to run against a Black woman will drive today’s racist, misogynist Republicans off-the-chart nuts. They’ve had their “reasons” for the past three years where they’ve tried to explain why they hate her, but they all translate to “She’s a Black woman.” And for Trump, it not only will drive him crazy, but it’s his worst nightmare. Imagine already his hatred of Letitia James. And his hatred of Fani Willis. And his hatred of Tanya Chutkin. All three Black women overseeing whether he is convicted and even in prison. Just imagine now Kamala Harris debating Trump, and her telling him repeatedly to his face that “You’re wrong” and “You’re lying.” It might be something he can’t emotionally handle. And the third thing I know is that at the Democratic convention, unlike at the RNC, the party’s nominee for President will not fall asleep when sitting there in attendance. This presidential season, one presumptive nominee said he will drop out of the race for the good of the party and country, and pass the torch to someone else. The other presumptive nominee said he wants to be a dictator. Joe Biden's selfless act on Sunday was the literal definition of "unpresidented." What kind of a day was it? A day unlike any other. The only difference was...you are there. The guest on this week’s Al Franken podcast is Dahlia Lithwick, the show’s Supreme Court expert and host of the Amicus podcast. As Al writes, “The Supreme Court term has ended after a series of punishing decisions that break years of precedent. While there were many horrible decisions made in this term, two stand out: The cases on Presidential Immunity and the Chevron Doctrine. Why are these so important? Al and Dahlia lay out the devastating consequences ahead in the wake of these decisions and try to lay out a path forward.”
|
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
June 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|