As I've noted previously, a few years back the eminent Nell Minow and I founded the two-person Apology Institute of America. We have a new submission for study, and it's a notable one for being based on a subject I've been writing about here and on social media.
Katie Porter gave an interview this week on the podcast Pod Save America and apologized for saying the CA primary, in which she finished third and knocked out of the general election, was "rigged." Good for her for apologizing -- though I suspect it was because she was taking a lot of heat for her comment and felt it could be trouble, not any self-realization. “Obviously, I wish I had chosen a different word," she said. "Because what happened with the controversy was it took away from two really important truths: One, our California election officials do a terrific job. I have been through competitive, close elections where it has taken days to count. So I have tremendous respect for them. So ... want to really make clear that at no time and in no way would I ever suggest that there's anything other than a careful, thoughtful, amazing election system that actually should be the model for a lot of the country, in my opinion.” Her addressing the subject and apologizing needed to be said. It also needed to be said weeks ago, since the primary was March 5. Waiting two weeks to apologize is a really long time. And what that says to me is she most-likely apologized because she was taking a lot of heat for it (not just in the public, but more importantly from within the party) and felt that it could be trouble for her political future, rather than because of any self-realization of “Oh, God, what was I thinking??!” And she does have an important political future. As I’ve noted, I could see her getting a position in the Biden Administration, if he wins re-election, perhaps as Director of the Department of Consumer and Business Affairs. She'd be great in that. Or she could run for statewide office in California, where she’d have solid public support – even a run for governor, which will be open when Gov. Newsom’s term expires, since the state has term limits. That said, her apology – while good and important to make -- not only strikes me as late, but seriously thin, not much more than one substantive sentence. Yes, choosing that word “rigged” was a huge mistake, because we’ve been hearing Trump say it for three years, and it’s hard to miss that. And miss its context. But also, the problem wasn’t just that she “chose” the wrong word – but what she was complaining about in her apology was a continuation of her slam against the primary winner Adam Schiff for her charge that he ran a deceitful campaign (despite him using a pretty standard, accepted tactic of wanting to run against your weakest opponent, so that you can win) and improperly used corporate donations (despite her having accepted money from him when she ran for the House). Further, nowhere in any articles I read about her apology was there mention of her endorsing Schiff or even referencing him, odd most-especially since he will be running for the U.S. Senate against a conservative, inexperienced Republican. Perhaps she did say so, and it just didn’t get reported. Though it seems unlikely that something that important would be left out from long articles in the Los Angeles Times, on the NBC News website, in New York magazine and more.. Supporting the weakness of her apology is that, while making it, she continued her complaints about the primary race. After mentioning her first “truth” that California has a great election system, she continued, saying – “The second truth that is really important that got lost in all of that is that big money does influence our elections. Outcomes are manipulated and distorted when you have people coming in, spending millions and millions of dollars at the last minute, and that money is not disclosed until after the election." To be fair, that’s a valid and important point, and one that has been a core to her time in public office. And an issue that’s worth continually addressing. But -- coming on the heels of her apologizing for saying that the election was rigged, and on the heels of her complaints during the election…it seems incredibly poor judgement, most especially when you’re apologizing for saying the election was rigged and then add that “Outcomes are manipulated and distorted.” Yes, she was speaking in general, but it's impossible not to draw a connection. Which makes for a deeply weak apology, coming across more like you’re not sorry for what you said, just that you’re sorry you’re taking heat for how you said it. Oh, and one other thing about her apology. Nowhere in her apology does she apologize. Or say she's sorry. Or regrets she "chose" the wrong word. Only that she states something that we all already know -- as she herself "obviously" acknowledges. I like Katie Porter a lot. I would have been happy if she (or any of the three Democratic candidates) became California’s U.S. Senator. And I think Katie Porter should continue speaking out loudly about the misuse of corporate money in elections. But there are great times for doing that, and mind-numbingly awful times for it. And doing so, not just when you’re trying put your political career back on track by supposedly apologizing for saying your election was rigged, but repeating that “outcomes are manipulated” in the middle of your apology (!) is a really dismal time for it, and she undermined her apology and herself. And undermined her apology even more by not apologizing. I thought at length what rating I'd give her apology. I started with a "C" because she went on to praise the California election system. But the more I looked at what she said -- and didn't say, including endorsing Adam Schiff -- it dropped to a "C-". And in the end, that lack of actually apologizing, just noting the "obviously" wrong word she "chose," was too big a hurdle to get over, so I give it a D+. Katie Porter still has a great future in politics. This, again, was not her finest hour.
0 Comments
I saw a story yesterday on Yahoo News that had to do with the difficulty of getting squatters out of a mansion for which they'd created a false lease. After a great deal of aggravating effort, made necessary by housing laws that even protected illegal squatters, they were finally evicted. I bring this up because the unfortunate headline of the story included an online quote from one of the angry neighbors: "Thanks, liberals." Now, the thing is, whatever the reason for this law being on the books, I have no idea how long ago the law was written. Nor do I know who wrote it. Nor if it had bipartisan support. I don't even know what the law says, nor anything it covers. Nor, I'm sure, does the person who wrote "Thanks, liberals." For all I know, the law might be an excellent one for the most part, a law that the online respondent would even support, but in things that properly need to be defended, there could be aspects of the law that allow its best and important intentions be abused. (Like, for example, how the appeals process is a necessary part of the legal system, but it can be abused to delay justice. And as the expression goes, "Justice delayed is justice denied.") Or yes, it might be an incredibly stupid law that went much too far. I don't know. I do know, however, that it's a law, part of the justice system, and "supporting illegal squatters on private property" is not part of any known liberal platform. Mind you, it might well have been an issue pushed by liberals. But then, it also might have been a law pushed conservative business organizations -- like, perhaps, an association of realtors who wanted protections and this issue with squatters could have been an unintended consequence. I don't know. But for the sake of argument, let's say this is a law pushed by liberals, and it's a stupid one, poorly written on behalf of helping homeless people that has far too many loopholes. Hey, liberals do occasionally make mistakes and sometimes pass laws I disagree with. For the most part, I think liberals do excellent things, and when they do err it's on the side of helping the public when it requires protections. Just like conservatives make mistakes, too -- and when they err, because everyone does, it's on the side of giving billionaires tax breaks, taking away health care from people in need, banning books, banning the teaching of black history, blocking the giving of water to people standing in line to vote and...well, things like that. So. as long as we're going to "Thank liberals" for doing something -- again, for the sake of argument -- that maybe, possibly was stupid in an effort to support people from eviction that went too far, let's offer thanks to conservatives in warm and kindly return. "Thanks, conservatives" for substantially -- or often even unanimously -- trying your best to block the passage of: Social Security Medicare The Civil Rights Act The Voting Rights Act The 40-hour workweek Child labor laws FDIC banking protection TVA electrification of rural America GI Bill of Rights Americans with Disabilities Act Food Stamps The Peace Corps Freedom of Information Act The Affordable Care Act Oh, and while we're at it -- Abortion Gay marriage Affirmative Action The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act The American Rescue Plan The Inflation Reduction Act The Build Back Better Bill The Infrastructure Bill The CHIPS and Science Act Aid to Ukraine Gun protection laws LGBTQ health rights Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion laws And oh so much more. Thanks, conservatives! Thanks for your part in trying to make the United States a cold, selfish, mean-spirited. racist, homophobic country on behalf of the wealthy. Who get visited by three ghosts every Christmas, but never seem to learn. Thanks, conservatives! Over the weekend, I was having a conversation with a friend about Trump’s dystopian speech in Dayton. Which led to discussing some of Trump's other recent dystopian speeches, his mental gaffes and court problems, which seem to be putting great pressure on him and are exacerbating his other issues. My friend said that high among his hopes was that Trump will have a meltdown that will be devastating to his campaign.
I replied that I didn’t think "hope" played any part in this subject. Although my personal belief on the matter means absolutely nothing as proof or definitive evidence, I firmly believe that Trump will have a meltdown – and it will be devastating to his campaign. How problematic remains to be seen, but the important point is that in a close election such as this, a meltdown doesn’t have to eviscerate his entire campaign. Even getting just 3% of undecided Independents and moderate Republican voters wavering on the edge, looking for a reason to cut anchor and justify their actions, will turn a razor-thin 51-49 election into a 54-46 landslide. Will that happen? I don’t have a crystal ball, I don’t know. But I do firmly believe that Trump will have a very public meltdown, and something that visceral will have to strip away at least some votes. How many is the question. But even just 3% could be devastating. My certainty comes from the observation (even without having a medical degree…) that Trump appears to be in the early stages of dementia. I don’t say this based on my personal non-medical observation (no matter how blatant it seems in a non-medical way), but rather from my observation reading many articles by highly-credentialed psychiatrists and experts in the field. Experts who wrote back during Trump’s time in office that he manifested all the qualities of a “malignant narcissist” – a medical term for someone who isn’t just focused on himself, but must destroy everything else around him. In fact, several dozen psychiatrists got together to write a book that explained in detail their sense of Trump And that was then. He has only gotten worse. And what so many psychiatrists who deal with dementia write is that Trump is clearly manifesting many classic qualities of early dementia – and they give detailed examples. Among them, these include the challenge such patients have of saying words properly and instead make up similar-sounding words to get them through (such as his “Venezeruegula” the other day, and many others), as well as the inability to finish sentences and quickly changing to something else. But their observations weren’t limited to just these sorts of examples, but more. And to be clear, they aren’t talking about a person getting older and being forgetful. That’s normal. We see it in President Biden, we see it all around us, it's natural. I remember when my dad gave up his medical practice, a friend asked him what he did now that he was retired. My dad laughed, “I look for things.” But this with Trump, the psychiatrists say, is something else entirely. It’s not the natural condition of getting old, it's a medical condition. And the important thing about dementia is that Trump isn’t going to get better. And already it’s pretty dystopian, gaffe-filled and problematic. And there are eight months to go before the election. Now, add in the pressure of four trials. And owing over $500 million. And facing jail. And a presidential campaign that he needs to win to shut down the investigations. And while Trump wasn’t criticized in the Republican primary (until the very end when the race was all over, yet even at that he still reacted poorly), he will now be attacked every single day by the Biden campaign and all Democrats, unrelentingly…for eight months. And Trump, as we’ve seen for the past eight years, can’t handle being criticized. As far back as the 2016 campaign when Hilary Clinton said during a debate that Trump was a Russian puppet of Putin, Trump couldn’t help himself and interrupted her, whining out, “No puppet, no puppet, you’re the puppet,” like an eight-year-old child. So – yes, I firmly believe that Trump will have a meltdown. Now, add on top of that $500 million in total, various fines, came the news yesterday that Trump is not only unable to personally pay his $464 million court-mandated fine for committing fraud, but he has been unable to get an insurance bond from 30 companies he went to. This is a total embarrassment for him. For someone whose self-worth is wrapped up entirely by his claims of great wealth, this must be devastating. After all, this is someone who for years tried to manipulate Forbes to get on their Richest People in the World list. Someone who attracted his earliest political support by bragging that he was so rich he could self-fund his entire-billion dollar campaign and beholden to no one. Someone who ranted at the judge that his Mar-a-Lago home should actually be valued at $1.8 billion, not the paltry $18-27.6 million the Palm Beach County Assessor appraised the property at. Someone who recently swore under oath in court that had $400 million in cash at the ready. And now, not only can he not come up with the money himself, but 30 insurance bond companies all turned him down as a bad risk. That must be crushing to him. Adding even far more self-inflicted pressure on himself than the mass of pressure that already exists. As he knows that New York Attorney General Letitia James (not only black, but a woman – a nightmare reality to racist and misogynistic Trump no doubt) has been preparing for a seizure of assets. Perhaps even Trump Tower, she's hinted. The pressure of all this must be desolating to him. So – yes, I firmly believe that Trump will have a meltdown. The issue, to me, with my non-medical degree or expertise, is not hoping that Trump will have a public meltdown that will be devastating to his campaign, but trying to figure out when it will be. For the longest time, I thought it would occur during his debate with President Biden. When asked by the debate panel, “Who won the 2020 election?,” I’ve felt confident that Trump would spin out of control trying to prove to the live TV audience that the election was rigged and stolen from him -- while standing next to the actual President of the United States. And when asked, “How do you convince people to vote for someone who was twice found liable by juries for what the judge wrote was the equivalence of rape?”, Trump would again go into a whirling dervish rage insisting that he “didn’t know that women! I never met that woman! She’s lying! It’s a witch hunt!” – the very things that got him twice found liable of defamation. It would be a double-meltdown on live TV. The question, though, is if Trump will agree to debate. He says he wants to, but we know how little that’s worth. However, even if there are debates, I’ve now reached a new conclusion for a meltdown date that will occur months before. And that would be his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention, an event which all TV will cover live. Though I didn’t read Susan Glasser’s article in the New Yorker last week, I did see interviews with her discussing it. She said she spent a day attending an entire Trump rally, and it was deeply depressing. Far more dystopian beyond even his bleak 2016 Inauguration speech. In fact, it was so bleak and dark and dystopian that she argued it isn’t enough for TV to just show snippets of Trump’s mental glitches, as they’ve started to do, but when you watch an entire Trump speech in full context these days – something only the most devout Trump acolytes see – it goes to almost unimaginable depths that the public doesn’t expect. No doubt Trump will have speech writers putting together a toned-down manifesto for the Republican Convention. But at this point, most of those reasonable staffers of the past are long gone, and he’s surrounded by the true believers and yes men, unlikely to go against his wishes. And the bleakness, the echoes of Hitler, the references to vermin, animals, bloodbaths, not being human are likely what Trump wants to say – because it’s what he believes. And because it’s what works for him in front of his adoring crowds. But this time, the country will be tuned in. Watching as he has trouble reading the TelePrompter and has to say “Venezeruegula.” And further, we know Trump goes off the text when the spirt moves him. And the spirit is now moving him regularly. Along with this being four months from now, when the trials have gotten closer, his property may have been seized, his financial net worth has plummeted, his personal self-worth has withered, the pressure has gotten more intense, and from the crashing weight of it all the dementia has gotten even worse. I can’t swear that any of this will happen. Furthermore, I can't even say that if it does happen that that means President Biden will win re-election. The world is pretty weird these days, and most weird of all are Republicans, the one-time Party of Lincoln, supporting a man found liable for rape, guilty of fraud, echoing Hitler, saying he wants to trash the Constitution, be a dictator on Day One and tells Russia it can do "whatever the hell it wants" to our NATO democratic allies. But still, for all these reasons, at the very least, I firmly believe that Trump will have a meltdown – and it will be devastating to his campaign. As another friend says about all such things, “I don’t know. We’ll see.” Yes. I don’t know either. We’ll see. Including how devastating it will be to his campaign. End all chances, or recoverable? I don't know. We'll see. But these are the reasons why I think it will happen -- and be devastating, in at least some ways. Because at the foundation of everything, whatever mental issue Trump is struggling with…it’s not getting better. Worse by the day. And the election is still eight long, deteriorating months away. Trump had a rough weekend in Dayton. Among other things, saying about undocumented migrants that “In some cases, they’re not people.” And saying that if he’s not elected, there will be a “bloodbath.” Now, in fairness, many Trump Apologists insist he was only talking about the auto industry. And in the context of his speech, it was in the part about cars -- though as long as we’re being literal he never says the “bloodbath” is about the auto industry. Just that "Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s gonna be a bloodbath for the whole…that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s gonna be a bloodbath for the country." But what else could he have possibly meant, the Apologists wonder so doe-eyed. What else could he have possibly meant when he said (his words) there will be a bloodbath "for the country," not merely the auto industry -- and that a bloodbath for the country will be (his words) "the least of it?" What else could have have possibly have meant when he told his most diehard supporters to come to Washington, D.C. on January 6 so they could just stand together in a massive crowd waiting for his opponent to be officially declared President? O what else could he have meant?! By the way, the Dayton crowd in attendance on Saturday knew exactly what he meant by "bloodbath" because the video shows just seconds before they were cheering and applauding his approval, as they did through most of the speech (and do through most of his speeches), but the moment Trump brought up how "If I'm not elected there will be a bloodbath" -- a line you'd think would raise them into Full Trump Roaring Mode -- the yelling stopped almost immediately and there was near silence as he went on. Sort of an, "Oh. Wait, no, that's not good..." reaction. But don't take my word for it. Pro Tip: When you've spent the past seven years calling for the army to shoot protesting U.S. citizens. Calling for the hanging death of your vice president. Calling for the execution of your Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Telling police that they should rough up people they put in their squad cars. Say there are many fine people among neo-Nazis. Tell the violent white supremacist Proud Boys to "Stand back and stand by." Call legally convicted Insurrectionists "patriots" and "hostages" -- you don't get the benefit of the doubt when you say if you're not elected there will be a bloodbath. But...but...but what else in the world could Trump have ever possibly meant. After all, it's like just a few weeks ago, Trump only meant COVID vaccines they cried, not all vaccines when he brought up vaccine and masks and said schools should be defunded if they mandated vaccines. Except, well, you see the problem is that in his speeches since, he doesn't mention COVID vaccines but talks only about any mandated vaccines, period -- something schools have been doing for public health for far over half a century, of course -- which was clear at the time what he "really" meant. No matter where it came in the speech. No matter how much his Apologists tried to explain it at the time. But no, let us "explain" what he meant... After seven years, others trying to "explain" what Trump "really meant" after he said something truly awful has worn out. Especially since what he says turns out to be exactly the dog whistle he wants his base to hear. Bloodbath, animals, poisoning blood, dictators, it's all of one piece. At a certain point, most people want leaders whose words mean something and they say what they mean – and don’t keep needing others to “explain” what they really meant. So, there they are (again) explaining this time what Trump “really” meant by “bloodbath.” Swell -- and now explain what Trump meant by "In some cases they're not people." And explain what he meant by wanting to be a dictator on Day One. And explain what he meant by "poisoning the blood." And "animals." And "Third World sh*tholes." And explain what he meant by "Russia can do whatever the hell it wants" to our NATO allies. And explain what he meant by "I trust Putin" more the U.S. intel services. And explain what he meant by "They let you grab them by the p*ssies." And explain what he meant by calling legally convicted Insurrectionists "hostages." And explain "Jan. 6. Will be wild." And explain and explain and explain. Explain, too, "Venezerguela." And explain "I beat Obama" in 2016. And explain saying "Nikki Haley was in charge of security" on January 6, rather than Speaker Nancy Pelosi. And explain calling Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban the President of Turkey. And explain saying there were airports in the Revolutionary War. And explain saying that wind turbines cause cancer. And explain that COVID will disappear like a miracle in two weeks. And explain taking deadly bleach. And explain saying that President Biden will start World War II. And explain misidentifying E. Jean Carroll in a photo as his ex-wife Marla Maples. And explain saying you don't remember saying you have the best memory in the world. Explain, explain, explain. And explain Trump being found liable twice by a jury for the equivalence of rape. And found liable twice for defamation. And found guilty of business fraud. And had his charity foundation shut down for a shocking pattern of illegality. Explain, explain, explain. It's a witch hunt, it's political, it's New York juries, he didn't mean that, what he really meant was, ...but Hillary's emails!, what about Hunter Biden?, explain, explain, explain, explain. But no, no, Trump only meant the auto industry when he said there would be a bloodbath if he wasn’t elected. Just like a mob boss is only concerned about your well-being when he offers to protect your business for a fee and says so thoughtfully, “It would be a shame if something happened to your lovely store.” By the way, I'm at the point where I'm sort of okay with Republicans trying to explain away what they insist Trump really meant about "bloodbath" -- because it keeps the story of Trump saying there will be a bloodbath if he's not elected in the public eye. And no matter what the Apologists cry out what he "really meant" because he was talking about cars...pretty much everyone else has heard Trump long enough that they recognize the dog whistle and know what he meant. But on and on they go, explaining that Trump was only talking about cars. It must be wearying for Trump Apologists having to keep explaining what Trump "really" meant so much of the time for the past seven years. But as a kindness, I'll make it easy for them all -- You don't have to explain what he really meant. We get it. He means what he says. Oh, just frigging sigh. This is what the country has to deal with, every day. After day. After day. But then, this is who the GOP has pushed on itself to the front of its party as one of its leading voices. Here is what Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) posted on TwiXter yesterday, retweeting something she came across and -- without thinking or checking with her staff or seemingly caring that it was idiotic -- wanted to make sure she passed it along to others, because she thought it was a truly great idea. And what was it she was replying to and retweeted that this Great Thinker thought we should do in the United States to make things great in our country? Emulate Argentina. Yes, Argentina! And why? Well, because -- Yes, this is what Marjorie Taylor Greene thought was SO tremendous that United States should copy it and the lunatic leadership of the crazy, clownish newly-elected leader of Argentina Javier Milei. That inflation that had dropped by half in two months. Now, yes, that's impressive -- unless, of course, you actually looked at the numbers and actually understood what actually was actually going on in Argentina For starters, even if you didn't pay much attention to the news, I think most people can look at these first numbers and grasp instantly that a monthly inflation rate of 13.2% seems really, incredibly high. (And that's the low number.) That's because a monthly inflation rate of 13.2% is, in fact, really, incredibly high. By contrast, the annual inflation rate in the United States -- which one would think Marjorie Taylor Greene would and should know is only 3.2% Which, if I take out my abacus and check, is a smaller number than a monthly rate of 13.2%. Indeed, a massively smaller number when it comes to the inflation rate. The U.S. was understandably in an uproar when inflation here was 8%. Just imagine for a moment the reaction if inflation was over 50% higher than that! And by the way, if Ms. Greene didn't know that the annual inflation rate in the U.S. was 3.2%, she could have asked someone on her staff. Surely somebody there would know. And if not, which I guess is possible, given that this is, after all, Marjorie Taylor Greene's staff, she could have done what I did to get an exact figure -- just go to Google Search and checked for "annual inflation rate." It took about eight seconds. Try it. You don't even have to put in "U.S." which saves time. The very first result will give you the answer. But what about that "budget surplus" thing? That's sound pretty good, doesn't it? Well...yes, it does -- as long as you don't want to destroy everything about your society that makes it livable. You see, when Millei took office, Argentina had horrific problems, and (as you can see) its inflation was over 25%. But rather than work on putting a mature, manageable economic program in place, Millei (who you may recall campaigned with a chainsaw, to show what he'd do to Argentina's economy) instead installed an austerity program. It raised taxes (imagine Republicans doing that), cut subsidies to industries across the country like to energy (imagine Republicans doing that), and poverty for the country skyrocketed to 57.4%, their highest in 20 years!! That means over half of Argentina was pushed by the policies of Millei into poverty! And this -- this! -- is "the same thing" that leading economist and Great Thinker Marjorie Taylor Greene, sitting up there high on Capitol Hill, wants the United States to do!!! Because, she says, it will "save America." The 57.4% of Argentina living in poverty with higher taxes and a 13.2% inflation rate might disagree. Last year, Ms. Greene posted a comment on TwiXter in which she whined about liberals calling her stupid. She might want to take a step back and look at the things she says like this to realize why. Or at the very least, as she ponders her Great Thoughts up on Capitol Hill thinking that that gives her a wisdom she never had at home, she should remember the words of Abraham Lincoln who founded her party -- "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt." It’s now official, and Lara Lea Trump is the co-chair of the Republican National Committee. The amazing thing is not that she is now the co-chair of the RNC (though that’s pretty amazing, given her total lack of experience for the position), but that the rest of the Republican Party is okay with it. At least publicly, while muttering under their breath and gnashing their collective teeth.
Because, of course, they’re okay with it and not rising in public outrage. This is today’s Republican Cult, after all. If Trump wants to put his totally unqualified daughter-in-law in charge, that’s the way a cult seems to work. But no matter how much an entire party is fine with gutting itself for the sake of an adjudicated rapist and adjudicated fraud, with four indictments, it’s still amazing. After all, on the day that her father-in-law proposed her for the job, her official statement was that the point of the Republican National Committee was to elect her father-in-law and that all money will be going to him. (Which we can fairly assume means it will go to help pay off his legal debts, not go to his campaign.) Of course, the reality is that, no, the point of the RNC has never been to elect the president. That’s always been a part of their mission, but it’s mainly been to help the entire Republican Party, most especially all the down-ticket races across the country. And with Lara Lea Trump sitting there at the top – alongside a Trump-nominated election denier – it certainly seems like very little of RNC money will be going to help Republicans in races around the country. To be clear, I’m okay with this. It’s just weird that Republicans are, too. At least on the surface. Certainly, there have been rumblings of discontent underneath. There’s has to be. Just because you give up your soul doesn’t mean you can’t still grumble as you sink into the abyss. As evidence of the mutterings of discontent, Lara Lea Trump wanted the party to know about “patriots all the way down the ticket being supported.” This assurance was given from the daughter-in-law of the megalomaniac who promised that Melania Trump would be holding a press conference about her immigration status in two weeks. That was eight years ago in 2016. And promised that he would be presenting a big, beautiful new healthcare bill in two weeks. He promised this in 2016. And 2017. And then in 2018 – several times. And promised he would be releasing his tax returns as soon as they were finished being audited. (Even though there’s no law against making one’s tax returns public at any time.) And the list goes ever on… So, you can take a Lara Lea Trump assurance to the bank. Just don’t apply for a big loan that you are certain you can pay back based on a Trump Promise. After all, even Lara Lea left herself a big loophole and never said how much the patriots all the way down the ticket would be supported. (“Here, kid, here’s a quarter. But yourself an ice cream and a car.”) Even if (and it’s a massive “if”) money gets spent down-ticket, it’s near-impossible to think that the bulk won’t go to Trump. After all, why make your unqualified, inexperienced daughter-in-law co-chair of the Republican National Committee? The only honestly-imaginable reason is to watch and control the purse strings heavily in your favor. And that perception isn't helped by the reality that since Lara Lea Trump and her election-denying, Trump appointed partner took over, they...well, took over. And fired all the RNC leadership and around 60 lower-level staffers who make the whole thing run. All to be replaced by Trump loyalists, no doubt. After all, why make your unqualified, inexperienced daughter-in-law co-chair of the Republican National Committee? The problems with this are massive. First, the money will likely be shifted to Trump to pay his massive legal bills and fines (the latter now being over $600 million). That means he and the RNC still have to raise a billion dollars and more for the presidential campaign. Second, how many major donors will want to make their standard massive donations to the RNC, knowing that it will only be going to pay Trump’s legal bills and fines? Third, similarly, how many basic donors will want to do the same? Fourth, what will down-ticket candidates across the country do without the infusion of cash they always expect from the Republican National Committee? Most surely, people will donate to individual candidates. But many smaller candidates don’t have the operations in place to do the national fund-raising needed to replace the money they were expecting from the RNC. And only the most high-profile races and candidates are likely to get the most individual donations. I have no doubt that the Republican National Committee will figure out something to do. But whether what they figure out will be enough to not only impact the party across the country like it’s supposed to, and whether they’ll be able to get over the suspicion of everyone that with the unqualified, inexperienced daughter-in-law of Trump as co-head of the RNC (along with Trump-appointed election denier Michael Whately), everything she said in her original statement about the point of the RNC is to elect Trump and all the money will be going to him isn’t the reality, regardless of whatever she and the RNC insist later. Especially when her first insisted to the contrary is as laughably weak as “patriots all the way down the ticket being supported.” But as the saying goes, you get what you pay for. And sometimes that isn’t a metaphor, but literal. |
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
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|