Profile Not in Courage

To be fair

Reflecting Washington’s changing power dynamics, Biden’s meeting with Netanyahu will not be the only one scrutinized: Just as many eyes will be on Vice President Kamala Harris, who will hold a separate meeting with the prime minister. Biden and Netanyahu will meet Thursday afternoon and then visit with families of Americans held hostage; Harris is slated to meet with the Israeli leader later that day.

According to The Jerusalem Post, 71 members of Congress skipped out on listening to Netanyahu's address. One of these was a Republican, the radically right-wing isolationist Thomas Massie of Kentucky, and the other 70 are Democrats. 

Two of these cited prior commitments- Virginia senator Tim Kaine, who nevertheless issued a statement criticizing Netanyahu's appearance; and US Representative Katie Porter of California. Evidently, most of the members who missed the speech did not explain their absence, although doing so, Newsweek reports, were the following: Senators Dick Durbin of Illinois, Jeff Merkley of Oregon, Bernie Sanders of Vermont, and Chris Van Hollen of Maryland; and US Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York; Ilhan Omar of Minnesota; Maxwell Alejandro Frost of Florida; Jim Clyburn of South Carolina; and Robert Garcia, Sara Jacobs, and Ami Bera of California.

They should have attended the address and in response to incendiary, demeaning, or destructive remarks made by the Israeli prime minister struck a dignified and eloquent pose by remaining seated.

Yet, those who explained their boycott of a speech given by the head of state of this nation's most loyal ally should be given credit for the courage of their convictions. Not so the individual who presides over the Senate, whose one constitutional duty is to preside over the Senate.

The current Vice President of the USA, the world's greatest superpower, skipped the address of the Prime Minister of a nation at war, instead speaking at a conference in Indiana of Zeta Phi Beta Sorority Inc. The racially segregated sorority is a member of the Divine Nine, which represents historically black sororities and fraternities including Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority, which Harris remains a member of from her days at Howard University.

The 15-minute speech, intended to reinforce support with the base of the Democratic Party (and especially of hers), reportedly had been scheduled months in advance. However, commitments such as this are meant to be broken and as both Vice President (to a President increasingly limited as he ages) and (soon to be) nominee for President, Harris almost as a matter of course will be postponing appointments.

The Vice President should have done so on Wednesday by performing the one task the Constitution calls on her to perform. If she chose not to do so, Harris could have issued remarks critical of Prime Minister Netanyahu, as did several Senators and U.S. Representatives. The alternative was to take the easy way out, as she did.

In ducking the congressional session, Harris highlighted the lack of importance of her office. There is nothing consequential she (or anyone in that position) must do other than casting the deciding vote if there is a tie in the US Senate. She has done that very well but ought to have shown up on Wednesday. Instead, the candidate who is very definitely not a product of DEI showed us what she is made of.

 

Share |

"Colored" Rears Its Ugly Head- Or Not

This tweet is fine- well, sort of- if accurate.

“A COLORED sorority” … in 2024 on national tv… this clown thought it was correct and appropriate to use the term “colored” to describe a distinguished and historic African American sorority.

But what is even worse… a Black man sat a few feet away on that couch and didn’t… https://t.co/DLjkfst8u3

— Jaime Harrison (@harrisonjaime) July 24, 2024

 Maybe not, however, as

A clip that went viral on X, formerly Twitter, shows Fox & Friends hosts discussing Harris’ having not given a sit-down media interview yet, with Kilmeade arguing that the vice president had instead chosen to address a “college sorority” — referring to her plans to address the historically Black sorority Zeta Phi Beta at its annual convention in Indianapolis on Wednesday in one of her first campaign stops.

A social media post by independent Fox News watchdog Bad Fox Graphics on X, however, shared the video and misquoted Kilmeade’s comment, claiming instead that he had said “colored sorority.”

Afterward, Democratic National Committee chairperson Jaime Harrison posted his own tweet criticizing the remark of the Fox News host and

A number of journalists shared the claim as well, including Politico Playbook writer Eugene Daniels, who later deleted his tweet and noted that a Fox representative had reached out to correct the accusation. “Eugene Daniels’ now deleted tweet completely misquoted and unnecessarily maligned Brian Kilmeade who clearly said college sorority,” Fox News said in a statement.

Fox also referred Mediaite to a rebuttal by Kilmeade’s co-host Lawrence Jones who was sitting beside him in the studio during the moment, and confirmed that his co-host said “college.”

The right-wing Jones went too far, though, when he "slammed Harrison for being 'so damn dishonest." 

Harrison wasn't being dishonest; he jumped to a conclusion, probably a wrong one. 

Listening to the video carefully, most individuals would hear "college." However, Kilmeade seems to pronounce the "o" in "college" slightly differently (a very subtle difference) than it typically is. It sounds more like the "o" in "colored" than in "college." I don't discount the possibility that Kilmeade was thinking "colored," thought better of it, and switched to "college." Nor is it impossible that he always intended to say "college" but for whatever reason was thinking of the other word. 

So Jaime Harrison very likely was mistaken, but not dishonest, for thinking the Fox News host had said "colored." That would have been totally inappropriate, referring to a "colored sorority." One should never say "colored sorority" any more than he should say "people of color." Really.

Share |

2020 Vice Presidential Selection

On Monday, NBC News reported

Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn., blasted Kamala Harris in a social media post Monday, calling her a “DEI vice president,” using the initialism for “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs.

"The media propped up this president, lied to the American people for three years, and then dumped him for our DEI vice president," Burchett said on X.

He also referred to Harris as "a DEI hire" in a brief interview Monday, telling CNN that during the 2020 campaign candidate Joe Biden said “he was going to hire a Black female for vice president.”

“What about white females? What about any other group?” Burchett added.

Biden said at a March 2020 Democratic debate that he’d choose a female running mate but did not mention race or ethnicity. Other top running mate contenders at the time included Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan.

On July 20, 2020 presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden had revealed

 he was considering four Black women to be his running mate, and has been receiving extensive vetting briefings about each potential candidate.

“I am not committed to naming any (of the potential candidates), but the people I’ve named, and among them there are four Black women,” Biden told MSNBC’s Joy Reid on “The ReidOut.”

He said he is getting a “two-hour vetting report” on each of his potential picks, and that he and his team have gone through “about four candidates” so far. “Then, when I get all the vetting done of all the candidates, then I’m going to narrow the list, and then we’ll see. And then I’m going to have personal discussions with each of the candidates who are left and make a decision,” Biden said.

Biden is considering a broad tier of candidates to be his running mate, after pledging earlier this year to pick a woman for the job. CNN previously reported that Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Rep. Val Demings of Florida, Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, former Obama administration national security adviser Susan Rice and Rep. Karen Bass of California are among the Black women being considered.

Warren and Whitmer were on Biden's long list. However, everyone at the time understood that Biden's short list consisted of black women. Later in the day after Harris was selected, an NPR station explained

Four days after the election, then-House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn said

that he had privately urged President-elect Joe Biden to pick a Black woman as his running mate before Biden chose Kamala Harris, America’s first female, first Black and first South Asian vice president-elect.

“Joe and I talked about it several times when he was trying to make his decision,” Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat who’s the highest-ranking African American member of Congress, told CNN’s Dana Bash on Saturday. “He had said it would be a woman. And I don’t mind saying now, I said to him in private that I thought that a lot of the results would turn on whether that woman (would) be a Black woman.”

When Jim Clyburn talks, people listen. As an NPR station explained 

As the Harris criticisms ticked up in the weeks before the pick, Biden's campaign tried to diffuse them. "Ambitious women make history, change the world, and win. Our campaign is full of ambitious women going all out for Joe Biden," Biden's campaign manager, Jen O'Malley Dillon, tweeted in late July.

Ahead of Harris' selection, a group called We Have Her Back — which includes former Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett and leaders from Planned Parenthood and the National Women's Law Center — sent a letter to various media outlets demanding fair coverage of the vice presidential candidate.

"Women have been subject to stereotypes and tropes about qualifications, leadership, looks, relationships and experience. Those stereotypes are often amplified and weaponized for Black and Brown women," the letter said, urging the media to resist popular coverage tropes such as "likeability" and "electability" for candidates who happen to be women — analysis they said is hardly ever applied to male candidates.

"Black and Brown women" were the individuals valued by We Had Her Back and

Biden's pick came amid intense pressure from Democrats not only to pick a woman, which he promised to do in March, but also to pick a woman of color. That drumbeat began well before George Floyd's killing at the hands of Minneapolis police but intensified amid sustained protests across the country.

Harris will be the fourth woman on a major party's national ticket. All three women to run for president and vice president have lost: Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in 2016, Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin in 2008 and Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro in 1984.

Evidently, Harris had the inside track over the other black women because she had been a friend of the late Beau Biden when both were state Attorneys Genera. The selection of the California senator was hailed by progressives, liberals, and centrists across the country because she was a certain kind of woman- a black woman or a woman of color, depending upon the label.

Now Kamala Harris has been selected by Democratic power brokers as the party's presidential nominee in part because she is the sitting Vice President- a very unpopular Vice President but still with the advantage of holding that office. Curiously- though not particular surprisingly- she has been challenged by no one, despite Democratic officials and liberal/progressive pundits insisting that the Party has a "strong bench."

And why should she? In today's Democratic Party, Kamala Harris has an advantage which Andy Beshear, J.B. Pritzker, Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro, even Gretchen Whitmer- each of whom has been mentioned as part of that formidable bench- doesn't have.

But that's not the point. Harris has had the advantage of serving under the incumbent Democratic President, Joe Biden, who endorsed her for the presidency to avoid all the nasty questions and controversy which inevitably would have arisen had he not done so. Quickly making her the presumptive presidential nominee was the obvious default position.

Not so, though, her selection in August, 2020 as Joe Biden's running mate, which is the move to which Representative Burchett was referring, and for which he is being criticized. Democratic honchos and mainstream journalists are hailing the ascension of Kamala Harris specifically and explicitly because she is a black woman (or black and Asian-American woman). If that wasn't an example of hiring someone because of principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion, it' will be a surprise to everyone who celebrated the selection of Kamala Harris because she is black, female, and if victorious, would make "history."

Share |

Unstated But Real

On Real Time with Bill Maher, comedian Larry Wilmore was criticizing the Republican Party for its long-standing opposition to women by avidly opposing abortion rights, when host Bill Maher (at 35:14 of the video, unfortunately now removed) contended "Yeah, but it's not because they hate women. It's because they think it's murder."

At least Larry Wilmore was there to inject some sense into the cacophony of testosterone flowing on the Overtime portion of Real Time with Bill Maher.

Keep that in mind when viewing the Overtime segment. Maher stated "brawn is not valued as much as" it once was. A United States Representative from Florida who recognizes an opportunity when he's handed one, Byron Donalds, remarked

I'm with you. Young boys, really, the last two decades in America. We got a real problem, masculinity is important. It's important not just (for) cultural reasons. It's important for your development from a boy to a man, to realize what is important, to realize that you have a responsibility to go out there and gather, and work hard, and earn and you know, you gotta have that grit and toughness to be a leader, to be a husband, to be a father, whether that's a decision you choose to make in your own personal life but those, those traits are important for masculinity and for men. To take them away rally hurts not just men, it hurts women as well.

Applause followed, suggesting Trump may have made a mistake in bypassing Donalds for J.D. Vance (probably not, though). The "to be a husband, to be a father, whether that's a decision to make in your own personal life" is first cousin to "must be a husband and a father" but at least a little more subtle than the then-Ohio senatorial candidate who in 2022

for a solid week in July kept using the term "childless" in an effort to insult his foes on the left.

"We're effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by 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," Vance told Tucker Carlson at the time.

I didn't see the interview and therefore cannot vouch for the response, though odds are prohibitive that there was no objection from Carlson, who spoke at the past week's convention.

If there had been a thoughtful woman on Maher's panel, perhaps she would have asked why women are not to "work hard, and earn." Better yet, arguably, would be to have asked Donalds what on God's earth a "responsibility to go out and gather" means. In Donald Trump's world, would that have been a reference to sultry women or to loyal subjects?

Representative Donalds, he of the masculinity, grit and toughness references, had not been prompted by a social science exchange about the difference between the sexes but in a discussion about the attempt on the life of Donald Trump.

Fortunately, though, Wilmore was there at the Overtime desk explaining to Donalds "Although, I don't think it's fair to put the shooter in that particular category because that thing has turned up many times in the past..." It's not as if Thomas Matthew Crooks had been a feminist wimp when he purchased a semi-automatic rifle, climbed onto a roof, and decided to incur his own violent death by shooting at a presidential candidate. 

This (phony) projection of uber-masculinity has become a thing in the G.O.P.; witness the Hulk Hogan "speech," more a performance, in Milwaukee. We don't yet know whether Crooks was plagued by mental illness but Republican messaging may be gradually and subtly shifting from blaming craziness to blaming feminized society for high-profile shootings.

And yet Maher, in the main portion of Real Time and on an earlier date, had endorsed the idea that opposition to reproductive rights stemmed from a heartfelt belief that the procedure is killing/ murder.  If it is, then surely pro-life states would punish not only the doctor performing an abortion but also the individual who has sought, requested, and paid for this horrific crime.

Surprise, not surprise. The forced-birth advocacy organization Charlotte Lozier Institute summarized the status of abortion law in each state and the District of Columbia and concluded "some states have no criminal abortion statues at all and among those that do, only tow (Nevada and Oklahoma) appear to have statutes allowing the prosecution of mothers."

Of course, most laws not only can be interpreted in more than one manner but also are written ostensibly to allow lawmakers on both sides of an issue to claim some vindication. And the Charlotte Lozier Institute is eager to persuade all parties that there is nothing for women to fear in current state law or proposed state law. 

There is. Asked by MSNBC's Chris Matthews in March of 2016 whether he "believe(s) in punishment for abortion, yes, or no, as a principle," Donald Trump responded "the answer is that there has to be some form of punishment." When Matthews responded "for the woman.?" the presidential candidate replied "yes, there has to be some form."

The interview was taped hours before it was broadcast, and Trump's statement recanting the Kinsley Gaffe was released even before the interview was broadcast. Honesty is not the best policy, at least not when running for President.  

Trump's cleanup on aisle 4 included the preposterous notion that when the procedure takes place, "the woman is a victim in this case." This mirrors what other conservatives have claimed over the years in the rare instances in which they've been asked the fundamental, and critical, question which Matthews posed. In the rationale of the forced-birth advocates, the woman acts with no agency; she is not a thinking, rational being but helpless and hopeless without a man's direction.

The official position of the unquestioned, heavyweight champion of the Republican Party is that a woman is an unshaped piece of clay, while two of his important subjects, Byron Donalds and J.D. Vance, are on that page, with barely concealed contempt for men who are childless and women who prefer to be childless.  They, as well as the vast majority of pro-life advocates, will tell you that their opposition to abortion is rooted in abortion (allegedly) being murder. Nonetheless, there is something darker at play, one whose implications may be broad, deep, and destructive. 

Share |

Hypocritical Gesture, As Usual

At his acceptance speech in Milwaukee on Thursday night, Donald Trump- or as the cable news enjoys referring to him, "President Trump"- spoke very early about the attempt on his life the previous Friday night.  Including applause, chants, pregnant pauses, and a pretentious hug and kiss, the candidate addressed the incident for over fourteen minutes (3:08 to 17:24 of the video below).

He attributed his great good luck to the Almighty because he knows that there is nothing right-wing agnostics and atheists like more than to be convinced that God is on their side. The man never known to crack open a Bible or  cite any verse of Scripture remarked of the Secret Service agents guarding him

These are great people at great risk, I will tell you, and pounced on top of me so that I would be protected. There was blood pouring everywhere, and yet in a certain way I felt very safe because I had God on my side. I felt that.

A moment later, he added

I’m not supposed to be here tonight. Not supposed to be here.

[Crowd chants “Yes, you are.”]

Thank you. But I’m not. And I’ll tell you. I stand before you in this arena only by the grace of almighty God.

And watching the reports over the last few days, many people say it was a providential moment. Probably was.

The family of Corey Comperatore probably is less certain that the incident was "a providential moment." NBC 10 Philadelphia reports

Thousands of mourners paid their respects at a Pennsylvania banquet hall Thursday to the family of a former fire chief who was shot and killed during the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump.

Trump sent a note of condolence hailing Corey Comperatore as a hero, a copy of which was displayed at the visitation. He did not attend the memorial, which was the second of two public events memorializing and celebrating Comperatore’s life. Hundreds of people gathered Wednesday at a vigil for him at an auto racing track.

A private funeral is scheduled for Friday. Trump is not going to the funeral because of Secret Service concerns, according to a source familiar who was not authorized to speak publicly.

So, let's see if we understand this. The Secret Service is required to go where the person it protects goes.  It now protects presidential candidate Donald Trump, who at his personal convention on Thursday praised the "very brave Secret Service agents (who) rushed to the stage" and "are great people at great risk" who "pounced on top of me so that I would be protected." That same Donald Trump is now an odds-on favorite to become the USA's next president- and as he promises, a "dictator on day one."

And now, according to a news report "Trump is not going to the funeral because of Secret Service concerns."  In all likelihood, that concern is that the next president does not want to go to the funeral. If he did ask to go and the SS turned him down, citizen Trump- infamous for being vindictive- would remember when he became President Trump.

We don't know why he did not want to go. In 2018 he cancelled an appearance at Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris, evidently because he didn't want his hair to get mussed, though he did ask "Why should I go to that cemetery. It's filled with losers." In 2020 he skipped the Atlanta funeral service and Washington, D.C. memorial for John Lewis because, probably, it was John Lewis.

Nor did he attend ceremonies for Corey Comperatore, who as an attendee of the Trump rally, presumably was an ardent fan of the GOP presidential candidate. Instead, he spent most of the time eulogizing himself, convincing his fans that his survival (by a bullet that barely grazed him) was an act of God. 

Abraham Lincoln once reportedly remarked "Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side...." Trump, instead, displayed his characteristic humility, asserting "I had God on my side."

In October of 2017, Yahoo News correspondent Jon Ward noted

At some of Trump’s lowest moments over the past few months, conservative religious leaders have materialized at the White House to literally lay hands on him in prayer.

The photos of these moments have a powerful resonance for many American Christians who are steeped in a fundamentalist form of the faith that is individualistic, populist and places a high value on outward forms of religiosity. Their faith practice is characterized by a fascination with emotional experience and with big, dramatic gestures and story lines.

We've seen always seen photos because that is precisely what they are: photo-ops "with big, dramatic gestures and story lines."

Which is what we were regaled with in the acceptance speech in Milwaukee. The whole unity shtick at the beginning was totally for show, completely insincere, and and contrary to the spirit of Matthew 6:5-7:

And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

 

Share |

Why This Comment?

Who's he talking about?

Joe Scarborough wisely and very courageously asserts

.... Again, a good question to ask about what he said in a private fundraiser. A good question to ask- I would have asked the same question. But to ask that question about absent any context seems to me to be- you talk about a phony, a moral relativism is just screaming through that part of the interview. And I must say I was shocked.

Scarborough was talking about Lester Holt, the anchorperson for NBC, the parent company of MSNBC, where Scarborough works. He criticized him as a "phony" displaying "moral relativism." After the "Joe" of Morning Joe, Reverend Al Sharpton claimed "I completely agree with you."

Not so much. The money quote 

Clearly, I don't think that President Biden has engaged in that kind of rhetoric that would in any way incite people to do things that we saw on January 6 or the attack on (Nancy) Pelosi's husband. But at the same time, I think we have the moral obligation to be consistent. You cannot- cannot- stand up against what happened to Pelosi's husband or what happened on January 6 and then act like it's alright what happened to Donald Trump and I think that is part of the challenge that we have.

Besides threatening to quit if Morning Joe is pulled from the air again, Joe Scarborough also swiped at NBC colleague Lester Holt for his Biden interview, namely his question about the "bullseye" remark.

"Talk about phony moral relativism... I must say, I was shocked!" pic.twitter.com/dTuOd1OhX4

— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) July 16, 2024

There are two possible explanations for Sharpton's terrible bothsiderism. Or the motive might be the characteristically bad judgement of someone who was an anti-white crusader in the 1980s.and  virulent anti-Semite in the 1990s.

In either case, the implication that Democrats have condoned the shooting of Donald Trump bears resemblance to the criticism of a few Democrats, most significantly South Carolina Representative James Clyburn, for condemnation of alleged sloganeering with "defund the police."  That would have been valid had Clyburn identified any Democrats who employed the slogan. He could have done so- there were two of them, Representative Cori Bush and Representative Rashida Tlaib.

There- I've named names, which is more than Clyburn did, as befitting the ardent supporter of the doomed black lives matter movement, which gave rise to what small support there was of the defund the police movement.

And it's also more than what Al Sharpton has done in the matter of Democrats minimizing the assassination attempt upon Mr. Trump It would be truly impressive to hear the scoundrel do so, given that there seems to have been none.  Decades ago, we recognized him as a race hustler. To this day, whatever Al Sharpton is up to, it's no good.

Share |

Existential is Not Just an Eleven Letter Word

If Sarah Longwell's point is "one good rally from time to time is insufficient for the very moment we face," she is right.

This is bad. Come at me all you want. This is not good! This isn’t the way to beat Trump. One good rally from time to time is insufficient to the very dangerous moment we face. https://t.co/TBAlfQPe8J

— Sarah Longwell (@SarahLongwell25) July 15, 2024

But first to NBC News' Lester Holt, conducting an interview without apparent shame or regret, states 

well, let's talk about the conversation that this has started and what we say out loud and the consequences. You called your opponent an existential threat. On a call a week ago, you said it was time to put Trump in the bullseye. There's some question about the context but you appreciate that words matter.

On a call- presumably private- with donors on July 9, Biden stated "I have one job, and that's to beat Donald Trump. I'm absolutely certain I'm the best person to be able to do that. So, we're done talking about the debate, it's time to put Trump in a bullseye."

There was no question about the context. The President was obviously referring to defeating Donald Trump in November and used a term ("bullseye") understood by virtually everyone over the age of, say, 60. The remark also was made in private, though as former Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling could attest to, the private often becomes public and is treated as if it had always been public, or worse.

And most obviously, to view today's GOP and to suggest that anything President Biden has said is in the same incendiary ballpark as numerous remarks by Republicans is dishonest and reprehensible. Following the attempted assassination of ex-President Trump, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene accused the Democratic Party of trying to "murder President Trump" and contended "the Democrats are the party of pedophiles, murdering the innocent unborn, violence, and bloody, meaningless, endless wars." In an expression of what Republicans consider "unity," two days later, on Monday, Greene spoke at the Republican National Convention. 

Which only figures. Donald Trump refers to violent insurrectionists from January 6, 2021 as hostages- even as real, live Americans are being held hostage in Gaza- and suggests he will pardon them if he is elected.  He has called- publicly for televised military tribunal of Liz Cheney and for imprisonment of elected officials and has declared "I am your retribution." He has pledged to be a "dictator" the first day of his presidency, with imagination the only limit as to what executive orders he might sign that day and what orders he may give the military to enact revenge upon his enemies. And Republican officials throughout the land have pledged allegiance to Mr. Trump and echo his words.

 

Did words "matter," as Lester Holt put it to President Biden, when Paul Pelosi was brutally attacked in his own home, Donald Trump Jr. reposting an image with a pair of underwear and a hammer and  “Got my Paul Pelosi Halloween costume ready," and the ex-President two days later calling the USA "rigged, crooked, and evil?" Did words matter when the plot to kidnap Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer was announced and at a Trump rally the crowd chanted "lock her up" and Trump responded "lock them all up?"  Did words matter when there were threats of violence against state election officials by Trump loyalists? 

Yet, Donald Trump as of last Friday appeared to be headed for victory this fall and, following his triumphant fist-waving after being injured on Saturday- aided by endless replaying of the photo-op by the media- is now an extremely heavy favorite to be elected. Ironically, Trump's masterful performance after being shot points the way to a move available to the incumbent President which would energize voters and give him a very good chance of defeating his opponent.

"Fight! Fight! Fight!" shouted Donald Trump as the Secret Service agents allowed the ex-President to raise his arm and fist triumphantly. "Fight! Fight! Fight!" chanted attendees at the first night of the Republican convention in a signal that it's not only Lester Holt who understands that words matter.

 

The crowd's hearty endorsement of a violent belligerence reflects the powerful message of strength, even invulnerability struck by the ex-President two nights earlier. Holt would prefer Joe Biden and his Party avoid this sort of response, or anything even remotely similar, in favor of comity and unity.

But two can play the game Donald Trump has begun and continued, and Joe Biden could be the second. Longwell is correct that Biden's response to his dire political situation is insufficient. However, Biden can take a page from Trump's playbook and simultaneously reinforce his instinct to call for unity, patriotism, and sacrifice.

The President, though facing long odds, is determined to run for re-election. He must be equally determined to win the election and the way forward is both unspoken and obvious.

Biden needs to schedule a rally- an outdoor rally- immediately. It would take place after the conclusion of the Republican National Convention but otherwise as soon as possible. It would give him a chance to project strength- not his strong point- and patriotism, which is his strong point.  It could be his version of the George W Bush post 9/11 theme of a return to normalcy as a refutation of terrorist attacks and terrorists themselves. 

"If we don't exercise our freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, domestic terrorists have won," the President could declare. (The FBI is reportedly investigating Saturday's attack as a case of "domestic terrorism," however that's defined.)  A rally would have a particularly significant impact upon a race in which one candidate, the President, is considered by many voters to be too old while the other is (wrongly) characterized as a tower of strength and resistance.

And it would be extremely safe. There has been an assassination attempt upon one presidential candidate, one leading to the swift killing of the apparent perpetrator,  There will not be another. Security will be extraordinary at any rally, let alone an outdoor one. The message has been sent: appear with a firearm at any gathering attended by a presidential candidate in any capacity, and you will be shot dead instantly.

Extraordinary, also, is that there is no report of any Democrat or liberal/progressive pundit or journalist even suggesting the possibility that the President promptly demonstrate to voters that he is vital, virile, and up to any challenge. It's enough to question how seriously Donald Trump's opponents and critics take the "existential threat" posed by the former President.

Share |