Remarkable Ignorance

Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday included lawyer and Orthodox Jewish conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro;  CNN commentator and former South Carolina state legislator Bakari Sellers; and former Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. In the Overtime segment, the first question pertained to speculation about the identity of Donald Trump's pick as a vice=presidential running mate.

- Sellers: the only person who poses any fear for Democrats is probably Marco Rubio. Marco- he looks like the future, he has a great deal of experience, he can talk to Hispanic voters in ways and communicate in ways that otherwise Trump and Burgum would have trouble doing and he's a notable opponent to Kamala Harris in debate. There's no concern over Burgum or J.D. Vance. J.D. Vance- uh, he stands for nothing.

- Maher: But,uh, wait a second. I read that because they're both from Florida, Trump and Rubio, that they can't be on the same ticket.

- McCarthy: So Rubio would move to Virginia-same thing that Cheney did. He moved out of Texas and went back to Wyoming. You can't come from the same state.

- Maher: I know. So you move-

- Shapiro: He could residency, actually, in Nevada, right? He actually spends a fair amount of his year in Nevada.

- McCarthy: He would have to resign from the Senate and-

- Shapiro: DeSantis would appoint his replacement.

- McCarthy: Yeah.

- Maher: So-

- McCarthy: He can do it. He just can't be from the same state.

Four men, three white and one black, two Democrats and two Republicans. Three of the four make their living from politics and one is fairly well-versed in politics as a de facto requirement of his vocation as a comedian.

And all of them ignorant.

Article II, paragraph 3 of the USA Constitution states "The electors.... shall vote for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves."  A constitutional scholar and political science professor explains

In 1804, the United States adopted the 12th Amendment, which addresses some of the confusion around the Electoral College and altered the process. The Vice President was put on a separate ballot, allowing electors to vote for one person for President and another person for Vice President. Now, candidates for both offices simply run together as a unified ticket. However, the residual requirement that the electors could not cast both ballots for a person from their own state was not removed.

No, former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a presidential and a vice-presidential nominee of the same party can come from the same state. Someone on that four-person panel should have realized it. But the ignorance of an individual who recently served as the highest-ranking Republican in the nation is astounding, at the least.

Share |

The Non-Conspiracy

The only thing GOP Representative Nancy Mace, of a swing district in South Carolina, got right here was her timing.

Nancy mace flips the script on Bill Maher:
"You think we should have an authoritarian strongman? I'm not saying anyone in particular."
"You're talking about Joe Biden?"
"Oh Joe Biden's the authoritarian strongman!?"
"He wants to kick his opponents off the ballot. Talk about… pic.twitter.com/zhGWKfTx8V

— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) March 16, 2024

When it's time for Bill Maher to go to the "New Rules" segment of "Real Time," Bill Maher goes to New Rules. No exception.

And Representative Mace was able to slip in her lie at the right time, just under the wire.  Mace may not recall the exact date or the adjective "fine," but surely she learned of the President's sentiment after Joe Biden on January 30 said

that he thought it was "fine" for former President Donald Trump to remain on the ballot for this year's election.

In response to a reporter who asked whether Trump should "be allowed on the ballot," Biden said, “As far as I’m concerned, that’s fine.”

Biden made the remark shortly before he boarded Marine One for Joint Base Andrews, Maryland, from which he departed for a trip to Florida.,,,

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments next week in the Colorado ballot case, which could affect whether Trump can stay on the primary ballot in that state and others.

Colorado's Supreme Court ruled last month that Trump violated a provision of the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which states that "an officer of the United States" who has "engaged in insurrection" cannot hold office and is therefore ineligible as a candidate.

The Supreme Court, six Republicans and three Democrats, promptly decided unanimously against the plaintiffs, thus restoring Trump to the ballot in Colorado.

Thus marked the demise of the lawsuit which aimed to bar Donald Trump from the primary ballot in Colorado on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment. Though filed by CREW, the suit was organized by a research assistant with the 2008 presidential campaign of Rudolph Giuliani. It was joined by the first woman to serve as majority leader of both chambers of the Colorado legislature, as well as

a former Republican member of Congress from Rhode Island who now lives in Colorado; a teacher; a former deputy chief of staff to a Republican governor; a former executive director of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Larimer County; and a conservative columnist for the Denver Post.

Yet, Representative Mace was able to claim "(Joe Biden) wants to kick his opponents off the ballot."  With GOP politicians such as her implying a Democratic plot to erase Trump from the ballot, many conservative voters seem to believe the myth.

The problem is magnified when, as has been the case, there is little or no pushback from Democrats, liberals or progressives. Throughout the entire discussion portion of the show, Representative Ro Khanna (clearly booked as the progressive foil to Mace, proved distressingly complaisant, apparently loathe to displease his colleague. And Bill Maher himself allowed the congresswoman to interject this crucial lie before he switched gears to "New Rules."  On this night, Nancy Mace was disturbingly, dishonestly effective.

Share |

Tiny Step Forward

At a Get Out The Vote rally at a Coastal Carolina University in Conway, South Carolina

“Where’s her husband? Oh, he’s away. He’s away,” Trump said, appearing to imply Haley was having challenges in her marriage that would explain her husband’s absence. “What happened to her husband? Where is he? He’s gone.”

At her separate rally in Gilbert, South Carolina, Haley addressed Trump’s comments head on, and again challenged the former president to a debate.

“I need to start with the fact that Donald Trump had a rally today, and in that rally, he mocked my husband’s military service,” she began.

“I have long talked about the fact that we need to have mental competency tests for anyone over the age of 75. Donald Trump claims that he would pass that — maybe he would, maybe he wouldn’t. But if you mock the service of a combat veteran, you don’t deserve a driver’s license, let alone being President of the United States.”

I don't know where in the US Constitution competence tests are listed as a qualification for federal office but my guess is that Nikki Haley would have Americans for Prosperity administer those tests.

Last July, the same Nikki

Haley, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and former governor of South Carolina, said in an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” Monday that the country needs a “new generational leader” but added she would back Trump if he wins the primary.

“I would support him because I am not going to have a President Kamala Harris. We can’t afford that. That is not going to happen,” she said.

(Rev.com) In  September 27, 2023, the debate stage at the Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California, co-moderator Dana Perino asked ".... And candidates, it’s now obvious that if you all stay in the race, former President Donald Trump wins the nomination. None of you have indicated that you’re dropping out. So which one of you on stage tonight should be voted off the island....?  Nikki Haley responded "Are you serious?"

In January

Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley said in an interview on Fox News that if elected she would pardon former President Trump only if he were found guilty and would not consider preemptively pardoning him.

“I think you only do it if someone’s found guilty. So, you know, what I’ll say is this is about moving the country forward, and the last thing we want to see is an 80-year-old former president sitting in jail,” she told the network when asked if she would pledge to pardon Trump preemptively or only if he was found guilty.

The former President will not be "sitting in a jail," even if he is convicted and sentenced to a period of incarceration. It would be prison- not jail- and he would be much more likely to serve such a sentence with electronic monitoring or some other punishment; so, straw man. She would not pre-emptively pardon Trump, in part because he might not accept a pardon because it comes with an assumption of guilt.

Look, @NikkiHaley, you supported Trump after he mocked John McCain, attacked a Gold Star family, called fallen military heroes “losers and suckers,” and tried to order military to attack Americans.

You said you’d support Trump if he was convicted of a felony.

So now he mocks… https://t.co/89xsm90XFZ

— Stuart Stevens (@stuartpstevens) February 10, 2024

Yet just as President, Trump lied about veterans; rhetorically asked "I don't get it- what was in it for them?" while at the gravesite of the Homeland Security chief John Kelly's son, killed in Afghanistan; objected to the presence of maimed veterans at a military parade because "nobody wants to see that;" and cancelled a visit to Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris while remarking "Why should I go to that cemetery? It's filled with losers."

But now the former President has questioned the military service of Nikki Haley's husband, and her criticism finally has gone beyond derogating Trump- and Joe Biden- as "grumpy old men," a stereotype which would be beneath Nikki Haley if anything were.

However, no one has asked the candidate if she still would support the former President if he is nominated for a second term. Nor has anyone asked whether she still believes that Trump should be pardoned if and when he is found guilty of a criminal offense.

No one, even at Americans for Prosperity, knows when Nikki Haley will drop out of the presidential race. Nor does anyone know for sure what she will do thereafter. However, we do know that it will be whatever benefits Nikki Haley, and there will be no other consideration.

Share |

Please Don't Do This

I have a thought  or two.

Former Obama adviser @davidaxelrod says that a court decision to remove Trump from the primary ballot “would rip the country apart”

Thoughts? pic.twitter.com/YVLFcfD8qX

— Republicans against Trump (@RpsAgainstTrump) December 30, 2023

CNN Senior Legal Analyst Elie Honig also has a few thoughts about the effort in Colorado and in Maine to bar Donald J. Trump from the presidential primary ballot pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which reads 

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Honig asks, nearly rhetorically, of the judicial process  in the two states "were these hearings fair? Did they comport with due process?"

The Colorado Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the state's Attorney General to block Trump from being on its presidential primary ballot, though the decision has been stayed. Maine's Secretary of State has determined that the ex-presidential shall not be on the primary ballot in a move which will almost certainly be appealed.

As Honig realizes, the issue of due process will give the US Supreme Court an opportunity to overturn the rulings in the two states with the Court choosing to skirt the substantive issues involve, perhaps a win all around unless your name is "Nikki Haley."

In the video attached to the tweet above, former Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod is seen remarking "He's only gained since he got indicted. What we thought would be kryptonite for him turned out to be battery packs."

Not true. Most people (albeit with many exceptions) did not believe that indictment of President 45 would undermine his effort to be nominated by the GOP electorate. Moreover, whether Trump's legal troubles would help, hurt, or have no impact in a general election is very much uncertain, especially because we don't know what the status of the indictments will be come next fall. Nor is it at all clear that the numerous charges actually have aided Trump's bid to be nominated, as Nikki "tell me what you want me to say" Haley has risen in the polls as she (cowardly) argues "I agree with a lot of his policies, but the truth is, rightly or wrongly, chaos follows him."

Yet, Axelrod does understand

And this is a big one for him. Presumably the Supreme Court will deal with that fairly quickly and I expect they will leave him on the ballot and yes, Brianna, I have very strong reservations about all of this. I do think it would rip the country apart if he were actually presented from running because tens of millions of people want to vote for him. I think if you're going to beat Donald Trump, you're probably going to have to do it at the polls.

Of course, it would rip the country apart or, rather, rip it apart more than it already is. There were two instances of impeachment, which polarized an already polarized nation. The charge in the latter case was "incitement of insurrection" and as in the first impeachment, it ended in de facto acquittal, of Donald Trump. Then there was the January 6 Committee, which recommended the Department of Justice level charges of Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, conspiracy to Knowingly Make a False Statement, and Aiding, Assisting, or Comforting an Insurrection.

But Special Counsel Jack Smith decided not to charge the former President with insurrection. Thus, Trump never has been charged with insurrection and obviously never has been found guilty of being involved in an insurrection.

Tens of millions of people want to vote for Trump, as Axelrod maintains, and it's not only likely that he cannot be beaten otherwise, in the absence of any criminal conviction whatsoever- as is the case presently- it probably is the sole manner in which he should be defeated.

Nonetheless, the drive to deprive Trump of any chance of becoming President again is a terrible idea for a reason Axelrod hints at, though omits. The country could survive backlash from barring Trump from the ballot. However, the country might not survive the effort for another reason.

Notwithstanding the political harm to the Republican Party of the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the major reason Democrats avoided a "red wave" in the 2022 election cycle was identification of the GOP with animus to democracy. This included- but was not limited to- the active effort by Trump, and support of his allies in his Party, to overturn an election.

Few Republican politicians have condemned Trump for his obsession and a CNN poll this past summer found "69% of Republicans and Republican leaners say Biden's win was not legitimate."

Tens of millions of Republicans already believed Joe Biden is President only because of a rigged election. In stepped two conservative law professors, later a conservative former federal judge and liberal law professor to prove them right.

Oh, of course without this initiative most Republicans and GOP-leaning independents still would believe that the election was fishy, if not fraudulent. Yet now, oxygen has been added to the fire of their disbelief and anger. 

For nearly three years, Democrats, never Trump Republicans, and some moderates and centrists have been denouncing the specious claims of the ex-President and the Party which emboldens and enables him, and which refuses to accept the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election.   The loser in 2020, who is insistent that he won, has strongly signaled that he won't accept the results of the next presidential election if and when he loses.  Then, and probably during the campaign, he will wail that the process is "rigged."  

If the Trump disqualification drive gains steam, the ex-President won't have to wait to complain about a rigged election. If he is nominated, the claim will drive Republicans and GOP-leaning independents to the polls to vote their displeasure. And if he loses the nomination to another Republican, the claim will drive Republicans and GOP-leaning independents to the polls to vote their displeasure, in presidential balloting and down-ballot. 

Good luck to Democrats asserting that only Republicans are out to savage democracy. Nothing else could facilitate a more effective GOTV nomination and it would make anyone a heavy favorite over the Democratic nominee.

The Democrats behind this drive are encouraging political suicide. For the Never Trump Republicans, it's brilliant strategy.

Share |

Far Beyond Civil War Denial

If a Democratic Super PAC or a Republican opponent wanted a defining moment for Nikki Haley's candidacy- or even for Nikki Haley herself, it may have come Wednesday night at a town hall event in Berlin, New Hampshire.

The former governor and UN ambassador was asked "What do you think was the cause of the Civil War?" At the tail end of the video below, Jennifer Palmieri on Morning Joe can be heard remarking "This could have been a great moment for Nikki Haley for her to say like "I came from the south, this is what have learned,' and instead it is this panic, "what do you want me to say about slavery?"

Willie Geist responded "yeh, it is that line line 'what do you want me to say about slavery,' at worst sort of defiant, that she was going to refuse to say something there." Haley's apparent moment of indecisiveness arose when

“I mean, I think the cause of the Civil War was basically how government was going to run. The freedoms and what people could and couldn’t do,” Haley had said Wednesday in a visit to Berlin — the first of five events in the Granite State as she attempts to close the gap with Republican front-runner Donald Trump ahead of next month’s primary.

The former South Carolina governor then asked the voter who had asked her about the Civil War what he thought the cause was, to which the voter responded, “I’m not running for president.”

“I think it always comes down to the role of government and what the rights of the people are,” Haley added. “I will always stand by the fact that I think government was intended to secure the rights and freedoms of the people. It was never meant to be all things to all people,” she added.

The voter criticized her for not mentioning slavery in her answer. “In the year 2023, it’s astonishing to me that you answer that question without mentioning the word slavery,” the voter said.

“What do you want me to say about slavery?” Haley asked.

One may be moved to say "whatever it is you actually believe." But she did say something significant, and it was worse: On a local New Hampshire radio show Thursday morning, Haley told host Jack Heath

I  mean, of course the Civil War was about slavery. But what’s the lesson in all of that? That we need to make sure that every person has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do and be anything they want to be without anyone or government getting in the way. That was the goal of what that was at. Yes, I know it was about slavery. I’m from the South, of course I know it’s about slavery.

So she knows it was about slavery, with the lesson "that we need to make sure that every person has freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to do and be anything they want to be without anyone or government getting in the way."

The Civil war was not about freedom of speech or of religion unless Haley is equating the right to hold slaves with the First Amendment. More relevantly, the candidate stressed the "freedom to do and be anything they want to be without anyone in government getting in the way."

If the media and politicians can surmount the controversy over the cause of the Civil War, they might notice that Haley was arguing that the war was fought over an individual's desire to act "without anyone in government getting in the way."

Ironically, Haley is right. In an important sense, the Civil War was fought over the privilege of behaving as the slaveholder wished without government getting in the way.  Cotton and tobacco were king in the south and profits for plantation owners would be enhanced if workers were slaves and not employees paid a wage.  Southern states believed the federal government was going to block expansion of slavery into new states and eventually abolish it. That would be the federal government denying "every person" the "freedom to do and be anything they want to be without anyone or government getting in the way."

Southern states were determined not to let northerners and their government curb their freedom to do as they wish. At that time, the freedom was to own other human beings but, as Haley is well aware, that freedom now is less odious and far more subtle. The "freedom" touted by the candidate includes limiting federal employees to five years at their job which, as David Corn recognizes

would seem to cover TSA officials, federal law enforcement officials, intelligence analysts, food and drug safety officials, National Institues of Health research supervisors, counterterrorism experts, counterintelligence officers, workplace safety regulators, financial regulators, public health officials, border security officials, IRS tax collectors, trade officials, climate change negotiators, and you can fill in the rest.

Of course, someone would run the federal government, which very likely would be lobbyists and the interests, especially powerful corporations, which employ them. That would be consistent with Haley's enthusiasm for increasing oil and gas drilling, cutting income taxes for the wealthy and others, and undermining- uh, er, "reforming"- Social Security and Medicare.

 It's no surprise, then, that as Tim Scott's presidential campaign was imploding, Koch-financed Americans for Prosperity threw its endorsement- with all the resources it can muster- behind Haley's presidential effort. Certainly, Americans for Prosperity would not want its presidential choice to "government getting in the way" of it's interest in the wealthy and corporations. That would prove to be a pesky problem, much as the federal government 150+ years ago would not reinforce the institution of slavery.

Nikki Haley's remark about slavery on Wednesday evening was no accident. It may have been a nod and a wink to her corporate donors or it may have reflected sincere views (presuming she has any) about the role of government in society. Either way, she pointed to the likely role of any Haley Administration in shunning the interests of all but the most powerful Americans.

 

Share |

The Republican Candidate Silently Approving of Racism

On CBS; Face the Nation on Sunday, Chris Christie reiterated his view that Nikki Haley is not a serious candidate for the presidency because she has said that Donald J. Trump is fit to return to the office. The former New Jersey governor stated

... in the end, look, Governor Haley got an endorsement this week that got her a lot of free media publicity, but it doesn't change one simple fact. She won't answer questions about Donald Trump. In fact, you know, she said just this week that he's fit to be president. This is a guy who last night in New Hampshire, used Vladimir Putin as a character witness for the decaying Democracy in America. A Vladimir Putin is an expert in democracy and someone who says that is fit to be President United State? It's- it's ridiculous.

However, Christie went a little further, both in questioning Haley's motives and in making a further case against the leading GOP contender. He charged

Once she hasn't ruled out being his vice president, I don't think you could take her as a serious contender against him. Rod DeSantis and I have both ruled out accepting the vice presidency from Donald Trump. Nikki Haley has not. That's why she's not saying strong things against Donald Trump. Why she's saying he's fit to be president of the United States. I mean, the fact that if you watch that speech last night, where he says that immigrants from Asia, Africa and South America are poisoning the blood of America, I don't know how you could take someone like that and say that they're fit to be president of the United States.

Christie was referring to the remark in a campaign speech in New Hampshire Saturday when Trump charged 

They're poisoning the blood of our country. Not just in South America, not just the three or four countries that we think about, but all over the world they are coming into our country, from Africa, from Asia, all over the world. They're pouring into our country, nobody's even looking at them.

Afterward on social media, Trump wrote (caps his) "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS POISONING THE BLOOD OF OUR NATION... WITHOUT BORDERS & FAIR ELECTIONS, YOU DON'T HAVE A COUNTRY." 

In a video from October, the candidate who longs to be an authoritarian referred to immigration as "poisoning the blood of our country." He repeated the remark last week because the earlier one received little attention. In so doing, he has ratcheted up his rhetoric- and not only because it borrows from Adolph Hitler.

                         

A week after being inaugurated as President, Trump signed an executive order temporarily banning immigration from seven predominately Muslim countries. That was blocked in court and was replaced by another executive order, which also was blocked. A third added North Korea, which has relatively few Muslims, and visa restrictions later were extended to six other countries, at least two of which are not majority-Muslim.

This was insufficiently comprehensive to fit the definition of a "Muslim ban"- as it was derided by the left and centrists- but it emphasized blocking from immigration individuals of that religion. The President's critics assailed the policy for being anti-Muslim and even "racist."

We didn't know it at the time but those were the good-old days, when Trump singled out persons because of their beliefs and not their genome or other immutable characteristics- their "blood."

As of this moment, Nikki Haley has not responded to Donald Trump's blood remark. At the fourth Republican debate, she gave the leading candidate the thumbs up, stating "I think he was the right President at the right time." She added "it's just I don't think he's the right person to be President," presumably because she believes she is the right person. Having not ruled out being his running mate, Haley appears ready to assist Trump in his plans for America and in return, Trump has not criticized the former South Carolina governor.

Christie may eventually drop out of the race and endorse Haley to prevent the GOP from nominating Trump. But at this point, he has the two of them dead to rights, and one seems eager to be an accessory to autocracy and racism.

 

Share |

Haley's "Girl" Card

It was bound to happen,  The cliche is "even a stopped clock is right twice a day" and Vivek Ramaswamy is right maybe twice a year. The mainstream media is promoting Nikki Haley as the alternative to Donald Trump because the ex-governor is a woman. Additionally, she's also a corporate stooge who has demonstrated that she is not antagonistic to minorities. 

Nikki Haley’s gender-card schtick is pathetic & straight out of the Kamala Harris / Hillary Clinton playbook. There’s a reason why the MSM is propping her up as their token Republican. pic.twitter.com/m6Oe9zZKJv

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) November 16, 2023

Nonetheless, it's the woman's card she's playing for all it's worth.

BREAKING: Nikki Haley is now saying that Vivek is only criticizing her because he 'has a girl problem'pic.twitter.com/y9DJ7bd3u1

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) November 15, 2023

Haley is seen remarking

Look what happens. He comes out of the gate. He gets the female chair of the party, he gets the female anchor on the platform, and then he hits me. And I'm not saying anything. But he might have a girl problem. 

Now serving her fourth term as chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ronna Romney McDaniel has overseen the party during three bad election cycles, in 2018, 2020, and 2022. By all indications, she has done a poor job and appears to be a gift to the Democratic Party.

Ramaswamy opposes USA support of Ukraine and has been at best, lukewarm toward Israel. By contrast, the ex-UN ambassador supports USA assistance to Ukraine and to Israel, with condemnation of Hamas which has gone beyond that of virtually anyone of prominence. More to the point, Haley is now the main challenger to Trump's nomination. Ramaswamy has been extreme in his praise of the ex-President, probably angling (in vain) to be Trump's running mate, and may even be a proxy for Trump. He's not going to go after the former President; for him, Haley is the most obvious target.

Haley's criticism of Ramaswamy as having a "girl problem" is quite rich, and not only because if any politician said a female candidate had a "girl problem" or even a "woman problem," he'd be driven out of politics in less time than it takes to spell "woke."

Donald J. Trump has been accused of sexual assault or sexual harassment of more than a dozen women, including of E. Jean Carrol, whom a jury in civil court earlier this year found had been sexually abused by Trump in 1996. The leading candidate for the Republican presidential nomination is the man behind such statements as:

."If Hillary Clinton can't satisfy her husband, what makes her think she can satisfy America?" 

 "Look at that face. Would anybody vote for that ((Carly Fiorina)? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president? I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?" 

She(Megyn Kelly) gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions. You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever."

And so many more. Yet as recently as Wednesday, November 15, Haley stated unequivocally that she would "support the Republican nominee," who is likely to be Trump, and that the latter was "the right President at the right time."  When Dana Perino at the Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Library in California asked the candidates "which one of you on the stage tonight should be voted off the island," the obvious answer was "anyone not here to speak to Republican voters," which would have been Trump.  For Haley, it was "are you serious?"

It was a serious question, though drawing upon popular culture, and one which elicited revealing responses.  What Nikki Haley is serious about, as called out by Vivek Ramaswamy, is delivering the shtick of a tough chick act. 

Share |

Advocates for Donald Trump

It really is quite extraordinary- not surprising, but extraordinary. On Monday, Brian Klaas of The Atlantic wrote

Late Friday night, the former president of the United States—and a leading candidate to be the next president—insinuated that America’s top general deserves to be put to death.

That extraordinary sentence would be unthinkable in any other rich democracy. But Donald Trump, on his social-media network, Truth Social, wrote that Mark Milley’s phone call to reassure China in the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, was “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH.” (The phone call was, in fact, explicitly authorized by Trump-administration officials.) Trump’s threats against Milley came after The Atlantic’s publication of a profile of Milley, by this magazine’s editor in chief Jeffrey Goldberg, who detailed the ways in which Milley attempted to protect the Constitution from Trump....

Trump loves to hide behind the thin veneer of plausible deniability, but he knows exactly what he’s doing. If a mob boss were to say, “In times gone by, people like you would have had their legs broken,” nobody would mistake that for a historical observation. The suggestion is clear, and it comes from a man who has one of America’s loudest megaphones—one that is directed squarely at millions of extremists who are well armed, who insist that the government is illegitimate, and who believe that people like Milley are part of a “deep state” plot against the country.

Noting that a member of the House of Representatives has echoed Trump's wish with “in a better society, quislings like the strange sodomy-promoting General Milley would be hung," Klaas' primary concern is political violence, a growing likelihood in the USA.

That possibility is serious enough but would not even be the most devastating outcome of Trump's threats. In the past week, the ex-President has encouraged assassination of a general and has denounced a major media company, which he said "should be investigated for its 'Country Threatening Treason." Attacking the 2020 election, last December he posted  "A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

The wish list thus includes termination of military officers performing their duty, media which questions him, and the entire framework of the rule of law, including the Constitution. It's clear Donald J. Trump intends to corral the military and all law enforcement as the next President, and it's not to maintain a democratic republic.

Then on Wednesday evening, several Republican candidates for President participated in a debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, and Ron DeSantis criticized the leading candidate, Donald J. Trump, for not showing up.  Christie further knocked the ex-President for running up the national debt and cozying up to Vladimir Putin, as he maintained Presidents Biden, Obama, and GW Bush had done. Haley knocked her ex-boss for largely ignoring the threat posed by China.

Seven candidates, fewer than half would criticize Donald Trump for not joining them on stage, two for a policy issue, and none for supporting totalitarianism.

Then it got worse. At evening's end, Dana Perino would ask what seemed like a silly question, but for which the response was telling:

And candidates, it’s now obvious that if you all stay, in the race, former President Donald Trump wins the nomination. None of you have indicated that you’re dropping out. So, which one of you, on stage, tonight, should be voted off the island?  Please use your marker, to write your choice, on the notepad, in front of you. 15 seconds, starting now. Of the people on the stage, who should be voted —

They are competing for a presidential nomination. Thus far, the leading candidate has refused to show them the courtesy or respect by engaging in debate. He obviously is taking both them and the voters for granted.

Perino gave the candidates an opportunity to say that in so doing Donald Trump had forfeited his right to be the nominee of their party, or at least that he should step aside for one of the worthy candidates.

Only Christie offered up Trump. Two (Pence, Burgum) said nothing while four of their colleagues explicitly ruled out answering the question. 

Six of the seven thereby either actively or passively defended their main rival by implying that he should remain in the race. At a (bare) minimum, they could have said, "any candidate who doesn't respect Republican voters should not be the nominee." They wouldn't even have had to utter the name "Trump."

Their rival has been indicted four times, including for encouraging a coup against the government of the United States of America and for purloining top secret documents, even ones disclosing nuclear secrets and plans for possible military action against an enemy. That individual now has given the thumbs up to assassinating a general, closing down a media company not subservient to him, and terminating the Constitution.

MAGA this, MAGA that. By contrast, Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, and Tim Scott all are part of the non-chaos wing of the Republican Party, which much of the media ignorantly characterize as "moderate." And all but one of those, a guy who hates unions, teachers, and reproductive care for women, appear perfectly fine with Donald J. Trump becoming the 47th President of the USA.

Bring him on! Four more years! Trump for President, cry GOP voters- and the candidates for President. If I didn't know any better, I'd think it's one political party alone responsible for polarization of the nation.

 

Share |

Mike Pence's Unique Problem

As a candidate for the Republican nomination for President, former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson appeared Monday on MSNBC’s ":Deadline White House", hosted by Nicolle Wallace. Hutchinson

has repeatedly said he cannot back former President Donald Trump if he is a convicted criminal. Yet, he signed a pledge to get on the RNC debate stage that would require him to back Trump if he is the nominee, even as he still claims he cannot back the former president.

"If you are not the Republican nominee, will you vote for Donald Trump as president?" asked Wallace.

"Well, I don't expect him to be the nominee so—" Hutchinson began.

"He's ahead 30 points in the latest polls," Wallace cut him off. "It's certainly a possibility."

"Well, I understand that and I'm sure that will come up on the debate stage, but of course, if you believe he's not qualified under our Constitution, the 14th Amendment, then he's not going to even be in the picture," said Hutchinson.

"Well, I agree with you but did you sign the pledge as a condition of being in the debate that you'll support the eventual nominee?" said Wallace. "I'm just trying to find the consistency with your stated positions. I admire some of them, but some of them don't add up."

Former Rep. David Jolly (R-FL), another disaffected anti-Trump conservative on the panel, spoke up.

"I support your spirit, but are you going to vote for Donald Trump as the Republican nominee if, indeed, he's on the ballot in Arkansas, where you're registered to vote?" said Jolly.

And I hear you very clearly, exactly what you're asking me, and I just gave you the answer that I am providing in signing that pledge based upon," Hutchinson said. "You don't have to accept it. I just gave you the answer."

"Governor, I think ... [Republicans] refuse to deal with the facts as they really are," said Wallace. "And the facts as they really are — and believe me, from the bottom of my heart, I wish it wasn't the case — but Donald Trump is ahead 30 points over the second-most popular Republican and that isn't you, sir, unfortunately. But I wonder how we are to cover seeming contradictions in views. You make a very strong constitutional argument, not just that he's the wrong president on policy but that it is unconstitutional because of the 14th Amendment, but you won't say here to us, two former Republicans, that you won't vote for him?"

"Well, it's necessary to be on the debate," said Hutchinson. "Obviously Chris Christie and others have signed that pledge."

Christie, in particular, has made it clear that he has no intention of supporting Trump. While it might be required to be on the debate stage, what happens after Trump becomes the nominee can't be controlled by the RNC. A Republican presidential candidate can sign the pledge now and ignore it later without any legal consequence.

Hutchinson claimed the other candidates "have their own rationale for being able to do that. I've said I'm not going to support anybody who is a convicted felon, I'm not going to support somebody who is disqualified from it. So I'm trying to make it clear what my position is. It's not hard to figure it out. If you see a contradiction in there, perhaps that will be clarified in future discussions on the debate or down the road. But I think I've been very clear that I don't believe Donald Trump should be the leader of the party, should be the next President of the United States. That's why I'm running, that's why I'm in debate and I'm making my case very clearly."

Shorter Hutchinson: "I signed the pledge so I'd be admitted to the debate and I will not support Donald Trump if his is convicted of a felony." Without confessing "I lied about endorsing Donald Trump," Hutchinson was as clear as he could be.

Not so Mike Pence. Victor Blackwell, who often demonstrates that "CNN" and "journalism" are not mutually exclusive, begins by showing a clip of the former Vice President Mike Pence stating "I'm running for President in part because I think anyone who puts himself above the Constitution should never be President of the United States."

Blackwell than responds (emphasis his)

Never be President of the United States. However, when you were asked last night if you would vote for former President Trump even if he is convicted, you raised your hand. Rectify those two.

Pence at first replied "Well, look, everyone on that stage signed a pledge to support the Republican nominee and frankly, my hand was raised in that spirit, just in keeping my word."  That would have been a good answer, and almost identical to that of Hutchinson. But Pence couldn't or wouldn't stop there, continuing

But I really do believe more after last night that Donald Trump is not going to be the nominee. I know that many of you in the media think this is already a rematch between Trump and Biden. I don't see that. But I also think last night the American people saw, hopefully, hopefully they got a better sense of me and my role as a leader over the last twenty years.

They already had a good sense of Mike Pence as a leader. You'll recall that    

A former aide to Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows told the House January 6 committee that then-President Donald Trump had suggested to Meadows he approved of the “hang Mike Pence” chants from rioters who stormed the US Capitol, two sources familiar with the matter told CNN.

Cassidy Hutchinson, the former aide, also testified that Trump complained about his then-vice president being hustled to safety while Trump supporters breached the Capitol, the sources said.

Fifteen months later, Brett Baier in Milwaukee would ask “You all signed a pledge to support the Republican nominee. If former President Trump is convicted in a court of law, would you still support him as your party's choice? Please raise your hand if you would."  Trump surrogate Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, Tim Scott, and Doug Burgum, none of whom the 45th President recommended be lynched, agreed they would. So did Mike Pence. I may be old school, but I'd hold a grudge against someone who thought it would be lovely if I were hanged.

Pence added

But I think they got a better sense of what deep bench the Republican Party has and that we have- we have better choices for 2024 for our Party. So I'm more confident than ever that our Party is going to give us a standard-bearer fitted for the times, someone that's going to lead us to victory in 2024. I'm going to continue to work....

Doesn’t matter. If he really believed Trump should never hold office he shouldn’t have raised his hand… https://t.co/hTLffX6A2c

— Raj Lakra (@RajLakra) August 26, 2023

This "deep bench" distinguished itself by overwhelming pledging their fealty to a guy who now faces four indictments, tried to steal an election, encouraged an insurrection against the United States government, and stole top secret documents regarding USA nuclear programs and possible attack against Iran.

It's a stellar bunch. Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson stood alone in refusing to pledge allegiance to Donald Trump and they have their own flaws, Hutchinson as an ardent force-birther and Christie an obsession with breaking teachers' unions.  With Mike Pence, it's the "kick me" sign he has affixed to his posterior.

 

Share |

Rambling, Strategically

A couple of months ago, Bethany Mandel, conservative commentator and co-author of "Stolen Youth: How Radicals are Erasing Innocence and Indoctrinating a Generation," appeared on the podcast co-hosted by Brianha Joy Gray and was asked to define "woke." Apparently and incomprehensibly taken by  surprise, Mandel replied in part

Woke is something that's very hard to define and we've spent an entire chapter defining it. It's sort of the understanding that we need to totally re-imagine and redefine society in order to create hierarchies of oppression. Um-sorry, it's hard to explain in a 15-second sound bite.

Ouch. That must have hurt. The only thing worse than being unable to define a concept you've written about and criticized is describing it, haltingly, in terms which undermine your position. One of the precepts of "woke" is not to recognize differences among ethnic minorities, to "create hierarchies of oppression," but to lump blacks, Latinos, Asian-Americans, Pacific Islanders, tribal members, and anyone else not of strictly white European heritage into the category of "people of color."  Presumably, they are all equally oppressed.

When Mandel pled "it's hard to explain in a 15-second sound bite," Gray told her to take all the time she wanted but the co-host broke in to bail Mandel out, sort of. 

Privileged to run for President and thus not to be led into a sound bit but to spend one minute and 34 seconds to get her talking points out to a nationwide audience, Haley faced no such limitation.  The perspective of one journalist and MSNBC host:

 

Not only does Haley not define ‘woke’ but she chooses to define critical race theory as if a girl is in kindergarten and she is “white you’re telling her she’s bad.

That’s a total, brazen, shameless lie, on so many levels, and Haley knows it. https://t.co/mfYmaI2XhL

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) June 5, 2023

I'm not sure this doesn't happen, though not as directly as telling a 5-year-old that she's "bad." However, Hasan did recognize that the ex-governor and ex-UN ambassador did choose not to define "woke," which both underscores the horrid nature of the "town hall" and the strategic brilliance of the response. Given more than a minute-and-a-half to blather on, Haley remarked

There's a lot of things, I mean, you want to start with- biological boys playing girls' sports. That's one thing. the fact that we have gender pronouns in classes in the military now. I mean, all of those things that are pushing what a small minority want on the majority of Americans. It's too much; it's too much. I mean the idea that we have biological boys playing girls' sports- it is the women's issue of our time.

I'll leave it to others to explain why keeping boys out of women's sports is not what the women's movement was meant to be or is. Nonetheless, referring not once, but twice, to girls having to compete against boys is a strong tactical move when vying for votes from conservatives. And appealing to the conservative sense of victimhood- "it's too much, it's too much"- works with the many conservatives who complain about liberals claiming victimhood while they themselves frequently do so.

"The majority" cited brings to mind the notion Richard M. Nixon's "silent minority" of an (alleged) elite minority imposing its views on the rest of us. You'll notice that Haley returns to this theme at the end when she refers to "pushing what a small minority want." That's pretty slick coming from a woman who stated during the event her opposition to red flag laws, a  gun safety measure supported by a majority of Americans.

The guest continued

My daughter ran track in high school. I don't even know how I would have that conversation with her. How are we supposed to get our girls used to the fact that biological boys are in the locker rooms? And then we wonder why a third of our teenage girls seriously contemplated suicide last year? We should be growing strong girls, confident girls.

"I am woman, hear me roar.!"  Expected to be the only woman in the GOP presidential sweepstakes, Haley wants to claim that lane, though her anti-feminist macho girl routine probably won't work.

The percent of teenage girls who contemplated suicide in 2022 is thought to be a little lower, approximately 30%,  than one-third. Far worse, obviously, is that she is blaming suicide ideation on transgenderism., which has has far less impact on this than has the pandemic or, more so, social media. Nonetheless, in a party in which the leading candidate probably would have said "most" are considering suicide and blamed it on Joe Biden (or "the Democrats"), this was not Haley's worst sin of the night, and possibly not even of the response. And yet again, Haley goes to girls' sports- which strokes the conservative id- and better yet, personalizes her remark by referring to her daughter.

Haley added

There you go and talk about building a strong military. How are you going to build the morale n a strong military when you're doing gender pronoun classes? Why is-is (applause)- why is it that you have, you know, kids undergoing critical race theory where if a little girls is in kindergarten, that she goes into kindergarten- if she's white, you're telling her she's bad if she's brown or black, you're telling her she's never going to be good enough and she's going to be a victim.

All of these things have gone to where they're pushing- and you know, transgender- the whole issue of transgender. It's not that people in America don't think you should live the way you want to live. I want every body to live the way they want to live . But stop pushing your views on everybody else. That's the problem, that they're starting to push their views on the rest of us.

Don't underestimate the strategic importance of "they," as in "where they're pushing" and "they're starting to push..."  Early in her rant, it was worse (or better) as the ex-governor stated "all of those things that are pushing what a small minority want..." 

All of those things that are pushing? Do things- or people- do the pushing?  Of course, the phrase is not supposed to make sense because the candidate wisely wants to keep it vague. If she mentions any names, a separate issue, such as whether the individual(s) actually did or said what she is claiming, emerges.

The "town hall" format is designed to give a public official opportunity to turn toward the audience in the hall and beyond; to babble as he or she pleases, saying whatever the intended audience wants to hear; to avoid answering whatever questions the guest wishes to sidestep. It is as intended by the network: a 60-90 minute campaign ad.  Haley's response to a request that she define "woke" was uninformed, imprecise, haphazard, and dishonest.  For a Republican primary electorate, that's one adjective better than a trifecta.

Share |

The Real Anti-Trump Path

History doesn't always repeat, circumstances change over time, and Republican voters are not identical to Democratic voters. In the following podcast of Breaking Points. in which Emily Jashinsky told Krystal Ball discussed polling results which display Joe Biden's vulnerability in a general election and even in being nominated. They transitioned into addressing the Republican race for the nomination and Jashinsky caught my eye (ear, really) when she remarked (at 3:02 of the video below)

When I think about Tim Scott's campaign, uh, they're saying, like literally, we have no idea what's going to happen a year from now. We have no idea what's going to transpire, so we're just going to kind of wait in the wings and see what happens and we'll be the best in position if, if something changes.

The conventional wisdom is that Donald Trump's campaign is most likely to be upended or stymied if the candidate is indicted (beyond Manhattan) and GOP voters become considerably wary that the ex-President could not be elected because of his legal troubles. However, not only is there another path to defeating Trump as the nominee but it the one which Tim Scott- and perhaps others- believe is more likely.

Consider a little bit of history, which may or may not be applicable. In an article which appeared in the May, 2004 issue of The Atlantic, Paul Maslin, one of the four chief strategists for Howard Dean, detailed  the presidential campaign strategy of his candidate in the run-up to the Iowa caucus, which largely decided the nomination. Shortly before caucus day, as the two top candidates were expected to be John Kerry and Dean, the campaign ran a television ad criticizing Dean's strongest opponent. Maslin wrote

When we ran the ad, it barely brushed the intended targets—Kerry and Edwards—but delivered a devastating blow to (Dick) Gephardt. Quite naturally, he fought back—with a "kitchen sink" negative ad on us, which ran midweek. That ad, which attacked Dean's views on Medicare and Social Security, snuffed out what little chance we had left at victory—Dean and Gephardt were both increasingly seen by Iowans as running negative campaigns. The exchange, called off within days by both sides, nevertheless sent us hurtling to a crushing defeat instead of a narrow loss that we should have been able to endure. Had the vote been closer, I believe, there would have been no "I have a scream" speech on caucus night. All the habits we had learned so early in this race—work fast, use Iraq, be aggressive—were coming back to haunt us.

As the front-runner, Dean had been criticized by several candidates but most strenuously by Representative (and former Minority Leader) Gephardt. Gephardt had gone hard after Dean, and Dean (inadvertently, according to Maslin) retaliated robustly. Gephardt dropped out, Dean lost the primary and subsequent to the much overhyped, infamous "scream," went on to losing the nomination decisively.

The nomination went to the candidate, John Kerry, who mostly had stayed out of the fray. Fast forward sixteen years to the 2020 contest for the Democratic presidential nomination and before the Nevada caucus, when Elizabeth Warren

launched her first broadside against Bloomberg just minutes into the debate, setting the tone for the night.

“I’d like to talk about who we’re running against,” she said. “A billionaire who calls women ‘fat broads’ and ‘horse-faced lesbians.’ And no, I’m not talking about Donald Trump. I’m talking about Mayor Bloomberg.”

About 40 minutes later, the debate returned to Bloomberg’s alleged mistreatment of women when he was asked to address the accusations. He responded by touting the number of women in leadership positions within his foundation and business, noting, “I have no tolerance for the kind of behavior that the #MeToo movement has exposed.”

Bloomberg faces attacks for refusing to release women from confidentiality agreements

“I hope you heard what his defense was: ‘I’ve been nice to some women,’ ” Warren said, drawing applause. “That just doesn’t cut it.”

Warren then immediately zeroed in on the nondisclosure agreements signed by women who sued Bloomberg, demanding that he release them from the deals and allow their alleged accounts of harassment or discrimination to become public. And from there, the situation only continued to spiral.

Warren repeatedly pressured Bloomberg to reveal how many agreements were signed and attacked his character and electability in light of the allegations, prompting the former mayor to issue defenses that many thought made him look worse.

“None of them accused me of anything other than maybe they didn’t like a joke I told,” Bloomberg said at one point, prompting boos and gasps from the audience. He also declined to release women from the nondisclosure deals saying, “They signed the agreements, and that’s what we’re going to live with.”

Bloomberg was done, finished, obliterated while Warren was boosted. This sort of reaction was common:

Time to update Bloomberg's Wikipedia page...

Date of death: 2/19/2020
Place: Democratic Debate stage
Cause: Elizabeth Ann Warren#DemDebate

— Adam Best (@adamcbest) February 20, 2020

On CNN, Van Jones stated “Bloomberg went in as the Titanic — billion-dollar-machine Titanic. Titanic, meet iceberg Elizabeth Warren.” Bloomberg went in to the debate as an extremely plausible Democratic nominee and came out shattered.

Warren had proven the giant-killer. Two days after the debate, the Nevada caucus was held and Bernie Sanders emerged as the most(more?) viable progressive contender for the nomination as he pulled down 46.8% of the voted. Joe Biden received 20.22%, Pete Buttigieg, 11.3%,, and Warren 9.7%.

The Massachusetts senator stayed in the race for a while but she was essentially eliminated after Nevada. She was done in by Nevada voters, who saw two Democrats fighting and decided that strife was not for them. Better to hold hands and sign "kumbaya," and eventually Sanders lost out to the milquetoast Joe Biden. That's the way it is with Democrats, anyway. "Can't we all just get along?"

Republicans may be different. Joe Scarborough and others in the mainstream media blather about Tim Scott having a lane in the Republican nominating contest because he exudes a cheery optimism reminiscent, they pray, of Ronald Reagan while Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis are nattering nabobs of negativism. They fundamentally miss the rationale of the Senator's candidacy.

Republican voters believe the country is going to hell in a handbasket, a major reason they are attracted to DeSantis and especially Grump- uh, er, Trump. Many believe, additionally, that the latter is the once, current, and future President.

Although something has to happen to Trump if he is to be derailed, no Republican in the race is willing to criticize the 45th President. They all are waiting around wishing and hoping that the other guy (or gal) attacks Trump, erodes his numbers, and give them their opening.

Realistically speaking, there is one and only one (potential) candidate who would do that.  Someone confrontational, brash, and not a little nasty, perhaps somebody who exudes a bit of that Sopranos, stereotypical Jersey impulse.

Donald Trump says he would end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours tonight on CNN. Despite how ridiculous that is to say, I suspect he would try to do it by turning Ukraine over to Putin and Russia. #Putin’sPuppet

— Chris Christie (@GovChristie) May 11, 2023

 

Each- but especially a Tim Scott, who has better than a snowball's chance in hell- is waiting for former New Jersey governor Chris Christie He can be, candidates believe, a modern Jesus Christ- sacrificing himself to death (in this case of the political sort) on their behalf. Ironically, there are GOP candidates whose best hope lies in the possibility that Republican voters are similar to Democratic voters.

As a New Jerseyan, I can confirm that the only similarity between Chris Christie and Jesus Christ is in the first six letters of the former governor's name.  And yes, Tim Scott would like to demonstrate vote-getting ability in presidential primaries so he can become vice-presidential timber. However, Scott won't attain even that status unless someone puts a serious dent into the clear front-runner. A former prosecutor, Christie likely believes he can prosecute the case against Trump and, in either case, is probably the only one who can do so in the belligerent manner necessary for Republican voters to sit up and take notice.

It's conceivable that Christie will stay out of the race. He is, after all, more concerned with his own political future than anyone else's, a characteristic of most politicians. Nonetheless, he is a very good retail politician and unlike some candidates- such as Scott, DeSantis, and Nikki Haley- has no chance to be a vice-presidential nominee. He'd be in it to draw blood.

"If something changes," as Emily Jashinsky put it, it probably would be a fellow Republican getting into a figurative knife fight with Donald J. Trump.  Like Richard Gephardt and Elizabeth Warren, Chris Christie would take no prisoners. That would be a confrontation worth watching and provide the best opportunity for someone to thwart Donald J. Trump.

 

Share |