The Screaming Moderate

There's the war of attrition..but don't forget the Big War

2/20/2020

The Democrats had a very lively almost entertaining debate last night with plenty of sub-plots. Still, it wasn’t hard to determine the candidate who stood out: Donald Trump.

Trump stood out because the six Democrats on stage seemed more focused on tearing each other down rather than focusing on Trump. In fact, the Trump campaign I’m sure got a few video clips they can use in their effective online campaign. Probably already running.

I didn't count but his name wasn't mentioned often.

If any of the Democrats on stage gained or at least didn't lose, it was Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who is leading the polls at the moment. Bernie sat happily (if one could tell when Bernie is happy) watching his opponents attack each other while he just fell back on the same diatribes he’s been spouting for years (the 1 percent, billionaires, capitalism and the working men and women, health care for all, pay off tuition debt). Put a nickel in any of us who pay attention and we can probably recite back all of Bernie’s talking points, almost verbatim.

Still, no one really landed a glove on him so he escapes with his lead. The only question is has he hit his ceiling in votes?

From the first minute it appeared Trump would be the focus when Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren quoted a negative statement about women and pulled off the punchline – it wasn’t a quote from Trump but from Michael Bloomberg, the first shot he’s taken in a debate in many years. And it showed.

Bloomberg took a lot of hits, many deserved, but for most of the debate he looked like a spoiled rich kid who wondered why he had to be there and I’d agree.

I’m not sure why he felt the need to be on the stage when he’s spending tens of millions of dollars showing ads in which he looks strong. ads that already have shot him up to second or third in the polls. He did not show that strong leader trait for most of last night. And when he tried, he didn’t pull them off (like, he doesn’t go to Turbo Tax for his taxes to get done. Uh, we knew that Mike but I’m guessing millions took it as you’re rich and they’re not. We knew that that too.)

Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar followed up her best debate performance with maybe her worst as the most outstanding memory of her from this debate was her arguing with her stage neighbor – former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigeg – who may look too young but still came across more often as the adult on the stage. He may be the only one who doesn’t scream when he talks, thank goodness. Meantime, Sen. Klobuchar didn't help herself at all last night and showed she angers quickly. One can imagine from her performance that the knock on her that she mismanges her staff probably are true.

Former Vice President Joe Biden had another so-so debate. He wasn’t heard from for about 30 minutes and I nearly forgot that he was on stage. He’s still arguing thought that he’s been in government a long time, knows other countries’ leaders by their first names and he can be president from Day One. (Uh, we know that but what kind of president will you be? And I really like him.)

Still there were no haymakers landing on President Trump. The Democrats instead stood in a circle and fired their guns. That may win the war of attrition but it won’t win in November.

0 Comments

Hullabaloos everywhere

2/13/2020

0 Comments

Watching the TV news or reading the print headlines, there are two huge hullabaloos taking place right now.

One, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, they say, is leading the race to be the Democratic presidential nominee and the other is that President Donald Trump is trampling on the Constitution and (more) political norms.

First, Sen. Sanders: If you look at the delegate counts right now, after two tiny states have voted, former Mayor Pete Buttigieg is leading by one delegate. The popular vote, while interesting, doesn’t matter because that’s not how the Iowa caucuses assign delegates won.

In New Hampshire, which neighbors Sanders’ Vermont, the senator won the popular vote by about 1.5 percentage points, far from the 22 points he won by four years ago. I think the difference tells you more about how disliked Hillary Clinton was than how popular Sanders was. He indeed was facing 7 challengers this year but he dropped back to what many consider his ceiling in votes. General consensus is that he has a base of about 25 percent of the Democratic primary voters, which is where he’s been most of the time in polls. In a field of even eight, that’s a good amount but it can't be called outdistancing all his opponents.

But to call Sanders the front runner as of today is a bit far off the actual numbers. That’s not to say he isn’t a hot candidate. He is. But he’s not, yet, drawing from a broad swath of Democrats. It may show us, though, how important positive media coverage is especially in a primary if one candidate is continuously hawked as the front-runner.

We’ll see.

Former Vice President Joe Biden is in a hole, obviously, but his people must have always known he would be. He never has done well in primaries or in Iowa and he may continue that bad streak this year. He definitely needs to finish first or second in Nevada and first in South Carolina to be called anything close to a front-runner. Or even a contender.

Also, Sanders is no Donald Trump, but in one sense he may be. Trump took over the GOP four years ago and he was definitely an outsider with no known base to draw from. Now, he’s the GOP leader because he’s President and because nearly every elected Republican is scared to death of him. Sanders is not even a registered Democrat and refuses to register as one even as he criticizes the party for allegedly opposing him as the candidate (uh, calling yourself a Democratic Socialist probably isn’t the best label against Trump, but at least it’s honest).

In any event, in that sense Bernie is a Trump -- an outsider trying to take over the party. Trump succeeded. Will Sanders?

Which leads us to Trump’s hullabaloo.

He barely took a breath from being acquitted of the impeachment charges (thanks to a nearly unanimous GOP vote in the Senate). And he began his revenge, firing people, pulling federal job nominations away from people, using his might to try to get a reduced sentence for Roger Stone (well, a reduced recommendation, sort of. It’s up to the judge to declare a sentence), he’s bringing back allies to the White House (the highly partisan Trump-backer Cong. Mark Meadows, most likely, and this morning it’s reported that Hope Hicks is making a return engagement).

On Stone, the sentence recommendation, according to many experts, was harsh but it’s what the prosecutors recommended after, supposedly, running it up their chain of command at the Justice Department as is the rule. As soon as their superiors, after a presidential tweet, distanced themselves and entered a no recommendation to the court, the four prosecutors pulled their names off the case, and, further, one resigned from the department. None, yet, has explained his or her reasons.

Trump dismissed these prosecutors because in his transactional and vengeful mind, they were part of Bob Mueller’s team and, therefore, tainted by politics. His supporters, elected and average man and woman, of course, take up that talking point immediately because they indeed believe there is a “deep state” against Trump.

He also corrals all his “opponents” in DC into “the swamp” that he claims to be draining. He isn’t. He is simply removing anyone who opposes him and calls them swamp creatures while replacing them with his own swamp dwellers.

With Trump there is always an enemy, has to be for his form of leadership to work, and he is still using Mueller/his team and the Clintons.

Far more importantly, he is learning that he can use his position and power to do favors for his compadres right out in the open, and he pays no price whatsoever. So, why not push the envelope further?

And he will. Will anyone in power push back?

0 Comments

Political season is heating up

2/10/2020

1 Comment

I’ve always promoted the strategy that Democrats should, early, pick a presidential nominee, get behind him or her, and get their coalition together in a force to oppose Donald Trump, who is becoming a more formidable foe than some anticipated. Getting everyone on board early, I theorized, would avoid splitting votes among a myriad of candidates and end the infighting over ideology when the main goal is to beat Donald Trump.

I’ve always thought, too, that Joe Biden was the right candidate because he would be the most effective transition president away from Trump and toward, well, normal.

I still believe in that strategy but it’s complicated now by the non-results in Iowa and the likely results in New Hampshire – Sen. Bernie Sanders and Mayor Pete likely leading the way with possibly Sen. Elizabeth Warren third. Before Pete caught fire, Biden could have finished his fourth in Iowa and even New Hampshire, where he could honestly point to two neighboring state U.S. Senators leading the way and being too much to overcome. But that strategy is gone.

The press is onto Mayor Pete being the outsider this time, and they do love that narrative. Uh, until the next one comes along.

Now, IF Biden can hang in there until South Carolina, where the Democratic base is a more mixed demographic, he still will have an uphill battle. His funders, I doubt, will stay with him that long.

So, assuming Biden drops out at some point, who is the favorite for the nomination? Probably the other mayor, Mike Bloomberg. I have my reasons for thinking he can’t win but with the Democratic base looking at a choice of Bernie, Pete or Mike, I have a feeling I know where they’re going. It’s not so much that Democrats don’t like Bernie it’s that they just don’t think he can win. And, don’t lose touch with the fact that Bernie is not a Democrat and that doesn’t sit well either.

If my little scenario ever played out, that doesn’t make Mayor Mike a better opponent for Trump – Bloomberg brings along his own baggage with minority voters and others.

But, they are probably more overcome-able than having a self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist or a 37-year old who, while impressive so far, does not have sufficient experience to be President (I know, look who’s President now). Plus, who then would Mayor Pete pick as a running mate to balance his weaknesses? I dunno but the options don’t look promising in that match-up.

Sanders also is on a bit of a free ride as the other candidates are not attacking him as much as they are each other. Probably because Sanders does have a cult-like base that is sticking with him no matter what. Uh, sound familiar? We have a president like that now.

Meanwhile, Trump had the best week of his presidency. Though when you consider one of the highlights of the week was a tribe of Republican senators who saved him from being thrown out of office, the highlights aren’t so high.

He was impeached, ya know. And saved by a bunch of senators scared for their own futures.Thank goodness Alan Dershowitz, came through for them with a ridiculous reason to acquit but not so ridiculous that they couldn’t hide behind it.

The economy keeps on keeping on and likely will not enter a recession this year – the best medicine for Trump to take into a re-election campaign. The economy has been resilient. It has been growing for a record 12 years now (yes, 12. The recovery began under Obama despite what Trump says. The incumbent President always gets the credit for a good economy and, at least historically, the blame when it goes bad.)

Trump also credits himself with a fabulous State of the Union but he never did care about how many lies he tells and this speech was a bonanza of lies. Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripped up the speech. I can't blame her but I think she was wrong to do it giving Trump and his supporters memes (many phony) for weeks.

Biden has been a miserable candidate this year. But if you’re old enough to have lived through his other unsuccessful runs for President, you know that isn’t news. He’s just a bad, probably also outdated, candidate. But, it’s true he is a nice guy.

At the moment, this is lining up as a successful re-election for Trump. But fear not! There still are other factors that aren’t yet in play.

First, he isn’t one-on-one with anyone yet and that will change the dynamic. Second, he won the presidency by not too many votes, but enough to take three key electoral states to win. How he does in those states this time around is an unknown. The economy still hasn’t lifted those areas and, like New Hampshire and other states, there are still big pockets where the economy has not helped the middle class. At all.

Tax cuts benefiting the wealthiest have fueled the economy and Trump can applaud how well 401k’s are doing but only for those who have them, and much of the America overlooked for so long doesn’t have them, or health care.

Trump is fighting like always, though. He knows, for example, that he doesn’t have to win the African American vote, he just needs to get a few more percentage points to make a big difference. He, or his people, are as cagey on that as always.

So, it’s not over yet – it’s really just begun but you cannot take your eye off the ball.

1 Comment

The State of the Union is, fill in the blank

2/5/2020

0 Comments

The state of our union is, well, fill in the blank. If you’re a Trump supporter things are great and if you’re not our democracy is being threatened.

From President Trump’s (intentional?) non-shake of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s hand, to her skipping announcing, “It is my high privilege and distinct honor of presenting to you the President of the United States“ to her ripping up his speech as he bathed in the partisan applause after he finished.

In typical polarized fashion, if you saw Trump not shake Pelosi’s hand and support Trump you saw it as a deserved snub and insult. After all, she just led the effort to impeach him. Or he may just have been demonstrating his germ issue and well known aversion to shaking hands.

When Pelosi skipped the traditional intro and you support her, you think he deserved it or, if you support him, that he just began his speech before she could get out the words, or she intentionally was dissing the President.

Trump should not have left her hand unshaken and she never should have ripped up the speech.

Indeed, we are one mucked up country.

Not to mention the Democrats kicked off the week with a disaster in Iowa where we still don’t have the final results (at least at this writing). And, what results we have show Joe Biden lagging in fourth place. Then again, that may be his best Iowa finish in three tries – so glass half full?

Trump’s speech included more exaggerations and lies than it did facts, and still he was interrupted mostly by Republicans for applause numerous times. Pelosi and others in her party were shown shaking their heads, slumping and basically ticked off by what they were hearing. Trump called for action on controlling prices for prescription drugs and a bunch of Democrats stood holding up three fingers, signifying HR 3, a House-passed bill, to do just that and that has not been taken up in the Republican-controlled Senate.

A Medal of Freedom was awarded to conservative firebrand Rush Limbaugh, recently diagnosed with an aggressive cancer, and it was hung around his neck on the spot. Instant highest honor the country can give a civilian!! A scholarship that “just became available” was given to a young African American girl, again live on the new reality show, “This is Just One Long Campaign Commercial.” To top it off a 100-year old Tuskegee Airman was promoted to brigadier general live on the air. And, a decorated active duty soldier was reunited with his family as he came out from behind the doorway to surprise his wife and kids.

Reality TV meet the State of the Union.

Impeachment was never mentioned but today Trump likely will be acquitted of impeachment articles passed by the Democratic House and he will witness Republican senators declare the charges not worthy of removal from office but with many admitting, in true Lou Costello fashion, that he did a bad, bad thing but he learned his lesson (like him or not, have you ever witnessed him learning a lesson?).

What would you call the state of the union?

0 Comments

Dershowitz gives cover for a no-impeachment vote

1/30/2020

0 Comments

President Trump, who views himself as at most a tyrant and at least as a CEO-type who every employee should kowtow to, will feel all the more powerful when he is acquitted in the impeachment trial.

That is partly due to one of his lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, who argued that as long as the President, who like every candidate believes his election is in the national interest, is acting in what he sees as the public’s best interest to get himself re-elected, he has done nothing impeachable.

I don’t care in this moment if you are a supporter of Trump or not, Dershowitz’ argument would put anti-constitutional power in a president’s hands. Dershowtiz’ take on the Constitution is a minority one in the world of constitutional experts. As one of his former Harvard colleagues, Professor Charles Fried put it, Dershowitz’ position made the “very best argument for getting (former NSC Advisor John) Bolton’s testimony” so the Senate can determine Trump’s motives and whether they’re “different from the national interest.”

Some Republican senators already are using Dershowitz’ words to justify their coming "no witnesses" vote which will lead to their not guilty verdict. Dershowitz’ argument whether they agree with it or not is giving them cover to acquit Trump.

Of course today Dershowitz and some Fox talking heads are saying, basically, he didn’t say what he said. Dershowitz tweeted, “They (critics) characterized my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election was in the national interest, he can do anything. I said nothing like that, as anyone who actually heard what I said can attest.”

Well, I was watching and listening. He said that if a president (or any candidate really) thinks his election is in the public interest, then any action he takes cannot be considered a quid pro quo. But more importantly, many Republican senators are taking what he said as cover to vote to acquit Trump.

Just go listen to the tape, or on YouTube or whatever, and try to forget your political beliefs. Just listen to what he said and I think you’ll agree.

Now in the great scheme of life Dershowitz', who is at heart, a criminal defense lawyer, is a minority interpretation. But those Republican senators are using it as a crutch to justify their acquittal vote. And, when he is acquitted you can bet your bottom dollar that Trump will use it to further his corruption of the government. It should be a humdinger of a State of the Union address next week.

There also are articles today saying that the ultimate vote on calling witnesses could end in a 50-50 tie and put Chief Justice Roberts in the position of breaking the tie, or letting the tie stand and then the issue of witnesses will be moot.

There will be no 50-50 vote. Majority Leader McConnell isn’t the only good vote-counter in the Senate, Those couple of senators who indicated they might-maybe-possibly could vote for more witnesses (Romney, Collins, Murkowsi, Alexander) will read the votes and see no witnesses is a foregone conclusion and they will vote to have no witnesses. It’s done all the time in Congress – see how the vote’s going; if you can’t win by voting your conscience, go with the majority and cover your rear. 53-47 here we come.

Of course I believe Bolton should testify. He was in the room. He knows. And anyone who knows Bolton knows he’s a straight-shooter. In fact, that’s one reason Trump didn’t like him on his staff.

On a side note, if they call Joe Biden, he could see it as a huge opportunity. They would be questioning him on the subject he feels most passionate about – his family. If he gave a good performance, it would only help him. But, it’s a big risk because he could screw up.

In any event, he has no relevant testimony. If there were any evidence of his wrong doing, Republicans should pull it out, show it and have the Justice Department investigate. There has only been innuendo, no evidence. They aren’t asking the FBI or Justice to investigate. That’s because there is no evidence.

Our political situation is very messed up, to say the least. If Trump is acquitted, as he will be, and if he wins re-election – the country will be in for the test of our lives to protect our Democracy.

0 Comments

I'm no lawyer but...

1/20/2020

0 Comments

The President’s defense team is going to argue that Donald J. Trump not only committed no crime but that abuse of power is not a constitutional violation.

So, no crime and abuse of power is okay.

This would mean the only way to remove a president from power is for him or her to commit a statutory crime.

With his caucus publicly firmly behind him, Majority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell is counting on keeping the 53 votes he has, which will mean an acquittal for Trump.

No matter your view of Trump, think what those arguments will mean if Trump is acquitted. This President will feel he has the freedom to basically do whatever he wants with his last year in office and his potential four more years in office.

With some guardrails in place, we thought there was some control on the President whoever it is. If those rails are taken away, it’s literally Katie bar the door! Think what that means for future presidents who want to make money rather than maintain the American people’s security. Or are in the pocket of a foreign government that can sway an election his or her way.

I was accepting of the fact that Trump wouldn’t be convicted but that was when I thought his legal arguments would be based on his claimed innocence.

Now, his acquittal would increase his power. There will be no check and balance on the President

Think what a Democratic president, too, can do if he or she feels that he cannot abuse power
This truly makes this trial more than a political trial and one that literally is about the future of this country.

If my non-legal background take is correct as outlined here, this truly can mean the end of the rule of law – and the end of this country – if Trump is acquitted. I do not believe that is overstatement.

We have to let our senators know how we feel as this trial goes on because if we don’t, those 53 senators – fearful of being the target of Trump’s wrath and his voters votes – can do as they please.

This is not about liking or disliking Donald Trump. This is about what we have believed our Constitution says about removing a President from office who has gone rogue on following the law or has sold his soul to an enemy of the country.

0 Comments

Trump thinks he's King (he isn't)

1/14/2020

1 Comment

Typical of President Trump’s style, he is creating his legacy without earning it. Among the things he takes credit for are:

Improvements in cancer survival rates (he actually has cut dollars for cancer research in his budgets)
The biggest tax reduction in history (it isn’t)
The best economy in history (it isn’t)
The leader of another country winning the Nobel Prize (he had nothing to do with it)
Saving “pre-existing conditions” in health care (he did the opposite)
Bailing out farmers hit by trade wars (he instigated those trade wars causing the farmers to lose that money)
Making it okay to say “Merry Christmas” again (he didn’t)

You get the idea.

Like most thing in Trump’s life, he figures if he claims credit often enough, he’ll get credit. (he won’t).

Trump apparently also believes that as President he has a license to kill. His various explanations of why he ordered the assassination of Iran’s top general has floated among several options – from we faced “imminent” attack by Iran to they were about to attack four of our embassies and his latest which can be summed up as “the general deserved to die for all the heinous things he did in his life.”

That is true, but apparently Trump now believes he can kill at will and answer to no one. Let me quickly add: NO ONE BELIEVES THE GENERAL’s DEATH WASN’T JUSTIFIED NOR IS ANYONE TAKING HIS SIDE AND DEFENDING HIS MURDEROUS DEEDS.

It’s just that the United States doesn’t kill without a legitimate justification. And, it’s important that the Congress, or at least the Gang of Eight, is notified.

He even thinks he can tell the Republican-led Senate to just dismiss the impeachment articles about to be sent its way without any kind of a trial (a trial he begged for to show his innocence). Seems if he is innocent, he would allow his people to testify under oath to that fact. No one holds back a witness who can clear his name.

Bottom line: Trump thinks, as we all know, that being President of the United States equals being King/Dictator of the country and he can ignore the Constitution (he can't).

1 Comment

When does the lying end?

1/10/2020

0 Comments

If you thought this was a politically polarized nation before, the killing of Iran's General Quasem Soleimani completed the deal. In the aftermath of the Trump Administration killing what everyone in the West considered a terrorist with American and other blood on his hands, we have seen Republicans pointing fingers at Democrats as the “only ones mourning the general’s killing.”

That’s far from what any Democrat has said but it is one line of attack some Republicans are using, including President Trump. But it doesn’t end with Trump, of course, it begins there. We have seen the formerly respected and former United Nations ambassador, Nikki Haley, go full Trump by being a leader of this chorus.

The woman who, on leaving the Administration, tried to balance keeping Trump on her side but not always agreeing with him, has now decided apparently that her future rests with Donald Trump. She clearly is all in with him.

Another leader in the “Democrats love terrorists” chorus is Rep. Douglas Collins (R-Ga.) who led the Trump defense in the House impeachment hearings and who said, “…they mourn Soleimani more than they mourn our gold star families who are the ones who suffered under Soleimani.” (I won’t go into how Collins’ North Star has treated gold star families when he was a candidate for president).

This line of attack while not being true is beyond disgusting. No Democrats love terrorists. Any more than any Republican loves terrorists.

But this is the depth our rhetoric has sunk to in the opening days of 2020. If you like what January has brought for political debate, just wait until Trump’s State of the Union address in early February which will probably be after the Republican-controlled Senate holds its trial on impeachment and clears Trump of any wrongdoing.

War, or near war, used to be where the political swords were put away in Washington. No more. I don’t believe there has been a President in my lifetime who has notified Congress before going to near-war or war. The timing of such decisions just don’t make it an easy notification to make. But, Congress does have a role (in spite of former Trump spokeswoman Sarah Sanders claiming the Democrats on the Hill’s efforts to “run foreign policy” violate the Constitution. Actually, what they’re trying to do is exactly what the Constitution gives them a role in.)

But, truth matters not a whit to Trump or his people. He lies and he has shown his people a new path in politics – the Politics of Lying. When the facts don’t help, don’t use facts – make them up. (I hear you saying “but all politicians lie.” Truth is, they don’t. And most don’t flat-out like as the President does).

Count me in on those who think the world is a better place without Soleimani. That isn’t the issue. The issue is what role Congress has in determining when the United States goes to war. They have a role. They have a right to information to make their decisions. We pay them as we pay the President, we have a right to know (not all classified information) but enough to know what the heck our tax dollars are going to.

(Tangent: The Treasury Department as we speak is trying to hide expenses for the President and his family when they’re on vacation. This is not how our government is supposed to work. We have the right to know. That's our money they're spending. And, one more thing, we learn more about what the President is doing in meetings with foreign leaders from those foreign leaders. Russia put out details of a Trump phone call before the White House even announced the call. And, Iraq announced it talked to Secretary of State Pompeo about removing our troops from Iraq when the official read out from State never mentioned that little detail.)

As we head toward the end of Trump’s term, you need to look ahead to a possible second term for him. If he has so ignored traditional norms (not that some of them shouldn’t be updated) in his first term, when he does have to face accountability in the form of an election, how much can he ignore or violate in a second term? The punishment for a President committing "high crimes and misdemeanors will mean nothing once the Senate clears Trump of his current charges. He will know he can, as he has throughout his life, beat the rap. Pay no consequences.

Trump sees himself as the all-powerful leader of the United States. He doesn’t seem to understand the Congress’ role in governing the country. He went to a foreign leader(s) seeking help in his re-eleciton campaign which is against the law, his people lie (I’ll explain) to the Congress when they go to brief them on a military action, and a 1000 other things, what will he do in a second term?

His folks lied to Congress when they briefed them on the Soleimani Operation. They apparently claimed that they could not share some of the intelligence with them because of its sensitivity. That is total baloney. The Gang of Eight, the top leadership in the House, is cleared at a very high level. And there are ways to offer information without identifying the source, if that is their concern. Plus, I wonder how much the President has told his cronies (yes you, Lindsay Graham) but won’t tell the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, a man who Trump’s “counselor” called untrustworthy in a TV interview.

Where and when does all this lying end?

0 Comments

When it comes to 2020, it is not a perfect world

12/26/2019

2 Comments

The 2020 presidential election is not one where you should vote with your heart. Vote with your brain.

I hear a lot of friends tell me things like, “I’m voting for Elizabeth Warren because she’ll tax the wealthy and help the little guy.” Or, “I’m with Bernie because he wants health care for all!” And on and on.

Some tell me they’re not supporting Joe Biden because “his time has passed.”

People, if your primary goal in the 2020 election is to defeat Donald Trump, vote with your head, not your heart.

Trump, guaranteed, will try to paint any opponent as a “liberal” and out of the mainstream of American thinking. Hell, when I was working for the Republican Party back in the 80s and early 90s, we won elections on that claim all the time!

That’s why liberals today call themselves “progressives,” so they can shed that liberal label.

I was talking to a friend the other day. He asked me who I was for in the 2020 election. I said I’ve been for Biden all the way. Why? He’s a good guy. He’s prepared to serve from the minute he takes the oath. Will he go down as the best president ever in our entire history? Doubtful. But that’s not what I’m voting for in 2020. I’m voting for the person who can lead AND who can beat Donald Trump.

If you really think Sen. Warren can win, go for her. But I think you’d be fooling yourself. She, and other Democratic hopefuls just cannot win, in my humble opinion. And, many of them will not be able to effectively take on Trump in debates, if he participates in them.

Joe Biden can definitely take him on and be a grown up about it. Remember Marco Rubio last time around? Trump started talking about his manhood and how it’s the biggest manhood the world has ever seen and what did Rubio do? He fell into Trump’s trap and started talking about his manhood. Can you say game over?

Plus, there are many in the Democratic field who will be perfectly fitting as a vice presidential candidate or Cabinet members, getting more experience to maybe some day run again. Biden probably won’t promise he won’t run for a second term, but he’s unlikely to.

If it was a perfect world I would agree. Biden’s time is passed. But because of Donald Trump, Biden’s time may have just arrived.

2 Comments

Lessons learned from the Twitterverse

12/12/2019

1 Comment

The other day I did something I rarely do. I commented on a Twitter tweet posted by a friend/acquaintance. I did it intentionally for one reason. I was, I thought, adding a clarifying fact to his post.

This friend/acquaintance I’ve known for about 30 years. He’s not a friend I’d spent any time with. He is more a professional friend. He, though, has nearly 400,000 followers on Twitter (I have 447 but that’s not the point). And his name isn’t important either because my learned lessons had little to do with him personally.

His tweet pointed out that CNN was not covering the Justice Department’s inspector general hearing live. I realized that CNN was teasing the hearing, but it wasn’t on air at that moment. What CNN did was make the news judgement that the opening statements by members – typically focused solely on partisan points of view – weren’t newsworthy so they didn’t carry them. They did, though, cover the hearing live when it moved on to the testimony.

So, I responded to him that fact. He responded within seconds pointing out that CNN did air the opening statements of the Democratic chairs on the impeachment hearings live but wasn't carrying the Senate's Republican chairman. He instructed me, “don’t defend their double standard.” I said something like, true but I could have lived happily not hearing those Democratic opening statements too. (I’m not exactly sure why he felt the need to instruct me what to do, but that’s not the key point either).

The news judgement was, apparently, that the impeachment hearings and the inspector general hearing on a report are not equal. Thus the opening statements had different import in each case.

Then the “likes” and comments came rolling through from my friend/acquaintance’s nearly 400,000 followers both “liking” his responses to me and, sometimes, adding their own. They said I was missing the point (though I’m not sure I really am. CNN made a news judgement like every other mainstream media outlet – print or broadcast – does all the time. I saw that as a correct judgement, they saw it as evidence of CNN’s bias against President Trump.) But that’s not the point either.

I don’t comment often on other people's Tweets but I do use Twitter as one platform for distributing this blog.

Even though my name on my Twitter account is “B. Jay Cooper” one responder said “perfect initials.” Obviously meaning the “BJ” and the various things (though he clearly had one in mind) that BJ can stand for. Frankly, I hadn’t heard such a brilliant comeback referring to my initials since I was in the fourth grade. (“Brava!” as Sirius Radio DJ Seth Rudetsky would say).

There were, literally, hundreds of “likes” or responses, some agreeing with my comments but the vast majority taking the other side and the other side in this case clearly wasn’t just my friend/acquaintance but President Trump's.

My first thought when I saw the number of responses (and they kept coming in the next morning and still are as I write this) was “do you have lives?” My second more reasonable thought was – the polarization of this country is even worse than I imagined.

Imagine, more than a hundred (I didn’t count them but Twitter apparently stops when it says “so and so and 98 others” responded. The vitriol. The, in some cases, immaturity. All because I pointed out what I (a former reporter) and other former reporters I talked to about it said -- CNN made the correct news judgement.

As Steve Martin used to say: “Well, ex-cuuuuuuse me!”

Folks, no leader is going to come around and fix us. We have to fix ourselves. You needn’t agree with me all the time nor I with you. But the vehemence of the responses needs to be dialed way back. We are no longer even coming close to arguing facts. We simply are have a knee-jerk, partisan reaction. That is no way to run a democratic country.

And I’m not talking just my experience on Twitter. I’m talking the bigger, more important picture. I watched a few minutes of the House Judiciary Committee hearing on the impeachment articles a bit ago. The Republicans were talking only about the Bidens (who have nothing to do with the topic at hand) and the Democrats were falling into the knee-jerk trap of defending Biden. I didn’t hear the name Trump or the country Ukraine at all for the 15 minutes or so I watched.

You may not agree that Trump should be impeached. That’s a legitimate opinion. But can’t this hearing, can’t this decision on Trump be made based on facts and not “facts” about Joe or Hunter Biden, but facts about what President Trump did or didn’t do? That’s the issue.

Imagine if President Trump had put up an honest defense to these allegations from the beginning. If he is innocent such a defense would be the right thing to do.

Now I have my view. It is affected, though, by the fact that Trump has stonewalled the investigation from the beginning. If he’s innocent, he should put his case forward, not hide behind Tweets and pointing fingers at others.

As to my new friends/acquaintances on Twitter. I was only trying to put some facts into the discussion.

My bad.

1 Comment

<<Previous

There's the war of attrition..but don't forget the Big War

Hullabaloos everywhere

Political season is heating up

The State of the Union is, fill in the blank

Dershowitz gives cover for a no-impeachment vote

I'm no lawyer but...

Trump thinks he's King (he isn't)

When does the lying end?

When it comes to 2020, it is not a perfect world

Lessons learned from the Twitterverse

Archives

B. Jay Cooper

powered by bjaycooper.com