Archives for category: Biden
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Stuart Stevens: The Absurdity of the Dump-Biden Revolt

By dianeravitch
July 7, 2024 //
162

There’s an old saying, “Don’t change horses in midstream.” But loud voices in the media are calling on the Democratic Party to oust their President only four months before the election.

Stuart Stevens disagrees.

Stevens worked as a strategist in many Republican state and national campaigns. In 2012, he was the chief strategist for Mitt Romney’s Presidential campaign. In 2016, he joined the Never Trump movement and was a co-founder of the anti-Trump Lincoln Project.

He recently wrote a scathing critique in The Atlantic of the Democrats who want to push President Biden out of the race because of his terrible debate performance on June 27.

He wrote:

Millions vote for a candidate, propelling him to victory. Before the voters’ decision is formally certified, people who don’t like the outcome demand that the election results be thrown out and a different candidate selected in a closed process. That was America on January 6, 2021. And now, some in the Democratic Party want to follow a similar script.

The Democratic Party held 57 primaries and caucuses; voters in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and five U.S. territories had their say, as did Democrats abroad. Joe Biden won 87 percent of the total vote. He lost one contest, in American Samoa, to the little-known Jason Palmer. Suddenly, there are cries in the Democratic Party that, as goes a single territorial caucus, so should the nation.

I worked in five presidential campaigns for Republicans and helped elect Republican senators and governors in more than half of the country. For decades, I made ads attacking the Democratic Party. But in all those years, I never saw anything as ridiculous as the push, in the aftermath of last week’s debate, to replace Joe Biden as the Democratic nominee. For many in the party, the event raised genuine concerns about the incumbent’s fitness for a new term. But a president’s record makes a better basis for judgment than a 90-minute broadcast does. Biden has a capable vice president, should he truly become unable to serve. The standard for passing over Democratic voters’ preferred nominee should be extraordinarily high—and has not been met.

The fundamental danger of Donald Trump is that he’s an autocrat who refuses to accept the will of the voters. So the proper response is to throw out millions of votes, dump the overwhelming choice, and replace him with someone selected by a handful of insiders? What will the message be: “Our usurper is better than your usurper”?

What is it about the Democratic Party that engenders this kind of self-doubt and fear? At a moment when Democrats’ instinct should mirror what Biden declared in a rally the day after the debate—“When you are knocked down, you get back up”—some in the party are seized by the urge to run, not fight. Think about how this would look: Hey, I guess Donald Trump is right; our guy isn’t fit to be president. We’ll give it another shot. Trust us, we’ll get it right eventually.

Madness.

After decades of losing the image wars as Republicans positioned themselves as the “party of strength,” Democrats are on the verge of a historic self-redefinition. When Biden traveled to Ukraine, he became the first president to visit an allied war zone not controlled by U.S. troops. A Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, defied China and visited Taiwan. A Republican Party that was once defined by Ronald Reagan demanding “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” is now the beating heart of the pro–Vladimir Putin movement, led by a former president elected with the Russian dictator’s help…

Given a huge opportunity to project more self-assurance than Trump’s Republicans, these Dump Biden Democrats would ensure that their party once again slips back into the quicksand of doubt and second-guessing. No major American political party has thrown a presidential nominee overboard, so leave it up to some geniuses in the Democratic Party to hatch a scheme to make history.

What makes them believe that replacing Biden increases the chances of defeating Trump? How many times have candidates with impressive state-level records crashed and burned in a presidential race? The last time a party held on to the White House without the benefits of incumbency was 36 years ago. Recent polls show none of the fantasy replacement Democrats beating Trump. There are polls showing Biden defeating Trump. Say what you will about the Biden campaign’s organization, but four years ago it defeated an incumbent president—no easy thing.

Clearly, something was off inside the Biden campaign that allowed this debate debacle to occur, starting with the choice even to debate Trump. The Biden team easily could have insisted, as a precondition for a debate, that Trump first publicly acknowledge that he is running against a legally elected president who won a fair vote. Also, why did Biden look like an undertaker had done his makeup? But those breakdowns do not negate the substantial evidence that the Biden campaign knows how to defeat Trump. Do Democrats really want to throw that aside and reconstruct a campaign from scratch months before an existential election?

Presidential campaigns are billion-dollar businesses open to customers for a limited time. Right now, Democrats have a huge advantage over a GOP apparatus gutted by Trump in a power play that installed his daughter-in-law as co-chair of the Republican National Committee. What are the Dump Biden Democrats thinking? That Trump’s mob-boss takeover of his party gave them an unfair edge, so it’s only sporting for them to emulate him?

Trump is the candidate of chaos, uncertainty, and erratic behavior. Democrats can win a race against him by offering Americans the opposite: steady, calm, and confident leadership. Joe Biden has provided that. His record is arguably the most impressive of any first-term president since World War II. My advice to Democrats: Run on that record; don’t run from one bad debate. Show a little swagger, not timidity. Forget all this Dump Biden nonsense and seize the day. Now is the worst time to flinch. Your country needs strength. You can crush Donald Trump, but only if you fight.

Categories Biden, Democracy, Democrats, Disruption, Elections, Republicans, Trump

The New Republic: If Joe Biden Were as Ruthless as Trump

By dianeravitch
July 6, 2024 //
46

The New Republic published a hypothetical speech by Sidney Blumenthal that Joe Biden might give if were as ruthless as Trump. However, he won’t because he is an institutionalist. He believes in the law and the Constitution. He believes, despite the Roberts Court, that no one is above the law, not even the President.

Here is the hypothetical Biden speech:

Good evening, my fellow Americans. With the close of the current session of the Supreme Court, I want to report to you on my compliance with their decisions, especially in the case involving presidential immunity, United States v. Trump.

When I took the oath of office, I swore that I would “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The Supreme Court has now reinterpreted that document. The court, for all intents and purposes, has also reinterpreted the Declaration of Independence, which proclaimed, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” to replace the “absolute tyranny” of a king. 

I have read the court’s majority opinion that an official act of the president is “presumptively” immune from all prosecution during and after his term, and that the president’s motive cannot be questioned. I have read, according to the majority, that a president who orders the Department of Justice and his vice president to commit election fraud is immune. I have read that a president who incites a mob to attempt to assassinate the vice president for failing to follow those instructions is immune. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent, “Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.”

Fellow Americans, I have taken the court’s opinion to heart. I am not one to defy the court. I am, as many have remarked, an institutionalist. I believe with all my soul in our institutions. And now, following the letter and the spirit of the court’s ruling, I have acted swiftly, decisively, and enthusiastically to enforce it. I will not, I cannot, shirk my constitutional duty. As Justice Sotomayor states, “In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.” 

To begin with, certain “gratuities,” as we shall call them, have been paid to the court majority as a token of appreciation. In their ruling in the case of Snyder v. United States, the majority decided that James Snyder, the former mayor of Portage, Indiana, who cajoled $13,000 from a trucking company after he granted it a city contract, was not liable for bribery. The court stated that it was a “gratuity.” “Gratuities are typically payments made to a public official after an official act as a reward or token of appreciation,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the majority opinion.

Payment of “gratuities” to the justices who ruled in the majority in y follows the court’s decision in Snyder. It cannot be considered a bribe because it was not promised beforehand. But I do hope, as Justice Kavanaugh wrote, that there is “appreciation.” 

Now, following my strict construction of the court’s ruling on immunity, I can report to the nation that the threat to national security posed by my former political opponent, my late predecessor, has been eliminated. It was an official act. It was, to quote the court, “presumptive.”

The reasons for his removal do not need to be explained. Under the court’s decision, as an official act, it is more than privileged. I hope you understand that I need not disclose the reasons. I must respect the Supreme Court. I can assure the American people that there will be a thorough report that is currently being written by the intelligence community. It is classified. The substance cannot be disclosed—and never can be.

But I do want to tell you that he did have sex with a porn star. She didn’t like it. And he lied about his golf handicap.

Why am I doing this? That’s not admissible. The state of mind of the president, according to the court, is not admissible. My state of mind falls under an official act, so it’s nobody’s business but my own. I am proud of my official acts. I must respect the precedent of keeping secret all my reasons. Otherwise, I would be damaging the presidency for others who might follow in this office.

I regret to inform you that Speaker of the House Mike Johnson has been arrested. A number of other members of the House Republican Conference have been taken into custody. Jim Jordan, unfortunately, attempted to resist arrest. After wrestling with an FBI agent, he met a tragic fate. In the sudden absence of those members, there is a new majority in the House. I look forward to a long and cooperative relationship. I can say proudly, gridlock is at last broken. And we can all give thanks to the Supreme Court.

I further regret to inform you that 10 members of the Republican Senate caucus have been arrested. Again, unfortunately, Josh Hawley attempted to run away and was wounded in the leg. The incident was entirely his fault: if only he had submitted to the authorities. Lindsey Graham was arrested in his office. He has renounced all of his former allegiances, and I have issued him a pardon—a conditional pardon. There will be no more obstruction from filibusters. Again, we can thank the court. 

Now, about the court itself, with the present available members of the Congress, I have proposed that the Supreme Court be expanded by 26 justices. I can report that those new justices have already been nominated and approved. Advise and consent is on the fast track. All 26 will be here tomorrow. A longer bench is already under construction.

Tragically, Chief Justice John Roberts has been arrested for his treasonous comment that the president is doing something illegal, based on his very own opinion. I will name a new chief justice after the new 26 members take their posts.

More reform is on the way. The Twenty-Second Amendment prohibiting the president from holding more than two terms will be replaced by the Twenty-Eighth Amendment, which rescinds it. The new amendment has been proposed in the states. I have no doubt that three-quarters of the states, through their legislatures, will be cooperative. In fact, I can promise you that I expect 100 percent cooperation from each and every state legislature on a bipartisan basis. I have alerted FBI offices in every state to assist in our plan to extend democracy. 

To that end, I am creating a new Cabinet department, the Department of Official Acts, to coordinate, simplify, and centralize the far-flung activities of the Department of Homeland Security, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Defense, and other departments and agencies. I am committed to eliminating waste and abuse in official acts.

Moreover, the vice president will head a new office here at the White House, the Office of Reimagining Official Acts, to spur innovation, creativity, and efficiency, and above all the execution of justice. That office will review all of the acts that I take so that they qualify as official.

The Office of Reimagining Official Acts has already held a Zoom conference this morning with all of the Fortune 500 CEOs. Each and every executive without exception has released a statement in support of my official acts and promised full cooperation, with gusto. By the way, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee will hold a press conference to announce the details of the amazing news that our campaign has just received new contributions of $43 billion and counting. 

I can also report that Rupert Murdoch has been arrested for seditious conspiracy, along with his accomplices at Fox News, who have previously been liable for defamation. They have been spewing libels every hour of every day since. That’s as much as I can say. I cannot give another reason without breaking the strictures laid down by the court.

The Supreme Court’s immunity decision has also had a big impact on international relations. I have had a conversation with Vladimir Putin, who told me that he misunderstood me all along, and that after the day’s events here at home, he has decided to withdraw Russian troops from Ukraine. He told me he has the greatest admiration for our form of government now. He said, we can do business, strongman to strongman. 

As for the rest of the campaign, when the Republican National Committee decides on its candidate, I would consider a debate with the ground rules that candidates adhere to national security guidelines, which will be presented as needed—before, during, and after such an event, consistent as official acts.

If any reader of this column can show where anything described here would be illegal under the Supreme Court immunity ruling, please turn yourself in to the nearest FBI bureau to avoid yet another tragic result. Thought is mother to the deed. Thought must be included among the potential threats to be countered by presidential official acts. “Presumptive,” as the court stated, must mean presumptive. And the reason? The president does not need to explain. 

As we celebrate this Fourth of July, in a fervent prayer that the court’s ruling will work out for the best of all possible worlds, I want to say in conclusion, what goes around comes around.

Categories Accountability, Biden, Corruption, Cruelty, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Evil, Fascism, Justice, Trump

Biden: “I’m Staying in the Race!”

By dianeravitch
July 5, 2024 //
99

Apparently some voters like to see an old guy defying the media and the pundits. The crowd in Wisconsin roared its approval when a “defiant” Biden said he was running. Maybe that’s why the new film “Thelma” is a big hit; it’s about a 93-year-old grandmother who gets scammed out of $10,000 and wreaks vengeance on the scammers. Filmed as an action movie, with high-speed races and and an explosion.

The New York Times, which leads the clamor to oust Biden, posted this story at 4:02 p.m. today.

President Biden just wrapped a brief but animated and defiant speech at a campaign event in Wisconsin, asserting that he would continue in the race and describing former President Donald J. Trump as a liar and threat to democracy.

“I’m staying in this race,” Mr. Biden told the crowd, to cheers. “I’m not letting one 90-minute debate wipe out three-and-a-half years of work.” Mr. Biden’s speech in Wisconsin is the first of two appearances on Friday that will be closely watched as doubts among Democrats intensify about his ability to beat former President Donald J. Trump. ABC News will air an interview with Mr. Biden on Friday evening that will be recorded after the speech.

Categories Biden, Elections, Trump

Christiane Amanpour Interviews Heather Cox Richardson about Biden vs. Trump: A Must-See!

By dianeravitch
July 5, 2024 //
50

This is an excellent interview of Heather Cox Richardson by Christiane Amanpour. They discuss the infamous debate between Biden and Trump. Richardson explains brilliantly how the media has framed the debate as “disastrous” for Biden yet has failed to portray the danger posed by Trump. Trump, she says, is a threat to our democracy.

Whatever you do today, watch this discussion. Richardson’s historical insights are invaluable. She is succinct, clear, and compelling.

Categories Biden, Democracy, Elections, Lies, Trump

Seth Abramson: Why MAGA Wants Biden to Step Down

By dianeravitch
July 3, 2024 //
142

Seth Abramson is a veteran journalist. He writes here about why MAGA is trying to push Biden out of the race: He’s the best candidate against Trump.

He begins:

Let’s cut to the chase: President Joe Biden is not going to end his 2024 campaign over a single poor debate performance, any more than Donald Trump did in 2020 after a first-in-the-cycle debate performance that voters conclusively told pollsters was worse than the one yesterday by this sitting president.


President Biden will stay in the race not simply because he’s already the nominee; not simply because there’s no mechanism to force him to exit; not simply because major media’s and politicos’ hyperventilating response to his debate performance yesterday—about 40% of voters appear to think he won the debate, and only 5% said it changed their vote (a sentiment unlikely to survive beyond a day in any case)—fails to take into account that the president had a cold, is a lifelong stutterer, performed much better as the debate went along, told a fraction of the number of lies his rival did, and saw his intermittent “old man” optics repeatedly belied by his conspicuous command of facts, policy, and history (check the transcript of the debate if you doubt this); no, Joe Biden will not step away from the 2024 election cycle because it would hand the presidency, beyond any doubt, to a confirmed rapist, serial sexual assailant, active insurrectionist, convicted felon, pathological liar, malignant narcissistic sociopath, gleeful adulterer, career criminal, unrepentant con man, traitorous would-be U.S. dictator, misogynist, antisemite, racist, homophobe, transphobe, Islamophobe, and budding war criminal.


Why would a Biden exit ensure a Trump victory?

Let us zoom through some reasons:


(1) Nobody now polls, or has ever polled, better against Trump than Biden. Rightly or not, it appears that at present American independents prefer one particular old white man to Donald Trump over any other option available to them. It is true now, and it was true in 2018 when Joe Biden first floated a presidential run and behind the scenes Trump and his team concluded that Biden was the biggest threat to his re-election. Team Trump thought so then—and turned out to be right—and it thinks so still. Why? Because all the polls say so. No poll has anyone else close to Trump, and Republicans are well aware of this.

(2) Biden has beat Trump before. Even if we ignore polls, we cannot ignore results. Joe Biden beat the pants off Trump in the popular vote and Electoral College in 2020, and the results weren’t that close. Biden picked up states Democrats thought they couldn’t get, more than doubled Hillary Clinton’s popular-vote margin over Trump, and did all this while, well, old. Was he less old in 2020 than today? Yes, of course. But he was still a stutterer who sometimes loses his train of thought, misspeaks, and underperforms in many debates and interviews. Nevertheless, voters decided that they liked him, trusted him, and believed he’d surrounded himself with great advisers. Which he did.


(3) Biden has had—unlike Trump—a successful presidency. Nonpartisan historians now universally rank President Biden in the Top 20 presidents ever. Yes, really; feel free to Google it. They do this because the Biden administration has gotten results, even when and as they have not been widely reported by the media. But the results are there even if you’re not a historian: inflation is easing, the economy is healthy, crime is down, COVID-19 is under control, we’re out of Afghanistan, NATO is stronger than ever, and the Executive Order the president just signed on the border has clearly had a major and immediate effect on reducing border crossings. Unemployment’s low and Biden has avoided any major scandals. Foreign leaders like him and trust him. By comparison, nonpartisan historians universally rank Donald Trump among the worst five presidents in American history due to his rank incompetence, deceit, corruption, and moral depravity. Why would the Democrats trade a Top 20 president for some as-yet unnamed pol who is untested on the national stage and has no POTUS track record?

Please open the link and finish reading.

Categories Biden, Character, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Extremism, Trump

Why the New York Times Is Hypercritical of Biden While Treating Trump as Normal

By dianeravitch
July 3, 2024 //
45

As a daily reader of The New York Times, I’ve often been baffled by its negative coverage of Biden, coupled with its kid-glove treatment of Trump. For example, the Times constantly harps on Biden’s age, highlighting every verbal gaffe. When the Hur Report was released, containing gratuitous remarks about Biden’s mental acuity, the Times featured it in multiple stories but paid no attention to critiques by retired federal prosecutors about Hur’s highly partisan background. And after the debate between Biden and Trump, the Times editorial board was quick to call on Biden to step down, but not the convicted felon Trump, who lied nonstop throughout the debate. Since the debate, readers of The Times have seen a steady flow of articles urging Biden to step down. Just last night, I counted six concurrent articles about Biden’s infirmity and why he should leave the race.

There’s no question that Biden has slowed down, and his gait is not as vigorous as it was in the past. As everyone agreed, including Biden, his debate performance was awful. Nonetheless, he’s only three years older than Trump, and he has a wealth of experience and knowledge, as well as a well-qualified staff. Why does the Times echo the Republicans’ main talking points?

Contrast their coverage of Trump. Every time he holds a rally, he attacks the integrity of American institutions and hurls personal insults at his opponents. He curses and carries on like a bully. He lies about the 2020 election and leads his followers to believe that elections are routinely “rigged,” unless he wins. He ridicules the judiciary, the civil service, and describes the economy as failing. He says that America is a failing country. No person or institution is spared his insults unless they are on his team. And they don’t have a place on his team unless they agree that the 2020 election was stolen and that Biden is an illegitimate president. The Times pays little attention to the anti-democratic, authoritarian tone of his speeches and seldom mentions his unhinged rants, where he goes off topic and speaks nonsense.

I think I found the explanation. It’s contained in this post by media watcher Daniel Froomkin. The editor-in-chief of the Times has made clear that the paper will not take sides. It will not be partisan. Therefore it must treat Trump as a normal candidate—not a wannabe fascist with dangerous plans—and must bend over backwards to criticize Biden.

Froomkin writes:

Joe Kahn, after two years in charge of the New York Times newsroom, has learned nothing.

He had an extraordinary opportunity, upon taking over from Dean Baquet, to right the ship: to recognize that the Times was not warning sufficiently of the threat to democracy presented by a second Trump presidency.

But to Kahn, democracy is a partisan issue and he’s not taking sides. He made that clear in an interview with obsequious former employee Ben Smith, now the editor of Semafor.

Kahn accused those of us asking the Times to do better of wanting it to be a house organ of the Democratic party:

To say that the threats of democracy are so great that the media is going to abandon its central role as a source of impartial information to help people vote — that’s essentially saying that the news media should become a propaganda arm for a single candidate, because we prefer that candidate’s agenda.

But critics like me aren’t asking the Times to abandon its independence. We’re asking the Times to recognize that it isn’t living up to its own standards of truth-telling and independence when it obfuscates the stakes of the 2024 election, covers up for Trump’s derangement, and goes out of its way to make Biden look weak.

Kahn’s position is, not coincidentally, identical to that of his boss, publisher A.G. Sulzberger, who I recently wrote about in my post, “Why is New York Times campaign coverage so bad? Because that’s what the publisher wants.”

And to the extent that Kahn has changed anything in the Times newsroom since Baquet left, it’s to double down on a form of objectivity that favors the comfortable-white-male perspective and considers anything else little more than hysteria.

Throwing Baquet under the bus, Kahn called the summer of the Black Lives Matter protests “an extreme moment” during which the Times lost its way.

“I think we’ve learned from it. I think we found our footing after that,” he said.

I translate that to mean that the old guard has reasserted total control over the rabble.

But how, exactly, the Times lost its footing, he doesn’t explain. I’d love to see him point to a few articles that he considers went too far. Best I can tell, his real complaint is that the Times under Baquet hired too many young and diverse people who — in his view — don’t understand the rules.

“I think there’s a larger number of people who we might at some point have hired, but we’ve asked the kind of questions or looked at the sort of work that they do, and wondered whether they’d be a good fit for us,” Kahn said, making it clear he won’t make that mistake again.

His example was hyperbolic and not even vaguely credible:

We’re looking more closely and asking more questions and doing more interviews. … We’ve actually asked people, “What happens if you got an assignment to go and report on some people that have said some nasty things and that you don’t like, what would you do?” And some people say, “I’d reject the assignment.” Okay, well, then you should work somewhere else.

I’d be willing to bet a large sum that no job candidate at the Times has ever said any such thing.

On Democracy

In one small paragraph, Kahn outdid himself. He:

  • Dismissed the importance of democracy as a political issue.
  • Disclosed that the Times coverage is poll driven.
  • Asserted that coverage of the economy and immigration is favorable to Trump.
  • Whined that more coverage of democracy was tantamount to becoming a partisan publication.

Here’s what he said:

It’s our job to cover the full range of issues that people have. At the moment, democracy is one of them. But it’s not the top one — immigration happens to be the top [of polls], and the economy and inflation is the second. Should we stop covering those things because they’re favorable to Trump and minimize them? I don’t even know how it’s supposed to work in the view of Dan Pfeiffer or the White House. We become an instrument of the Biden campaign?

(Smith had asked Kahn to respond to Pfeiffer, a former Obama official, who recently complained that the editors at the Times  “do not see their job as saving democracy or stopping an authoritarian from taking power.”)

That one paragraph, posted on social media by NYU professor Jay Rosen, elicited a storm of critiques.

Cartoonist Ruben Bolling was among those upset by Kahn’s dismissal of democracy as a key issue.

Hate to Godwin’s Law this, but what if the Berlin Bugle in 1931 said, Hitler may be a threat to democracy, but polls show that most Germans are most concerned about Communism and the Jewish problem. A journalist’s job is not to reflect the polls, but to cover the objectively important stories.

University College London professor Brian Klaas wrote:

It is insane to me that someone in this role doesn’t understand that democracy is the superstructure for literally everything else. Democracy isn’t an issue that matters because of public opinion. It’s *the* issue that makes free public opinion possible.

Veteran political observer Norm Ornstein wrote:

This is both cringeworthy and frightening. I can’t say it is sleepwalking to dictatorship. He is not sleeping. It is marching in that direction.

Entrepreneur and writer Anil Dash concluded:

Just so you know, NYT fully believes they have no obligation to stop the fascist attack on America. They’ve finally said so explicitly. Act accordingly.

Many objected to Kahn’s argument that democracy is a partisan issue. Extremism researcher Mark Pitcavage wrote:

This quote strongly suggests the exec editor of the NYT can’t even think of democracy as an issue other than as a Biden campaign strategy.

OG blogger Heather “Digby” Parton wrote:

This is so, so tiresome. Nobody says it’s his job to “help” Joe Biden. It would be nice if they could find it in their hearts not to sabotage him though.

Others were horrified that Kahn breezily suggested that the economy and immigration were favorable stories for Trump. Journalist and author James Surowiecki wrote:

If the NYT covers it accurately, the economy is not an issue that is “favorable to Trump.”

A Twitter user named Hank Hoffman wrote:

The Exec. Editor of @nytimes believes immigration, the economy, & inflation are issues “favorable to Trump.”

Just to take immigration, why would a plan for militarized mass deportations & concentration camps be “favorable to Trump?” How’s a STRONG economy “favorable to Trump?

[Please open the link to finish this excellent post.]

The above post was written in May.

More recently, the Times demonstrated Froomkin’s point about its habit of normalizing Trump.

Froomkin retweeted the following example:

@scaredlawyerguy: If Biden so much as flubs a word in a speech, there’s a week of “he’s lost it, too old, step down” argle bargle in the media but Trump? He can rant incoherently for an hour and the media is just like “the hold this guy has on his supporters, it’s INCREDIBLE”

Meisels’s:

Here is a short summary of Donald Trump’s June 9 speech in Las Vegas:

  1. Tells crowd “I don’t care about you. I just want your vote. I don’t care.”
  2. Tells contractors who set up mic and teleprompter they did a “shitty job” and he “won’t pay them.”
  3. Tells audience to choose “suicide over Biden.”
  4. Complains about teleprompter again.
  5. Asks “Do I get electrocuted or do I jump over by the shark?”
  6. Claims he “aced” a dementia test twice: “Not easy to ace!”
  7. Says “There has never been people treated more horrifically than J6 hostages.”
  8. Calls prosecutor a “dumb son of a bitch.”
  9. Complains media is too focused on health of crowd in heat when they should “care about Trump.”
  10. Glitches multiple times.
  11. Speech ends. Trump whisked away on private jet paid for by donors.

We have all the receipts here

youtu.be/A27GiTMmXjE?si…

Categories Biden, Democracy, Elections, Fascism, Media, Trump

The Worst Supreme Court Decision in Our Lifetime

By dianeravitch
July 2, 2024 //
109

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the President of the United States has absolute immunity for criminal acts committed in his official capacity. He may order the Department of Justice to prosecute his political opponents. He can organize a coup against the government. He may order the military to assassinate his enemies. He may, as Trump did, send a mob to storm the U.S. Capitol and seek to stop the certification of the man who won the election and to murder elected officials. He may take a bribe for appointments or pardons.

The Court laid the groundwork for authoritarianism. For fascism. It eroded a basic understanding of our democracy. The six reactionary justices obliterated the bedrock principle of our government that “no person is above the law.” Under this ruling, the President is above the law. He is a King. The Founders would be appalled by this decision. Under this ruling, Richard Nixon need not have resigned.

This court is a threat to democracy. The majority is not conservative. It overrules precedent without hesitation, as it did in Dobbs (the abortion decision) and as it does in this decision.

Read the decision and the dissents yourself.


Categories Accountability, Biden, Corruption, Democracy, Elections, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Justice, Trump

Sabrina Haake: “I’ll Take an Old Man Over a Conman Any Day of the Week”

By dianeravitch
June 30, 2024 //
83

Sabrina Haake is a veteran journalist who writes a blog called “The Haake Take.” This is her take on the debate. Read it and subscribe.

I watched the debate in horror, like millions of moderates.  Here was a slick conman with a national bullhorn- sans fact checking- next to a decent man who tells the truth but can’t get his words out.  

Even Republicans know Trump’s performance was a firehose of lies, but after the fact fact-checking is just background noise, irrelevant to all but political junkies. (We know who we are.) His base also knows Trump is a serial liar, which they consider a feature, not a bug. Whattaya do with that?

The sad reality is that facts vs. lies and the grave geopolitical risks facing us have now been upstaged by Biden’s pauses, weak voice and halting delivery, all of which seemed to confirm supporters’ fears about his age. Biden’s style, rather than the substance delivered by either man, dominates all the headlines. 

Why o why didn’t Biden open with, ‘folks, I have a cold, bear with me, my voice is rough, but we’ll get through it…’? Instead, his voice gravelly and barely audible, he bumbled, even though most facts were on his side. 

The whole cringe fest was a Fox News fantasy come to life. I cried for my country, popped an Ambien, and went to bed. 

I realize, at this point, pundits are just echoing each other. No one really knows what the fallout will be, or how the undecideds felt about the debate. I have some shred of hope that Americans are smart enough to cut through the slick lies vs. bumbling truth and consider what both men actually said. But honestly, MAGA exists because about 30% of us want a show more than sound governance; violence and retribution are sexier than policy Every. Single. Time. 

Also, morons get juiced by hate, which stimulates the brain like an opioid. Hate is the brain’s most powerful motivator- right up there with fear- which means hate-filled people vote in higher numbers than complacent moderates. This, very simply, is why the stupidest 20% of the U.S. has been able to impose minority rule, aligned with the morbidly rich seeking to avoid regulations and taxes. (Darwin suggests we get real serious about real education, real fast.) 

A silver lining?

Maybe, since SCOTUS just gutted the administrative state, stripping the federal government of most of its power to fight climate change, we’ll see violence from the left this time. The absurdity of letting morons like Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch substitute their personal, lay opinions for those of trained experts is worse than partisan– it’s suicidal. (Thomas recently shot down the AFT’s expert opinion that bump stocks keep firing the trigger like a machine gun, while Gorsuch confused an air pollutant with nitrous oxide—ie, laughing gas– when gutting protections for the environment.) 

Even peaceful leftists will get violent when their lives are threatened. Since the Court has also ruled that it’s ok to storm federal buildings, maybe climate activists will take a clue from the J6 mob. (Not advocating violence, just opining on its likelihood, which I learned from Fox News. Maybe when MAGA idiots clamoring for civil war finally get a taste of blood they’ll retract their claws. But veep candidate  JD Vance told us most of them are on crack or drunk, so they’re probably itching for entertainment, what’s a few bodies? I’m just saying their mental vacuums need to be filled with something, and Trump rallies, Fox and stoning their neighbors can only fill so many hours.

The gaslighting got upstaged, but it was masterclass

Biden, far more forceful at a North Carolina rally right after debate, freely admits he stumbled. “I don’t debate as well as I used to,” he said, but “I know right from wrong.” 

And that’s the thing: what he’s done in office in three and a half years should count far, far more than a bad 90 minute performance. As Vice President Kamala Harris said in her post-debate interview, “I got the point that you’re making about a one and a half hour debate tonight. I’m talking about three and a half years of performance in work that has been historic…”

And she’s right: if this is a contest on the merits, on substance, Biden wins hands down. 

When Trump said Hamas attacked Israel and Putin attacked Ukraine because Biden is weak, I worried, because low information voters won’t think it through. No one needs any spin; Putin himself  has said his invasion goes back to the 17th century, Peter the Great, and his personal power-lust for restoring the Soviet Empire. 

The complexities of the Israel-Hamas war are even deeper. They far exceed Trump’s cranial capacity, going back decades, marginally beginning with Hitler’s atrocities. Israel’s history exceeds most voters’ attention spans, including mine. Biden has walked a tightrope, empathizing with suffering on both Israeli and Palestinian sides. He has forcefully denounced and criticized Netanyahu’s cruelty, and immediately denounced the naked brutality of Hamas. No one alive could do a better job navigating Israel’s scorching complexity. 

Suffering Palestinians deserve all the aid, support and compassion they are getting– far more– students on the left are right in that regard.  But where they’re wrong is in failing to understand that if Biden cut off support to Israel, Trump would collect billions of dollars in PAC donations overnight and storm back into power, and few people would ever hear or care about Palestinian suffering again.

 Trump’s mendacity is unprecedented in US presidential history, and the damage he has caused already will linger for decades. His offenses are too numerous to list, including ending abortion, adding $8 trillion to the deficit, robbing the poor for tax cuts to billionaires, selling the climate to big oil, blah blah blah.  It’s redundant already.

Military generals and  experts who worked with Trump are warning us

Biden is running for re-election not to stay out of prison or engage in retribution, but to save America from Trump and his army of sycophants addicted to power. They are dangerous. Now is not the time to start over, but to armor up.

During his awful debate performance, Biden managed to reference— albeit far too softly– that in a national survey conducted by the University of Houston and Coastal Carolina University, peer-reviewed academic and social science researchers, along with qualified historians and political scientists rated Trump the worst president in the history of the United States. Ever. According to America’s historians. Don’t trust your own instincts after the debate? Let that sink in. 

Not enough?  Consider that Trump’s closest military and domestic advisors have warned us how dangerous it would be to return him to power….

I’ll close with Robert DeNiro’s words because I really can’t top them. Here’s what he just wrote in a post-debate  email:  

Over the years, I’ve played my share of vicious, low-life characters. I’ve spent a lot of time studying bad men. I’ve examined their characteristics, their mannerisms, and the utter banality of their cruelty. Donald Trump is a wannabe tough guy with no morals or ethics who will do whatever he can to obtain power. As an actor, I could never play him. There’s not a shred of humanity to hang on to. I strongly support Joe Biden. He’s a lifelong public servant with great personal integrity. I trust him completely to run the country. He puts you first. Trump cares only about himself.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25 year litigator specializing in 1st and 14th Amendment defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.

Categories Biden, Character, Democracy, Elections, Trump

Andrew Tobias: Watch This Clip and Think Again

By dianeravitch
June 30, 2024 //
48

Andrew Tobias is a financial analyst and author who posts an occasional comment on his blog. He watched the debate, reacted as many of us did, then thought twice after he watched Lawrence O’Donnell on MSNBC the following night. He invites you to watch too.

He wrote:

Before I get to the important thing, it’s also important to thank all of you who came last night (see below), all those who couldn’t but gave anyway, and all of you who are helping in other ways.

So now:

Thursday night’s debate was horrible.

My first reaction was to post something very short and noncommittal (read it here, if you want) — and I stand by every word.

But privately, like almost all my friends and donors and the press, I was ready to pull the emergency cord.  Open convention!  Open convention!

But, boy, did Lawrence O’Donnell last night provide the perspective we all need.

I cannot urge you strongly enough to watch or to listen (wherever you get podcasts).

That’s what I posted just now (in case you feel moved to share it), along with these two personal notes.

First: at our event last night I got to watch the President in action.  He was terrific.  But let me put it in perspective.

In my case, knowing I would have to meet and greet lots of donors and then speak for four minutes, I didn’t get out of bed until 11, took it easy all day, suited up around 5, armed myself with an Advil and some Hall’s menthol eucalyptus lozenges, took the subway down to the Hammerstein ballroom and, after an hour of pre-event reception, glad-handing new and old friends over fairly loud background music, had lost my voice.  And had that weird thing where one of my ear drums had gone into a hard-to-describe “echo” mode.  (Has that ever happened to you?)  So I stopped talking (“yes!” I hear those of you who know me best cry) and eventually the 400 or so of us at that reception went downstairs to the main event.

I knew I was the last speaker on the program and, one way or another, would make it through my little remarks and welcome Alan Cumming back on stage to close the night out.  (If you don’t know Alan Cumming, look him up.  He is as charming and cheeky and talented as anyone on the planet.)  And I did get through my four minutes.  My voice had returned and my eardrum had righted itself.  But that was my day.  For a four-minute talk.

In the President’s case, he got up after however much sleep he had after that debate (I’m guessing not much?), flew to a rally in Raleigh where he was strong and terrific (watch or listen for clips), shaking hands and interacting with dozens of people, flew to New York for a rally with Elton John and loads of dignitaries at the Stonewall Inn, shaking hands and personally connecting with dozens more people, and then arrived at the Hammerstein ballroom, met individually for photos with each of more than 50 couples, interacting with each, then spoke to 900 of us SO well and SO forcefully that one of you — who is no billionaire, by the way — came over to me afterward and gave another half million dollars.

See the difference?

And even I, with the bandwidth to do just one event moderately well, would be a vastly better president than Trump. (Hold that thought.)

But in a debate?

And that brings me to my second personal note.

A long time ago I wrote a book about the insurance industry.  And back then, I used to get paid tons of money to “speak” — typically, 45 minutes followed by Q&A followed by book signing.

The book made it onto the Times best-seller list for 10 weeks because the publisher got me onto a few national TV shows and every local radio show in the world.

The speeches were easy.  I was usually pretty good.  The occasional standing ovation, even.  Only bombed three times (seared deeply into my memory).

But the TV and radio appearances — which had always been a breeze with prior books — were a nightmare.  Because the insurance industry had somehow obtained my schedule and gotten the stations always to book one of their people “for balance.”  And I was terrible, even after the first few times, because I could do little more than sputter.  They were saying so many things that were simply untrue or misleading or designed to keep me from finishing my point.  It was combat, and I’m not good at combat; or at keeping my cool when someone lies and I know I should keep my cool, but . . . it was awful.  I was awful.

And yet I really was the one telling the truth.  And the subtitle of the book (“Everything the Insurance Industry Never Wanted you to Know”) was true — there was a lot they didn’t want you to know . . . and were really good at keeping people from knowing it.  And making my head explode.  I can only imagine what it would have been like if I had had, in addition, a lifelong stutter to overcome.

And still I’m telling you:

  1. I would be a vastly better president than Trump.
  2. Joe Biden is a vastly better president than I could ever be. 
  3. Please, please, please watch or listen to that Lawrence O’Donnell.

Have a great weekend.

One way or another, we’re gonna win!

Categories Biden, Character, Elections, Ethics, Lies, Trump

Philadelphia Inquirer: Donald Trump Should Get Out of the Race!

By dianeravitch
June 30, 2024 //
26

Many pundits and editorialists said that President Biden should withdraw from the presidential race because of his poor performance.

The Philadelphia Inquirer does not agree. Its editorial board says that Donald Trump should drop out of the race! Trump is a liar, a danger to democracy, and unfit for office. I’m with them.

Hurrah for the editorial board of The Philadelphia Inquirer! Every newspaper and media outlet in the nation should read this editorial, published on June 29.

President Joe Biden’s debate performance was a disaster. His disjointed responses and dazed look sparked calls for him to drop out of the presidential race.

But lost in the hand wringing was Donald Trump’s usual bombastic litany of lies, hyperbole, bigotry, ignorance, and fear mongering. His performance demonstrated once again that he is a danger to democracy and unfit for office.

In fact, the debate about the debate is misplaced. The only person who should withdraw from the race is Trump.

Trump, 78, has been on the political stage for eight years marked by chaos, corruption, and incivility. Why go back to that?

To build himself up, Trump constantly tears the country down. There is no shining city on the hill. It’s just mourning in America.

Throughout the debate, Trump repeatedly said we are a “failing” country. He called the United States a “third world nation.” He said, “we’re living in hell” and “very close to World War III.”

“People are dying all over the place,” Trump said, later adding “we’re literally an uncivilized country now.”

Trump told more than 30 lies during the debate to go with the more than 30,000 mistruths told during his four years as president. He dodged the CNN moderators’ questions, took no responsibility for his actions, and blamed others, mainly Biden, for everything that is wrong in the world.

Trump’s response to the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection he fueled was farcical. He said a “relatively small number of people” went to the Capitol and many were “ushered in by the police.”

After scheming to overturn the 2020 election, Trump refused to say if he would accept the results of the 2024 election. Unless, of course, he wins.

The debate served as a reminder of what another four years of Trump would look like. More lies, grievance, narcissism, and hate. Supporters say they like Trump because he says whatever he thinks. But he mainly spews raw sewage.

Trump attacks the military. He denigrates the Justice Department and judges. He belittles the FBI and the CIA. He picks fights with allies and cozies up to dictators.

Trump is an unserious carnival barker running for the most serious job in the world. During his last term, Trump served himself and not the American people.

Trump spent chunks of time watching TV, tweeting, and hanging out at his country clubs. Over his four-year term, Trump played roughly 261 rounds of golf.

As president, Trump didn’t read the daily intelligence briefs. He continued to use his personal cell phone, allowing Chinese spies to listen to his calls. During one Oval Office meeting, Trump shared highly classified intelligence with the Russian foreign minister and ambassador.

Trump’s term did plenty of damage and had few accomplishments. The much-hyped wall didn’t get built. Infrastructure week was a recurring joke. Giant tax cuts made the rich richer, while fueling massive deficits for others to pay for years. His support for coal, oil drilling and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement worsened the growing impact of climate change.

Trump stacked the judiciary with extreme judges consisting mainly of white males, including a number who the American Bar Association rated as not qualified. A record number of cabinet officials were fired or left the office. The West Wing was in constant chaos and infighting.

Many Trump appointees exited under a cloud of corruption, grifting and ethical scandals. Trump’s children made millions off the White House. His dilettante son-in-law got $2 billion from the Saudi government for his fledgling investment firm even though he never managed money before.

Trump’s mismanagement of the pandemic resulted in tens of thousands of needless deaths. He boasts about stacking the Supreme Court with extreme right-wingers who are stripping away individual rights, upending legal precedents, and making the country less safe. If elected, Trump may add to the court’s conservative majority.

Of course, there were the unprecedented two impeachments. Now, Trump is a convicted felon who is staring at three more criminal indictments. He is running for president to stay out of prison.

If anything, Trump doesn’t deserve to be on the presidential debate stage. Why even give him a platform?

Trump allegedly stole classified information and tried to overturn an election. His plans for a second term are worse than the last one. We cannot be serious about letting such a crooked clown back in the White House.

If anything, Trump doesn’t deserve to be on the presidential debate stage. Why even give him a platform?

Yes, Biden had a horrible night. He’s 81 and not as sharp as he used to be. But Biden on his worst day remains lightyears better than Trump on his best.

Biden must show that he is up to the job. This much is clear: He has a substantive record of real accomplishments, fighting the pandemic, combating climate change, investing in infrastructure, and supporting working families and the most vulnerable.

Biden has surrounded himself with experienced people who take public service seriously. He has passed major bipartisan legislation despite a dysfunctional Republican House majority.

Biden believes in the best of America. He has rebuilt relationships with allies around the world and stood up to foes like Russia and China.

There was only one person at the debate who does not deserve to be running for president. The sooner Trump exits the stage, the better off the country will be.

Categories Biden, Democracy, Elections, Trump
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »