Archives for category: Elections

Andy Borowitz is a humorist who wrote for The New Yorker for years. He now has his own blog. This is a recent entry:

MINNEAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report)—A study published by the University of Minnesota Medical School on Friday “strongly indicates” that people who are exposed to Sen. JD Vance lose all interest in activity that would lead to reproduction.

According to Dr. Davis Logsdon, who supervised the study, “Research subjects exposed to JD Vance became less likely to reproduce and more inclined to acquire a cat.”

Logsdon said the responses of study participants became “even more pronounced” when they were shown an image of Vance in drag.

In that situation, he said, the participants exhibited a range of behaviors from “recoiling in horror” to “attempting to flee.” 

“Taken as a whole, this research suggests that JD Vance might not be the best messenger for his own pro-reproduction stance,” the researcher said. “He could, however, be an effective promoter of abstinence.”

When Project 2025, the definitive guide to Trump’s second term, began to generate negative reactions, Trump claimed he was taken by surprise. All of a sudden, he played dumb about Project 2025: He said he didn’t know who was behind it and had barely heard about it.

As Dan Rather and his team at “Steady” determined, he was lying again. Nothing new there, but he wanted to discourage the public from learning more about Project 2025.

Dan wrote:

Donald Trump and his campaign may have disavowed it, but don’t think for a moment that Project 2025 is going anywhere. A newly released hidden camera interview with one of the project’s authors, who also served in Trump’s Cabinet, reveals that the Republican nominee has “blessed it.” 

First, a little background.

Project 2025, the MAGA blueprint to completely overhaul the federal government, is being spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, the daddy of conservative think tanks, with input from more than 100 other right-wing organizations. “The Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise,” the official title, consists of four pillars:

  • A 900-page policy guide for a second Trump term
  • A playbook for the first 180 days, consisting of 350 executive orders and regulations that have already been written
  • A LinkedIn-style database of potential MAGA personnel 
  • A “Presidential Administration Academy,” a training guide for political appointees to be ready on day one

On July 24, Russell Vought, Trump’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget, Project 2025 author and Republican National Convention policy director, met with two people he thought were potential donors to his conservative group, Center for Renewing America. They were actually working for a British nonprofit trying to expose information about Project 2025. The two secretly recorded the two-hour conversation.

In the video posted on CNN, Vought described the project as the “tip of the America First spear.” He said that after meeting with Trump in recent months, the former president “is very supportive of what we do.” The project would create “shadow agencies” that wouldn’t be subject to the same scrutiny as actual agencies of the federal government. Vought also told members of the British nonprofit that he was in charge of writing the second phase of Project 2025, consisting of the hundreds of executive orders ready to go on day one of a new administration. 

When asked how the information would be disseminated, his deputy said it would be distributed old-school, on paper. “You don’t actually, like, send them to their work emails,” he said, to avoid discovery under the Freedom of Information Act.

Last week, ProPublica, an investigative journalism nonprofit, obtained more than 14 hours of training videos, which are part of Project 2025’s effort to recruit and train tens of thousands of right-wing appointees to replace a wide and deep swath of current federal civil servants. 

“We need to flood the zone with conservatives,” said Paul Dans, who was in charge of Project 2025 until he was fired because it’s become such a headache for Trump. “This is a clarion call to come to Washington,” Dans said in 2023. 

Project 2025 is not a new plan; it has been in the works for decades. The first version was published just after Ronald Reagan took office in 1981. In 2015 the Heritage Foundation gave the incoming Trump administration the seventh iteration. Should you think that Trump and his cronies know nothing about any of this, the Heritage Foundation boasted that Trump instituted 64% of the policy recommendations in that document, including leaving the Paris Climate Accords.

Trump has tried and largely failed to distance himself from Project 2025. Perhaps because two high-ranking members of his administration were directors of the project. On Truth Social, Trump posted, “I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it….” As for those training videos, most of the speakers in them are former Trump administration officials.

Many of Project 2025’s recommendations are deeply unpopular with Americans. A survey conducted by YouGov found that almost 60% of respondents opposed several big tenets, including: eliminating the Department of Education, giving tax cuts to corporations, ending the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and changing the law to allow the president to fire civil servants.

It is difficult to convince voters that the project’s policy recommendations are real because they are so radical. Anat Shenker-Osorio, a political strategist, spoke about the challenges of discussing Project 2025 with focus groups on the podcast “The Wilderness.”

“When we actually cut and paste verbatim from the Heritage document, people are like, that’s a bunch of bull****. Like, why did you make that up? And what is wrong with you? And why are you lying to us?” she said. 

To that end, here are just a few of the most democracy-threatening suggestions, verbatim:

On child labor: “With parental consent and proper training, certain young adults should be allowed to learn and work in more dangerous occupations.”

On education: “Federal education policy should be limited and, ultimately, the Federal Department of Education should be eliminated.“

On climate change: “Climate-change research should be disbanded … The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) should be broken up and downsized.”

On LGBTQ+ rights: “The next secretary should also reverse the Biden Administration’s focus on ‘LGBTQ+ equity,’ subsidizing single-motherhood, disincentivizing work, and penalizing marriage, replacing such policies with those encouraging marriage, work, motherhood, fatherhood, and nuclear families.”

On families: “Families comprised of a married mother, father, and their children are the foundation of a well-ordered nation and healthy society … The male-female dyad is essential to human nature and … every child has a right to a mother and father.”

Not to mention several highly publicized recommendations on abortion and women’s rights that are an effort to return to America of the 1950s.

The architects of and adherents to Project 2025 want a white, heterosexual Christian nation. The ideals of our 250-year-old form of government, in which majority rules, are anathema to them. They want to inflict their beliefs on everyone, representative democracy be damned. 

I cannot state it strongly enough: Project 2025, with Donald Trump at the helm, is the greatest existential threat to American democracy in recent history. And make no mistake, should Trump win in November, he will usher in many if not most of the project’s recommendations. 

Perhaps Project 2025 should be referred to as Project 1925. In Trump’s mind, that was the time that America was “great,” and they want to go back to that era of low taxes, no abortions, white Christian male domination, no civil rights laws, low taxes, and a very limited federal government.

No thanks. We are not going back!

Jill Lawrence is a veteran journalist who writes now for The Bulwark, a Never-Trumper site. She writes here about the ridiculous epithets hurled at Kamala Harris’s plan to punish price-gouging. After trying out various insulting names, he has settled on “Communist Kamala.” This is ridiculous, of course, but it stirs fear. Apparently anyone who believes that the federal government has a role to play in supporting the general welfare is a Commie. In Trump’ssworld, the purpose of the Feds is to cut taxes on the rich.

She writes:

VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS wants to punish companies for price gouging—but only food suppliers and grocery stores, and only if federal or state authorities investigate and determine that they have violated what her campaign calls “clear rules of the road.”

Reaction across the spectrum has run a mild to overheated gamut of negativity, with the proposal being called everything from counterproductive and “not sensible” to “Venezuelan-style” Nixonomics and “a heavy-handed socialist policy” that will fuel former President Donald Trump’s attacks on her as “Comrade Kamala” going “full Communist” by imposing “socialist price controls” that would cause rationing and hunger.

Give me a break, man, as President Joe Biden might say. Communist? Socialist? Nixonesque? Not even close.

“In our country both wholesale and retail prices are established by the government,” Soviet Finance Minister Vasily Garbuzov said in 1960. All of them. By fiat. And quite similar to what President Richard Nixon did eleven years later. “I am today ordering a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States,” he said on August 15, 1971.

None of this is remotely akin to the modest scope and due process of what Harris has in mind, per her campaign: writing national rules “to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive profits on food and groceries,” and authorizing the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to investigate and penalize companies that break those rules.

Many states—those vaunted laboratories of democracy—already have laws that ban price-gouging. At its core, it’s simply consumer protection. And while we don’t yet know the details of the Harris plan, let alone how it would evolve when enacted or what impact it would have, as a political calculation it’s never a mistake to empathize with consumers during inflationary times.

Nixon lifted his price and wage controls right after he was re-elected in 1972. Harris announced her plan last week—less than a month after her sudden rise to the top spot on the Democratic ticket in a contest against Trump, who is manifestly unfit to serve and a proven danger to democracy.

Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi helped engineer that candidate switchout, Harris slotted in for a flagging 81-year-old Biden, and it’s the Pelosi campaign mantra that comes to mind these days: Just win, baby. Plus, what’s wrong with politicians signaling in a visceral way that they feel people’s pain at the grocery store? Nothing.

Bill Clinton, the epitome of a feel-your-pain president, signaled both political moderation and emotional connection in two State of the Union speeches—1996 when he was running for re-election and 1997 after he had won a second term—by backing uniform requirements in public schools that wanted them. He argued they could help “break the hold of gangs and violence” and promote “discipline and order and learning” in classrooms.

By scale and historic import, Clinton’s school uniforms push didn’t rank among his administration’s most noteworthy achievements, yet it allowed him to relate to people on a personal, daily-life level, and that’s what Harris needs…

Joe Biden has not gotten the credit he deserves for his economic record. The U.S. economy on his watch has made a stellar recovery from the pandemic. Wages are up, unemployment is way down, the stock market is up, retail sales are up, inflation is down, and as of last week, small business applications were at a record high of 19 million since Biden and Harris took office.Join

Maybe the public hasn’t given Biden credit for all this because inflation has only just shown signs of subsiding. Or maybe it’s because of his age and general unhappiness about a Biden–Trump rematch. But part of it may be, as I have written, that Biden has been playing the long game—setting us up to fight climate change, compete with China, and bring manufacturing home to protect America against future global supply-chain disruptions.

And the investments have been targeted well: renewable energy, high-speed broadband, electric-vehicle battery plants and charging networks, a wave of future-forward manufacturing that studies show has gone largely to red and purple states and congressional districts. Biden will leave the whole country, not just the parts he likes or wins, more self-sufficient and better equipped to take care of the planet.

The concrete results in some cases won’t be apparent for years after Biden leaves office, but progress is happening now—high-speed internet proposals submitted and approved, new jobscoming online, semiconductor manufacturing projects advancing with federal and private-sector financing, and America on its way to producing 30 percent of the world’s semiconductor chips by 2032—up from zero.

Key parts of Biden’s Build Back Better plan largely fell by the wayside in 2022—most notably a care component that included free preschool, paid family and medical leave, child care subsidies, higher pay for home health care workers, an expanded child tax credit, and remedies for what even then was a crisis-level housing shortage. But Biden has not lost sight of any of this, and in fact he revived the family-relief provisions this past spring before exiting the 2024 race.

Harris, whose interest in such policies is longstanding, is now adapting and expanding on the care agenda in ways that mesh with today’s populist economics. She’s doing the same on housing and inflation, informed by her background as a prosecutor and attorney general who protected consumers and their interests, from privacy to home foreclosures.

This is the moment we’re in and Harris is seizing it. That’s the right thing to do in 2024, just as the right thing to do in 2020 was to defend democracy and fight for the soul of the nation. That’s how Biden defeated Trump four years ago and he’s been clear about his objective this year… “Win.”

Heather Cox Richardson describes the Democratic National Convention and Kamala Harris offering a vision of community, of neighbors helping neighbors, of government removing barriers to opportunity and lifting up those who need help.. She notes that the party has gone beyond identity politics: Harris did not mention her race or gender even as her nomination was history-making because of her race and gender. Instead of the tired tropes of the past, she appealed to traditional American values.

She writes:

The raucous roll call of states at the 2024 Democratic National Convention on Tuesday, as everybody danced to DJ Cassidy’s state-themed music, Lil Jon strode down the aisle to cheers for Georgia, and different delegations boasted about their states and good-naturedly teased other delegations, brought home the real-life meaning of E Pluribus Unum, “out of many, one.” From then until Thursday, as a sea of American flags waved and attendees joyfully chanted “USA, USA, USA,” the convention welcomed a new vision for the Democratic Party, deeply rooted in the best of traditional America. 

Under the direction of President Joe Biden, over the past three and a half years the Democrats have returned to the economic ideology of the New Deal coalition of the 1930s. This week’s convention showed that it has now gone further, recentering the vision of government that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s secretary of labor, Frances Perkins, called upon to make it serve the interests of communities.     

When the Biden-Harris administration took office in 2021, the United States was facing a deadly pandemic and the economic crash it had caused. The country also had to deal with the aftermath of the attempt of former president Donald Trump to overthrow the results of the 2020 presidential election and seize the presidency. It appeared that many people in the United States, as in many other countries around the world, had given up on democracy. 

Biden set out to prove that democracy could work for ordinary people by ditching the neoliberalism that had been in place for forty years. That system, begun in the 1980s, called for the government to allow unfettered markets to organize the economy. Neoliberalism’s proponents promised it would create widespread prosperity, but instead, it transferred more than $50 trillion from the bottom 90% of Americans to the top 1%. As the middle class hollowed out, those slipping behind lined up behind an authoritarian figure who promised to restore their former centrality by attacking those he told them were their enemies.

When he took office, Biden vowed to prove that democracy worked. With laws like the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, the Democrats directed investment toward ordinary Americans. The dramatic success of their economic program proved that it worked. On Wednesday, former president Bill Clinton noted that since 1989, the U.S. has created 51 million new jobs. Fifty million of those jobs were created under Democratic presidents, while only 1 million were added under Republicans—a striking statistic that perhaps will put neoliberalism, or at least the tired trope that Democrats are worse for the economy than Republicans, to bed. 

Vice President Kamala Harris’s nomination convention suggested a more thorough reworking of the federal government, one that also recalls the 1930s but suggests a transformation that goes beyond markets and jobs. 

Before Labor Secretary Perkins’s 1935 Social Security Act, the government served largely to manage the economic relationships between labor, capital, and resources. But Perkins recognized that the purpose of government was not to protect property; it was to protect the community. She recognized that children, women, and elderly and disabled Americans were as valuable to the community as young male workers and the wealthy men who employed them.

With a law that established a federal system of old-age benefits; unemployment insurance; aid to homeless, dependent, and neglected children; funds to promote maternal and child welfare; and public health services, Perkins began the process of molding the government to reflect that truth. 

Perkins’s understanding of the United States as a community reflected both her time in a small town in Maine and in her experience as a social worker in inner-city Philadelphia and Chicago before the law provided any protections for the workers, including children, who made the new factories profitable. She understood that while lawmakers focused on male workers, the American economy was, and always has been, utterly dependent on the unrecognized contributions of women and marginalized people in the form of childcare, sharing food and housing, and the many forms of unpaid work that keep communities functioning. 

This reworking of the American government to reflect community rather than economic

relationships changed the entire fabric of the country, and opponents have worked to destroy it ever since FDR began to put it in place. 

Now, in their quest to win the 2024 election, Vice President Kamala Harris and Minnesota governor Tim Walz—the Democratic nominees for president and vice president—have reclaimed the idea of community, with its understanding that everyone matters and the government must serve everyone, as the center of American life. 

Their vision rejects the division of the country into “us” and “them” that has been a staple of Republican politics since President Richard M. Nixon. It also rejects the politics of identity that has become identified with the argument that the United States has been irredeemably warped by racism and sexism. Instead, at the DNC, Democrats acknowledged the many ways in which the country has come up short of its principles in the past, and demanded that Americans do something to put in place a government that will address those inequities and make the American dream accessible to all.

Walz personifies this community vision. On Wednesday he laid it out from the very beginning of his acceptance speech, noting that he grew up in Butte, Nebraska, a town of 400 people, with 24 kids in his high school class. “[G]rowing up in a small town like that,” he said, “you’ll learn how to take care of each other that that family down the road, they may not think like you do, they may not pray like you do, they may not love like you do, but they’re your neighbors and you look out for them and they look out for you. Everybody belongs and everybody has a responsibility to contribute.” The football players Walz coached to a state championship joined him on stage.

Harris also called out this idea of community when she declined to mention that, if elected, she will be the first female president, and instead remembered growing up in “a beautiful working-class neighborhood of firefighters, nurses, and construction workers, all who tended their lawns with pride.” Her mother, Harris said, “leaned on a trusted circle to help raise us. Mrs. Shelton, who ran the daycare below us and became a second mother. Uncle Sherman. Aunt Mary. Uncle Freddy. And Auntie Chris. None of them, family by blood. And all of them, Family. By love…. Family who…instilled in us the values they personified. Community. Faith. And the importance of treating others as you would want to be treated. With kindness. Respect. And compassion.”

The speakers at the DNC called out the women who make communities function. Speaker after speaker at the DNC thanked their mother. Former first lady Michelle Obama explicitly described her mother, Marian Robinson, as someone who lived out the idea of hope for a better future, working for children and the community. Mrs. Obama described her mother as “glad to do the thankless, unglamorous work that for generations has strengthened the fabric of this nation.” 

Mrs. Obama, Harris, and Walz have emphasized that while they come from different backgrounds, they come from what Mrs. Obama called “the same foundational values”: “the promise of this country,” “the obligation to lift others up,” a “responsibility to give more than we take.”  Harris agreed, saying her mother “taught us to never complain about injustice. But…do something about it. She also taught us—Never do anything half-assed. That’s a direct quote.”

The Democrats worked to make it clear that their vision is not just the Democratic Party’s vision but an American one. They welcomed the union workers and veterans who have in the past gravitated toward Republicans, showing a powerful video contrasting Trump’s photo-ops, in which actors play union workers, with the actual plants being built thanks to money from the Biden-Harris administration. The many Democratic lawmakers who have served in the military stood on stage to back Arizona representative Ruben Gallego, a former Marine, who told the crowd that the veteran unemployment rate under Biden and Harris is the lowest in history. 

The many Republicans who spoke at the convention reinforced that the Democratic vision speaks for the whole country. Former representative Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) identified this vision as “conservative.” “As a conservative and a veteran,” he said “I believe true strength lies in defending the vulnerable. It’s in protecting your family. It’s in standing up for our Constitution and our democracy. That…is the soul of being a conservative. It used to be the soul of being a Republican,” Kinzinger said. “But Donald Trump has suffocated the soul of the Republican Party.” 

“[A] harm against any one of us is a harm against all of us,” Harris said. And she reminded people of her career as a prosecutor, in which “[e]very day in the courtroom, I stood proudly before a judge and said five words: ‘Kamala Harris, for the People.’ My entire career, I have only had one client. The People.”

“And so, on behalf of The People. On behalf of every American. Regardless of party. Race. Gender. Or the language your grandmother speaks. On behalf of my mother and everyone who has ever set out on their own unlikely journey. On behalf of Americans like the people I grew up with. People who work hard. Chase their dreams. And look out for one another. On behalf of everyone whose story could only be written in the greatest nation on Earth. I accept your nomination for President of the United States of America.”

The 100,000 biodegradable balloons that fell from the rafters when Vice President Harris accepted the Democratic nomination for president were blown up and tied by a team of 55 balloon artists from 18 states and Canada who volunteered to prepare the drop in honor of their colleague, Tommy DeLorenzo, who, along with his husband Scott, runs a balloon business. DeLorenzo is battling cancer. “We’re more colleagues than competitors,” Patty Sorell told Sydney Page of the Washington Post. “We all wanted to do something to help Tommy, to show him how much we love him.” 

“Words cannot express the gratitude I feel for this community,” DeLorenzo said.  

During its exhilarating convention, the Democratic Party rebranded itself. It was impossible to miss the sea of American flags, which everyone periodically waved in unison, or the loud chants of “USA! USA!”

It was impossible to miss the frequent paeans to FREEDOM and the signs in the audience emblazoned with the word FREEDOM.

As the brilliant writer Anand Girihadaras wrote on his blog “The Ink,” Democrats reclaimed five words that had been captured by the Republicans:

Freedom. Patriotism. Family. Masculinity. Normalcy.

Governor Tim Walz was a key figure in exemplifying these words. A guy animated by love of family. A coach. A hunter (who favors common-sense gun control). A member of the National Guard for 24 years. A guy.

Kamala Harris, Walz, and others focused on Freedom: the freedom to make your own healthcare decisions, the freedom that comes from knowing that your child will not be shot dead in school, the freedom to afford a home, the freedom to vote. Walz said, on more than one occasion, that the government should not insert itself into your doctors’ office or your bedroom. He repeatedly invoked what he described as a small-town virtue: “Mind Your Own Damn Business.”

Harris and Walz deliberately snatched those words away from the Republicans and claimed them as their own.

At the same time, they doubled down on criticizing Trump for his affinity for tyrants, like Putin. In their display of dignity and patriotism, they contrasted their party with Trump’s unhinged rants and childish personal insults. They emphasized the importance of telling the truth, as Trump tweeted that the next round of a Trump administration”would be great for women and reproductive rights.”

And they showcased JOY, as they laughed and danced in the aisles. The contrast was especially sharp during the states’ roll call vote: Republicans announced their votes to polite applause; Democrats announced their votes to music and dancing and flashing lights. Harris radiated joy, with her vivacious smile and her celebrated laugh. Trump evoked fear, frightening images of a nation in decline, divisesiveness. Which America do you want to live in?

The Republicans spoke wistfully about turning back the clock to a mythical time when America was “great.” An era of white male supremacy? An era of Christian dominance? The Democrats spoke hopefully about a better future, where everyone has the opportunity to live a decent life. The past or the future. Your choice.

The biggest contrast was the difference in the delegates themselves. The Republicans were, with minor variations, the party of white people. The Democrats overflowed with ethic and racial diversity.

Which party is the past? Which is the future?

Jennifer Rubin, columnist for the Washington Post, was at the convention in Chicago with her colleagues. She made a sage observation. The Democrats have a strong bench of new and young faces. The Republicans do not.

She wrote:

It has become evident during convention week that Democrats are blessed with three groups of leaders. The wise first group — Hillary Clinton, the Obamas, former speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and now Biden — has guided the party for the past generation, nationally making strides and keeping the Democratic coalition together. The domestic accomplishments they have collectively made would stand up to any other generation’s output. The second group’s time has come: Harris, Gov. Tim Walz (Minn.), Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Sen. Raphael G. Warnock (Ga.), House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (N.Y.), Gov. Josh Shapiro (Pa.). They are more media savvy than many in the older generation and better able to reach voters who are younger and more diverse. This second group’s challenge will be putting a stake through the MAGA movement and charting a path forward for a sustainable, center-left governing majority. The third, and most interesting, group includes the future stars, two of whom (Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.) and Jasmine Crockett (Tex.)) lit up the convention on Monday night. Other less flashy but equally compelling figures have the governing chops to win legislative battles and keep the party from straying too far left. These include Rep. Abigail Spanberger (Va.), who is running for governor; Rep. Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), who is running for Senate; Rep. Mikie Sherrill (N.J.); and Rep. Dan Goldman (N.Y.), who distinguished himself by going toe-to-toe with Republicans who ineptly and corruptly tried to investigate the Bidens.

Republicans have nothing comparable. Trump has hollowed out and disgraced the party. Any rebuilding, if Trump loses, will likely have to fall to a new generation. Trump, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and a flock of House and Senate extremists have dominated the GOP, turned off a great many voters and done immense damage to comity, the rule of law and good governance. One of the most attractive features of a possible Harris victory: Many prominent Republicans will be swept aside. We can only hope a better crop replaces them.

Note that Trump and his acolytes have driven the next generation of Republicans out of the party. Trump himself campaigned to defeat any member of Congress who voted to impeach him. Trump-aligned governors have “primaried” moderate Republicans. To be successful in today’s Republican Party, a candidate must pledge to defend The Big Lie. That hollows out good people like Adam Kinzinger and Liz Cheney.

The Bulwark is a Never-Trumper site, made up of angry Republicans. They have terrific content. Here is Bill Kristol, former editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, praising Kamala’s fabulous speech.

Kristol wrote:

Success.

Kamala Harris’s acceptance speech last night was a success. It capped a Democratic convention that was a success. That convention, in turn, capped Harris’s first month as a candidate, which was a success.

All that success was by no means inevitable.

One really has to tip one’s hat to the vice president and her campaign, and say: Not bad. Not bad at all. Pretty damn impressive, in fact.

Of course past performance is no guarantee of future results. Still, it does seem that a certain amount of optimism—guarded and hard-headed optimism—is warranted. We now have a reasonable likelihood of defeating Donald Trump, and electing as our next president a vigorous and centrist leader of a healthy and mainstream political party.

The convention has sought, for the most part, to present such a party. And last night’s speech presented such a leader.

The speech began with a very effective biographical section. Harris’s mother, Shyamala Harris, was central to her narrative. The tribute to her mother ran like a red thread through this part of the speech, and indeed the speech as a whole, allowing Harris to humanize herself while deftly avoiding the grandiosity and pomposity that often mar such efforts.

Having introduced herself to the nation, Harris formally accepted the nomination of her party. But it was a remarkably nonpartisan acceptance of a party’s nomination:

And, so, on behalf of the people, on behalf of every American, regardless of party, race, gender or the language your grandmother speaks. On behalf of my mother, and everyone who has ever set out on their own unlikely journey. On behalf of Americans like the people I grew up with—people who work hard, chase their dreams and look out for one another. On behalf of everyone whose story could only be written in the greatest nation on Earth, I accept your nomination to be president of the United States of America.

The tone of that paragraph laid the groundwork for the rest of the speech. Harris spoke more as an American than as a Democrat; as a patriot, not a partisan; and as someone grateful not aggrieved, future-oriented but not at all hostile to our past.

And so Harris continued:

And let me say, I know there are people of various political views watching tonight. And I want you to know, I promise to be a president for all Americans. You can always trust me to put country above party and self. To hold sacred America’s fundamental principles, from the rule of law, to free and fair elections, to the peaceful transfer of power.

The invocation of America’s fundamental principles, in turn, laid the predicate for a criticism of Trump as threatening them:

In many ways, Donald Trump is an unserious man. But the consequences of putting Donald Trump back in the White House are extremely serious.

And the critique of Trump led into the last half or so of the speech, which consisted of a pitch for more-or-less centrist domestic policies— including the bipartisan border bill that Trump torpedoed—and a robust endorsement of America’s necessary and distinctive role in the world.

Overall, the vision was kind of Bill Clinton (with a touch of Jack Kemp) at home, and John McCain abroad, with a hefty dose of John F. Kennedy-Ronald Reagan patriotism throughout. Harris even offered a striking endorsement of American exceptionalism:

I see an America where we hold fast to the fearless belief that built our nation and inspired the world . . . We are the heirs to the greatest democracy in the history of the world.

It is now our turn to do what generations before us have done, guided by optimism and faith, to fight for this country we love, to fight for the ideals we cherish and to uphold the awesome responsibility that comes with the greatest privilege on Earth: the privilege and pride of being an American.

With this speech, and with this convention as a whole, we have come a long way—the Democratic party has come a long way—from the identity and grievance politics of the left. Harris and Tim Walz have laid the predicate for a center-oriented, optimistic, and patriotic campaign. Consider the final tally. The terms America, American, Americans were uttered 34 times; country or nation, 20 times; freedom, 12 times; opportunity, 6 times; Democrats or Democratic party, 0 times.

It won’t be smooth sailing ahead. Trump and his campaign will go after them. And the left won’t simply be quiet. So there will be challenges aplenty.

Still, the prospects for the next two months seem pretty good to me.

But enough of all this unaccustomed good cheer. We need to start worrying about the debate. It’s only two-and-a-half weeks away.

While Kamala Harris was giving her terrific speech last night, Trump was live-tweeting on his favorite site. He was outraged!

Andrew Eggers wrote:

When things are going well and he’s feeling good, Donald Trump can sometimes be cajoled by his team into something resembling discipline. When things are going badly, he’s much more prone to publicly venting some spleen.

So perhaps the greatest measure of the effectiveness of Kamala Harris’s convention speech was the truly unhinged content bender it sent Trump spiraling into last night.

It started on Truth Social, where Trump informed us he had “assembled a small group of people, GREAT PATRIOTS ALL,” to watch Harris’s “puff piece.”

At first, Trump was jocular: “A lot of talk about childhood,” he wrote as Harris told her personal history, “we’ve got to get to the Border, Inflation, and Crime!”

Soon, though, the wheels were coming off. “These Prosecutions were all started by her and Biden against her Political Opponent, ME!” Trump fumed as Harris turned to his legal troubles. “IS SHE TALKING ABOUT ME?”

A random sampling of what followed:

  • “LYING AGAIN ABOUT PROJECT 2025, WHICH SHE KNOWS, AND SO DO ALL DEMOCRATS, THAT I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH!”
  • “She just called to give all Illegals CITIZENSHIP, SAY GOODBYE TO THE U.S.A.! SHE IS A RADICAL MARXIST!”
  • “Walz was an ASSISTANT Coach, not a COACH.”
  • “SHE HAS LED US INTO FAILING NATION STATUS!”
  • “WHERE’S HUNTER?”

But posting, it turned out, wasn’t enough to soothe Trump’s jangled nerves. After the speech, he dialed into Fox News for still more free-associative complaining, bowling right over Bret Baier and Martha MacCallum’s attempts to get in specific questions, seemingly pressing phone buttons with his face as he talked. They eventually had to cut him off mid-sentence to wrap up their show.

Not to worry, though: When they pull the plug on you on Fox, there’s always Newsmax. So Trump picked up the phone again. “I will tell you, I just watched it,” he told Greg Kelly and Mercedes Schlapp a few moments later. “She didn’t talk about many things, like interest rates, China, fracking anywhere, let alone Pennsylvania, crime, poverty, trade deficits, child trafficking, woman trafficking, drugs, the border—she didn’t talk about the most important things.”

Did he get the bile out of his system? Trump’s rallying in Arizona this afternoon; I guess we’ll find out then.

Elie Honig is a former federal prosecutor who writes at a site called Cafe, where he and other legal experts follow and explain Trump’s legal entanglements. In this post, he speculates on how Jack Smith’s effort to hold Trump accountable for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election might fare in the months ahead.. Note that he points out that the investigation was hampered by the very late start of the U.S. Justice Department.

He writes:

Dear Reader,

I remember vividly the first time I lost a key piece of evidence. The NYPD had caught our defendant in Washington Heights with a fake police badge around his neck and a loaded gun in his waistband, and we charged him with federal firearms and armed robbery conspiracy crimes. Better yet (for us on the prosecution side), we flipped a cooperating witness who would testify that he and the defendant had committed two prior armed robberies together by posing as cops and ripping off drug dealers.

A week or so before trial began, the judge held a conference to handle routine pre-trial housekeeping. I confidently laid out the cooperator’s expected testimony. “That’s out,” the judge ruled, nonchalantly. “Too prejudicial.” For those who think that every judicial decision is rendered in scholarly prose, replete with probing analysis and citations to applicable precedent: welcome to the real world.

It was a kick in the gut. “That’s such bullshit. He can’t do that,” I whined afterwards. “Sure he can,” my supervisor responded. “He’s the judge.”

My experience is a tiny-potatoes version of what the U.S. Supreme Court has done to Special Counsel Jack Smith and his 2020 election subversion case against Donald Trump. The Court declared, for the first time in our history, that a president is entitled to criminal immunity for official acts. That part was no surprise; the law has long recognized civil immunity, and the justices during oral argument seemed in no mood to affirm the lower courts’ outright rejection of Trump’s claim.

But the breadth of the Supreme Court’s decision was astonishing. The majority held, for example, that “in dividing official from unofficial conduct, courts may not inquire into the President’s motives.” (It remains unclear exactly how a judge is supposed to draw that vital distinction.) And the Court ruled that if conduct is immune, prosecutors can’t base a criminal charge on it – nor can they mention it at all during trial, even as necessary context or background.

Now the case has landed back in trial court, before Judge Tanya Chutkan. She originally wanted the parties back before her today, but Smith asked for a few more weeks to gather his thoughts; he clearly has accepted that there won’t be a pre-election trial, despite his prior dogged efforts. Trump’s counsel, ever intent on slowing things down, happily consented to the prosecution’s request for delay. When Court reconvenes on September 5, it’ll be up to the Judge to pick through the wreckage and figure out what can be salvaged.

On that question, the Supreme Court has offered pointed guidance, and it bodes poorly for the core of Smith’s indictment. Trump’s effort to coerce the Justice Department to gin up proof of non-existent election fraud? Almost certainly an “official act,” and therefore immune and out of the case altogether. Trump’s pressure campaign aimed at his vice president, Mike Pence? Probably out. And Trump’s public statements, including his tweets and January 6 Ellipse speech? Likely toast, too.

The Supreme Court conspicuously reminded Judge Chutkan that it’s unimpressed with her work so far and will be watching her closely. The justices in the majority blasted the lower courts for “the expedition of this case, the lack of factual analysis… and the absence of pertinent briefing by the parties.” Indeed, as we’ve noted here before, Smith, Chutkan, and the intermediate appeals court judges tried to shortcut ordinary process to get Trump tried before the election; the Supreme Court noticed and disapproved. Most importantly on the vital timing issue, the Court has specified that Trump can appeal Judge Chutkan’s decisions about what conduct is (and is not) immune, before trial starts. That means, as a practical matter, there’s a zero-point-zero percent chance this trial happens before the November 2024 election.

If you’ve been hoping that Trump faces accountability for trying to steal the 2020 election before voters head to the polls for the next one, don’t despair – not fully, anyway. (For the record, I’m with you. The real problem is that DOJ took over two-and-a-half years to charge the case.) Judge Chutkan still can – and I believe will – order an evidentiary hearing to enable Smith to air some of his most explosive evidence, before voters head to the polls.

The Judge now must sift through the prosecution’s evidence and determine how much of Trump’s alleged conduct was an official act (and therefore immune), and which conduct can remain in the case. She has some leeway here. The Judge could opt to take “proffers” from both sides – detailed statements by the lawyers about what they expect their evidence to show. That’s a little flat, but it’s also perfectly permissible and efficient. And then there’s the more sensational alternative: the Judge can permit Smith to call live witnesses to expound from the stand on what their trial testimony would be.

I expect Smith to push for door number two, and Judge Chutkan to agree. If that happens, brace for a series of dramatic in-court encounters. We could see Trump’s former chief of staff, Mark Meadows, take the stand to give his first-ever public accounting of what his boss did (and didn’t do) before and on January 6. And Mike Pence could testify about how Trump begged and eventually threatened him in an effort to get him to throw the election – and how, on January 6, he had to run for his life to avoid the frothing mob.

No, an evidentiary hearing won’t hit nearly as hard as a jury trial and verdict. And we won’t actually see or hear any of it, because federal courts don’t permit cameras or live audio streaming. (Fair enough, given that it’s apparently the year 1892 right now.) We likely already know the most damaging information, as revealed in 2022 during the unforgettable January 6 Select Committee hearings in Congress, and the ensuing 800-plus page report. But, really, imagine: Trump’s own former chief of staff and VP taking the stand in, say, September of an election year, to describe firsthand how their former boss trampled on the Constitution to try to steal an election. Even if we all mostly know the story by now, that simply can’t be good for Trump at the polls, just weeks before voters cast their ballots.

It’s unclear how much of Smith’s case will ultimately survive the Supreme Court’s strafing. He might eventually go to trial on a tattered indictment focused on Trump’s effort to pressure state and local officials, without any of the damning evidence relating to DOJ and the VP and incitement of the rally crowd. Or the wounds inflicted by the Supreme Court might ultimately prove fatal.

But if Smith’s goal is to expose Trump’s conduct to the American public before the election – and let’s face it, that’s plainly been a driving force for the special counsel all along, despite his refusal to acknowledge it – he’ll still have a backdoor path to partial success.

Stay Informed,

Elie

Elie Honig served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York for 8.5 years and as the Director of the Division of Criminal Justice at the Office of Attorney General for the State of New Jersey for 5.5 years. He is currently a legal Analyst for CNN and Executive Director at Rutgers Institute for Secure Communities

Michael Tomasky is a respected political journalist and the editor of The New Republic. In this post, he describes Trump’s inability to cope with running against Kamala, not Joe. He has spent nearly four years prearing for a rematch with Biden, and the change of candidate seems to have confused him. At times like this, im remindedthat Trump’s had severe dementia at the end if his life.

Tomasky writes:

It continues. Six days ago, The New York Times ran a story under the headline “Inside the Worst Three Weeks of Donald Trump’s 2024 Campaign.” Usually, when the country’s most important newspaper runs a story like that, the candidate pays a little attention and the ship begins to right itself. But in this case, it’s just gotten worse. The ship is capsizing, and the captain is losing his marbles.

Right after that story ran, Trump came out with his wild accusation that Kamala Harris’s crowd of thousands at a Detroit airplane hangar was fake. The next night, he did that weird, to borrow an au courant word, interview with Elon Musk, where he made more WTF comments than I can recount, capped by his vow to move to Venezuela (a country ruled by a corrupt autocrat who just cheated massively in this month’s election) if he loses. On Wednesday, he gave a rambling speech at a North Carolina rally.

Then, on Thursday, we had a little taste of some peak Trump crazy. He claimed Harris is responsible for a law in California that says it’s OK to steal from a grocery store as long as your take is under $950. (This is not what the law says.) He made strange comments about Cheerios. He lectured Jews (at a later event) about how if the Democrats win, Jewish people “don’t have a chance” in America, saying of Harris—whose husband is Jewish—that “she doesn’t like Jewish people. You know it, I know it, and everybody knows it, and nobody wants to say it.” And we can’t forget the assertion that more than 100 percent of recent U.S. jobs have gone to migrants.

But wait. These are just the appetizers! Then he called Harris a “Communist” and said the country under her leadership would devolve into a commie dystopia in which “everyone gets health care” (the horror!). And then, the pièce de résistance: At the Jewish event, he praised Miriam Adelson, the huge Trump donor and widow of Sheldon Adelson, mentioning that he’d given her a Presidential Medal of Freedom, which he noted was the civilian equivalent of the Congressional Medal of Honor (given to military veterans) but was “actually much better” because people who receive the latter medal are “either in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets, or they’re dead.”

You know how they say in sports that an opponent has gotten inside the other team’s head? Well, Harris and Tim Walz have certainly gotten inside Trump’s head. Walz’s “weird” comment, which Trump has also responded to in a, well, sort of weird way, was just the start. Harris has also smartly refused to take the GOP campaign’s bait, like when Trump attacked her race and J.D. Vance tried to make her childlessness an issue. Meanwhile, the Harris-Walz campaign trolls Trump in its press releases with snarky language I don’t recall Joe Biden’s or Hillary Clinton’s campaigns using. It sends the message, which must drive him nuts, that they don’t fear him at all.

Meanwhile, what else is Harris doing? Starting to unveil an economic package that, so far anyway, looks pretty great. It’s aimed straight at middle-class voters and focused on housing and grocery prices. You can’t get more kitchen table than that. And the bit about going after corporate price gougers is great. It sends a nice populist signal that she’s willing to make some enemies.

We’re coming up on a month now of Harris being the candidate. That isn’t much time, granted, and of course the race is still in margin-of-error territory and at some point, Trump is bound to find his footing and quit flailing as desperately as he has been.

But all that said, the Harris campaign has been as shrewd as any presidential campaign I’ve ever seen. Her stump speech is excellent. The choice of Walz was great—their personal chemistry is so evident in that video they just released of the two of them chatting about spicy food and whatnot (the right is trying to gin up outrage over Walz saying he eats “white-guy tacos”). The focus on family economics recognizes a potential Harris weak spot and establishes the campaign as not being out of touch. They just haven’t done one thing wrong yet…

And Trump is a hot mess. He’s facing a problem he’s never faced. In 2016, he was running against a very known quantity whom the right had been instructing Americans to hate for 25 years. In 2020, he was running against someone who’d been around for nearly 50 years. He’s spent his time since losing that 2020 race sitting around thinking about his rematch with that opponent.

And now suddenly he’s running against someone else, and to his shock, the more America sees of her (so far), the more America kinda likes her. He can’t understand this, and he simply can’t stand it. Trump’s like a predatory animal in a literal sense. Since he has no conscience, he’s all instinct, and his instinct is to find his prey’s weakness and go after it over and over.

He hasn’t come close to finding Harris’s. She is not a lunatic Communist, she’s not stupid, she’s not any of things Trump is saying she is. The America of 2024 is ready for Kamala Harris. Donald Trump is not and can’t accept that fact. No amount of staff shakeups or focusing on “the issues” can fix that.  

I wrote a post on Monday about the relentless GOP attacks on Tim Walz and his wife. They claim his 34 years of service in the National Guard was tarnished; they say he’s not really a coach; they say he and his wife are left wing radicals; they say the Walz family is worth almost $200 million; they say Tim is possibly a spy for China. All lies. Trumpian lies.

In his blog The Status Kuo, Jay Kuo explains why the GOP is aiming their insults at Walz, not Kamala, and why it’s a good thing.

He writes:

There’s a strange phenomenon occurring with the terminally online right. Ever since Vice President Kamala Harris announced that Gov. Tim Walz would be her running mate, many of the right have acted with fury. They’ve attempted to “Swift Boat” his 24-year service record in the Army National Guard. They’ve called him a racist for talking about “white guy tacos.” And they’ve drudged up a nearly 30-year old DUI—for which he took accountability and after which he stopped drinking altogether—to prove he’s somehow not so perfect a role model.

What they haven’t been able to do is make any of this stick. And yet, Walz continues to draw fire, which could otherwise have been directed at Harris.

In other words, Walz is turning out to be a shrewd pick. At net 11 points positive favorability in polls, Walz is immensely more popular than his counterpart on the GOP ticket, JD Vance, who is underwater by nine. And as they continue to rail against him, the right keeps making his fundamental point about them: They are just really weird.

In today’s piece, I explore some theories about why Walz brings out the worst impulses of the right just by being who he is. Then I’ll lay down some political tarot cards and prognosticate about where I think this leads.

Politico Uno Reverse

By most identity measures, Walz should be one of the MAGA right. He’s a midwestern white dude in his late 50s. He loves to hunt and is a sharpshooter. He served for decades in the military and achieved the highest enlisted rank of Command Sergeant Major. He was a football coach who helped lead his team to the state championship.

And yet, despite all these identity markings, Walz in an unabashed progressive. He is for reproductive rights and an ally and protector of gay teens. And there isn’t a bigoted bone in his body. It’s as if when Harris picked him, she played, as writer Anna Gifty Opoku-Agyeman succinctly described it, a “political uno reverse.” The Walz card threw it right back at them, as if to say, “I’m a guy just like you, but without any of the weird baggage.”

The MAGA GOP’s base is supposed to include white guys like Walz. But here is living evidence that they don’t have all of them or the best of them. That’s why they’re so eager to discredit him, because if they don’t, as psychologist Julie Hotard notes, then Walz will stand instead as a model of what is possible. On many levels, an appealing, white, male Democrat is a far bigger threat to their sense of identity than even a biracial woman candidate for president.

The 2004 playbook

All this helps explain why Republicans have trained their fire upon Walz and are so determined to sink him. To do so, they tried an old play that Walz and the Harris team saw coming for miles.

In an election 20 years ago, Republican dirty trickster and campaign strategist Chris LaCivita created the “Swift Boat” controversy to tarnish John Kerry’s otherwise unblemished military record. It was character assassination from a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and it worked—even though there was no basis in fact for any of it. As NPR recently summarized,

“Their accusations are widely understood to be false. Military records (released by Kerry’s campaign) backed up his combat claims. And while most of the swift boat veterans who spoke out against Kerry did not serve with him directly, the ones who did publicly supported his version of events….The swift boating undercut Kerry’s momentum coming out of the Democratic National Convention, and turned one of his greatest strengths into a liability….“

Now LaCivita is back as senior advisor to the Trump reelection campaign, as are attempts to impugn the military record of Walz, another veteran turned politician. The Trump campaign claimed, for example, that Walz resigned from the military in order to avoid the fighting in Iraq, making him a coward with “stolen valor,” but the timeline doesn’t match up. Walz retired months before his unit received any deployment orders to active duty overseas.

This time, however, Democrats were ready for the bad faith attacks, and reporters (outside of the Fox ecosystem anyway) appeared unwilling to take the bait. So far, the swiftboating of Walz is fading fast from the headlines.

Attacking Mr. Nice Guy

For the past two decades, the GOP has shifted markedly toward being a party of cruelty, of “owning” the libs and drinking their tears, and of being as unpleasant and in-your-face as they can be. That kind of behavior has been rewarded with appearances on Fox and other right wing media, fundraising dollars from the MAGA base, and a spot at the side or in the tweets of the ex-president himself.

As author Patrick S. Tomlinson observed, Walz represents what shouldn’t be an extraordinary notion: that you can be a nice guy, supportive of women, embracing of gay people, and still be all the coded masculine ideals of soldier, football coach, hunter and father that the MAGA right believed it had a lock on. Plus, you can be all those things without ever asking weird questions about menstrual cycles, chromosomes and genitalia.

The right even tried to make a big deal about Walz’s efforts as governor to ensure free tampons were available to girls in school. Rumors circulated that schools had been required to also put tampons in boys’ bathrooms, but those claims turned out to be untrue, while demonstrating how off kilter the right becomes over sexuality and gender. The “Tampon Tim” moniker didn’t stick. On the contrary, there are probably many moms and dads grateful for a governor like Walz who is thinking about their daughters’ needs.

For a party accustomed to attacking its enemies, the GOP is now at a loss over how exactly to attack Walz next. Their latest meltdown over his “racist” comment about eating “white guy tacos” exposed them further as the very “snowflakes” they decry, delicate creatures who don’t understand the basic difference between racism and self-deprecation. And really, don’t they have anything better to do than whine about one of their own making a joke about spice tolerance levels? It’s all very silly, but also bogs them down in their own angry stew. 

And in that obsession to bring him down, the right is walking right into Harris’s trap. Every day that Walz draws their attention is one more day Harris moves closer to the presidency end zone, without anyone getting close enough to tackle her. For his part, Walz appears perfectly happy to distract her would-be assailants.

It’s a play an experienced and successful defensive coach like Walz would appreciate.

The fact is that the GOP hasn’t figured out how to attack Kamala without being racist or misogynistic. Trump has called her “Laughing Kamala,” “Crooked Kamala,” “Lying Kamala,” but none of his schoolyard bully taunts has stuck. He has said she is “low IQ” and the “worst Vice-President in history,” but that didn’t stick either. He also called her a “communist,” but no one takes him seriously. So the empty headed MAGA crowd sticks with “Tampon Tim,” which assumes that none of them have teenage daughters. The girls are grateful to Governor Walz.