Interesting Times

What am I missing? President Biden's performance released an avalanche of panic within the Democratic Party, especially among its big donors. I watched that "debate" - all 90 minutes of it (I wrote a blog post about it) and while I thought he did a bad job, and responded poorly to Losin' Don's barrage of lies I certainly didn't believe that it negated his overall solid performance as our nation's leader. Other than a few flubbed facts and some run-of-the-mill politician's exaggeration, I thought he did fine. Unlike his opponent, he actually answered the questions put to him. The only thing that I can think of is that his performance was part of a trend that went back at least a year, maybe longer, and that the Democratic leadership was either covering it up or were engaged in wishful thinking about Biden's ability to campaign effectively and win the election. If...and that's a big "if", either of those scenarios are true the conversations that have been taking place since last month's debate should have taken place long ago. 

Despite the chaos, I give the Democrats credit for addressing the apparent (yes, apparent) unfitness of their candidate, something that the Trumpublican Cult would never do, despite the nonsense that comes out of his mouth at his rallies. "The late, great, Hannibal Lector? Sharks and batteries? No water in washing machines and showers? Well, now that the major mainstream news organizations have amplified the worries about President Biden's age and mental agility, can we expect them to start beating the drum of Losin' Don's very apparent mental decline, as well as his age (only 3 years younger than Biden). Did we forget his inability to take a drink from a water bottle without using two hands? His shakiness on a not-very-steep incline and grabbing onto the U.K. Prime Minister in order to navigate some stairs is still something I recall. 

One of the criticisms I hear is that the Democrats, by pressuring Biden to drop out, are acting undemocratically, effectively cancelling the decisions of primary voters. But did they really? When an incumbent president is running for re-election it's extremely rare for there to be any serious challenges. Anyone from the president's party with presidential aspirations sits it out until the next election. There is no choice to speak of. (Not to mention how the very existence of the de facto two party system limiting choices by design). Could other Democrats theoretically have run? Sure, but it just isn't done. Of course they don't see the hypocrisy of accusing the Democrats of subverting democracy when plans are in full swing to challenge the results if a Democrat wins in November. (On a side note I've heard a few Sanders 2016 supporters popping their heads up to complain about Hillary Clinton and the party bigwigs giving the 2016 nomination to Clinton. They never really go away, those Bernie fans!)

This raises another question: if President Biden is unfit to campaign for re-election, and is unfit to serve a second term, is he fit to complete his current term? I'm not convinced that he is unfit to campaign or serve a second term, but if that is the prevailing opinion, is a call to resign next? If he does resign, Vice President Harris becomes President and goes into the campaign as an incumbent, with all attendant advantages. Since the president's dropping out is new news, we still don't know how the replacement candidate will be chosen. The Democratic National Committee has rules, and there is a process - I just don't know what it is. It's my hope that the party leadership and the delegates unite behind Harris and present a solid front against the Republicans. Harris was my first choice in 2020 and I was disappointed when she dropped out before the primaries.

Everything I have ever presented as reasons to defeat Losin' Don in November are still true. The assassination attempt didn't make him more fit for office, President Biden dropping out of the race didn't make him a better or more effective leader. He's still a horrible, hateful man who is in it for one person, and one person only. Let's make sure we can still call him Losin' Don in November.

Poor Judd is Dead

If Donald Trump were to drop dead of a heart attack today, this country would be a better place. 

No - I am not suggesting that political assassination is a good thing nor am I wishing that the bullet had struck a fraction of an inch to the right. I'm not making jokes about it; I'm not sharing "clever" memes. It's not funny. Even as bad as things are now, that's not how to do things. 

I'm holding off on forming an opinion about the shooter's motives, about whether it was a false flag operation, whether someone in the Secret Service was in on it or incredibly incompetent or any of the myriad conspiracy theories percolating from all quarters the last few days until some facts are presented. 

But do I think Trump dying (of natural causes) is a good thing? Absolutely. 

Politics is, and always has been, a dirty business. Idealistic people of all political persuasions run for office but get caught up in the system and often are corrupted to greater or lesser degree. They spend so much time and effort raising money and campaigning for the next election that it's amazing that anything ever gets done. Members of the House of Representatives are up for re-election every two years! But Trump is an entirely different political animal. Policy is beside the point with him and his legions of followers are loyal to him no matter what he does and says. He is upfront about wanting to tear down any semblance of democratic institutions - the danger that he poses is well known and documented in detail. 

But what about Project 2025 and the many Trump supporters who have been taking over the Republican party? Wouldn't they still be a threat? Of course. The anti-abortion movement didn't suddenly spring up in 2017; Mitch McConnell was stealing Supreme Court seats during Obama's time in the White House. But the grass roots support, voters who will turn out for their guy just wouldn't be there without Trump. I was in a cult and have seen first hand what happens to a cult when their charismatic leader dies. And make no mistake about it, Trumpism, "MAGA" if you will, is a cult. Can you see anyone in MAGA-land who can energize the crowds like Trump does? Anyone who can, without fail, cause millions of people to believe their every lie? 

That person does not exist.

The reason that Project 2025 is such a threat is that its authors are counting on Trump getting elected. They are counting on Trump appointing 2025-friendly cabinet members and staff. If the Republicans have a majority in both the House and Senate they are counting on Trump bullying members into supporting the program. If the Democrats win one or both Houses of Congress they are counting on Trump using executive orders or novel constitutional interpretations to achieve their goals. It all falls apart without Trump. All the local MAGA election officials, school board members, county board members, they all lose interest and fade away without Trump. 

As long as he is alive Trump is a threat. Even if he loses again we'll see a repeat of "Stop the Steal". This time it won't be Confederate Wannabes and Sentient Oakleys beating up cops with flagpoles, or Rudy Giuliani's hair dye running down his forehead - it will be real lawyers flooding the zone with lawsuits and challenges just inside the boundaries of legality. Without Trump - no one cares. And you don't have the MAGA cult leader telling them to care. 

Losin' Don can't live forever, and the poison that he has spread will take a while to dissipate, but there is no doubt that the country will be a better place. And the daisies in the dell will give off a different smell because Losin' Don is underneath the ground. *

* Apologies to Rogers and Hammerstein

Presidential Immunity

Let's talk about presidential immunity, shall we?

Let's talk about the fact that we never had to talk about it until Donald Trump became president. 

It's been understood since the beginning of the republic that presidents, as well as Congress, have to have the ability to do their jobs without the threat of prosecution if things don't go well. There will always been unintended and unforeseen consequences to government decisions - sometimes resulting in deaths. That's why no one was seriously suggesting that Trump be prosecuted for his mismanagement of the Covid crisis, even though his incompetence arguably contributed to hundreds of thousands of the deaths that ultimately resulted. Likewise, President Biden shouldn't be prosecuted for his mishandling of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which resulted in thirteen service members being killed at the airport in a terrorist attack. Policy differences aren't crimes. Miscalculation isn't a crime. Incompetence isn't even a crime. 

The Supreme Court, in their recent decision regarding presidential immunity, did not rule that everything a president does while in office is shielded from prosecution. They made it clear that they were talking about official acts and core constitutional duties. Why did they even agree to take the case? Didn't we already know this? Of course we did. It even came up because a president engaged in allegedly criminal acts  in his election campaign and in his attempt to overturn the results of an election. 

There's a lot of exaggeration and misrepresentation about this decision. It does not mean that a president "can do anything that he wants". The checks and balances that existed before the ruling still exist. Biden, for example, has always had the power to add justices to the Supreme Court. The reasoning behind not doing so is, and always has been, a political calculation, not a legal restriction. What has been affirmed is that nothing a president does as part of being the president is not subject to prosecution. 

So what's the problem?

Two main categories of problem.

1. The court majority went beyond what they were asked to rule on - the majority opinion stated that in any question about whether an act was or wasn't part of a president's official duties there must be a presumption that any act is part of those duties. And that potential evidence that derives from the president's official duties cannot be considered. This leaves the door open for all kinds of challenges to the charges that Special Counsel Smith has brought. 
2. This is nothing but a delaying tactic. The Supreme Court was asked to rule on the question of immunity months ago. They refused, saying it had to make it's way through the lower courts. (Which all ruled that Trump was not immune). Even now, they haven't ruled that Trump is immune from prosecution in the specific cases he accused in, but have sent the case back to the appeals court for them to determine which, if any actions Trump took are immune. Surely whatever they decide will be appealed. 

The mindset of the Supreme Court majority is also disturbing. The problem as they see it, is not that president can break the law with impunity, but that a president will be constrained from doing his best for the country due to fear of criminal prosecution. This is exactly the rationale that Trump's lawyers presented. They have bought into the tale of persecution that Trump revels in. They have internalized the lie that it is the Biden administration, even President Biden himself, who is pushing these supposedly political prosecutions. Yet it's Trump who brags about exacting retribution on his political opponents, promising to jail Biden and anyone else who he doesn't like for imaginary crimes, or for exercising their constitutional responsibilities. 

The Supreme Court didn't authorize the president to be a dictator, but they did authorize him to be a criminal.