Curb Your Enthusiasm

No, this is not about Larry David’s HBO comedy series. (I am confident that it comes as a surprise to those who know me that I was even aware that Mr. David had an HBO comedy series … although it will come as no surprise that I never saw it. 😉)

It’s about the upcoming U.S. Senate elections. If you watch outlets such as those we do, or have seen any of the recent polls purporting to assess Democrats’ political fortunes in the upcoming elections, you are very likely coming to the conclusion that there will be a “Blue Wave” this November. I would suggest that these rosy impressions be maintained with a grain of salt. At this point, no reasonable observer can have confidence in the accuracy of polls; but what prompted this particular note is a segment I saw on MSNOW this past Sunday, featuring interviews with voters in Omaha, NE, expressing concerns with the cost of living and the policies of the Trump Administration.

We know Omaha. Our daughter went to college there. It is a liberal bastion in a generally conservative state. Judging how Nebraskans as a whole are feeling about our current political situation based upon Omahans’ sentiments is about as useful as determining how Illinoisans as a whole are feeling by interviewing citizens of Vandalia, IL.

An account I’ve previously recorded here, which still resonates with me: during a trip to central Wisconsin in the years before the political rise of President Donald Trump, while former Republican WI Gov. Scott Walker – “Trump before Trump in Wisconsin” — was in office, I was surprised by the proliferation of Walker signs. This particular county was then and remains today fairly economically deprived. One day, we happened to encounter a local retired social studies teacher. Somehow, it became clear that he was liberal, which enabled me to ask why the area residents were so ardently for Mr. Walker when it was so clear that the Walker Administration had done nothing to help them economically. He replied: “It was God and guns that did it.”

Make no mistake: despite Mr. Trump’s unpopularity, this election still pits culture and visceral loyalty against the economy.

Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to assist at the Democratic booth at the county fair of a rural county in a swing Wisconsin Congressional District. I had a great time – but it became apparent that the sentiments of most passers-by were fixed. For every voter who expressed lively opposition to the Trump Regime, another pointedly refrained from looking at the booth as s/he passed. I was particularly struck by two gentlemen, probably farmers, who ambled by the booth about two hours apart, and respectively said to me, pleasantly but firmly: “I always vote Republican,” and “I could never vote for a Democrat.”

I’ve mentioned here recently that my favorite treadmill at my gym is right in front of a TV airing Fox News. While mainstream outlets are covering the Iran War quagmire, the cost of living, Mr. Trump’s peccadillos with his vanity projects, etc., etc., Fox spends an inordinate amount of time on crime, transsexuals, and Michigan Democratic Senate Candidate Abdul El-Sayed. Its jackpot is finding an illegal alien who committed a serious crime.

This is alt-right media viewers’ reality. While all but the most strident MAGAs recognize that Mr. Trump’s Iran War and tariffs have increased our cost of living, Republicans are counter-punching where they can: they have a lot of money to spend, they have no scruples, Mr. Trump will continue to use the power of his office to attempt to subvert the electoral process, it’s all about socialists, illegals, and trans, and they have a willingly gullible following. I would submit that these factors, and the muscle memory that will take over if these Republican-leaning voters care enough to cast ballots, cannot be discounted.

So despite the happy talk one might hear on mainstream outlets, I remain more than a little hesitant regarding Democrats’ chances of taking control of the Senate this November. Democrats have to win four seats currently held by Republicans to take control — more if Democrats fail to hold all of the seats retiring Democrats currently hold, including Mr. El-Sayed in Michigan, Democratic U.S. Senate Nominee U.S. NH Rep. Chris Pappas in New Hampshire, and Democratic U.S. Senate Nominee Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan in Minnesota. In some polls, Mr. Pappas is trailing former U.S. NH Sen. John Sununu, who has been out of politics since 2008 (thus, no Trump taint) and carries a storied family name in New Hampshire politics. Minnesota is less liberal statewide than is generally understood. Ms. Flanagan is a progressive who bested a more centrist Democrat to win her nomination. Her polling margin over Republican Senate Nominee former TV Sports Commentator Michele Tafoya has consistently narrowed; the race is currently being described as “tight” (despite the Trump Regime’s ICE’s killings of two American citizens in Minneapolis in the last year).

(Progressive exuberance has put Michigan and Minnesota seats at risk that would have been easy wins for the centrist Democrats who lost to the progressive nominees. I know; I’m obsessing. 😉)

Even if Messrs. El-Sayed and Pappas and Ms. Flanagan all prevail, all these victories will do is hold serve.

(Another aside: U.S. GA Sen. Jon Ossoff, the most effective stump critic of the Trump Regime I’ve heard, is running for reelection. He seemingly has a comfortable lead over his Republican challenger in one of our most purple states. If he doesn’t hold serve, forget it. Assuming he does, I think Noise readers can assume that Mr. Ossoff’s name will soon thereafter reappear here in another context. 😊)

In the Noise order of most likely to least likely states for the Democrat to claim a Republican seat:

Democratic Former NC Gov. Roy Cooper holds a commanding polling lead in his state, and has won statewide in the Trump Era. That’s one.

According to a recent poll, Democratic Former U.S. AK Rep. Mary Peltola is leading Republican U.S. AK Sen. Dan Sullivan in Alaska. Since Alaska has only one representative, Ms. Peltola has previously won a statewide race in Alaska. She’s apparently effectively discussing local issues of concern to Alaskans. At the same time, Mr. Trump has won the state three times. In this decidedly anti-Trump climate, do you trust Ms. Peltola’s current lead in the polls? Maybe.

Democratic Former U.S. OH Sen. Sherrod Brown lost his seat in the Trump wave in 2024 by about 3 and a half points. As this is typed, the New York Times reports that the Republicans are attacking him for his stand on – wait for it – transgender issues. Ohio has gotten redder and redder over my lifetime, but in this decidedly anti-Trump climate, might Ohioans turn back to a guy they know and have elected a couple of times before? Maybe.

Democratic Former Maine State Senator Troy Jackson is challenging U.S. ME Sen. Susan Collins. Although Maine Democrats avoided an electoral debacle by shedding their original Senate nominee Graham Platner, and Maine hasn’t voted statewide for a Republican presidential candidate since 1988, Ms. Collins has won five previous elections to the Senate, including in two election years in which Maine was respectively won by former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Former Democrat U.S. WV Sen. Joe Manchin recently endorsed Ms. Collins. She has a political identity apart from Mr. Trump. That said, in this decidedly anti-Trump climate, might Mainers turn her out? Well … maybe.

If you’re alive, you’re aware of the contest between Democrat Texas State Representative James Talarico and Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. All acknowledge that Mr. Talarico is a particularly able political athlete, and that Mr. Paxton – hand-picked by Mr. Trump – is particularly disreputable. That said, Mr. Talarico had to win a divisive primary to get his nomination, which might cost him some support, and Mr. Paxton will benefit from generally very Republican Texans’ voting muscle memory. Even so, in this decidedly anti-Trump climate – where Hispanics are deserting Republicans in droves due to the Trump Regime’s ICE activities — might Mr. Talarico eke it out? Well … possibly.

Democratic Senate Nominee Josh Turek, a wheelchair-bound former Paralympian and Iowa legislator, is facing U.S IA Rep. Ashley Hinson for a seat currently held by a retiring Republican. Mr. Turek is apparently an attractive candidate for whom Mr. Obama cut an ad. Democrats are supposedly encouraged that the race is “increasingly competitive,” although Ms. Hinson leads Mr. Turek in the polls. Registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats in Iowa by more than 180,000. Well …

Thus, I’m trying not to get too caught up in the happy talk in mainstream media about Democrats’ taking control of the Senate. Assuming Messrs. El-Sayed and Pappas and Ms. Flanagan hold serve, and assuming that Mr. Cooper wins comfortably, three of these five Democrats still have to win in order for them to control the Senate: Mr. Brown, Ms. Peltola, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Talarico, and Mr. Turek.

It feels to me tantamount to drawing to an inside straight.

And Republicans have one more card to play, of which they’re undoubtedly acutely aware: they entice Democrat U.S. PA Sen. John Fetterman, who has clearly become a faux Democrat, to switch parties.

Perhaps you’re still confident of a Democratic takeover of the Senate. I obviously hope you’re right.

I’m curbing my enthusiasm. We’ll see what happens.

On 9/11

[Not surprisingly, I had originally intended that this post would publish on September 11, 2026, but life’s obligations intruded and the importance of this milestone demanded that any note not be rushed.]

It is the tritest to observe that September 11, 2001, was one of the darkest days in American history. It strikes a visceral chord within all who remember the attack that day on New York City’s World Trade Center (“WTC”) and other sites (collectively, “9/11”). We have relatives in the New York area who knew victims lost in the attack. It is now known that 9/11 has exacted an even greater toll in American lives than the approximately 2,500 who perished that day; recently issued reports indicate that the poor air quality arising from the rubble is almost certainly responsible for tens of thousands developing cancer in the quarter-century since. One can never forget the heroism of the police, firefighters, other first responders and regular citizens who charged into the World Trade Center to save others that day – many themselves falling victim to the buildings’ collapse — and the ordinary Americans who sacrificed themselves to take back control of Flight 93. That said, I would suggest that 9/11 is one of the darkest days in our history not only due to the wanton destruction of life wrought, but in a perhaps less apparent sense that I suspect few if any commemorative speakers across the nation mentioned last week.

9/11 is often conceptually paired with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, as the two deadliest foreign attacks on American territory in our history. Each marked a turning point in our existence. I would submit that such is where the comparison ends. Our nation’s respective responses to the attacks placed us on very different paths.

Looking back at Pearl Harbor, we can still feel the deepest sympathy for those, all or virtually all now at rest, who experienced the agonizing pain of losing a loved one in the Japanese assault. In addition to the tragic human loss, the American Pacific Fleet was virtually destroyed. After the attack, President Franklin Roosevelt refrained from publicly describing the true extent of the naval devastation in order to confuse Japanese intelligence and maintain American morale; in fact, the United States then had virtually no remaining defense between Imperial Japan’s formidable navy and our west coast.

And yet, that attack also marked the day that America began its transition from being but an occasional international dabbler to the world’s leading force for democratic order and human rights. Prior to the attack, Mr. Roosevelt recognized the threat the Nazi Wehrmacht would pose to the United States if left unchecked, and understood that the United States’ best hope of maintaining its freedom lay in formally aligning itself with the United Kingdom before it fell to the Nazis. A majority of Americans, believing the oceans lapping our shores insulated us from the outside world’s challenges, remained opposed to our participation. The Pearl Harbor attack – coupled with Germany’s almost immediately subsequent declaration of war on the United States – shattered those illusions. We were in.

William Shirer wrote in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: “[The Pearl Harbor attack] transformed the European war … into a world war, which … would seal [Adolf Hitler’s] fate and that of the Third Reich.” British Prime Minister Winston Churchill wrote in The Second World War: “[Upon hearing of the Pearl Harbor attack] I knew the United States was in the war …. So we had won after all!”

By contrast, 9/11 found us led by an inexperienced and arguably under-qualified President. When we elected President George W. Bush the preceding year (in this context, put aside all the electoral controversy), it didn’t seem to matter that much whether we selected him or then-Vice President Al Gore (by today’s standards, both were moderates); America’s economy was booming (the cracks we now see between the well-to-do and the impoverished not yet generally apparent), we had a balanced budget, and America’s place as the world’s preeminent superpower was unquestioned.

But it did matter. While 9/11 was indeed an attack on our nation, and it was natural for our leaders to guard against the worst in the first days following 9/11 and to pledge retaliation against those who had attacked us, Al Qaeda was not an imperial nation with a formidable military. Once the earliest shock passed, it was obvious that our democracy was not at risk. We did not need to go on a wartime footing.

But we did. Article 5 of the NATO charter was invoked. We launched an invasion of Afghanistan. Although the invasion was not unreasonable since the Taliban did not deny that it was shielding al Qaida leader Osama bin Laden – the invasion generally enjoyed wide American and domestic international support — we ultimately sustained approximately 2,500 deaths and another over 20,000 wounded in battle. (I don’t believe that these casualty numbers include such as individuals who have succumbed or will succumb to causes such as toxic fume inhalation from open-air burn pits.) The reported cost of the incursion is $2.26 trillion.

Today, the Taliban control Afghanistan.

In March, 2003, America invaded Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein. To quote Google’s “AI Overview” reference to the Council on Foreign Relations: “The administration of President George W. Bush argued that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and posed a threat in the wake of 9/11, though no active WMD programs were ultimately found.” [Emphasis Added] Our allies were markedly less supportive of our Iraq invasion than they had been of our Afghanistan incursion – as it turns out, with good reason. Our international relationships began to fray; trust in American judgement was placed in question. Those of us old enough to remember the buildup that preceded the Iraq invasion well recall the Bush Administration’s juxtaposition of 9/11 with the threat it perceived to be presented by Iraq, certainly creating the impression in some Americans that Saddam had played some part in 9/11. He had not. When no WMDs were found, the object of the mission suddenly transformed from ridding us of a WMD threat to saving the Iraqi people from Saddam, because he was a really bad guy. Well, he was a really bad guy … but there are a lot of other really bad guys in the world.

We finally withdrew from Iraq in December, 2011. It is reported that we sustained approximately 4,500 deaths and another over 32,000 wounded in battle. (Again, I don’t believe that these casualty numbers include such as toxic fume victims.) It has been estimated that we spent $3 trillion on the incursion.

In 2023, Stephen A. Cook of the Council of Foreign Relations wrote, “Iraq is not yet what political scientists might refer to as a ‘consolidated democracy.’” I’ll let you decide, given what has been going on in the Middle East, whether Iraq’s democracy is more “consolidated” today than it was in 2023.

According to the Human Rights Watch: “[During the Middle East conflicts] the Bush administration authorized coercive interrogation practices by the CIA and the military that amounted to torture … Indeed, many were, including Canadian national Maher Arar who described repeated beatings with cables and electrical cords during the 10 months he was held in Syria, where the US sent him in 2002.” Mr. Bush has admitted that he himself authorized waterboarding prisoners of war. While only naïve American would believe that Americans had refrained from such practices in earlier wars, those conflicts seemed long ago and far away. The Bush Administration’s practices made clear that the world’s supposedly foremost advocate of human rights was no better than anybody else.

Although there were undoubtedly earlier indications, for me these military debacles hastened our descent from truth to tribalism. It is now common for pundits to excuse Mr. Bush and his team for the blunder of the Iraq invasion on the ground that they made decisions based upon faulty intelligence. To me, that is and was no excuse. Chief Executive Officers of multi-billion dollar corporations make “bet the company” decisions regularly. These CEOs don’t dream these decisions up – they have an inclination, but finally give approval to major new initiatives based upon the marketing, financial and other projections of their subordinates. When these major decisions turn out to be that wrong, they lose their jobs. That is what I expected to happen when Mr. Bush stood for reelection in 2004, as it had with President Herbert Hoover in 1932, with President Jimmy Carter in 1976, and would have happened with President Lyndon Johnson had he stood for reelection in 1968. Instead, winning became everything; the Bush Campaign employed a war mentality to our political discourse as well as to our foreign policy. Republicans smeared the military service of Democratic Presidential Nominee and decorated Vietnam War veteran U.S. MA Sen. John Kerry while trying to make Mr. Bush (whose flight status was suspended during his military service for failure to appear for a mandatory physical exam) into the next coming of William Tecumseh Sherman and Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Would we have reacted in the same way had al Qaida attacked earlier, during President Bill Clinton’s second term? One can only guess, but I genuinely don’t think we would have. Although Messrs. Clinton and Bush were both born in 1946 – and at this point, are personally as close as brothers – they would have been very different men when confronted with the crisis. Mr. Clinton would not only have had markedly more experience a president than Mr. Bush did; he’s a more nuanced thinker and – perhaps most crucially — the two men unquestionably came away from our Vietnam experience with very different impressions of the utility of American military power. Mr. Clinton would have taken aggressive action of some sort – the American people would have demanded it, and Mr. Clinton was extremely sensitive to his people’s views – but he was also a master at managing American opinion and expectations. Afghanistan? Maybe. Torture? Unlikely. Iraq? No. This is, of course, but the sheerest speculation, and which of the parties’ 2000 presidential nominees would have succeeded Mr. Clinton – and what course we would thereafter have taken — would have depended almost entirely upon Americans’ assessment of the Clinton Administration’s response following the attack.

But for me the notion lingers: that in the same way that certain martial arts stress the use of leverage – manners in which smaller, weaker opponents can catch larger, stronger opponents off balance, tip them over, and win a struggle – bin Laden and al Qaida, probably without realizing it, caught us at a time when we were overconfident as a nation, and led by leaders who meant well but ultimately proved to be ill-equipped to deal with the challenge the terrorists placed before them. 9/11 caused us to go in directions, both internationally and domestically, that it is hard to fathom that we would have taken had al Qaida not struck us at just the time it did.

On this past September 11, I heard MSNOW’s Morning Joe’s Joe Scarborough scoff at the suggestion that “bin Laden won.” I would offer — notwithstanding and in NO WAY taking away from the heroism and sacrifice of those on 9/11, the heroism and sacrifice of our military and related personnel in two Middle East wars that spanned so many years, ended or marred so many lives, and cost us so much financially, and the Bush Administration’s successful thwarting of many undisclosed terrorist attacks in the years following 9/11 – that bin Laden could not have dreamed when he launched the 9/11 attack that it could have had such a deleterious effect on us, thrown us as far off course, as I believe that it did. Sure, we ultimately killed him. Who can doubt that he would have gladly given his life for the havoc he wreaked?

Be angry with me if you wish. Call me an idiot (you undoubtedly already have and will, with ample justification). I express this with the deepest regret, but cannot escape the belief:

bin Laden won.

Observations from Mount Rushmore

Life has been busy for us lately, and thus you’ve been spared many Noise entries. What is linked below was recently called to my attention, and I cannot resist recording it here, although – viewer discretion advised 😉 – some of the lyrics are significantly cruder than the tone generally intended for these pages. If you’ve already seen it, I suspect that you’ll be happy to spend a minute revisiting it. 😊

https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+singing+mount+rushmore+presidents+he%27s+a+jerk&sca_esv=0599634f104d6e26&sxsrf=APpeQnsC_vL_4zTL8SL9ZdY1GY6CxkwKWA%3A1789226034828&source=hp&ei=Mmylap3iMLLHp84PzqSPEA&iflsig=ABILxe8AAAAAaqV6Qg2gV99KXCkmziVFCc5PxjiBUuKz&ved=0ahUKEwidw-ixqumWAxWy48kDHU7SAwIQ4dUDCBs&uact=5&oq=youtube+singing+mount+rushmore+presidents+he%27s+a+jerk&gs_lp=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&sclient=gws-wiz#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:fb68e34c,vid:arlEWzeZMxg,st:0

The Importance of Labor

“The liberal reward of labour [sic], therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the labouring [sic] poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition that they are going fast backwards. … No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath [sic] and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labor as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed [sic] and lodged.”

Adam Smith; An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations; 1776

“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital, producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor community exists within that relation. …

The prudent, penniless beginner in the world, labors for wages for awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself; then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires a new beginner to help him. This is the just, and generous, and prosperous system, which opens the way to all – gives hope to all, and consequent energy, and progress, and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty — none less inclined to take, or touch, aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost.”

Abraham Lincoln; Excerpt from the President’s Annual Message to Congress; December 3, 1861

I don’t think it can be denied: starting with his first run for president, President Donald Trump made many who had not theretofore particularly focused on it – including me — aware that as a segment of our society had handsomely prospered over the preceding decades – realized the American Dream – at least as great part of our people had been left further and further behind – and had justifiably concluded that those in power were no longer interested in attending to their wellbeing. One of the saddest ironies of the Trump Era is that although Mr. Trump correctly identified the corrosive despair that many of our people were feeling, his prescriptions have been toxically divisive, anti-democratic, exploitative, racist, wrong-headed, backward-looking, and self-serving. He’s let down millions who believed in him — whether or not he or they can admit it.

Although the first and most important task to obtaining greater equity among our people is wresting, through legal and peaceful means, the political power from those who are so transparently seeking to overturn our democracy, may the United States Congress starting in 2027, and whoever becomes president in 2029, enact laws and deploy policies which will visibly and effectively start to remedy the inequities that have so sullied the American experience. Let each of us take a moment during the coming weekend to remember and celebrate the efforts of those — both Americans and those from other lands — who toil, or yearn to toil, to make America stronger.

Enjoy the Holiday.

On the Wisconsin Gubernatorial Election

As all are aware, on August 11, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley eked out – truly, eked out – a primary election victory over WI State Assemblywomen Francesca Hong for the Democratic Wisconsin Gubernatorial nomination and will now face Republican WI Gubernatorial Nominee U.S. WI Rep. Tom Tiffany, a Trump disciple and 2020 election denier, this November. A few impressions emerge.

The most important first: by a margin of less than 4,000 out of over 625,000 votes cast, there remains at least a realistic chance that Wisconsinites could elect a Governor this November who will preserve a free and fair 2028 presidential election (as well as protect Wisconsinites from the regressive excesses which MAGA state legislators will otherwise seek to foist upon them). Ms. Hong may well be a wonderful, well-meaning person, but she would have been a terrible general election candidate. That said, Mr. Crowley is still an African American from the city in a state that has never had a Black Governor and contains a lot of upstate voters who rarely see African Americans, distrust city folk generally, and resent what they see as Milwaukee and Madison’s usurpation of the state’s services and attention. Mr. Crowley’s campaign is an uphill battle. Even so, given President Donald Trump’s deep unpopularity and MAGA adversaries’ rabid enthusiasm, there seems a real possibility. You take the chance you get.

Polling data is of little value, at least in Wisconsin. 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton obviously lost the state to President Donald Trump after leading Mr. Trump in all state polls right up to the 2016 election day. Former President Joe Biden was reportedly so far ahead of Mr. Trump in Wisconsin in the final days of the 2020 campaign that the Trump Campaign suspended efforts in the state. Mr. Biden won by such a narrow margin that I assume that the Trump forces deeply, deeply rued abandoning the state when they did. For the last month, polling indicated that Ms. Hong was the sure-fire winner of the Democrats’ Gubernatorial nomination. Perhaps, lulled by the polls, some of her supporters stayed home on election day, feeling their votes weren’t needed – as contrasted with the attitudes of those who voted for Mr. Crowley, who were well aware that if he had any chance, every vote was going to be needed.

I have seen an early poll indicating that Mr. Crowley holds a 2-point lead over Mr. Tiffany. If you believe that, I can give you the number of two guys in Brooklyn ready to sell you a bridge. I am hoping that all candidates opposing Mr. Trump and MAGAism will discount all polls from now to election day, at least insofar as they presume to project candidates’ relative support. All MAGA opponents need to run scared. Every vote needs to be turned out in every race. Taking a Blue Wave for granted invites further Red Terror.

It’s clear that the MAGAs are as shocked as everybody else that Ms. Hong didn’t win the primary. Over the next few weeks, the Tiffany Team – poised to run, eager to run, against Ms. Hong – will be flailing a bit for a strategy against Mr. Crowley. However, I will venture – just a feeling – that the national MAGA establishment is feeling the need to reset a bit as well. My favorite treadmill at my gym is right in front of a screen that displays Fox News. Usually, I ignore it – at my age, I can’t let my blood pressure get too high 😉—but on the day after the election, I watched as Fox covered the Wisconsin results. At first, inexplicably to me, the outlet spent several minutes on Ms. Hong – who had lost, and was not going to be Wisconsin Democrats’ Gubernatorial nominee – and perhaps 20 seconds on Mr. Crowley, the winner. It’s like they couldn’t yet get over the fact that they weren’t going to have Ms. Hong to demonize. It struck me then that although Ms. Hong was only running for statewide rather than national office, she made such an easy mark – such a softer target than U.S. NY Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani, or even Democratic MI U.S. Senate Nominee Abdul El-Sayed, all superb political athletes – that national MAGAs were planning to make her the poster child of their national Communist, anti-Woke Scare Campaign. Poof.

That said, even if national MAGAs are indeed now pausing for just a bit as they reassess, they will – as they did after Vice President Kamala Harris succeeded President Joe Biden as the Democrats’ 2024 presidential nominee – figure it out, and reset. In a recent note, I observed that Mr. Trump’s political power has always relied on stoking hate; even without Ms. Hong as a foil, it takes little prescience to venture that the MAGA national message from now to election day will primarily seek to sow hate’s companion, fear – of Socialists, of Communists, of Muslims, of them, of the other — within the gullible quarters of the electorate. They have no choice; they have no objective achievements to run on.

If advising Mr. Crowley, I would strongly recommend that he spend the vast majority of his time between now and Labor Day in Wisconsin’s Republican strongholds, before the Tiffany Team has time to figure out a strategy and begin smearing him. He did much better among Democrats than Ms. Hong in Wisconsin’s rural districts – no surprise – but the main purpose of forays would be to soften before they set in potentially adverse emotions of those voters disappointed with Mr. Trump but inclined to vote Republican. Mr. Crowley is reasonable in manner; I suspect that MAGAs are painfully aware that due to the way they have demonized Ms. Hong in ads over the last couple of months as being “too extreme for Wisconsin,” they themselves have created a conceptual contrast for Mr. Crowley. I’ve seen a clip in which even U.S. WI Sen. Ron Johnson observed after the election that Democrats had chosen “the more moderate candidate.” In that same clip, Mr. Johnson — who, in the rare moments he is candid, can interpret vote totals pretty accurately – noted the significant discrepancy between the Democratic and Republican primary turnouts, and observed that if Republicans were going to fare well this November, Mr. Trump was going to have to inspire his Wisconsin supporters to get to the polls. My guess: with no U.S. Senate seat at issue in Wisconsin this November, Mr. Trump will pay little attention to the state unless he feels he can salvage a purple House District or two; the irony is that his presence could be as much a detriment as assistance to these Republicans’ campaigns.

I’ve seen reports of national progressives who are yapping at progressive icon U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders for not endorsing Ms. Hong, feeling that Mr. Sanders’ endorsement would have brought her the few thousand additional votes needed for victory. Mr. Sanders has responded that he has limited resources, and can’t endorse everyone. I would have to agree with the irate progressives that such was a makeweight response; I think the true answer is that that Mr. Sanders is a practical politician, understands that Wisconsin is one of the electoral battlegrounds where American democracy is going to be saved or lost, and recognizes that what will actually help the American people is winning elections. What I don’t understand about these national progressives’ outrage is this: if Mr. Crowley wins, he will be the first African American Governor of Wisconsin, and I have seen it reported that he will be the first African American Governor of a Midwest state. What could objectively be more progressive than that?

The stakes in Wisconsin this November couldn’t be higher. I have watched Mr. Tiffany’s ads, and they’re good. They make him look like everybody’s honest, well-meaning Wisconsin Grandpa (he will turn 69 late this year). He’s not. In 2020, as a member of Congress Mr. Tiffany was one of only two Wisconsin Republicans who voted to decertify Mr. Biden’s victories in Pennsylvania (which Mr. Biden won by 80,000 votes) and Arizona (whose The Republican Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives declared that Mr. Biden had won). He signed on to a Republican Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate Mr. Biden’s victory. I have seen it reported that he has stated that he would have voted to decertify Mr. Biden’s victory in Wisconsin if he had had the opportunity to do so (notwithstanding the fact that even former MAGA WI Gov. Scott Walker intimated in a tweet after the election that no recount would unseat Mr. Biden’s victory). Mr. Tiffany is either just dumb or undemocratic – and sadly, I consider it more likely that he is the latter than the former. He owes his nomination to Mr. Trump’s endorsement, which in turn was almost certainly provided due to his seditious willingness to overturn the results of the 2020 election. One can only assume that if he is narrowly defeated by Mr. Crowley this November, he’ll seek to challenge the results with no regard for the competence and the integrity of the election officials and workers of all political stripes who will work hard – and with a tad more trepidation, due to the scurrilous lies about our electoral processes spread by Mr. Trump over the last decade – to accurately administer Wisconsin elections; that he will unscrupulously seek to baselessly smear some of the most civic-minded citizens he wishes to lead as Wisconsin Governor. While one can take some comfort that Mr. Crowley’s candidacy will have a fair chance through election day since Mr. Evers will still be Governor and, if he wins, will have a fair hearing to any challenges Mr. Tiffany thereafter mounts due to the liberal bent of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, the further damage that Mr. Tiffany and the MAGAs seem likely to seek to sow amongst their gullible followers cannot be overstated.

We’ll end where we started: that Mr. Crowley’s victory on August 11 seemingly gives Democrats at least a fighting chance to retain the Wisconsin governorship this November. While he can be confident of my vote, since I see his candidacy as a bulwark against MAGA anti-democratic excesses (subject to the caveat that he not hereafter be shown to have character flaws of a kind and degree akin to those that have caused former Maine Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner to withdraw his candidacy), I would also offer from what little I’ve seen so far, I like him. I think that if elected, he’ll make a good Governor, be able to finesse the challenges of leading a state as closely and toxically divided as Wisconsin. That said: he’s still a black guy from the city, and a lot of voters still cast their ballots based upon stereotypes and biases. It’s up to those who believe in democracy – obviously not only in Wisconsin, but nationally – to do whatever we can, legally and peacefully, to ensure and safeguard what we were given 250 years ago.

We’ll see what happens.

Fifty Years Ago Today

Today marks TLOML’s and my 50^th wedding anniversary. It’s been easy for me; she has served her time in Purgatory while still on earth. 😉

Our extended families are well aware that of all of the thousands of eloquent descriptions of love and marriage one can find, I consider the best characterization of a successful relationship that which Sylvester Stallone had Rocky offer, when describing Rocky’s relationship with Talia Shire’s Adrian, in the film, Rocky:

“I don’t know … it fills gaps, I guess; she’s got gaps, I got gaps – together, we fill gaps ….”

We have been blessed with a wonderful family of whom we are inordinately proud and with the opportunity to make the most of the talents that the Almighty gave us. Although we were committed to each other a number of years before we finally married, we are obviously not the kids who left the church in a blizzard of rice so many years ago; we’ve been blessed that we’ve grown together, have been able to work together through the challenges we’ve faced. I think that it’s fair to say that over these many years, we have celebrated each other’s strengths, and compensated for each other’s weaknesses (the gaps have been mine). (TLOML is fond of saying, “It takes two sets of eyes.”) Our differences have enriched us rather than constrained us; in difficult times we’ve cherished each other. I vividly recall that within the first couple of years after we were married, when the house we lived in was being deluged by a gushing thunder storm, we realized that the window wells on different sides of the house were overflowing and that water was spilling into the basement; with the stupidity of youth, we decided – with the thunder and lightning continuing LOUD, repeated, and RIGHT overhead — that the most important thing was to stop the basement from flooding. We each ran out with a bucket to a different window well to bail it out. The lightning strikes continued, some seemingly hitting RIGHT in our backyard. Did we go in? Nah. But after every close strike, we would each race to the edge of the house and look to see that the other was okay – and then we’d go back to bailing 😊. We always knew where the other was. Although throughout the decades we have sometimes been engaged in very different aspects of our life endeavor, we have always been working toward the same goal. We’ve not always been in the same place, but we’ve never been apart. Our priorities – what we most valued – have always been aligned. By pure miracle, we turned out to be hand in glove. No one who’s ever been in a successful relationship will forget the thrill of the initial sparks, but it is the enduring flame they ignite that sustains for a lifetime. We are acutely aware how fortunate we are; we well know that many people – good, well-meaning people – have not been as favored as we have been.

It has been my honor to officiate at a number of weddings over the years. Given the importance I place on marriage, I consider these honors to have been among the most important of my life. When officiating, you try, based upon your understanding of the couple, to put together sentiments that will most resonate with them. A passage that I have come across in my reading, that I have rarely quoted during these ceremonies because it doesn’t fit exactly when celebrating the start of a couple’s life adventure, seems most appropriate for us today:

“The man or woman you really love will never grow old to you. Through the wrinkles of time, through the bowed frame of years, you will always see the face, and feel the heart, of your eternal love.”

Even in this politically fraught time in our nation, one’s personal relationships are what matter most. For all of you in love now or in the future, we wish for you what we have – in length if possible, but more importantly, in depth.

Have a wonderful day.

On the Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial Nomination: PPS

I know, I know; for a guy who rarely discusses Wisconsin policy or politics and admits that he doesn’t know much about it, I admit that I’m kinda like a dog – an old dog 😊 — with a bone on this one. My defense: when ya see a train wreck comin’, ya just can’t help it. 😉

As this is typed, polls indicate that WI State Assemblywomen Francesca Hong, Asian American, a self-described member of the Democratic Socialists of America (the “DSA”), is the clear leader for the Democrats’ Wisconsin Gubernatorial nomination, to face off against the putative Republican Gubernatorial nominee, MAGA U.S. WI Rep. Tom Tiffany, who has embraced and been endorsed by President Donald Trump. Early voting to secure the parties’ respective nominations has already commenced. Election Day is August 11, a week from today. I urge all Wisconsin citizens who read these notes to vote whether or not you agree with the sentiments expressed below.

As all who care are aware, on a Fox News show on July 26, Megan Romer, the Co-Chair of the DSA, indicated that her party held the positions set forth below. I watched the tape; there was no trap or trickery. The Fox News host simply put the various positions before Ms. Romer; she jumped into the pool with both feet, all on her own.

According to Ms. Romer, the DSA supports:

Eliminating the United States Senate (which, because of the filibuster, is the only part of the Article I branch that is currently putting any limitation upon Mr. Trump’s excesses);
Replacing the presidency and the U.S. Supreme Court as we now know them (we need a strong executive — just not a monarchial, maniacal and moronic one; and while the Court needs to be looked at, “replacing” it is both terrible policy and a political loser);
Abolishing ICE (reforming ICE is necessary; abolishing ICE is both terrible policy and a political loser);
Abolishing U.S. borders and providing amnesty to anybody here illegally (abolishing borders is egregiously terrible policy and a political loser; providing amnesty to those here illegally is a nuanced issue but in the current environment, a political loser);
Defunding the Pentagon (egregiously terrible policy and a political loser);
Abolishing prisons, at least in large part (egregiously terrible policy and a political loser); and
Government or public ownership of most large corporations (egregiously terrible policy and a political loser; why don’t they just scream, “Call us Communists!”).

Normally, when approaching such outrageous assertions such as these, at least sometimes I try to be a little more tactful, and will make a comment such as, “It’s enough to make one blink,” or “This seems misguided,” or some such. Here, I’ll state it straight out: the positions that Ms. Romer has indicated that the DSA supports are not only politically suicidal; they are the dumbest substantive policy positions (as contrasted with the even-worse anti-democratic policy positions espoused by MAGAs explicitly or impliedly) I have ever heard advocated for by a party which aspires to be a major influence on America.

In the recent debate among candidates for the Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial nomination, Ms. Hong indicated that she does “not support the full platform of the national DSA,” but was not more specific. I viewed her failure to affirmatively be more specific – she had to know the question was coming – a “tell,” as they say in the poker world. Given her membership in the DSA, her general disavowal of “the full platform of the national DSA” wasn’t good enough to reassure moderates who think that the DSA is crazy – although to be fair, I’m not sure what she could have said that would have been good enough.

Mr. Tiffany is going to plaster her with it.

After my last post on Wisconsin Democrats’ current seemingly woefully misbegotten Gubernatorial nomination quest, in which I indicated that I was supporting Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley because I assumed that WI Gov. Tony Evers had endorsed Mr. Crowley, an African American, as the most likely Democratic candidate to defeat Mr. Tiffany, a good friend and Wisconsin resident commented:

“This moderate [referring to himself], a Republican voter for 30 years, only began voting for the Democratic candidates in opposition to anything Trump, is NOT a Democratic voter. I will not vote for whoever the Democrats put up for governor because that person is a Democrat. Hong? Nope. [Former WI Lt. Gov. Mandela] Barnes [who has since dropped out]? Nope. Crowley? Convince me. Tiffany? Nope.

That means I may not vote for governor. I’m not picking the “lesser of two evils”. They are, after all, evil. Give me more Evers or [former four-time WI Gov.] Tommy Thompson.”

In that same past post, I also noted, “Republicans are already running ads against Ms. Hong as “too liberal for Wisconsin” – which some Democrats claim is their attempt to boost her profile and support. [Some Emphasis Added].” The true significance of that observation only resonated with me later. If what I had heard some Democrats suspected was accurate — that some Republicans are actually seeking to boost Ms. Hong’s campaign — that means that the Republicans think that their odds of victory – in Wisconsin – are better against a Democratic Socialist than they are against a black man from the city.

Think about that.

An aside: I watched virtually all of the recent Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate debate, focusing primarily on the responses of Ms. Hong and Mr. Crowley. I was surprised by the performance of both. Usually, progressive populists are firebrands; I found Ms. Hong’s screen presence to “lack pizazz,” in the words of a close friend who is more sympathetic to Ms. Hong than I am. On the other hand, I thought Mr. Crowley presented pretty well. It nonetheless seems at this point that his candidacy may be a matter of too little, too late. I’ve seen that a Wisconsin news outlet recently quoted a University of Wisconsin-La Crosse Professor, “Finally, the party is coordinating around a single alternative to Hong [Mr. Crowley], but it’s happening, in my view, far too late for it to seriously threaten her frontrunner position.”

No one who has read any of these notes can doubt my opposition to Mr. Trump or anybody endorsed by Mr. Trump. If Ms. Hong does win the Democratic nomination, I will, unlike our friend, vote for her against Mr. Tiffany because it’ll make one more vote that Mr. Tiffany will have to get to win the Governorship, and I am even more concerned about what an entirely-Republican-controlled Wisconsin state government will do to rig the state’s results in the 2028 presidential election than I am about the substantive damage such a MAGA state government will do to Wisconsin. That said, and as I’ve indicated here previously, as avid progressives stray further left from the political center, they are either oblivious to or don’t care that they risk losing the moderate support that is the difference between victory and defeat in closely divided political districts. I would suggest that the only theme that unites all of those who oppose Mr. Trump and MAGA anti-democratic efforts is “NO KINGS.”

I fear that if Ms. Hong wins the Democratic nomination, Mr. Tiffany is going to give her a whuppin’ that even The Greatest, Muhammad Ali, would admire. At a time in which very few voters spilt their tickets, Ms. Hong’s presence atop the Democratic ballot might not only be enough to enable Republicans to maintain their control of the Wisconsin legislature; it may be enough to enable Wisconsin Republican U.S. House candidates such as U.S. Rep. Derrick Van Orden, who’s won his last three races in Wisconsin’s Third Congressional District by an average of about 3 points and whose campaign should otherwise be on life support in this decidedly anti-Trump environment, to squeak through. I have similar fears about Michigan Democrats’ U.S. House candidates’ fates in any “purple” Michigan districts if Abdul El-Sayed (leading in the polls) defeats U.S. MI Rep. Haley Stevens in their race for Democrats’ U.S. Senate nomination, to be decided today. Current polls show the Republican candidate beating Mr. El-Sayed – who, as contrasted with Ms. Hong, is at least dynamic — in November, but losing to Ms. Stevens.

Democrats’ taking control of the United States House of Representatives, long considered a “sure thing” by political pundits, isn’t looking like such a sure thing to me any longer, given some of the seemingly-counterproductive results the more zealous members of the party are driving.

Since a large segment of Wisconsin Democrats reportedly still remain undecided, I still hope – although I’m not exactly bullish – that Mr. Crowley can eke out a victory over Ms. Hong to give those of us who oppose the institution of an American Apartheid at least some hope of victory in November. If my dour assessment of Ms. Hong’s prospects of winning the Wisconsin Governorship this November proves wrong – i.e., if she does secure the Democratic nomination and does defeat Mr. Tiffany in November — I hereby pledge that I will joyfully point out my glaring error in these pages.

One bright spot: no matter how the current primary contest turns out next week, it seems overwhelmingly likely that the Noise will – finally – drop this bone and move on. 😉

We’ll see what happens.

On Iran

I’ll first repeat what I have offered in earlier notes: first, that the only objective that reasonably supported President Donald Trump’s order to initiate hostilities against Iran was to effect regime change from the Ayatollahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) (collectively hereafter, the “Iranians,” to be distinguished from Iranian civilian citizens unless the context indicates otherwise) to a government more philosophically aligned with the other Middle East nations (any lesser outcome, even if it seemed to make the Middle East temporarily marginally more stable, was but a bandage); and second, that the President’s calculation that if he initiated hostilities, events would coalesce to bring about the fall of the regime, was not entirely unfounded.

But didn’t work.

As this is typed, the Strait of Hormuz (the “Strait”) is again effectively closed although the two sides are refraining from active exchanges of fire. The price of oil is going up and financial markets that have been inexplicably sucking up Mr. Trump’s joy juice over the last five months may – I can’t give them greater credit than that — be slowly waking up to the fact that Mr. Trump seemingly has no way out. The Iranians are crowing Iran “has taken America’s best shot” and the regime is still standing. (Now, the Iranian-allied Houthis are trying – so far unsuccessfully — to shut down the Bab el-Mandeb Strait to block the export of Saudi Arabian oil through the Red Sea, which, if effective, will really bollix things up.) Mr. Trump has again threatened to launch a “massive attack” on Iran. If this “massive attack” simply amounts to more bombing, I think one can reasonably presume that this assault will be as futile at subduing the Iranians as the preceding gazillion attacks have been.

Let’s look at the situation first substantively and then psychologically/politically (the factors making up the latter perspective intertwined).

Substantively, the notion that Iran has withstood America’s best shot is probably hogwash. Put aside nuclear weaponry; if the President was willing to launch a full-scale ground invasion of Iran, deploying the appropriate number and type of American troops accompanied by air power and naval strikes, I would venture that Mr. Trump would, ultimately, effect regime change and the Strait would be open. (My “probably” qualifier arises from some reports that given Mr. Trump’s past spasm of attacks, America is actually now running low on available munitions; a recent report indicates that the Trump Administration agreed to the current pause in hostilities in part because key elements of its stockpile are dwindling.) That said, such an initiative would obviously involve heavy American casualties and, based upon our experiences in Vietnam and Afghanistan, the government we installed would have a life span of exactly as long as we maintained ground troops to sustain it. Inasmuch as there is overwhelming American consensus that Mr. Trump chose to start this conflict, the American dead and wounded that would result from such an invasion would be considered his fault and mean the de facto end of his presidency. Even as of July 23, the PBS News Hour reported, “Nearly 1 in 5 self-identified MAGA voters believes the U.S. should end the war with Iran, regardless of the costs.” I would pose that at least half of the President’s MAGA base would desert him as American casualties mounted. (While I’m pretty confident that Mr. Trump is refraining from an invasion because he fears for his own political standing, I’m thankful that he is forbearing because we have already lost enough lives to this narcissistic, delusional charlatan’s grandstanding.)

There have also been suggestions that a prolonged American blockade of the Strait would ultimately cause Iran to buckle to American demands. In May, I saw former NATO Supreme Allied Commander and retired four-star Navy Admiral James Stavridis opine, “[The U.S. can blockade Iran] with air and naval forces and you continue to strangle the Iranian economy.” He thought such a strategy would take “… months, but not years [to be successful].” While noting that an impasse in the Strait would have greater immediate effect on the American economy and American electoral sentiment than on the Iranians, he observed, “There is a limit for [the Iranians]. …. I don’t think we’re in a quagmire yet – but I can see one from here.”

I include the Admiral’s comments because I place great store by his military assessments. That said, for reasons outlined below, I have the temerity to suggest that I’m not sure that I agree that an American blockade against Iran would work, even if did bring about the collapse of the Iranian economy and even if Mr. Trump had the patience and willingness to accept the attendant political and economic pain, which he doesn’t.

I do think there’s consensus that if we weren’t in a quagmire in May, we certainly are now.

So much for substance. With due apologies to the accomplished psychologists whom I am honored occasionally read these pages … let’s move on to psychology.

As all who care will recall, when the Trump team signed its Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) with Iran in mid-June, the MOU was lambasted – even in some quarters of the alt-right media – as being wildly tilted in Iran’s favor, since it included no restrictions on Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities while eventually providing Iran hundreds of billions of dollars in reconstruction costs. It is seemingly beyond dispute that the MOU would have provided the Iranians colossally more than any deal that the Obama Administration, in the face of withering Republican criticism, ever made with Iran. The projected influx of funds to Iran would over time have arguably made it an even more dominant force in the Middle East. It didn’t take much acumen to surmise that the prospect terrified the other nations in the region, and would certainly not be in America’s interest.

At one point, MSNOW’s Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough called the arrangement a “bribe” by the Trump Administration to Iran. Mr. Trump was obviously willing to essentially capitulate to get the Strait open before the global economy seized up and to avoid torpedoing whatever electoral prospects Republicans retain for November’s midterm elections.

Even so, the deal started to unravel almost immediately – sooner than the Trump Administration was willing to concede. As the Iranians first began to get restless, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who has brain if not spine, must have been pointing out to them that the MOU was a far better deal for them than any future American president would ever agree to – or indeed, better than any arrangement Mr. Trump himself would approve after the November U.S. mid-term elections.

So why did the Iranians turn their back on it?

I will venture that in offering his “bribe,” Mr. Trump didn’t recognize that the Iranians are totally saturated by the same force that is the foundation of his political power.

Hate.

Let’s start with the observations of the greatest propagandist of all time – tenets upon which Mr. Trump has established and maintained his political base over the last decade:

“The broad masses of a people consist neither of professors nor of diplomats. The scantiness of the abstract knowledge they possess directs their sentiments more to the world of feeling. That is where their positive or negative attitude lies. … Faith is harder to shake than knowledge, love succumbs less to change than respect, hate is more enduring than aversion, and the impetus to the mightiest upheavals on this earth has at all times consisted less in a scientific knowledge dominating the masses than in a fanaticism which inspired them and sometimes in a hysteria which drove them forward.” [Emphasis Added]

Adolf Hitler; Mein Kampf

While any American administration trying to reach an arrangement with the Iranians must overcome their underlying hatred for America, the “Great Satan” – a hatred which, through a half-century of indoctrination, has become engrained “in a hysteria,” to quote Hitler – where we are now seems deeper water than that. Recall that a decade ago the same regime agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with the “Great Satan,” and many objective observers considered the Iranians to have largely abided by the arrangement until after Mr. Trump withdrew from it during his first term.

I would suggest that the Iranians’ current bellicose recalcitrance arises from its specific hatred of Mr. Trump. In his first term, he ordered the assassination of Qasem Soleimani, reportedly the IRGC’s most recognized military commander, and then on two occasions in his second term unleashed bombing and assassinations upon Iran while the Iranians were in discussions with the Trump negotiators. In this context, it doesn’t matter whether the Iranians were negotiating in good faith; they almost certainly weren’t; but from their perspective, Mr. Trump has laid one deadly provocation upon them after another.

These are not exactly “turn the other cheek” kinds of guys.

Since the Iranian regime released the American diplomatic hostages in 1979, its attacks at American interests have been sporadic and, from the standpoint of the American public’s attention, not very effective – proxy strikes upon American and American-allied installations around the globe. Even those which resulted in the rare American soldier’s death or injury were one-day stories in the American media, easily ignored by the Trump Administration.

Now, the Iranians have seemingly realized that they can really hurt Mr. Trump directly by crippling the world economy, jacking American inflation, and ensuring that he suffers a rebuke at the polls this November that not even MAGA attempts to subvert the results can overcome. They are politically strangling him. They have already held out for five months; they only have to hold out forabout three and a half more.

Who doesn’t think they can do it?

Is such an approach apparently against their own long-term geopolitical strategic interest? Arguably. Do they risk the collapse of their economy? Seemingly. But as Hitler noted over a century ago: knowledge has less impact than fanaticism; hate is more enduring than aversion.

I and many others have expressed puzzlement over the years as to why a good third of our populace continues to support Mr. Trump although he’s seemingly done nothing for the vast majority of them. He hasn’t brought down inflation – indeed, has arguably made it worse through his tariffs and the Iranian attack. His tax cut made most of them but pennies while increasing a deficit that will ultimately result in a reduction of their Social Security and Medicare benefits. He has cut back on the Medicaid many of them rely upon. He has refused to release all of the Epstein files, upon which many of them have been obsessed for years – a refusal which I suspect all but the densest MAGA suspects arises from his knowledge that full disclosure would be devastating for him. His ICE agents have shot two – wait for it — white American citizens, one of them – wait again – allegedly because he had a firearm which he was legally authorized to carry and hadn’t drawn. Mr. Trump even churlishly tried to slap his name on the Kennedy Center, which for older voters, even MAGAs, represents a monument to a martyred president who is no longer identified with partisan politics.

So why does this third of our citizenry stick with him when he’s done nothing for them? Why don’t they rush madly to support candidates — even if there are some objective concerns about their policies – who claim that they will bring down inflation, tax the rich, protect federal benefits, and release all of the Epstein files?

Because they are more interested in beating down anything contrary to their view of America – which is of a white, straight, Christian English-speaking people who live in the Cleaver neighborhood and walk through amber waves of grain contemplating purple mountain majesties — than pursuing what is objectively in their own best interest.

Mr. Trump has always understood this. That is why he should understand why the Iranians wouldn’t take his bribe, won’t act in what is seemingly their own best geopolitical interest, don’t seem to care if their economy collapses, are ignoring how many of them die. He is confronting the same kind of hatred that he has stoked to propel his political career.

But what, you ask, of the Iranians’ agreement to a pause every once in a while?

It gives them an occasional breather to reinforce their military positions; but I think that mostly, they’re just messin’ with him.

We’ll see what happens.

On the Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial Nomination: a Postscript

Although various commitments and experiences have kept me from burdening you with much this month, a number of events meriting remark have obviously occurred. While the merry-go-round for the Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial nomination is not the most important of these, given that the support I expressed for the candidacy of WI Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez in a June post (for which this entry serves as postscript) has turned out to be so disastrously misguided, this seems an appropriate follow-up.

As those who read that earlier post might recall, my only concern in the Democrats’ gubernatorial nomination process is that it yield the candidate most likely to beat Republican MAGA Gubernatorial Nominee Tom Tiffany, a Trump acolyte. (I would make an exception if the most likely Democratic winner was proven to have character flaws of a kind and degree akin to those that have caused former Maine Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Graham Platner to withdraw his candidacy, but as far as I am aware, no such issues surround any of the Wisconsin Democratic gubernatorial candidates.) The premise upon which I based the initial post remains unchanged: that in a year in which the prevailing political winds strongly favor Democrats, the party’s surest path to victory is to nominate the candidate best positioned to ride the political tide. I based my support of Ms. Rodriguez little upon her affirmative attributes but rather upon the conclusion that she then appeared to be prominent Democratic contender least likely to anger, scare, or excite those Wisconsin voters disappointed in Mr. Trump but, if motivated to vote, would be inclined to vote Republican.

As all Wisconsinites who care are aware, Ms. Rodriguez has now dropped out of the race. In mid-July, she had to announce that she had fired her campaign manager “after discovering serious mismanagement and inaccuracies in campaign finance filings she prepared.” It now appears that rather than having the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the Rodriguez campaign seemed to have when it had earlier announced an impending $1 million ad buy, the reports it filed as it disappeared indicate that its debts significantly outweigh its assets.

Oops.

Since I have seen no indications of any untoward behavior by Ms. Rodriguez regarding the financial discrepancies described above, I would still have voted for her had she managed to stumble her way to the Democrats’ Gubernatorial nomination since I would prefer an inept Governor to a MAGA Governor. That said, I would have done so knowing full well that through her incompetence she would have scared Wisconsinites disappointed in Mr. Trump but inclined to vote Republican. Mr. Tiffany wasn’t even going to need to get dirty to beat her: just run ads indicating that she couldn’t add 2 and 2.

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, 40, an African American, who had dropped out of the race just days before and endorsed Ms. Rodriguez following her campaign’s announcement of the significant ad buy, has now reentered the race. Mr. Crowley first won his current office in 2020 and was reelected with 85% of the vote in 2024.

WI Gov. Tony Evers, who up to now has refrained from endorsing any candidate, has now endorsed Mr. Crowley.

As this is typed, two very progressive candidates with notable bases of support remain in the race – WI State Assemblywomen Francesca Hong, Asian American, a self-described Democratic Socialist, and former WI Lt. Governor and 2022 Wisconsin Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate Mandela Barnes, African American, he of the “Abolish ICE” Tee Shirt. Ms. Hong and Mr. Barnes are reportedly blasting Mr. Crowley’s reentry as a last-ditch effort by the Wisconsin Democratic establishment to wrest the nomination from a true progressive. I’m pretty sure: they’re right. That said, the Governor is obviously the Wisconsin Democrat with the deepest expertise and best record of winning statewide elections (Mr. Evers has won statewide office five times). He is clearly signaling that he considers Mr. Crowley the most likely remaining Democratic contender to defeat Mr. Tiffany. (In particular, by his bypassing Mr. Barnes, the Lt. Governor in his first term, and former Wisconsin Secretary of Administration Joel Brennan, who worked for him during his first term, one can only infer that Mr. Evers is pessimistic about either man’s chances of winning the nomination and/or the November election.) I want Mr. Tiffany to be defeated.

I’m voting for Mr. Crowley in the upcoming Democratic Gubernatorial primary.

Make no mistake. The misgivings I expressed in my earlier note about Mr. Crowley’s electability still stand. I still have the same trouble believing that any Black man can win a statewide Wisconsin race in the state’s current extremely toxic and closely contested political environment. Since posting my original note, I have heard Mr. Crowley speak, and he does present well, but he is not an electric performer. It takes no prescience to predict that Mr. Tiffany will use the same race and crime cards upstate against Mr. Crowley that U.S. WI Sen. Ron Johnson used effectively against Mr. Barnes in their 2022 Senate race. In Republican pockets of Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany and his acolytes will – at least somewhat subtly at first, unless they see that subtly isn’t working — paint Mr. Crowley as one of them (you know who they are) from there (i.e., the depraved city) who will coddle criminals while ignoring good God-fearing, hard-working white folk.

That said, it’s not hard to guess why Mr. Evers has endorsed Mr. Crowley. Republicans are already running ads against Ms. Hong as “too liberal for Wisconsin” – which some Democrats claim is their attempt to boost her profile and support. If she is nominated, Mr. Tiffany will be able to (correctly) call her a “Socialist,” still Boogeymen to many rural voters (who don’t realize that they favor many Democratic Socialist positions when no political labels are applied to them), and he’ll undoubtedly take a cue from Mr. Trump and start calling her a Communist, a kiss of death for rural voters over 50. (Put aside the fact that Mr. Trump – and presumably, therefore, Mr. Tiffany – have consistently coddled Communist Russian President Vladimir Putin; go figure.) Mr. Barnes is sufficiently progressive that although he does not identify as a Democratic Socialist, Mr. Tiffany will (in addition to using the race/crime card) label him as such, with the “Abolish ICE” Tee shirt as evidence. A number of the lines of attack Mr. Tiffany will be able to use against Ms. Hong and/or Mr. Barnes don’t – at least now — seem like they would be as effective against Mr. Crowley.

It will be interesting to see what steps Mr. Crowley takes now that a good part of the Wisconsin Democratic state organization is presumably coalescing around him. I think it’s a fair surmise that he has a pretty strong political organization in Milwaukee County, one of the two counties that will be most crucial in any victory achieved by any Democratic Gubernatorial candidate in November; if advising Mr. Crowley, I’d recommend that he leave the ground game in Milwaukee County to his team and between now and the August 11 Election Day live in Dane County – the other county crucial to any hopes he has of victory in November — with forays to Wisconsin’s other Democratic areas to seek to siphon off votes that would otherwise go to Ms. Hong. I’d also advise that he start cutting ads in which he talks to the camera, introducing himself to Wisconsin, and calmly describing what he wants to do on issues that will resonate with voters of all stripes throughout the state, such as healthcare.

An aside: I completely understand why Ms. Hong and Mr. Barnes have reportedly responded with irritation to Mr. Crowley’s reentry into the race; when you have put your heart and soul into anything as much as they have clearly done in their campaigns, winning is the focus and anything that might get in the way of that is to be disparaged. At the same time – and again, repeating a comment from the first post – progressives and Social Democrats, emotionally reinforced by the electoral victories of compatriots in places like New York City, obliviously believe that because the moderate majority in places like Wisconsin has come to dislike Mr. Trump and his excesses, that moderate majority is eager to embrace the progressive, democratic socialist agenda labeled as such. It isn’t. Progressives and Social Democrats need to be mindful that the Democratic Party establishment in Wisconsin and other states isn’t the adversary; Mr. Trump and his MAGA cult are. Although either Ms. Hong or Mr. Barnes will get my November vote if s/he secures the nomination (avid progressives make me more than a little leery, but those who implicitly seek an American Apartheid terrify me), I continue to suspect that today’s avid progressives – descendants of the Adlai Stevenson Democrat presidential campaigns of the 1950s, both electoral losers — would rather stand on principle and lose than act pragmatically and win. This is Donald Trump and his MAGA minions on the other side. For the future of our democracy, within the bounds of law and morals, they need to win.

[A piece of advice to Mr. Barnes, which if he would ever read this, I’m confident he would not appreciate: he should get out, and endorse Mr. Crowley. He certainly appears to have too many strikes against him to beat Mr. Tiffany. He had his chance against Mr. Johnson in 2022, and he lost. I recall that when his last adversary for the Democrats’ 2022 U.S. Senatorial nomination, Wisconsin State Treasurer Sarah Godlewski, dropped out and endorsed him, he commended her, indicating “[Defeating Mr. Johnson] is bigger than any one of us.” Now, Mr. Barnes should heed his own 2022 observation. Winning is bigger than any one candidate. (A Noise pledge: if Mr. Barnes wins the nomination and beats Mr. Tiffany, I will happily note my misguided advice in these pages. 😊]

I observed in my earlier note that one must take stereotypes into account when assessing candidates’ respective electoral changes because, like it or not, a large segment of voters cast their ballots based on stereotypes. Despite the heavy Democratic winds expected to prevail this November, the collapse of Ms. Rodriguez’ campaign seemingly leaves Ms. Hong and Messrs. Crowley and Barnes as the remaining likely Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial nominees (WI State Sen. Kelda Roys and, as noted above, Mr. Brennan are still in the race, but I am not aware of any polls indicating that either has much electoral support). My gut tells me that Wisconsin Democrats are now executing a fire drill eerily similar to that which Democrats carried out on the federal level when President Joe Biden too belatedly withdrew his presidential candidacy. I fear that these recent political convulsions have shifted the balance in favor of Mr. Tiffany and the MAGAs no matter who wins the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. I do find it both amazing and disturbing that in a state in which half of the citizenry bitterly oppose Mr. Trump, another pivot segment is leery of his excesses, and his national support is at or near his all-time lows, Wisconsin Democrats can’t find a gubernatorial candidate who won’t anger, scare, or excite Wisconsin voters disappointed in Mr. Trump but inclined to vote Republican.

Yet, that is where I fear that we are. At the same time, to conclude with the point I began the original note: I rarely address Wisconsin state politics or substantive matters in these pages because I have relatively little interest in state issues. Little interest obviously begets limited knowledge. Hopefully, the concerns expressed here about the Democrats’ Wisconsin Gubernatorial current electoral prospects are, truly, only so much Noise.

We’ll see what happens.

Thomas Jefferson Still Lives

As all are aware, today marks the 250^th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776, the birthdate of our nation. Its signatories were men of education, means, and standing; they were not a bunch of wild-eyed crazies; they understood that they were all going to be hanged and their assets forfeited if they lost what had already become a military conflict with Great Britain. They were accordingly moved not only to recite the principles upon which they were founding a new nation, but to set forth a bill of particulars – in effect, an indictment – listing more than twenty reasons why they felt it necessary to take the drastic step to renounce the sovereignty of a King. These are a few of its passages, some known to every school child, several, arguably particularly pertinent today, perhaps not as frequently cited:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness …

…

The History of the present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

…

He has endeavored to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither …

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice …

…

He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislatures.

…

He has excited domestic Insurrections amongst us …

…

We, therefore … solemnly Publish and Declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES …

[W]e mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

When the Second Continental Congress determined that it was time for the United States of America to formally declare their independence from Great Britain, the Committee selected five men to undertake the task: Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson. I have seen it reported that Mr. Franklin declined drafting responsibility because he would not write what others might edit (we all have our quirks 😉), and Messrs. Sherman and Livingston delegated their responsibility to Messrs. Adams and Jefferson; Mr. Adams in turn deferred to Mr. Jefferson as the far superior and inspirational writer. Mr. Jefferson, arguably the most broadly-talented man to ever hold the presidency, fulfilling the confidence Mr. Adams had in him, drafted the document in only a few days.

Only three of those whom we most commonly think of as our “Founding Fathers” actually executed the Declaration: Messrs. Adams, Franklin, and Jefferson. George Washington was away leading the Continental Army, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were away serving in the Army, John Jay was in New York helping to develop that state’s Constitution, and Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet, Common Sense, had been perhaps the most instrumental factor in stirring sentiments of independence among the American colonists, couldn’t sign because he wasn’t a member of the Continental Congress.

Although in the Declaration of Independence Mr. Jefferson penned words that have become as close to immortal as one can achieve in this finite existence – that it was “… self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” today some of our people understandably object to the hallowed place he holds in our history because of his ownership of slaves – making him a perpetuator of the malignant human suffering that we later had to fight a Civil War to exterminate. I understand such views; I recommend Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass if one wishes a firsthand description of the inhumanity of slavery. I will nonetheless assert that the words Mr. Jefferson left us have served as the springboard for the rights and freedoms enjoyed by a billion people living in true democracies today, and capture the aspirations of many billions more. I cannot place qualifiers upon such an achievement.

Messrs. Adams’ and Jefferson’s relationship over many decades was complex and contradictory. Firm compatriots prior to and throughout the Revolutionary War, following the ratification of our current Constitution Mr. Adams, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Jefferson, of Virginia, became bitterly estranged during the years of George Washington’s presidency. Mr. Adams, our country’s first Vice President, believed that the nation required a strong federal government in order to survive; Mr. Jefferson, our country’s first Secretary of State, believed that the federal government should retain as little power as possible, with the great bulk being left to the states and local entities more closely attuned to the sentiments of the people. Mr. Adams defeated Mr. Jefferson in 1796 in the first contested election for the presidency; Mr. Jefferson defeated Mr. Adams and assumed the presidency four years later. Mr. Adams thereupon retired to private life in Massachusetts.

It took over a decade – several years after Mr. Jefferson had left the White House – for Messrs. Adams and Jefferson to reconcile; they thereafter engaged in warm correspondence throughout the remainder of their lives. Historians frequently note that they both died on July 4, 1826, the 50^th anniversary of the issuance of the Declaration of Independence, 200 years ago today. Newspaper reports after Mr. Adams’ passing indicated that his last words were, “Thomas Jefferson still lives.” Most historians conclude this account by somberly stating that Mr. Adams was wrong – that Mr. Jefferson had died a few hours earlier.

I’m personally not at all sure that these learned scholars have understood Mr. Adams’ meaning. Messrs. Adams and Jefferson knew the other was dying; each of them was striving with the last ounce of his respective will to live to that particular day — July 4, 2026, the 50^th anniversary of the birth of the nation they had helped institute and both had led; and both were aware that Mr. Jefferson’s words, perhaps more than any other factor, had provided the inspiration for the battle for the rights and freedom that they had spawned and won. Both had to have wondered over the preceding 50 years whether a nation founded on the principles of general freedom and equality – a theory espoused by such as John Locke but dismissed as unsustainable from a practical perspective by no less than Plato – a fledgling country threatened by much more militarily powerful European nations, beset by rivalries between American regions, states, and political parties, and challenged (as they saw it) by the indigent populations of the west, could endure.

Given Mr. Adams’ knowledge of Mr. Jefferson’s own failing health and the amount of time it then took correspondence to travel between Mr. Adams’ Massachusetts and Mr. Jefferson’s Virginia, Mr. Adams had to be well aware as he spoke his last that there was some doubt as to whether Mr. Jefferson was then still alive in a corporeal sense – as he indeed was not. Call it fanciful, but I would suggest that Mr. Adams understood full well what he was saying as he expired: that in spite of all the travail that had occurred during the preceding half century, the Founding Fathers’ experiment, in which all people – inspired by and embodied in Mr. Jefferson’s words — could participate equally in their polity, still lived. Today, yet another two centuries later, some of us fear that Mr. Jefferson’s pulse might be beating a bit more faintly, but I would submit that there is nothing that cannot be restored through a little exercise by Americans who believe that all of us of every persuasion – and those who wish to join us lawfully and peacefully — should have an equal opportunity to contribute to and be part of the promise of America.

“Resolution is our inherent character, and courage hath never yet forsaken us.”

Thomas Paine; Common Sense; February 14, 1776

Thomas Jefferson Still Lives.

God Bless America.