Category: U.S. Domestic Policy

Thomas Jefferson Still Lives

As all are aware, today marks the 250th 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 50th 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 50th 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.  

On the Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial Nomination

I rarely address Wisconsin state politics or substantive matters in these pages; I simply have much less interest in state than in federal issues.  That said, having voted for Republican Tommy Thompson each of the four times he ran for Governor in this state in the 1980s and 1990s (Mr. Thompson was conservative, but collegial, and understood how to emphasize and enhance Wisconsin’s strengths), over the last quarter-century I have been appalled by the Wisconsin Republican Party’s transition from Mr. Thompson’s governing approach to mindless tribalism and mean-spiritedness toward those it perceives its adversaries and its wholehearted embrace of ignorance and bias.  Today, the Republican MAGA-controlled state legislature more fittingly belongs in the Know Nothing Party of mid-1800s than to Wisconsin’s progressive tradition; it remains best personified by former WI Gov. Scott Walker, who was “Trump before Trump” in this state.

For the last eight years, Wisconsin has been led by Democrat WI Gov. Tony Evers.  Mr. Evers, the most inoffensive of personalities, defeated Mr. Walker by about a percentage point in 2018 and won reelection by 3 points in 2022.  He has been an effective counterweight to the Neanderthal nonsense that the Republican legislature would otherwise wreak upon Wisconsinites.  At 74, Mr. Evers has chosen not to seek a third term.

Wisconsin Republicans have already settled upon their putative Gubernatorial nominee:  U.S. WI Rep. Tom Tiffany.  A now ever-present “AI Overview” of Mr. Tiffany provides as follows:

“U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany has fully embraced Donald Trump, aligning with him on policies and securing Trump’s endorsement for the Wisconsin gubernatorial race. Tiffany has openly defended controversial Trump initiatives, such as the proposed anti-weaponization fund, and frequently appears at Trump events with Wisconsin voters.”

I don’t really think more needs to be said about the stakes here, not only for how Wisconsin local policies and politics will degrade if Mr. Tiffany wins and the Republicans maintain their control of the state’s legislature, but for the nation as a whole; having rabid MAGAs control of the state apparatus in the nation’s most purely purple state would not bode well for having free and fair federal elections in this state in 2028.  Wisconsin Democrats are currently trying to figure out whom to nominate to run against Mr. Tiffany.  I am more than a little fearful that these Democrats will do what they have done before – endemic to Democrats across the country nationwide – and shoot themselves in the foot.

Although I think my sentiments are pretty clear, let me make them, as they say, crystal:  while I intend to vote for whomever the Wisconsin Democrats nominate for the Wisconsin governorship unless that candidate can be shown to have engaged in behaviors that can be fairly described as degenerate (a challenge that the Democratic nominee for Maine’s U.S. Senate seat, Graham Platner, is now seeking to refute) – in which case, I won’t vote – my primary – indeed, my only — criteria for which candidate I think is best supported is whichever candidate is most likely to beat Mr. Tiffany.  

I don’t care which contender is the smartest.  I don’t care which contender is the nicest.  I don’t care which contender has the most detailed grasp of state policy issues.  I don’t care which contender is the best administrator.  I don’t care which contender is the most experienced.  I don’t care which contender would work best with a Republican-controlled legislature.  I don’t care which contender is the one who genuinely cares about me.

You get the idea.

What follows may be offensive to some; these might consider the observations below too cynical, unfairly stereotypic.  My response:  I think we’ve had ample evidence that a large share of our electorate casts its votes on stereotypes.  The notions below outline what this Wisconsinite believes is the type of candidate most likely to defeat a MAGA candidate in a Wisconsin statewide race.  Whether or not one agrees with these observations, I am hopeful that such will be accepted in the spirit in which they are offered – that it is vital that a Democrat win the Wisconsin Governorship this November. 

Elections are about matchups and the existing political atmosphere.  In a year in which the tide is strongly rolling in Democrats’ favor, they should simply pick a candidate who can ride the wave in.  No histrionics, appeals to identity, talk of revolution, or tricks are required.  Don’t give voters who have become disappointed in Mr. Trump but are by inclination Republican any reason to get mad, scared, or excited.  Just get out of the way, and let the tide carry you in. 

Let’s look at the field.

In a poll taken at the recent Wisconsin state Democratic Convention, seven candidates received preference votes for the gubernatorial nomination:  Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez; WI State Assemblywomen Francesca Hong; WI State Sen. Kelda Roys; Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley; former Secretary of the WI Department of Administration Joel Brennan; former WI Lt. Governor and 2022 Wisconsin Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate Mandela Barnes; and former secretary and chief executive officer of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation Missy Hughes.  Ms. Hughes has since dropped out, and endorsed Ms. Rodriguez.

Let’s start with Mr. Crowley, an African American.  He may be a heck of guy, and a heck of a County Executive.   Politically, I don’t think it matters.  In an article about the Wisconsin Democratic Convention poll, he is quoted as saying, “‘… people always ask me, David, can a Black candidate become governor?’”  Mr. Crowley ultimately answers the question, “‘Yes.’”

I applaud Mr. Crowley for openly addressing the figurative elephant in his campaign room.  I wish I could agree with his conclusion.  I can’t.  Mr. Tiffany will simply 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.  I don’t think that any Black man not named Barack Obama (whom I voted for twice) can currently win Wisconsin, and frankly, I’m not sure that even Mr. Obama could win the state in today’s environment.  Although I’ve never heard Mr. Crowley speak, it still seems a fair surmise that he’s not the political athlete Mr. Obama is. 

On to Mr. Barnes.  In addition to being Black and having lost to Mr. Johnson in 2022, there is the legendary photograph of Mr. Barnes, after having been elected WI Lt. Governor in Mr. Evers’ first term, holding up an “Abolish ICE” tee shirt.  While the Trump Administration’s Nazi-like ICE activities have arguably made that less of a detriment than it was in 2022, I would submit that it is still a disqualifier in the Republican bastions of the state.  This race is not about winning the votes of those who want to abolish ICE; it’s about not scaring those who don’t.  The Republican propaganda machine is both ruthless and effective.  I have personally seen the physical unease of Wisconsinites in the center part of the state when Republicans harp on the “invasion” by illegal immigrants (notwithstanding the fact that Latinos picked pickles in the center of the state every summer for decades without notable issues.)  As irrational as these sentiments are, they exist.  There may be a number of moderate conservatives who are uncomfortable with what the Trump Administration has done and is doing, and they may be okay with reforming ICE practices; but they will be alarmed by anyone who seeks – or can be credibly propagandized to appear to be seeking — to abolish it.  Mr. Barnes couldn’t beat Mr. Johnson in 2022; should he really be given another try?  He kinda just looks like a professional politician who is looking for a job.  (Apparently, at least some Wisconsin Democrats share at least some of these reservations; Mr. Barnes finished sixth in the Convention’s straw poll.)

Before we move on:  an aside about progressivism, democratic socialism.  While polls have shown that when issues are put before the voters without party labels, large segments of our polity agree with a number of the positions espoused by democratic socialists such as U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders, U.S. NY Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, many moderate voters — where the Wisconsin gubernatorial election will be won – remain uneasy with the same positions when they are identified with “progressivism” or “democratic socialism.”  I have commented in previous notes that rank-and-file MAGAs believe that because Mr. Trump hates the same people that they hate, Mr. Trump loves them; he doesn’t.  I submit that perhaps emboldened by recent electoral successes in places like New York City, strident progressives may 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.

Repeating from above:  the MAGA propaganda machine is ruthless and effective.  Repeating from above:  Don’t give voters who have become disappointed in Mr. Trump but are by inclination Republican any reason to get mad, scared, or excited.  Just get out of the way, and let the tide carry you in.     

Let’s move on to the progressive darling of the moment, Ms. Hong.  She has been endorsed by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, who for some years now has obviously been the poster child for progressive demonization in the alt-right media.  Progressive media darling U.S. CA Rep. Ro Khanna has come in to campaign for her.  In her past, she has published tweets calling for the defunding of the police.  At one point, she was reportedly sued for failing to pay her credit card bill.  (Obviously, many millions of Americans have financial difficulties; the issue is whether a majority of any given state’s voters will be willing to elect a Governor who has had financial problems.)  She is from Madison.  She’s even Asian, for God’s sake.

I would guess that Mr. Tiffany is drooling at the prospect of taking on Ms. Hong.  What I find incredible is that progressives with national profiles don’t realize that their endorsements may help a Democrat win a party nomination, but in a state as closely divided as Wisconsin, their endorsement is probably the kiss of death in the general election.  I recall David Halberstam noting in one of his books that in 1960, the Kennedys had little regard for the Adlai Stevenson wing of the Democratic Party – the forebears of today’s democratic socialists – because the Stevenson Democrats seemed to prize Mr. Stevenson’s graceful, witty election night concession speeches more than they did winning.  The Kennedys were about winning.  Winning the general election – as long as such is done within the bounds of law by a candidate with some bounds of decent character — is what counts. 

This has been long enough.  (That, I know you agree with.  😉)  Ms. Roys is from Madison, and been around a long time.  Mr. Brennan, as a former top aide to Mr. Evers, has experience near the top of the Wisconsin political pyramid.  I understand why either would continue if s/he truly believes that s/he has a chance to win the nomination and if s/he truly believes that if nominated s/he can beat Mr. Tiffany, but if either of those qualifications seem doubtful, they should get out – as Ms. Hughes has – and endorse the candidate s/he believes most likely to beat Mr. Tiffany. 

All that said, and as noted above, if Messrs. Crowley, Barnes or Brennan or Mses. Hong or Roys win the Democratic nomination – and again, absent any significant verified character issues hereafter coming to light – I will vote for any of them.

That said, I’m pulling for Ms. Rodriguez.  She’s the sitting Lt. Governor; she’s from, lives and won election to the Wisconsin state assembly in a purple district, which if she is nominated may enable her to syphon off some of the support Mr. Tiffany will probably need to counteract what will be overwhelming Democratic turnout in Milwaukee and Madison; she served in the Peace Corps; she’s trained and has served as a nurse; she’s worked in the public and private sectors.  She’s married and the mother of two.  Since we’ve spent much of this note dealing in stereotypes, it must be noted that she’s (obviously) female and has a Latino last name – her husband is a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Mexico – both of which may raise concerns among some conservative voters in a state which has rejected two female presidential candidates and is in some quarters uneasy about Latino immigration; but of the likely nominees, in the current environment she seemingly presents the least that would give voters who have become disappointed in Mr. Trump but are by inclination Republican any reason to get mad, scared, or excited. 

It’s the way Mr. Evers narrowly beat Mr. Walker in 2018.

If you can persuade me that one of the other Democratic gubernatorial candidates has a better chance to beat Mr. Tiffany than Ms. Rodriguez, I’ll switch my allegiance to him/her; but persuade me.

Let’s hope whomever Wisconsin Democrats nominate to run for Governor this fall is successful; Wisconsinites deserve more on election night than a local version of Mr. Stevenson’s long ago witty and graceful odes to a lost cause.

Where Do You Draw the Line?

As all who care have now become aware, Graham Platner, an early-40s oyster farmer and Marine Corps veteran who is the presumed Democratic Party nominee for Maine’s U.S. Senate Seate to run against U.S. ME Sen. Susan Collins, has in recent weeks run into more than what our British friends would call a small spot of bother.  First, Mr. Platner was found to be sporting a tattoo which was apparently a one-time Nazi symbol.  I understand that Mr. Platner claimed that he didn’t know it was a Nazi symbol when he got it, and has recently gotten a tattoo over the Nazi symbol to hide it.  More recently, there have been reports that after marrying, Mr. Platner exchanged sexually suggestive texts with a number of women.  Most recently, the New York Times has run an account that a number of the women Mr. Platner dated in the past have claimed that he was physically aggressive and intimidating in his behavior toward them, one alleging that he left marks on her shoulders.

At the same time, I have heard Mr. Platner – who looks like he could be a model in a MAGA recruitment ad – described by a Republican political operative as an incredible political athlete.  I have never heard him speak (save for a few recent clips in which he is defending himself against various allegations lodged against him).  Mr. Platner boasts the active support of progressive icons U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders and U.S. CA Rep. Ro Khanna (the latter’s support seemingly particularly ironic, given his aggressive efforts for disclosure of the Epstein Files), which means he must spout all of the right progressive ideals.  I have heard others say that his is a story of redemption. 

Those supporting Mr. Platner clearly are doing so because he is (in their view) right on the issues, and is apparently a dynamic candidate.  I have heard more than one liberal talking head note that in the current political environment wrought by President Donald Trump, voters care less about a given candidate’s personal characteristics, as long as s/he supports their positions on the issues.  I have heard one liberal commentator assert in effect that Maine voters should disregard any skeletons in Mr. Platner’s closet given the demonstrated failings of Mr. Trump. 

I don’t think too many Trump supporters read these pages.  😉  It would be accordingly be interesting, if a poll could be taken, to determine the overall sentiments of those who read this note regarding Mr. Platner’s candidacy.

Here is mine. 

I truly hope that Mr. Platner is sorry for his past behaviors; he has expressed regret for those to which he admits.  I desperately want the Democrats to take control of the Senate in 2027; while their controlling the House of Representatives – assuming for purposes of this note that such comes to pass – will provide a partial check on Mr. Trump’s intent to impose an American Apartheid upon us, their gaining control of both houses of Congress will be a substantially more effective roadblock.  Furthermore, in notes posted here over the last year I have come off my high horse on issues such as Democrats’ partisan midcycle redistricting efforts in states such as California and Virginia, indicating that when democracy is at stake, given Republicans’ partisan activities manifestly demonstrating that they are determined to impose their views on America no matter what its majority thinks, one must occasionally become less fastidious.

But apparently, my stomach for whataboutism only goes so far.  I think that the comparisons that liberal pundits are trying to draw between Messrs. Trump and Platner in order to rationalize Mr. Platner’s admitted and alleged behaviors fail practically and morally.  First, the politically pragmatic:  Mr. Platner isn’t running against Mr. Trump.  He’s running against Ms. Collins, who looks like everybody’s grandma (she’s younger than I am 😉) and has won – wait for it – in 1996, when President Bill Clinton was winning reelection convincingly; in 2008, when President Barack Obama was first elected at the depth of President George W. Bush’s unpopularity; and in 2020, when President Joe Biden carried Maine by over 8 points.  (I realized quite a while ago that Maine is my kind of state – electing Mr. Biden and Ms. Collins in the same election by almost the same margin.  Now, that’s independent thinking. 😊)  Given Ms. Collins’ impressive electoral record, to win Mr. Platner needed the race to be about Mr. Trump.  Now, Ms. Collins will be able to make the race about him.

From a moral perspective, MAJOR CAVEAT:  I have not delved into the details of any of the allegations lodged against Mr. Platner.  If I were a citizen of Maine, I would feel obligated to examine the allegations against him in detail and determine their substance.  As it is, I am currently heavily influenced by the comments of former New York Times Columnist David Brooks on the PBS Newshour of June 5th.  There is no pundit in America whose views I hold in higher esteem.  Of Mr. Platner, Mr. Brooks – usually more temperate in his language and tone, and no fan of Mr. Trump — said this:

“[A] moral degenerate.  The abuse of women, the sexting, the Nazi tattoo.  I don’t even need to say anything beyond his Reddit posts – which are not in the past, by the way; he did that for a long time.  Abusing people who might have been raped, diminishing rape in the military, insulting fellow military officers. … It’s a pathetic, empty guy who postures in a way that’s kind of repulsive.  There are 330 million Americans, and there are 100 Senators.  We can’t have a decent human being in those hundred?  We’re gonna settle for this? … The Democrats are supporting Platner for the same reason the Republicans are supporting Trump. … Now, if Democrats side with Platner, I don’t want to hear too much about Trump in the future and his moral degeneracy.”   

As I said, if I were a Mainer, and despite my high regard for Mr. Brooks’ views, I’d feel a responsibility to examine the allegations about Mr. Platner myself, and form my own conclusions.  However, if my own investigation indicated to me that the totality of the allegations against him had substance, I wouldn’t vote for him.  I wouldn’t vote for Ms. Collins.  I’d sit it out.

Somewhere in there is where I draw the line.

You may well feel differently; you may well consider me too squeamish, considering the imperiled state of our democracy; such differences of opinion are, as my sainted mother sometimes said, what make horse races.  However, I will be disheartened from both ethical and practical perspectives if, as now seems highly likely, Mr. Platner wins the Democratic nomination for the Maine Senate seat.

I think virtually all commentators agree that Democrats must overcome long odds if they are going to take control of the U.S. Senate in 2027.  A few months ago, Ms. Collins’ seat looked like the easiest Democratic pickup; she is the only Republican Senator remaining in New England, she’s already been there a long time, and Maine voted not only for Mr. Biden in 2020 but for former Vice President Kamala Harris by almost 7 points in 2024.  It’s the Democrats’ year, and I suspect that Ms. Collins’ support even among Maine Republicans has weakened – she’s presumably irritated Trump MAGAs by not supporting the President vehemently enough while offending traditional Republicans by not sufficiently standing up to his excesses.  I nevertheless fear that Democrats are about to do what they do best – snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.  If Maine Democrats do indeed nominate Mr. Platner and he is elected, I hope that he, despite his baggage, thereafter forms part of a Senate bulwark against Mr. Trump’s excesses; but it is hard not to suspect that Ms. Collins will be mounting Mr. Platner’s scalp in her office in 2027 next to the scalps of her previous five Democratic opponents.

We’ll see what happens.

On Memorial Day

As we continue to confront what I would submit is the most insidious internal threat to our democracy that this nation has ever faced, it is well to take a more than a moment to remember the sacrifices of the men and women we have marked this upcoming Memorial Day to honor:  both those throughout our history who have given, in the words of President Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg, “the last full measure of devotion,” and those who came home but have ever after borne the physical and emotional scars of battle.  It is these who provide the inspiration and set forth the responsibility to maintain the promise of America.

Enjoy the Holiday.    

The Noise Yields Its Time to Mr. Walsh

Yesterday, one of the panelists on MSNOW’s The Weekend was former U.S. IL Rep. Joe Walsh, a traditional Republican who has joined the Democratic Party during the Trump Era.  As part of a discussion of the widespread anti-Trump Regime sentiment evidenced by the large turnout at the NO KINGS rallies across the country this past Saturday, Mr. Walsh said this:

“This is a really important point – and again, this is scary to say.  The current president of the United States is doing everything he can to mess with – I watch my language – the midterms, to cancel the midterms, to never accept the results of the midterms.  Jackie [Alemany, a The Weekend host], you asked at the top, ‘What next, what next, No Kings?’  We have to make sure there are midterms … these protests have to keep growing.  … [The results need to be] ‘Too Big to Rig.’ [Emphasis Mr. Walsh’s, from tone.]”

Mr. Walsh continued later:

“Look, a lot of people voted for Trump in ’24 who are not MAGA.  They voted for Trump because the Democrats suck or because of the border or because [they] want[ed] things to cost less.  Those people are fleeing from him and that’s why there’s going to be a blue tsunami if we have midterms, if we have free and fair midterms.  The other thing is – can we just; we don’t talk about this enough – he’s [i.e., Donald Trump] whacked. [Emphasis Mr. Walsh’s, from tone.]”

And finally, the former Congressman added:

“I think we have to assume that there will be [free and fair elections]; we have to prepare like there won’t be.  Like we never envisioned – ‘Oh My God’ – a president can lose an election and then try to overturn the election and that happened and then January 6th happened.  He’s doing it right now, again.  We have to prepare for the worst.  [Emphasis Mr. Walsh’s, from tone.]”

The national NO KINGS turnout shows that we have a lot to work with in the contest to preserve our democracy.  That said:  The struggle has barely begun.

This is a Great Day to Be an American

I believe that we currently confront the greatest internal threat to our democracy since the founding of our republic.  That said, we still have the right to avail ourselves of the opportunities enshrined in The Constitution of the United States of America, most specifically:

“Amendment I

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

If you read these pages, I suspect you agree with my assessment of the danger we face.  If you do, I hope that today you will participate in a NO KINGS march and rally.  Judging by the maps I’ve seen, one close to you shouldn’t be hard to find.  😊

God Bless America.      

On Ms. Noem and Mr. Mullin

Let’s reflect just very briefly on the political demise of former Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem.  The first reflection is one I’ve already made here, and with regard to Ms. Noem, to me the most important:  I was genuinely sorry to see her go.  She had become such a caricature for the Trump Regime’s Nazi-like immigration enforcement activities that I considered every day she remained at her post a day in which millions of moderate Americans would be reminded that they had to vote against Republicans in the upcoming November elections, thus strengthening the chances for American democracy to survive.  I had never seen the $220 million ICE recruitment video starring Ms. Noem that was reportedly pivotal in getting her fired before the furor over it erupted during her recent Senate hearing; now that I have, my primary reaction was sympathy for Ms. Noem’s horse, who had to be both chagrined at being part of such an embarrassing spectacle and worried that Ms. Noem would shoot it when the video was completed, although at the same time being heartened that it wasn’t the biggest horse’s a– … er … behind …  in the production.

On to U.S. OK Sen. Markwayne Mullin, whom President Donald Trump is nominating to replace Ms. Noem as Homeland Secretary.  First, I truly wonder whether Mr. Mullin’s parents simply couldn’t decide whether he looked like a “Mark” or a “Wayne” when he was born.  Based upon what we’ve seen of and learned about him since Mr. Trump put his name forth, it would appear that the Senator’s parents would have been closer to the mark (so to speak 😉) had they named him, “Rocco,” “Spike,” or “Hugger,” but all of us parents understand that no one can predict these things in advance.  😊     

There are those who might rationally oppose Mr. Mullin’s confirmation as Homeland Secretary based upon his comments on Fox News about Alex Pretti the day after ICE Agents murdered Mr. Pretti in Minneapolis:  “A deranged individual who came in to cause massive damage with a loaded pistol was shot and killed.”  For Mr. Mullin to make such a declaration after there was sufficient video available to establish that such was false propaganda would, in a rational world, be sufficient to give any ethical Senator considering Mr. Mullin’s nomination concerns about Mr. Mullin’s judgement and veracity, but given the Trump Regime’s Rogue’s Gallery Cabinet, such a misrepresentation simply means that Mr. Mullin will fit right in.  If I were a Senator, I’d vote to confirm Mr. Mullin.  I still believe in the principle I first articulated in these pages years ago:  any nominee of a President to a senior Administration post should be confirmed, subject to two criteria:  whether the candidate is objectively qualified for the position; and the absence of any other objective disqualifying criteria (prior criminal conviction, demonstrable drug abuse problem, etc.).  Although Mr. Mullin reportedly has no background in homeland security issues, it is seemingly likely that he is no less qualified than any other nominee that Mr. Trump might put forward, and he is arguably less abjectly ill-suited for Homeland Security than Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard are for their offices.  Additionally, as we are all well aware, immigration policy is set by Mr. Trump and his (let’s be gentle) autocratically-inclined Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller; whomever they put in the Homeland Security seat is simply going to execute their bidding.  The nominee’s subjective leanings – e.g., in this instance that he is arguably going to be too hardline on immigration policy – shouldn’t, in my view, be part of the assessment.  I hope that Democrats don’t spend too much emotion trying to contest a confirmation which, given Republican control of the Senate and Mr. Mullin’s being a sitting Senator, is a done deal.

Two final impressions:  the first – a parallel if not a repetition of the comment above regarding Ms. Noem — is that Mr. Mullin’s replacement of Ms. Noem, taken together with the Regime’s ICE’s recent withdrawal from “Blue Cities,” will almost certainly release some of the pent-up steam against the Regime’s thuggish immigration enforcement policies that has built up during the first part of this year. I consider this release, this far from November, to be an unfortunate outcome for our democracy. 

Second, if I could make any recommendation to Mr. Mullin, it would be this:  the Regime’s attack on Iran, no matter how one views it from a foreign policy perspective, has changed the fundamentals of your job.  Spend less of your and your staff’s energy on chasing down illegal immigrants who haven’t committed crimes following their initial illegal entry, and immediately bring back any experts in Middle East terrorism that Elon Musk’s moronic DOGE purges may have terminated from the federal government.  Start consulting Homeland Security veterans from the George W. Bush and Obama Administrations about how to best to detect and keep Americans safe from terrorist activities within the U.S. by Iranian sleeper cells.  To anyone who doesn’t believe that such quiescent cells haven’t been here for years, awaiting instructions from the Iranian Regime:  I envy you your life in CandyLand.  Hopefully, Mr. Mullin recognizes that he doesn’t have that luxury.

We’ll see what happens.

Two Impressions on the Epstein Files

[It has occurred to me, given little NPR’s recent reports that the Trump Regime’s Justice Department has failed to release an Epstein victim’s witness statements allegedly describing that victim’s encounters with President Donald Trump, that the mighty New York Times had to be a bit disgruntled at being scooped.  I share a bit of the Times’ chagrin. 😉  What follows was substantially completed before NPR’s recent publication, deferred for other posts.  In entering it now, I’m supposing:  Better late than never.]

You certainly don’t need a recitation of the facts surrounding the evil perpetrated by the late Jeffrey Epstein and those who collaborated with him.  Nor do you need a rundown on the continuing rank hypocrisy and obstructionism – most glaring under the Trump Administration, but certainly not confined to the Trump Administration – of the various law enforcement agencies over many years who have professed sympathy for Epstein’s victims while mostly doing nothing to enable them to obtain justice.  Only two impressions. 

At the time this is typed, in excess of 3 million of what has been reported to be between 5 and 6 million records in the Trump Regime’s Department of Justice’s investigative files on Epstein have been released, and the Department has announced that it will not release the last 2 million.  It’s hard to see how release of these last remaining records can be compelled; Congress could pass a law, but it’s already done that, and the Regime clearly couldn’t care less.  I have also seen it reported that President Donald Trump’s name appears in the files over 1000 times.  Although it is undisputed that he maintained a relationship with Epstein over quite a span of years, the President has vigorously denied that he ever engaged in any illicit activities with Epstein’s underage female victims (or, let’s call them what they were:  girls).  At the same time, it’s clear that Mr. Trump’s toadies at the Department of Justice will follow whatever he orders.  The crux of it is that Mr. Trump – his own savviest media advisor – knows – he knows – that stonewalling on this issue is terribly politically damaging.  If the President was confident that he would not be hurt too badly by the files’ full disclosure, one can tenably surmise based upon his past behavior that the last 2 million records would have been released by now.  So I ponder:  what is the one thing that a man might fear who has been able to maintain the rabid support of his base despite his audio-taped indication that he could “grab [women] by the p—y,” despite his negligently causing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary COVID-related American deaths, despite his inexplicably obsequious relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, despite his 34 felony convictions, and despite his incitement of an traitorous attack on our nation’s Capitol?  What is the one revelation that a man, who has politically survived his undisputed commission of so many detestable actions with his core base intact, might fear would finally turn his rabid supporters against him?

I’ll leave that one to you.

As to the second impression:  I never thought I’d say this; anyone who knows me or reads these notes may well understandably consider me oblivious, paranoid, senseless as a goose, or dumber than a rock – or all of the above, plus dozens of other similar apt descriptions — but neither you nor I have probably generally considered me to be … naïve.  But I was.  All these years, I scoffed at conspiracist groups who maintained that the world was being run by a global cabal of elite pedophiles.  The Epstein files that have been released seemingly indicate that there does indeed exist an international group of wealthy business and government elites across the political spectrum who have and do indeed believe that they are entitled to abuse and destroy the lives of the vulnerable for their own pleasure.  Although it is still uncertain which of the powerful men coming into Epstein’s orbit exploited the women trafficked by Epstein, it seems clear that given the number of men named and the number of Epstein victims that have come forward, that many, many men were involved.  While these conspiracists were clearly wrong with regard to some vital particulars – the pedophilia cabal they warned against obviously does not include all of the globally politically and financial powerful, it is certainly not limited to left wing elites, and (wait for it) Donald Trump is most certainly not the man who is going to bring it to justice for the victims — arguably one must concede that this particular conspiracy theory was not entirely without a grain of reality.

I never believed it.  One or two megarich and powerful monsters, sure; we have constant evidence of the evil in the world.  But the kind of concerted and broad ring that Mr. Epstein appears to have developed and serviced?  I never thought that such could actually exist.  I was confident that these conspiracists were entirely wacked out, howling at the moon about global pedophilia rings while standing in a Los Angeles parking lot waiting to prove that the 1969 lunar landing was a hoax or scanning the sky for Italian lasers altering voting machines.

It would appear that their claims of the existence of an international pedophilia ring weren’t entirely wrong, after all.

The State of the Union I’m Hoping For

This post runs contrary to my general rule against writing and posting on the same day; it arises from an email exchange I had with a close friend earlier today.

President Donald J. Trump delivers his Presidential State of the Union Address to Congress this evening.  All who care are aware that Mr. Trump’s conduct of the presidency during the first year of his second term has been so disreputable that his approval rating has plummeted among all voter segments save his hardest-core supporters, and in even that segment he has sustained erosion.  I have heard commentators opine in recent days that because the speech will be watched by a wide swath of Americans across the political spectrum, the President’s advisors see this State of the Union Address as perhaps his last opportunity (think about that; he’s only been back in office a year) to right his sinking popularity and at the same time provide a campaign lifeline to Republican candidates representing swing areas (and possibly not-normally-swing areas) who seemingly currently face the prospect of a political bloodbath.  To achieve the result that Mr. Trump’s advisors and his terrified Republican officeholder supplicants hope for, Mr. Trump will need to project a reasonable tone, acknowledge the majority of Americans’ fears about their economic circumstances and the country’s future while laying out specific proposals to address these Americans’ financial plight, express regret about the Supreme Court’s recent ruling vitiating his tariff policy without descending into vituperation, point out the way his administration has shut down the border while perhaps indicating that ICE will be adopting a lighter touch in its activities within our cities, etc., etc., etc.

I am confident that these Republican worthies (obviously using that term loosely) fervently hope he will avoid a harsh, combative tone of denial, or claim that America is in a golden age, or claim that America is loved around the world, or any declaration that affordability is a hoax, or any declaration that his administration intends to take steps to prevent widespread voter fraud in the 2026 elections, or personal attacks on Democrats, or racially-tinged attacks on immigrants, or above all, personal attacks on the Supreme Court – including the two Justices he appointed — that recently struck down his fairly unpopular tariff policy.  (I admit that I felt perverse amusement when following the adverse decision, Mr. Trump referred to the three Republican-appointed Justices who rejected his claim to broad tariffing authority as “lapdogs”; I considered his comment an unwittingly indictment of the three Republican-appointed Justices who did vote to uphold his tariffing authority – Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh – who are, indeed, lapdogs.)  

You and I are both sufficiently aware of my fallibility, but I am nonetheless going to make a straightforward pronouncement here:  Mr. Trump is at this point congenitally incapable of performing in the manner his advisors wish and his Republican supplicants need to politically survive.  He will claim that under his leadership, that our union is strong; that the economy is strong; that the world is more secure, and he alone has been able to bring peace in about 100 countries (none of which actually seem to be at peace 😉); that he does intend to take steps to avoid voter fraud in certain areas (all Democratic strongholds); that ICE has made the country safer; and that the Supreme Court has acted shamefully and hurt our country by its recent tariff ruling, and he intends to impose more tariffs.  In short, he will adopt the combative tone and say all the things that his advisors and fellow Republicans want him to avoid. 

Although I have continued with my recent months’ habit of not watching or listening to Mr. Trump’s lies and loathsome diatribes – my heart is not that strong – I intend to watch the address tonight, hoping for the best – the best being that Mr. Trump will indeed perform as I have predicted.  Although one is heartsick at the hardship, the lost and ruined lives, the irreparable damage to innocent children’s psyches that this Regime has cruelly wrought, it is seemingly clear that each report of a new despicable outrage by the Regime – from its ICE’s Nazi-like activities and the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, to its continued refusal to even acknowledge let alone address many Americans’ economic plight, to its continued refusal to provide impoverished Americans with healthcare financial assistance, to its refusal to follow the Epstein law and provide justice to the Epstein victims, to its threats to invade Greenland, to its attacks on its own Supreme Court (which must make even some semi-perceptive MAGAs wonder if he’s acting legally), to its plastering Mr. Trump’s name on and flying banners with Mr. Trump’s picture from various federal buildings, to … you get it (I apologize if I have left out any of the Regime’s shameless activities you find the most offensive) – has, at one level, become means to an end.  As British Prime Minister Winston Churchill told the House of Commons in June, 1940 – and I make this analogy intentionally, and not lightly – “We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering.” At this point, I don’t want to see Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., or Epstein-implicated Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick fired; they serve the same emotive rallying point for Regime opponents as MAGAs used to point to former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.  If Mr. Trump was savvy enough to jettison some of these subordinates, it would take some of the steam out of the Regime’s opposition.    

Returning to a theme you have heard me repeat here endlessly: given the majority of American voters’ selection of Donald Trump in November of 2024, I – like our European allies — have lost and will probably never regain confidence in the good sense of the majority of American citizens.  It is clear that in order to get the pivotal segment of our citizens who inexplicably thought Mr. Trump was the solution to their difficulties to continue to see reality, they must be regularly confronted with Regime outrages.  Ironically – and at the same time unfortunately and happily — Mr. Trump seems willing to accommodate this need.

I would suggest that we must face the fact that at this point there is no chance – zero — that we as a nation are in a position to face the myriad of pressing substantive problems we should be addressing – the economic insecurity of a large percentage of our people, what meaningful work can be developed for our citizens whose skill sets may be less well suited to the automated future, our federal debt, climate change, artificial intelligence, progress in the health sciences, the improvement and broadening of our education systems, a coherent immigration policy, our proper role in world affairs, you name it – until we manage to stifle the Regime of ignorance, denial and autocracy now governing our country.  We need to put our substantive concerns aside, and for the present absorb the future Regime outrages that seem likely to further distress the pivotal middle segment of our citizens as setbacks that might ultimately enable us to preserve our democracy.  Let the President continue to blithely deny that many Americans are suffering economically.  Let him idiotically withhold vaccines, moronically declare Tylenol unsafe for pregnant women.  Let him impose more illegal tariffs.  Let him withhold the last 2 million Epstein documents.  Let him fly his picture from every building in Washington.  Indeed, let him bulldoze the West Wing, erect a castle, and paint his face on it.  These are arguably means to an end. 

There are, of course, two exceptions to this rule.  The first is that we don’t want any more people’s lives sacrificed to Regime violence.  The second involves the measures that the Regime is almost certainly going to attempt to subvert free and fair 2026 federal elections.  These must be contested by all legal and peaceful means available.  I’ll venture that the culmination is likely to arrive this summer when Mr. Trump knows — when it absolutely sinks in – that a fair election will be a tidal wave against him; that he will be facing circumstances, unlike his loss in 2020 — which, although clear, was undeniably close in states such as Georgia and Wisconsin – where most citizens will intuitively know from their own feelings that despite Regime claims, Republican defeats weren’t “rigged,” weren’t due to “voter fraud.”  

That will be our most dangerous period.  At the start of the Regime’s term, I thought the struggle might be coming in 2028; as I’ve indicated more recently, I think that it will be upon us in 2026.  (Get ready to attend your next local NO KINGS rally on March 28.  😊)  In a positive statement in which I wholeheartedly believe:  if we can get through it, we are still the United States of America, the most democratic nation in the history of the earth, which despite its faults has through its goodwill, industry, and initiative done more good for more people than any other nation in history and solved the greatest number of the greatest problems humankind has faced.  The substantive and political challenges we now confront can be addressed – if not entirely during my generation’s lifetime, during the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren — if we manage to secure our democracy.

We’ll see what happens tonight.