On the First 2024 Republican Candidate Debate

First, full disclosure:  We won’t be able to watch the first Republican Party presidential debate this Wednesday.  Quite a while back, we opted to go to a reduced cable station package, and elected not to include Fox News because I saw no reason to put such an unnecessary strain on my aging heart 😉 .  (I’m shocked that the Republican National Committee hasn’t offered me a seat in the Milwaukee debate hall; after all, I am just down the road 🙂 ).  That said, a few pre-game observations (based on the understanding that even candidates refusing to pledge to support whomever is ultimately the GOP nominee will be allowed to participate):

The easiest first:  former President Donald Trump is obviously making the wise strategic move to skip the debate.  Aside from the most important point – he would almost certainly say something that could be used to incriminate him in one of his upcoming criminal trials – in skipping the debate he’s avoiding a clash with former NJ Gov. Chris Christie, who would be gunning for him (please excuse the old reference) and is even better at slugging it out than Mr. Trump is.  (Mr. Christie has assumed the mantle of Overt Trump Adversary that I have previously indicated in these pages that I thought former U.S. WY Rep. Liz Cheney might play.)  At the same time, even though Mr. Trump will not be on the stage, my guess is that he will still sustain some political damage.  Mr. Christie is going to repeatedly call the former president a coward for not showing up – at least when he’s not calling Mr. Trump a liar, a loser, and a traitor.  This will probably shave no more than a point off Mr. Trump’s core Republican support, but I’ll venture that it may have a significant impact upon the moderate conservatives tuning in who are tired of Mr. Trump.  These citizens may never vote for President Joe Biden, but Mr. Christie’s verbal assaults will be the first in a continuing barrage that may start to dampen these moderate conservatives’ willingness to turn out for Mr. Trump in November if he is the GOP nominee.

FL Gov. Ron DeSantis has clearly been employing what I will call the “Rotting Redwood” strategy.  By this time, Mr. DeSantis and his advisors must realize that he can’t beat Mr. Trump, one-on-one; they are trying to “hang around” so that if the prosecution worms eating at Mr. Trump, now seemingly an impregnable political redwood, suddenly cause him to topple over, Mr. DeSantis, as the tallest sapling, will be in position to scoop up the nomination.  The trouble with this strategy is:  Mr. DeSantis is boring.  The only thing worse than an autocrat is a boring autocrat.  Everyone on that stage is going to be attacking him, because they are all aware that their only hope for the nomination is to be “the best of the rest.”  Although Mr. DeSantis handily beat former FL Gov. Charlie Christ to retain his governorship in 2022, I saw clips of their debate in which Mr. DeSantis simply froze when challenged by Mr. Crist in some pretty predictable areas.  Up against Mr. Christie and former SC Gov. Nikki Haley – who also knows how to throw a punch, as long as Mr. Trump is not the target – Mr. DeSantis has the most to gain or lose.  If he shines, he remains the Great Anybody But Trump Hope.  If he stumbles – and thereafter falls to third or fourth among Republican candidates – he’s finished.  Recall that Vice President Kamala Harris’ 2020 presidential campaign started to slide when then-U.S. HI Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (put aside what we’ve since learned about Ms. Gabbard) hit Ms. Harris during a candidate debate with questions about Ms. Harris’ record as San Francisco District Attorney that Ms. Harris simply froze on.

Ms. Haley and U.S. SC Sen. Tim Scott will be engaging in a fascinating exchange.  Both have reportedly stirred interest among Iowans for the first Republican caucus, and each needs to sidle past Mr. DeSantis, but both will have to use some of their air time taking shots – perhaps veiled – at the other (if not this week, soon); each is undoubtedly aware that whoever loses to the other in their home state South Carolina primary will be effectively eliminated, no matter what Mr. Trump’s situation is.  Their candidacies also raise a question I have, which I’ve not heard spoken of elsewhere:  Is the Republican Party ready to award its presidential nomination to a person of color?  I have always felt that if the late U.S. Gen. Colin Powell had run for the Republican nomination in 2000, he would have beaten former President George W. Bush for the Republican presidential nomination and former Vice President Al Gore for the presidency, and we’d have a much different – and much better – world today; but he didn’t, we don’t, and the Republican party is chasms from where it was in 2000.  If Ms. Haley or Mr. Scott secure the nomination, I’m sure Republican stalwarts would vote for either rather than a despised, diabolical, demented, Godless, rabidly progressive crime boss like Mr. Biden 😉 , but  I just don’t see the party nominating a black man or an Asian woman when there are plenty of good ol’ white men available.  

Which brings us to the third candidate of color:  Vivek Ramaswamy.  Of all the candidates on stage – save, perhaps, Mr. Christie — I will most miss seeing him.  If my Twitter feed – a highly, highly unreliable source — is to be believed, Mr. Ramaswamy seems to believe that there is a path to the nomination for a person of color, as long as s/he is willing to out-fascist Messrs. Trump and DeSantis.  I’d start with an open mind and see whether he actually voices some of the positions that I’ve seen attributed to him.  Alas, an opportunity which will be sacrificed to protect my cardiovascular system.   

Whether or not you agree with their policy views, former Vice President Mike Pence and former AR Gov. Asa Hutchinson are good men who have proven themselves determined to safeguard our republic.  I fear that they’re too mild to stand out in this field.

Apparently, ND Gov. Doug Burgum will also be on stage.  I’ve seen clips of Mr. Burgum, and he might be plain-spoken and sensible – as U.S. CO Sen. Michael Bennet was an interesting, plain-spoken and sensible Democratic presidential candidate in 2020 – but it’s hard to see how Mr. Burgum is doing anything but running for the Republican Vice Presidential nomination.

My greatest fear about this debate is substantive.  While our citizens’ respective positions on certain issues – the best course for American democracy and women’s abortion rights, to name two – are fairly solidified, their foreign policy preferences are always more fluid.  Recall how a few 2020 Democratic candidates’ very expansive positions on southern border immigration drove the whole party’s position further left than the country was as a whole.  I am deeply concerned that any Republican candidates’ dramatic isolationist declarations could ultimately significantly weaken Republican – and thus American – support for Ukraine.  We as a world can’t afford that.

Stay tuned – if you’re able  🙂 .  

It Takes Just One

As virtually all are aware, Fulton County (GA) District Attorney Fani Willis has announced an indictment issued by a Fulton County Grand Jury against former President Donald Trump and 18 other named co-conspirators under Georgia’s state Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (“RICO”), alleging they conspired to unlawfully overturn Mr. Trump’s Georgia 2020 presidential election loss. 

The indictment reportedly runs to 100 pages.  I haven’t read it.  Although one can never be sure, it appears to be the last major shoe to drop of the criminal hazards that legal commentators have been indicating for months might well be brought against Mr. Trump and one or more of his cohort arising from their alleged insurrectionist activities following the 2020 presidential election.

One doesn’t need a legal background to surmise that any case with so many charges against so many defendants (and thus, involving so many, many defense lawyers 😉 ) is not going to trial any time soon.

The hallmark of our criminal justice system is that all defendants are presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by the unanimous verdict of 12 citizen jurors.  As those of us who fear for our democracy if Mr. Trump returns to the White House are acutely aware, prosecutors’ daunting challenge in each of the two federal cases now pending against Mr. Trump respectively for attempting to defraud the United States and for mishandling of classified documents, in the New York case alleging his falsification of business records in violation of NY state law, and in the Georgia RICO case, is to get all 12 jurors to find him guilty.  Mr. Trump will be free if — in a polarized, hyper-toxic political environment rife with propaganda in which he will be supported by a rabid cult already shown to be willing to use intimidation and violence on his behalf — he can persuade just one juror in each case that he is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

That said:  one set of charges in the Georgia case stands out to me:  three counts against Mr. Trump for “Solicitation of Violation of Oath by a Public Official.”  All of us have heard the recording of Mr. Trump’s phone call with Republican GA Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, in which Mr. Trump – despite Mr. Raffensperger’s assurances that there was no evidence that Georgia’s presidential vote tallies were materially inaccurate — asked Mr. Raffensperger to “… find 11,780 votes” after Georgia state officials had officially reported that President Joe Biden’s margin of victory in the state was 11,779.  As far as I know, Mr. Trump has never denied that the call occurred nor claimed that the tape is doctored. 

The evidence seems damning.  It has brought home to me the magnitude of the challenge facing Mr. Trump.  The former president is facing four sets of able prosecutors (although Special Counsel Jack Smith leads both federal prosecutions, presumably he has two able lieutenants respectively leading separate teams dedicated to each of the federal cases) asserting tens of felony counts against him in four forums (at least three presumably hostile, whose jurisdiction is nonetheless legally unassailable).  To retain his liberty, he has to run the table – get a Not Guilty verdict on them all.  If Mr. Trump is found guilty on just one of these many felony counts he faces (let’s save perhaps for another day the scope of the Constitutional power of Pardon he might have regarding his own federal felony convictions if inaugurated president in 2025), he is seemingly done for.

So from either side of the table:  It takes just one.

August Odds and Ends

One truly regrettable consequence of the multitude of indictments that have recently been visited on former President Donald Trump is the distinct possibility that Trump news may drown out rational policy discussions and all but the starkest other news until at least Inauguration Day, 2025.  Despite my deepest (and by now glaringly obvious) antipathy for the autocratic impulses Mr. Trump and his cohort have both exploited and unleashed in our national psyche, I’m going to try hard to not only write about our coming political maelstrom during the next 17 months – there’s only so much to be said — although there is a part of me that feels that discussing other issues during this coming period is going to be akin to addressing the quality of the paint on World War II Allied battleships as they traveled through seas infested by Nazi submarines.

First:  on one hand, I am surprised that the public perception of President Joe Biden’s handling of the economy is so dismal, and on the other, I’m not.  Granting that at the macro level, our unemployment level is at or near historic lows and that today the S&P 500 Index is approximately 18% higher than it ever was when Mr. Trump was president, in our past it has often been the case – even absent invectives such as those currently being trumpeted by Mr. Trump’s propagandists – that our citizens have taken economic positives in stride, and focused on economic negatives.  Thus, what our people see is elevated (relative to the last 15 years) interest rates, which impact home and car sales and small business lending, notable inflation in food cost, and – worst of all – high gas prices.  Even in democratically steady times, it is never a good thing for a President of the United States if gas prices are high.  While Saudi Arabia and Russia, who have a dominant roles in the world’s oil market, will clearly do what they can to inflate oil prices to assist Mr. Trump’s campaign while filling their own coffers, China’s exports are reportedly significantly sliding as western companies redo their supply chains, which will seemingly cut its oil demand and in turn presumably weigh on global oil prices.  A lot of variables; time will tell.

Next:  Until recently, the dangers of Climate Change have seemed existential but somehow remote in the upper U.S. Midwest – not unlike the Russian invasion of Ukraine, where the stakes are intellectually clear but we’ve been far from the brunt of the battle.  Although the polar vortex made our last winter colder than normal, winter is always cold here; and we could arguably manage a degree or two of additional summer warmth more readily than our south or much of the rest of the world.  Furthermore, our proximity to the Great Lakes provides us access to drinking water not as readily available in other parts of our nation and much of the rest of the world.  Even so, the United States Department of Agriculture is now offering technical and financial assistance to help Wisconsin farmers respond to extreme drought conditions that are reportedly the worst to hit the state in over a decade.  During parts of June and July, the smoke from Canadian wildfires created “Very Unhealthy” Air Quality Index levels hundreds of miles from Canada and caused southern Wisconsin residents to seek refuge in their homes (for those fortunate enough to have them).  In July, we visited the Apostle Islands in northern Wisconsin; although there was little cloud cover during our visit, we nonetheless approached some islands through a smoke cover reminiscent of the mist pierced by the protagonists in King Kong movies as they first neared Kong’s island. (In an entirely geographically separate part of our nation:  If I’d ever focused on it, I would probably have surmised that parts of Hawaii were at risk for significant future losses caused by rising sea levels, but would never have guessed that such a tropical environment would be subject to wildfires.) We are constantly warned that we are approaching a “tipping point” regarding climate change; given the increasing breadth, frequency and intensity of the climate-related damage being incurred worldwide, it is difficult not to conclude that we haven’t already reached it.  While it may be true, as some credible authorities assert, that renewable technologies are not yet sufficient to enable some parts of our world to survive without carbon- or nuclear-based energy sources, we obviously haven’t moved fast or aggressively enough to reduce our dependence on carbon where we can.  Although I am optimistic that in the future we will develop technologies to mitigate the effects of the toxic gasses we release into the atmosphere, there is clearly going to be no quick fix to repair the damage that our changing climate has already wreaked upon our globe.

Finally, on a happily less vital note:  I was more than a little surprised that so many sports pundits professed shock at the perceived underperformance of the U.S Women’s team in the Soccer World Cup.  I don’t watch or know anything about soccer, but I will venture this:  with the possible exception of U.S. college football factories, if a championship team in any sport has a 60% turnover in its personnel – the U.S. Women fielded 14 of 23 players who hadn’t been on the last World Cup championship team — and has a new coach, its chances of repeating have to be in doubt.  The team’s performance showed – obviously speaking in relative terms – that it wasn’t that good.  So be it.  It’s only sports; nobody died.  I was glad to see that if the U.S. Women were going to be defeated, that it was Megan Rapinoe – a stalwart and face of the team in past championships – who was one of those that missed a crucial penalty kick; although she’s taking undue heat in some quarters due to her past outspoken progressive stands, Ms. Rapinoe’s stature in U.S. soccer lore is secure, and it will be easier for her by nature and record of achievement to shoulder the criticism than one of the newcomers.  The pay equity with the U.S. Men’s team that the U.S. Women achieved through their undoubted excellence over the last quarter century is those championship teams’ and players’ true legacy.

On we march.

Pick Any Door

As the furor mounts around the grand jury’s recent indictment of former President Donald Trump for his alleged role in an insurrection-related conspiracy, I would suggest that those focused on whether he will be found guilty are in a sense chasing a red herring.  As long as the former President remains the clear frontrunner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, the most important question facing our citizens with regard to Mr. Trump – since he currently holds no office, has no federal power — is how what he is either alleged to have done or admits that he did in the past reflects upon his fitness to be President of the United States in the future. 

Start with the indisputable fact about the 2020 election results, repeated ad nauseam here and elsewhere:  Mr. Trump and his acolytes lost every significant lawsuit (many decided by Republican judges who voted for Mr. Trump) challenging the election results (many reported by Republican election officials who voted for Mr. Trump) in the states that determined the election’s outcome.  As the grand jury succinctly summarized in the first paragraph of its indictment: “The Defendant lost the 2020 presidential election.”

I will venture that the fate of Mr. Trump’s 2024 presidential candidacy will rest not upon the diehard opposition of Democrats or other voters unalterably opposed to him, nor upon the rabid allegiance of the voters slavishly dedicated to him, but upon those voters uneasy about President Joe Biden – his age, the economy, whatever – who are seemingly willing to entertain the notion of voting for Mr. Trump.  I would suggest that there are only three conclusions regarding Mr. Trump’s fitness for office – two of them actually urged by Mr. Trump’s defenders – that one can draw from the insurrection-related charges Mr. Trump now faces:

Door No. 1:  The Criminal Door.  Mr. Trump knowingly engaged in a conspiracy to steal the presidency and overturn our democracy. 

Door No. 2:  The Free Speech Door.  All Mr. Trump did was falsely declare that he won the election.  Such false assertions, even if they were made knowingly, are protected by the First Amendment.

Door No. 3:  The Witless Door.  Mr. Trump really believed that he had won the election, and thus, he was neither conspiring to overturn our democracy nor knowingly misleading his supporters.

I would offer this to those uncommitted citizens open to voting for Mr. Trump:  Put aside whether he’s found guilty or beats the wrap, a villain or a martyr.  Think about Mr. Trump purely as a candidate, and … pick any door.  Either he’s a traitor … or a liar … or a delusional fool unable to distinguish reality from fantasy.  Whichever door you pick:  Is this a person who should be … President of the United States?

Those Were the Days

This past weekend, we were poking through one of the countless antique establishments in central Wisconsin and I came across an edition of the Milwaukee Sentinel dated July 4, 1976.

I can place myself exactly on that day – not only because of the Bicentennial, but because it was a little more than a month before we were married.  I was on the east coast visiting family that Holiday weekend, but am confident that the Sentinel edition I found lying on the antique store shelf is identical to the copy delivered to my in-laws’ stoop on the morning of July 4, 1976.

I was first struck by the size and weight of the paper – a paper, mind you, that was only one of two major daily papers then published in Milwaukee (the other being the Milwaukee Journal; the papers thereafter merged into the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) — at a time when America had a limited number of national nightly news telecasts (CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS – no Fox) and regional network affiliates broadcasting local news.

Amid the Sentinel’s extensive reporting about Bicentennial celebrations and a section on the Founding Fathers’ declaration of our independence, I saw little reference to politics.  By that holiday, former GA Gov. Jimmy Carter had clinched but not yet formally won the Democratic Party’s 1976 presidential nomination, while President Gerald Ford was locked in a tight contest in which he ultimately defeated former CA Gov. Ronald Reagan for the Republicans’ presidential nomination.

I well recall that there were sharp policy differences among the candidates, but there was no indication that any of them had any reason to worry that our republic would come to an end if one of their political opponents prevailed.

Later that year, Mr. Carter narrowly defeated Mr. Ford.  When Mr. Ford lost, he left.  Four years later, Mr. Reagan defeated Mr. Carter.  When Mr. Carter lost, he left.

Although many parts of American life are better today, obviously many need attention.  We cannot go back; we can only hope to make tomorrow better.  Even so, as I looked over the old edition of the Sentinel, the theme song of perhaps the most renowned television comedy series of all time – which on that long-ago July day had just concluded its fifth consecutive season ranked at No. 1 in the Nielson ratings — actually came into my head: 

Those Were the Days.

On The Trump Insurrection Indictment

In a brief statement after the Washington, D.C. grand jury issued its indictment against former President Donald Trump for Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, Conspiracy to Obstruct an Official Proceeding, Obstruction of and Attempt to Obstruct an Official Proceeding, and Conspiracy against Rights, Special Counsel Jack Smith urged everyone to read the indictment.  Rather than listen to the inevitable hours of ensuing commentary, I followed his recommendation.  I haven’t added a link here because you have a plethora of means to reach and read it.  If you haven’t already done so, please do; 45 pages of double-spaced letter-size pages isn’t that daunting and the story it relates requires no legal training to decipher.

In one respect, there is little new in it.  Any citizen with the capacity for critical thought who kept abreast of the debunking of Mr. Trump’s and his cohort’s claims of election fraud in the key battleground states in late 2020 is well aware that their claims of outcome-determinative fraud were baseless.  There are nonetheless some striking allegations:  that Mr. Trump absolutely knew his claims were false – he was repeatedly told by competent advisors and people with understanding of the facts that there was no outcome-determinative fraud in any of the states at issue – and he continued to repeat his lies anyway, ultimately culminating in the Capitol riot; of the fairly intricate planning that went into the fake elector scheme intended to replace the legally-designated Biden electors in the contested states with Trump electors – who obviously had no legal standing to cast votes in the Electoral College and were in some cases duped into participating – to provide Mr. Trump the electoral victory (thereby violating the voting rights of the contested states’ Biden voters); and of the extent to which Mr. Trump attempted to pressure Vice President Mike Pence to reject the contested states’ Biden elector slates and return their slates back to their respective state legislatures despite being repeatedly advised – by Mr. Pence and others – that Mr. Pence had no such legal authority.  (I am mystified as to why Mr. Pence continued to meet with Mr. Trump and take his calls after the election outcome was clear.  Mr. Pence, as the duly-elected Vice President, was the one member of the Trump Administration who could ignore Mr. Trump, and whom Mr. Trump couldn’t remove.)

If Mr. Smith and his team prove what they have alleged, the Stop the Steal Movement was a knowing, malign, and illiberal conspiracy to steal the presidency and overturn our democracy.

I recently suggested that it could be problematic to get Mr. Trump’s insurrection trial scheduled before the election.  I have since heard reported that New York authorities may be willing to give way on Mr. Trump’s March trial date for criminally violating New York business law, and I’d assume that Mr. Smith’s team will be amenable further postponements of Mr. Trump’s Florida trial for misappropriation and mishandling of classified documents if that provides a window for the insurrection trial in D.C. (I suspect that Mr. Trump’s team will seek no further delay in the documents case.  😉 )  

The indictment is also a reminder of the number of loyal Americans who stood in the breach in 2020 who are now gone.  For his own purposes, the former president has driven the distrust of our institutions even deeper into the public consciousness since he left office.  Our way of life is at a perilous juncture.  May Mr. Smith and his team enjoy Godspeed.

Mid-Summer Impressions

Summertime celebrations, activities, and responsibilities have afforded little time during the last month to keep abreast of current events, and brought about what is by far the longest interval between entries in these pages since they began in 2017.  I am confident that everybody has survived just fine 😉 .  A few impressions as we round the corner into the last month of real summer, at least in the upper Midwest:

As all who care are aware, in mid-July, former President Donald Trump received a so-called “Target Letter” from Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecutorial team, indicating that Mr. Trump is the subject of the federal investigation into the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.  It almost certainly portends an indictment of Mr. Trump for his part in inciting the insurrection. 

I was obviously never a judge; I never did criminal law; I did very little courtroom work in my career.  While I stand ready to be corrected by any of those reading these notes who have oceans more trial experience than I have, if I was the District of Columbia federal judge hearing the insurrection case against Mr. Trump, I’d have to think pretty hard about whether to grant the Trump team’s inevitable motion to significantly delay the trial date.  A criminal defendant should be given a fair opportunity to defend him/herself, and since Mr. Trump is now scheduled to defend himself in New York in March against authorities’ state law charges that he criminally falsified business records, he is now scheduled to defend himself in Florida in May against Mr. Smith’s team’s federal charges that he misappropriated and mishandled classified documents, and he is reportedly facing an August indictment in Georgia by Georgia authorities for his efforts to overturn the 2020 Georgia presidential results – a case that will be on its own state court scheduling track – it’s perhaps becoming problematic as to how, in fairness, a trial dealing with insurrection charges against Mr. Trump could be scheduled prior to the 2024 presidential election.

Next:  The most recent edition of Foreign Affairs Magazine is entitled, “Tell Me How This Ends – Is there a Path to Victory in Ukraine?”  I haven’t read all the pieces, but one addresses all the ways that the war could end up destabilizing Russian President Vladimir Putin and lead to peace.  I consider the authors’ premises closer to pipedream than reality.  If Putin was going to be deposed, it would most probably have resulted from Yevgeny Prigozhin’s Wagner Group’s short-lived and quickly-quashed revolt (which arose, as far as I could tell, not from any wish by Mr. Prigozhin to end the war but because Mr. Prigozhin didn’t think Putin was providing his Group sufficiently aggressive assistance).  Another essay declared the war “unwinnable,” noting that even as Ukraine has launched its counteroffensive, “Russian forces are heavily dug in on the most likely axis of advance in the south.”  Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt echoed in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month, “Between the two armies, there are at least 3 miles of heavily mined territory followed by rows of concrete antitank obstacles, with artillery pieces hidden in nearby forests.  The Russian military has amassed so much artillery and ammunition that it can afford to fire 50,000 rounds a day – an order of magnitude more than Ukraine.  Traditional military doctrine suggests that an advancing force should have air superiority and a 3-to-1 advantage in soldiers to make steady progress against a dug-in opponent.  Ukrainians have neither.”  (Mr. Schmidt is obviously an expert in technology, not military tactics, but I quote him because he summarizes sentiments I have heard expressed in other quarters.)

Although some have deplored the Biden Administration’s agreement to provide Ukraine with cluster bombs due to the devastating impact that such launched but unexploded devices can have on civilian populations, I tend to give the Administration the benefit of the doubt:  other available artillery may be dwindling, and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy seems best able to determine whether or not his people are better served by deploying such weapons on his soil.  

One can hope but it seems optimistic to expect that the Ukrainians will make significant headway with their current counteroffensive.  (As reported above, the Ukrainians have been directing their efforts at the southwest areas of the conflict zone, presumably in an attempt to obtain secure access to the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea that seems essential if the nation is to survive economically when the conflict ultimately ends.)  Current accounts are rife with seemingly eerily-apt references to World War I; Barbara Tuchman noted in The Guns of August that after Germany failed to secure a quick military victory by early autumn 1914, “[Then] came the slow deadly sinking into the stalemate of trench warfare. … [L]ike a gangrenous wound across French and Belgian territory, the trenches determined the war of position and attrition, the brutal, mud-filled, murderous insanity known as the Western Front that was to last for four more years.”

The general consensus among commentators is that the parties should be looking for a negotiated settlement.  Various options for achieving such a result have been offered:  immediately making Ukraine a member of NATO; having Ukraine and Russia agree to an armistice such as exists in Korea; or having America provide defense assurances to Ukraine such as it provides to Israel.  The difficulty with these and any other proposals is plain:  even if Ukraine was ready to negotiate a peace arrangement – and it’s not – Putin isn’t going anywhere and he isn’t interested in negotiations. 

I’m confident that the Russian President sees what we all see:  Russia can’t conquer Ukraine militarily, but it can still win – if former President Donald Trump is re-elected.  Putin won’t make meaningful overtures for peace with Ukraine unless and until he sees that neither Mr. Trump nor any other isolationist MAGA has a realistic opportunity to win the U.S. presidency.  It is what it is.  If counseling President Joe Biden, I’d advise him to continue explaining to the American people why Ukraine’s fight is also a fight for our freedom and begin messaging that it is unlikely that there will be a meaningful opportunity to achieve a negotiated settlement until at least 2025.

Next:  Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s recent mental “freeze” – some months after he sustained a head injury in a fall – is extremely troubling.  Even putting aside human kindness, the possible reminder to some of President Joe Biden’s potential frailty (the men are the same age), and despite Mr. McConnell’s deplorable manipulation of Senate procedures to achieve an aggressively conservative U.S. Supreme Court (efforts which, ironically, have so far backfired on Republicans politically), I would submit that those concerned about American democracy should hope that Mr. McConnell remains sufficiently possessed of his faculties to continue to lead Senate Republicans through 2024.  He clearly has no regard for Mr. Trump, and has used his position to limit MAGA influence in the Senate and to support the Administration’s efforts in Ukraine.

Finally:  This week, Mr. Smith filed a superseding indictment in the classified documents case against Mr. Trump, and added Carlos De Oliveira, a Mar-a-Lago property manager, as a defendant.  The superseding indictment alleges, “De Oliveira told Trump Employee 4 that ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted. … De Oliveira then insisted to Trump Employee 4 that ‘the boss’ wanted the server deleted and asked, ‘What are we going to do?'”

Mr. Smith’s team is clearly attempting to pressure Mr. De Oliveira to turn state’s evidence.  If Mr. De Oliveira does elect to cooperate with prosecutors and his testimony supports their charges, it will seemingly directly implicate Mr. Trump in a criminal conspiracy.  The indictment’s allegations regarding Mr. De Oliveira reminded me of a reference posted here in February, 2018, relating to Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Mr. Trump:

“As aptly noted in the movie, You’ve Got Mail, The Godfather is … the I Ching; the sum of all wisdom; the answer to any question. 

Not specifically called out in the film, Mario Puzo wrote in the novel:

‘[The fictional Don Corleone] … put layers of insulation between himself and any operational act.  When he gave an order it was to [the Consigliore] or to one of the caporegimes alone.  Rarely did he have a witness to any order he gave any particular one of them …

Between the head of the family, Don Corleone, who dictated policy, and the operating level of men who actually carried out the orders of the Don, there were three layers, or buffers … each link of the chain would have to turn traitor for the Don to be involved …’

If Mr. Mueller and his team are seeking high-level corroboration of evidence against the President, whether they secure it may come down to whether Mr. Trump read The Godfather, or merely saw the movie …”

If Mr. De Oliveira ultimately confirms the Special Counsel’s allegations, I’ll no longer need to wonder; it will be clear that Mr. Trump only saw the movie.  😉

Pledging Our Sacred Honor

“You must not weaken in any way in your alert and vigilant frame of mind.  Though holiday rejoicing is necessary to the human spirit, yet it must add to the strength and resilience with which every man and woman turns again to the work they have to do, and also to the outlook and watch they have to keep on public affairs. …

[W]e have yet to make sure … that the words, ‘freedom,’ [and] ‘democracy’ … are not distorted from their true meaning as we have understood them.  There would be little use in punishing the Hitlerites for their crimes if law and justice did not rule, and if totalitarian or police governments were to take [their] place ….”

  • British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, May 13, 1945

As incongruous as it seems to quote an Englishman to mark our Independence Day, Mr. Churchill’s remarks to the British people – on a date after the fall of Nazi Germany but before the defeat of Imperial Japan, and as the indications of Soviet Russia’s designs for eastward European territorial domination were first appearing — nonetheless strike me as particularly relevant to our current day, as the illiberal machinations of so many of the leaders and members of one of our major political parties continue unabated.  

If we continue to hold it a truth “self-evident,” as our founding fathers declared, that all persons “are created equal,” and “endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights,” let us take a moment during the coming weekend’s celebrations to pledge, as they did, “our sacred Honor” (think about the power of those words:  sacred Honor) to through Constitutional means apply our strength and resilience, as Mr. Churchill exhorted, to keep our watch on public affairs, and to the work we have to do to preserve our democratic way of life.

MAGAs don’t “own” our flag; we do.  I find their parading around in it a despicable desecration of it.  Embrace the red, white, and blue, the stars and stripes, and the truths and freedoms it represents. 

Happy Holiday.

Marking a Milestone

Today is my mother-in-law’s 100th birthday.  Last weekend, her children and their spouses, her grandchildren and their spouses and significant others, and her great grandchildren gathered together from across the country and the world to toast her, joined by many of her extended family and friends.  She remains mentally sharp and as physically able as many much her junior.

Only within the last few months – past age 99 ½ 🙂 – did she move from the independent living section of the retirement facility in which she has resided for years to its assisted living section.  She indicated at the time: “I’m ready for a change.  I’ve been bored.”  She perseveres.  She always looks forward.  I would suggest that her attitude is even more important than her reasonably favorable physical genes as to why she continues on.

TLOML and I started going out as Marquette University freshmen.  She was then living at home at her family’s residence in a community adjoining Milwaukee.  After we had been dating a few months, when her mother heard that my birthday was coming up, her daughter told me that she declared:  “That boy has been spending all of his money on you.  We’re having him here for dinner for his birthday.’’ And she did – hosting my 19th birthday party — an affair with china and crystal that I still remember clearly over a half century later.

If through providence one has the rare fortune to enter a family at such a young age and so happily, in time – in my case, well before we were actually married – one viscerally gains a second set of parents.  Such a blessing has been mine. 

May this extraordinary lady have many, many, many more happy returns.

On Robert F. Kennedy

As all who care are aware, the first week in June marked the 55th anniversary of the assassination of U.S. NY Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.  Obviously, Mr. Kennedy is best known as the right hand of his brother, President John F. Kennedy; he managed his brother’s successful 1960 campaign for the presidency and thereafter served as U.S. Attorney General in the Kennedy Administration.  His memory is closer to mind at present due to the recent declaration of his son, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

I was about two months into my first after-school job when Mr. Kennedy was assassinated, and a political junkie even then; thus, I actually have a somewhat clear personal memory of him – much clearer than I have of his brother, who had died five years before.  I would submit that he is one of the most arresting Americans of the second half of the last century, evolving:  from working for the Committee of the Communist scaremonger, U.S. WI Sen. Joe McCarthy in the 1950s; through his years as campaign ramrod for his brother; through his years in the Executive branch, during which he was the president’s closest advisor; to his years after his brother’s assassination, when he reconsidered the American Vietnam policy he had helped fashion and became the most politically potent opponent of the war.  It was because he was a Kennedy, and viewed as a tough guy, that his opposition to the war had particular credibility; no one considered him “soft.”  President Lyndon Johnson only announced that he would not seek another term after Mr. Kennedy declared for the Democratic Party’s 1968 presidential nomination (the two men despised each other). 

During his years as Attorney General and thereafter, Mr. Kennedy had become increasingly aware of and then outraged by the mistreatment of blacks he saw in America, and became African Americans’ most politically powerful advocate.  (Dr. Martin Luther King was obviously their most notable advocate, but Mr. Kennedy had greater influence with America as a whole.)  No white politician since 1900, with the possible exception of President Franklin Roosevelt, has been as intensely loved in African American community as Mr. Kennedy.

By all accounts, Mr. Kennedy wore his emotions on his sleeve – in contrast to his brother, who (similar to comments I’ve read about President Barack Obama) projected warmth on camera but reportedly was coolly analytical in private.

All that said:  I would submit that any commentators you now hear intoning that we would have had a different world had Mr. Kennedy lived may well be missing the mark.  Despite winning a string of 1968 Democratic party primaries after he declared his candidacy, it was a different era; he would have needed significant support of Democratic Party bosses across the country to win the nomination.  The Kennedys, who derived their power from their charisma and their money, were never the favorites of the Democratic machines, who were much more comfortable with organization-dependent candidates such as Vice President Hubert Humphrey. At the same time, by entering the Democratic presidential primary contest after U.S. MN Sen. Eugene McCarthy had just scored heavily on an anti-war platform against Mr. Johnson in the New Hampshire primary – when liberals had turned to Mr. McCarthy only after Mr. Kennedy had rebuffed their earlier pleas to run against Mr. Johnson — he outraged Mr. McCarthy’s supporters [then considered the (Adlai) Stevenson wing of the party; they are today’s progressives].  In The Unfinished Odyssey of Robert Kennedy, David Halberstam wrote: “In the spring of this crucial year [1968, Mr. Kennedy] had managed, because of his delayed entrance, to be at once too ruthless and too gutless for the liberals and the students, too radical for the middle class, too much the party man for some of the intellectuals, and too little the party man for most of the machines.”

Under the candidate selection process in place at the time, after Mr. Johnson’s withdrawal it was Mr. Humphrey who had the inside track to the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, not Mr. Kennedy.

Even if Mr. Kennedy had won the Democratic nomination, I would suggest that it was by no means assured that he would have defeated then-former Vice President Richard Nixon in the fall.  While the nation’s grief about and warm feelings for his brother would have helped him, his opposition to the war would have cost him support among the then-core Democratic working class voters who have since morphed into Trump supporters, and he would have lost support among the liberal elites angered at what they perceived as his usurpation of Mr. McCarthy’s rightful place (a close parallel is the dynamic between the camps of U.S. NY Sen. Hillary Clinton and U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders in 2016).  In their respective times, Mr. Kennedy and Ms. Clinton shared an unfortunate and crucial attribute:  a high Antipathy Quotient.  Most politicians need to get known.  In their cases, everyone in America already knew them; their problem was that a notable segment of Americans actively didn’t like them.  That said, perhaps — perhaps – the Kennedy nostalgia and charisma would have been enough to hold enough of the white working class and the African Americans and the Democratic Party machines and the liberal intellectuals (the latter two both detested Mr. Nixon) to win the White House; but it would have been close.

Of one thing I am as sure as I can be about the inclinations of someone I never met:  Mr. Kennedy would be distressed beyond all bounds by his son’s declaration for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.  It is patently obvious that any criticisms that Mr. Kennedy, Jr. makes of President Joe Biden in the coming months have the potential to ultimately redound to the benefit of the candidate of a Republican party that is now dominated by MAGA concepts of division and exclusion – diametrically contrasted with the positions his father was espousing the day he was shot.

If you have an opportunity, pick up The Unfinished Odyssey of Robert Kennedy, Mr. Halberstam’s account of his time traveling with Mr. Kennedy’s last campaign.  It is a short, easy read, published in early 1969.  Mr. Halberstam is as smooth a writer of public affairs as I have ever read.  A New York Times reporter who covered the Vietnam War – and whose reporting of the war incurred the wrath of the Kennedy Administration, including that of Robert Kennedy – he later authored The Best and the Brightest, a study of the tragic progression of America’s Vietnam policy.  (Mr. Halberstam noted years later that he found it ironic that “the best and the brightest” had found its way into the public lexicon as a high compliment, when he had intended the title as a wry reflection on the fact that the intelligent elites had led America so far astray.)  Mr. Halberstam also indicated before his own untimely demise in a car accident that despite some seemingly very positive descriptions of John Kennedy in The Best and the Brightest, he had never had any particular sympathy for the president; but at the same time he conceded that he had developed a deep affinity for Robert Kennedy by the time of Mr. Kennedy’s death.