On the Trump New York Indictment: A Postscript

In the original of this note, I declared:  “If the counts brought against Mr. Trump ultimately amount to no more than falsification of business records under New York law … such charges are highly likely to be seen … as ticky-tack fouls.  Such an impression helps Mr. Trump.”  I have no background in criminal law.  I have seen it reported that the 34 charges brought against Mr. Trump will amount to NY law misdemeanor counts, not felony counts, unless the prosecution can persuade a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Trump falsified his business records in order to evade apprehension for a separate felony crime.  Judging by the muted tones I heard from NY District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s predecessor, Cyrus Vance, Jr., during a CNN interview about the indictment, and by the reserved commentary I have heard from some of the legal experts on MSNBC’s decidedly-liberal Morning Joe, I’d venture that they consider Mr. Bragg to have brought … a whole lotta ho-hum.  (I know, I know; Al Capone.  Even so ….)  Whether this indictment ultimately helps Mr. Trump politically – more on that below — remains to be seen.

Since former WI Gov. Scott Walker’s victory in 2010, I have had a lot of surprises in politics; but rarely have I been stunned.  I was stunned by Mr. Trump’s 2016 presidential election victory; and I was stunned by the margin of Judge Janet Protasiewicz’ victory over former WI S. Ct. Justice Daniel Kelly for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court — 11 points – in such a closely divided and deeply polarized state.  Ms. Protasiewicz had campaigned primarily on women’s abortion rights and her concerns with Wisconsin’s despicably gerrymandered legislative districts.  We learned the day after the election that a close woman friend who is fairly apolitical, and who had truly significant personal issues literally coming to a head on election day, nonetheless made the time to vote for Ms. Protasiewicz because of the abortion issue.  It would appear that former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has again been proven too smart by half; if he had either allowed U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland’s ascension to the U.S. Supreme Court or chosen not to proceed with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation, there would not have been five U.S. Supreme Court votes to overturn Roe v. Wade (recall that conservative Chief Justice John Roberts adopted a more limited rationale that would have upheld Roe).  From Republicans’ perspective, the political milk is now spilt; they are seemingly stuck on the wrong side of an emotive, galvanizing issue that appears likely to be the political gift that keeps on giving for Democrats for years.

That said:  into every life, a little rain must fall (at least for us Irish 😉 ).  As Judge Protasiewicz was winning her Supreme Court seat, Republican state Rep. Dan Knodl won a WI state Senate seat to create a Republican supermajority bloc that now has the votes to remove WI Gov. Tony Evers and other Wisconsin office holders – including judges – from office if the Wisconsin Assembly chooses to impeach them.  (As in the federal system, impeachment charges need only receive a simple majority in the lower house Assembly – now controlled by Republicans – to be referred to the state’s Senate.)  This is not comforting; Mr. Knodl was among state lawmakers who signed a letter in 2020 calling for Vice President Mike Pence to reject the certification of the 2020 presidential election.  Even so, do I think that the Republican Wisconsin legislature will seek to remove Mr. Evers from office?  I may be too optimistic, and stand ready to be corrected (some who read these notes have forgotten more about the innards of Wisconsin state politics than I’ll ever know), but I actually don’t believe that Wisconsin Republicans – despite what (or perhaps because of) what recently happened in Tennessee – will undertake such an effort; such would too closely smack of a Republican Wisconsin state coup d’etat, and could be predicted to incite too fierce a political backlash.  Do I think that the Republican legislature will seek to impeach liberal WI Supreme Court Justices if they seem likely to rule that women have abortion rights under the Wisconsin Constitution?  Again, particularly given Ms. Protasiewicz’ margin of victory, I’m guessing that Wisconsin Republicans would consider the political repercussions of such an action for such a reason too great to risk.  On the other hand, do I think they’ll consider attempting to remove a liberal WI Supreme Court Justice on some trumped up (if you will 😉 ) charge if such is necessary to avoid having their perniciously gerrymandered legislative districting – the reason some of them have jobs — declared unconstitutional under the Wisconsin Constitution?  You bet.

Back to Mr. Trump’s indictment.  Two notions:

First, I was recently asked by someone aware of my legal background why New York Supreme Court (note:  in New York courts, the Supreme Court is actually the trial court) Justice Juan Merchan doesn’t find the former president in contempt and put him in jail for attacking the judge and his family after the Judge instructed Mr. Trump during his arraignment not to make remarks that could endanger others.  My view:  Justice Merchan confronts the horns of a dilemma.  I suspect that the former president may be goading the judge because in his warped view, Mr. Trump wins either way:  either he can significantly tarnish the credibility of the proceedings by consistently casting aspersions upon the judge and the judicial system, or he gets to play the persecuted martyr if Justice Merchan orders his incarceration for contempt of court.  Ultimately, I think Justice Merchan will have little choice but to jail Mr. Trump for contempt if he continues his outbursts; but I would imagine that he’ll wait a bit.  At least were I in his place, I would feel I needed to.  He just shouldn’t wait too long.

Finally, although Mr. Bragg’s charges against Mr. Trump may well ultimately amount to no more than two-pound walking weights when compared to the baggage he’s already carrying, the notion lingers that as Mr. Trump’s legal woes mount, it might be possible for a Republican moderate to run a bit to his left and surpass him for the nomination.  However, even if that happens, Judge Protasiewicz’ victory margin makes clear what a difficult juggling act any GOP presidential nominee will have with the abortion issue in the swing states in the general presidential election campaign.  If the Republican takes the position that s/he will appoint more judges like Mr. Trump did, it will mobilize those seeking to protect women’s abortion rights; if s/he waffles on the issue, s/he will lose the Evangelicals and other religious conservatives, without whom I will venture no Republican can win the presidency.  This issue even seems to help President Biden blunt the ageism issue facing him; in two years, when asked about his obviously advanced age, he can respond, “Justices Alito and Thomas are our oldest Supreme Court Justices.  If they leave the Court during the next four years, who do you want to have appointing their successors – [the Republican candidate] or me?”

On Good Friday

Christians believe Jesus of Nazareth to be the Christ, the Son of God, who allowed himself to be sacrificed and who died for the good of all humankind.  Although Jews and Muslims – who are, currently, respectively in the midst of Passover and Ramadan — reject the notion of Jesus’ divinity, I understand that they nonetheless hold him a great prophet.  I will venture that the vast majority of those who are aware of Jesus and his teachings, even those who do not believe in a Supreme Being, consider him to have been a wise and good man.  Given the bitter discord in which we seem endlessly enmeshed within both our nation and our world, it seems appropriate on this day to record his succinct summation of his teachings.

“He began to teach them, saying,

‘Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

Blessed are they who mourn, for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the land.

Blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied.

Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.

Blessed are the clean of heart, for they shall see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called Children of God.

Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.’”

  • Matthew 5:  2 – 10

On the Trump New York Indictment

As all are aware, former President Donald Trump has been indicted by a New York state grand jury.  Although the indictment is said to involve, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, “[Mr. Trump’s] role in paying hush-money to a porn star on the eve of the 2016 election,” the exact nature and extent of the charges have not yet been revealed.

As liberal commentators intone that such indictment is proof that “No One Is Above The Law,” and right-winger scream, “Witch Hunt” and “Weaponization of Government,” a few feelings of unease emerge in addition to concerns about the prospects for violence arising from the presentation of the charges.  Hopefully, all of the following misgivings are woefully misplaced.

If the counts brought against Mr. Trump ultimately amount to no more than falsification of business records under New York law [e.g., that he intentionally mischaracterized the nature of his business expenses to hide his payment to the porn star, Stephanie Clifford (a/k/a Stormy Daniels)] – since any violation of federal campaign finance law is outside NY State DA Alvin Bragg’s bailiwick – such charges are highly likely to be seen (ironically, in part because of the raft of more egregious offenses for which Mr. Trump is arguably culpable) as ticky-tack fouls.  Such an impression helps Mr. Trump.

The existential significance of any charges hereafter brought against Mr. Trump for his role in the January 6th insurrection by Special Prosecutor John L. “Jack” Smith might well be diluted in the public mind by being conceptually lumped in with the New York state charges.  Mr. Smith and his team may be viewed as simply piling on.  Any such impression also helps Mr. Trump.

If there was a path for another Republican to challenge Mr. Trump for the nomination, today that path seems to me significantly narrower if not completely foreclosed.  Anyone now getting in the race is going to be perceived as being disloyal to the party – the ultimate Republican sin.  While announced candidate Fmr. U.S. U.N. Amb. Nikki Haley will avoid that particular charge, her campaign certainly hasn’t caught fire to date and appears overwhelmingly likely to be swamped in the wake of Republicans rallying to Mr. Trump.  [A bright note for readers of these pages:  I had a post mostly finished outlining how a more moderate credible Republican might make effectively challenge Mr. Trump’s seeming iron grip on the Republican nomination.  I see little reason to run it – at least now – sparing you several minutes of your life  😉 .]

Although the outcome of any charges brought against Mr. Trump won’t be known for some time – he is likely to seek to delay any trial until after the 2024 presidential election – if any charges do go to trial against him before the election, it can’t be denied that Mr. Bragg will need to win – obtain a conviction.  Obtaining a criminal conviction against any defendant in this country obviously requires the prosecution persuade a jury of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  This is an extremely high standard, and it should be; but if Mr. Trump is acquitted – as he was in his two Senate impeachment trials, despite patently clear evidence of offenses that unquestionably warranted his removal from office – he and his cohort will, as they did following the impeachment proceedings, claim vindication.  I am sure that Mr. Bragg understood that in obtaining an indictment against Mr. Trump, he was going to need to get a conviction.  I most sincerely hope he knows what he’s doing.

Finally, faraway events can have unforeseen repercussions.  I am absolutely confident that Mr. Bragg, in seeking an indictment against Mr. Trump, had no thought of a state Supreme Court race going on in what any New Yorker considers the backwater of Wisconsin.  And yet, as I have earlier asserted that the U.S. Supreme Court’s vitiation of women’s U.S. Constitutional right to obtain an abortion aided Democrats’ better-than-expected showing in the 2022 elections, and have opined that the Roe v. Wade reversal was going to boost liberal Judge Janet Protasiewicz’ campaign for the Wisconsin Supreme Court against conservative former WI S. Ct. Justice Daniel Kelly culminating next Tuesday, I will venture that the Trump indictment being handed down right at this time – a challenge to Mr. Trump intrinsically involving the courts — could literally not have come at a worse time for Ms. Protasiewicz (who even her supporters concede has run a more overtly political campaign than traditionally seen in Wisconsin judicial races).  I fear the Trump indictment will galvanize Republican support for Mr. Kelly in what was already projected to be a very close contest. 

It is very likely that the Wisconsin Supreme Court will ultimately be called upon to decide any challenge mounted to the state’s initially-announced 2024 presidential vote tallies.  The winner of the Protasiewicz-Kelly contest will determine whether liberals or conservatives command the Court’s majority. 

An indictment spawned from a meaningless tryst occurring over a decade ago between a reality TV ham and a porn actress might ultimately have consequences for the direction of America akin to those wrought by a reckless interlude between a president and a White House intern.  Let us hope not.  If anyone wants to take sharp issue with any of the unhappy impressions set forth here, have at it.  I want you to be right.   

There is No “Why”: Redux

[All wanton destruction of life is tragic; yet, I feel the shootings of children in our schools the most deeply.  This is a shortened version of a post entered in these pages in late May, 2022, after the horrific loss in Uvalde, TX.  I’m republishing it following this week’s shooting at the Covenant School in Nashville simply because there’s nothing else that I can do.  The passages posted here contain a few textual clarifications but no substantive changes.

At the conclusion of this note I have added a link to a Washington Post article entitled, “THE BLAST EFFECT:  This is how bullets from an AR-15 blow the body apart.”  Although deeply troubling, I hope you can and will find the means to access it, either here or otherwise.] 

Subject to the exception below, “assault weapons” should be banned in America for all but military use and law enforcement.  Now. 

[In this post, I mean “assault weapons” to include any weapon (and attendant high-capacity magazines) designed or reasonably modifiable to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time, as needed for use in war.  I don’t know enough about weapons to make finer distinctions, and lack the patience to quibble with gun rights apologists.  If a reasonable case can be made for a weapon’s inclusion within the definition, it’s included.]

Let’s take the Constitution first.  For those that hear a lot about the hallowed “Second Amendment,” but have better things to do than delve into arcane legal jargon, Amendment II to the Constitution of the United States of America, ratified along with nine other Amendments constituting our Bill of Rights, provides as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

…

In District of Columbia v. Heller (“Heller”), written by Justice Antonin Scalia for a 5-Justice majority including present Justices (Chief) John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court held that an individual has the right to bear arms, apart from service in a militia, for lawful purposes such as self-defense.  At the same time, Justice Scalia — a hero to younger conservative jurists such as current Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett – was ultra-conservative, but he wasn’t crazy.  Toward the end of the Heller opinion, he gave the Court and himself some leeway for the future gun rights cases he knew would inevitably arise:

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.  From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.  … [N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.  We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.  [U.S. Supreme Court decision United States v. Miller, 1939] said … that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.”  … We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ …  It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. … It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. … But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right [i.e., that the right is not “unlimited”]. [Emphasis Added]”

Although Justice Scalia’s language can only be described as tortuous, courts have interpreted his words to uphold state bans on assault weapons such as AR-15s (akin to the M-16s he referred to in his opinion).  The reason we have not had a federal ban since 2004 is because Congressional Republicans lack the guts to enact one.

There is not time in this lengthy note to address all of gun rights advocates’ supposed concerns; just three of my favorites:

First: Citizens need assault weapons to protect themselves against an impending government takeover.  Let’s put aside reason, dive into the weird world of the Conspiracy-Obsessed, and communicate on their plane:  Dude [or Dudette 😉 ], for years, we killed terrorists in the Middle East – smarter, and better equipped than you will ever be — from tens of miles away.  If the President decides to take you out, the AR-15 won’t save you.  You’ll be vaporized while standing in front of your house, wearing your helmet, waving your weapon and pounding your chest.  You won’t even see it coming. 

Second: Let’s give guns to the good guys in churches, schools, and stores, and they’ll defend themselves against the bad guys.  Put aside the fact that most religious, educators, and shop keepers don’t want to assume the responsibility to defend those within their purview from perpetrators with firearms.  How can they reasonably be expected to defend themselves and others in situations that are sometimes beyond the capabilities of trained officers?  Aaron Salter, a retired Buffalo police officer, although armed, was outgunned by an 18-year-old in protective gear, and died attempting to defend Tops patrons. …

Finally: If we start to regulate guns, where does it stop?  This … makes one blink.  Across this country, citizens have had to register their motor vehicles at the state or local level for many decades; this hasn’t resulted in government or anybody else taking our cars away.  One obeys traffic lights and speed limits; these regulations haven’t surreptitiously limited anybody’s operation of his/her car.  From time to time, for the public good, one needs to demonstrate driving proficiency to maintain your legal right to drive – a right, unlike the use of firearms, that many literally rely upon to sustain their livelihoods — and no one objects, although the number of victims in the vast majority of negligently-caused automobile accidents pales in comparison to the number of victims of many mass shootings. 

What’s the exception to the ban I would impose?  Citizens ought to be able to retain the assault weapons they already own.  The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution provide that no person shall be deprived of property “without due process of law.”  That said, in addition to a ban on all future manufacture and sale of assault weapons except for and to military and law enforcement authorities, Congress should pass legislation that provides: for a national registry of all assault weapons; that an owner’s failure to register any such weapon(s) within a year after the effective date of the law is a federal crime, making the weapon subject to confiscation and the violator to mandatory fine and jail time; a specific purchase price scale, annually adjusted for depreciation and inflation, at which the government would be obligated to purchase any registered assault weapon offered for sale by its owner; a ban on the sale or other disposition (e.g., by inheritance) to any private party of any registered assault weapon, with a proven violation resulting in weapon confiscation and a fine and jail time for the violator; and since the perpetrator of an injury caused by an assault weapon would almost certainly be beyond civil recourse, a repeal of any laws shielding manufacturers or sellers of assault weapons from civil liability for loss caused by the weapons they manufacture and/or sell, combined with a provision granting anyone suffering physical and/or emotional injury caused by an assault weapon a federal cause of action against the maker or seller of the assault weapon.  In order to collect from a defendant under the latter provision, a claimant would need to establish only (i) injury (ii) and that the injury was caused by an assault weapon made or sold by the defendant.  Any judgments would not be subject to discharge in bankruptcy. 

Such laws would have no effect on citizens’ unlimited rights to purchase, keep and bear multiple handguns, shotguns, or rifles.  Even I can see that a citizen might consider more than one handgun necessary for defense of his/her home and a hunter stalking bear would require a more powerful weapon than s/he would use to hunt deer or fowl.

Are any of the proposals set forth in this note going to happen?  Obviously not.  Are they too extreme?  Certainly not.  Although it is unrealistic to suggest that banning all assault weapons would have prevented all of the losses suffered by all of the victims of mass shootings that we have witnessed over the past decades – an expert with a long-range rifle can obviously inflict significant damage upon a crowded area — it is fatuous not to recognize and acknowledge that such a ban would have avoided a significant share of the loss and grief – the agony which will never go away — arising from these tragedies.  Although it is for the Almighty, and not for me, to judge, I would nonetheless venture that the blood of some of these victims stains the hands of the politicians, who out of fear and ambition have failed for almost 20 years to enact strict controls on assault weapons, every bit as surely as the blood of innocent Ukrainians festers on the hands of Russian President Vladimir Putin.    

“So for one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, it is a sin.”

  • Jas 4:17.  From the Bible’s only recorded Letter of James, the man referred to as the “brother of the Lord” in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark.

… If there was ever a good faith belief that we could control this risk to our children and ourselves by identifying those who pose a danger to others, our experience has made a mockery of that belief.  We’ll never identify them all.  We can’t do worse than we have been by instead doing what we can to keep these terribly destructive weapons out of their hands.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/interactive/2023/ar-15-damage-to-human-body/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWJpZCI6IjMzMjkyOTM2IiwicmVhc29uIjoiZ2lmdCIsIm5iZiI6MTY3OTg4OTYwMCwiaXNzIjoic3Vic2NyaXB0aW9ucyIsImV4cCI6MTY4MTE4NTU5OSwiaWF0IjoxNjc5ODg5NjAwLCJqdGkiOiI3NmMyODYxNi1mMzI3LTQxOGYtYTExZS1lZjQ4ZGU2OGMxMDciLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy53YXNoaW5ndG9ucG9zdC5jb20vbmF0aW9uL2ludGVyYWN0aXZlLzIwMjMvYXItMTUtZGFtYWdlLXRvLWh1bWFuLWJvZHkvIn0.DsSdBrhShc-5xGaAfeh8KIQv2kUzchgQDYllN07cdFI&itid=gfta

Republican 2024 Presidential Politics:  First Inclinations: Part II

If one intends to review this post, but has not yet read Part I (which is immediately below), I would start there.

I generally refrain from posting any part of a multi-part note until all parts are completed.  The original version of Part II of this post – a pretty traditional analysis of lanes to the 2024 Republican presidential nomination — was done and scheduled when Part I was published on March 3.  Events occurring before Part II ran made me pull it back; it’s clear that the two lanes to the 2024 Republican presidential nomination will be markedly less about political philosophy than about personality; there will be a Donald Trump Lane and an Everybody Else Lane. 

At the time this is typed, former President Donald Trump certainly appears to be the frontrunner for the nomination; he retains a core MAGA base that I’ve seen estimated at 30 – 45% of Republicans, which will serve him well in a multi-candidate race.  Perhaps even more unnerving for his declared and prospective adversaries is a recent Emerson College (Massachusetts) poll indicating that Mr. Trump was the preferred candidate for 58% of New Hampshire Republicans – with FL. Gov. Ron DeSantis and NH Gov. Chris Sununu next trailing at, respectively, 17% and 7%.  While the Emerson sample size was tiny — 384 registered Republicans – New Hampshire ain’t Alabama; if the poll’s notable gap in support between Mr. Trump and his opponents has any appreciable relation to Republican sentiment in politically centrist states, such does not bode well for the other aspirants.

Since Part I was posted, the former president, in a rousing speech to a rabid MAGA crowd at the conservative conference, CPAC, claimed that he will continue his presidential candidacy no matter the state of his various legal challenges, and intimated that he wouldn’t necessarily support another Republican in 2024 if he fails to secure the party’s nomination – pronouncements amounting at the same time to a declaration of war on his nomination adversaries and a blackmail threat to Republican traditionalists.  The path Mr. Trump sees back to the White House appears clear:  that he’ll quickly dispatch any opponents for the nomination that have the temerity to take him on; that the entire Republican party will fall in behind him – although I am sure that he is aware that as many despise as adore him – because of Republican tribalism; and that any sign of increasing frailty or significant blunder by President Biden during the next two years will enable him to win over enough swing state swing voters to eke out an Electoral College victory.

First things first:  aside from blind ambition [admittedly, every politician’s failing 🙂 ] trumping [if you will 😉 ] logic, it’s hard to see why potential Republican candidates who have secure positions wouldn’t wait to run until 2028.  (Such a calculation would, of course, be premised on the assumptions that Mr. Trump will win the nomination and that he’ll either lose in 2024 or will indeed give up the presidency in 2028 if he wins in 2024.)  Of Mr. Trump’s potential adversaries for the nomination listed in Part I, sitting back seems the rational play for TX Gov. Greg Abbott, U.S. TX Sen. Ted Cruz, Mr. DeSantis, SD Gov. Kristi Noem, U.S. SC Sen. Tim Scott, Mr. Sununu and VA Gov. Glenn Youngkin.  (Mr. DeSantis’ candidacy may now be too anticipated for him to back out, but given his timidity thus far in confronting Mr. Trump, one certainly cannot rule out the possibility that he will yet quail.)        

The other potential candidates listed in Part I — former NJ Gov. Chris Christie, former AR Gov. Asa Hutchinson, former U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, and former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – have no secure office from which to wait four years; if they don’t run and win in 2024, they will – as declared candidate former U.S. UN Amb. Nikki Haley obviously believes she will – almost certainly be irretrievably old news by 2028.  (Former MD Gov. Larry Hogan was also listed in Part I, but Mr. Hogan has since indicated that he will not seek the nomination.) 

Not all of the candidates listed in Part I can be addressed here – neither your patience nor my stamina could bear it – but a few seem worthy of consideration, and a couple perhaps illustrate manners in which Mr. Trump might be denied the Republican nomination.

First, the most prominent piece of Republican political flotsam:  Mr. Pence.  He hasn’t been sufficiently forthright in calling out Mr. Trump for inciting the January 6th insurrection to redeem himself with those who oppose Mr. Trump, while at the same time he is loathed by MAGAs as the ultimate traitor to Mr. Trump.  I see no path for him.

Mr. DeSantis is, of course, currently being touted as the Great Hope of those that oppose Mr. Trump.  After I posted Part I, a close friend commented that he hoped Mr. DeSantis would pull away from Mr. Trump, which he believed would cause Mr. Trump to form his own party, thereby doing in both his and Mr. DeSantis’ candidacies and the MAGA movement.  I would welcome such an outcome since I consider Mr. DeSantis to be as substantively dangerous as Mr. Trump, but I don’t see how Mr. DeSantis, who has diligently made himself a Trump Mini-Me, bests Mr. Trump for the Republican nomination as long as Mr. Trump remains a viable contender.  Both men visited Iowa recently; Mr. Trump’s crowds reportedly dwarfed Mr. DeSantis’.  If as a voter you like a dark stout, why settle for Near Beer?

That said, the nomination prospects of Mr. DeSantis or any other Trump Wannabe would seemingly improve if, despite Mr. Trump’s claims that he intends to continue his candidacy despite his legal challenges, such challenges ultimately disqualify him from a practical standpoint before he has the opportunity to politically eviscerate them.  They can’t beat Mr. Trump, but one might be able to step over him – if he legally implodes soon enough.  The difficulty with this scenario is that the former president is as good at delaying legal proceedings as he is at sowing sedition; it’s hard to see how a Trump Wannabe can wait long enough for Mr. Trump to legally succumb yet get in the race early enough to mount a viable campaign.  In Mr. DeSantis’ case, the attacks have already begun.

The candidates who seek to create a perceptual contrast between him/herselves and Mr. Trump – let’s call them, “Trump Alternatives”; Ms. Haley now being the only announced candidate in this category – seem to me to have perhaps brighter prospects than those of true Trump Wannabes.  I would offer that any Trump Alternative should want Mr. Trump in the race to clear out the Trump Wannabes.  As Mr. Trump scores some early primary wins, hand-wringing will mount in Republican circles regarding the likelihood of a resounding November defeat.  In the early going, each Trump Alternative should focus on beating the other Trump Alternatives.  Each Trump Alternative’s early core strategy should be the punch line of the two hikers confronted by a charging bear:  “I don’t need to be faster than the bear; I just need to be faster than you.”  A leader among Trump Alternatives will emerge.  The hope here is that there will be tremendous pressure brought to bear on the trailing Trump Alternatives to exit the race before Mr. Trump has garnered enough primary victories to de facto clinch the nomination, setting up a one-on-one between Mr. Trump and the remaining Trump Alternative.  Most prognosticators believe that Mr. Trump will lose primaries if forced to compete one-on-one at an early enough point in the primary season — an assumption admittedly yet to be tested.

One could discount this scenario by rightly pointing out that such didn’t happen in 2016 – former OH Gov. John Kasich stuck around almost to the end of the Republicans’ nominating process, and the party apparatus didn’t get behind him.  I would submit that this time could be different.  There seems a consensus, even among Republicans that maintain sympathy for Mr. Trump’s illiberalism and/or his policies, that it is highly likely that if nominated, he will lose to Mr. Biden.  Republicans want to win.  The party’s establishment undoubtedly realizes in retrospect that in 2016 they just didn’t envision soon enough that Mr. Trump (whom all considered a certain general election loser) could capture their nomination – until the proliferation of mainstream candidates cancelled each other out, and he did.  In 2020, they watched the Democrats learn from Republicans’ 2016 experience, and engineer the withdrawals of moderate candidates U.S. MN Sen. Amy Klobuchar and then-South Bend, IN Mayor Pete Buttigieg from their presidential nomination contest just in time for Mr. Biden to corral all of the moderate Democratic support and snatch the nomination from the surging, and unelectable, progressive U.S. VT Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Then there is the X Factor:  former U.S. WY Rep. Liz Cheney.  She almost certainly can’t win the nomination herself – although if she did, I would submit (somewhat ironically, given the widespread antipathy toward her in the party) that she’d have a good chance to defeat Mr. Biden – but if she elects to get in the race, her attacks on Mr. Trump would undoubtedly divert Mr. Trump’s and his supporters’ venom away from the Trump Alternative.  [Admittedly, Ms. Cheney – substantively still a staunch Republican despite her undoubted devotion to American democracy — would need to craft a message designed not to draw support to her from the Trump Alternative (such a draw would help Mr. Trump) if she was comfortable that the Trump Alternative wasn’t a threat to democracy.]

And there is another factor, one of the few remaining maxims of American presidential politics:  anyone challenging Mr. Trump must – must – defeat him in the challenger’s home state primary.  Mr. Kasich could stay in the 2016 race to the end because he beat Mr. Trump in Ohio primary.  U.S. FL Sen. Marco Rubio dropped out of the 2016 race immediately after he lost the Florida primary to Mr. Trump (while Mr. Trump was still a New Yorker).    

There is one Trump Alternative whose opportunities – albeit requiring an audacious, Jimmy Carter in 1976-type strategy — intrigue me more than the rest; a notion that, even based upon a couple of references in this Part II, would make you question my mental acuity even more than you already do. 

As Mr. Trump likes to say:  We’ll see what happens. 🙂

Have a Happy St. Patrick’s Day.

Republican 2024 Presidential Politics:  First Inclinations: Part I

I was planning to put this off – former President Donald Trump’s declaration of candidacy for the 2024 Republican Presidential nomination being insufficient incentive for me to dive back into the pandemonium of presidential politics – but former U.S. UN Amb. and SC Gov. Nikki Haley’s recent declaration of her candidacy for Republican Party’s 2024 Presidential nomination and the likelihood that other Republican hopefuls will soon join her means:  It’s that time again.

As all who have read these pages for a while are aware, I consider the winning of general elections to be about matchups – each candidate’s strengths pitted against the other candidate’s weaknesses – but the parties’ nominating processes to be about lanes.  In U.S. presidential politics, I would offer that one should picture a five-lane highway:  the far-left lane, occupied today for purposes of reference by U.S.VT Sen. Bernie Sanders; the center-left lane, occupied by President Joe Biden and former President Bill Clinton; the center lane, occupied by independent and moderate voters but without a politician occupant; the center-right lane, occupied by former President George H.W. Bush (and interestingly, now shared by former President Ronald Reagan and former U.S. AZ Sen. John McCain, who during their lifetimes were considered to drive in the far right lane); and the far right lane, now occupied by Mr. Trump.  A maxim which all except avid Progressives and ardent MAGAs understand:  to win a presidential general election, a Democrat must have sufficient presence in the far-left lane to win the party’s nomination without veering so far left that s/he can’t move back toward the center lane to win the decisive percentage of independent and moderate swing state swing voters who decide the general election, while the Republican must have sufficient presence in the far-right lane to win the party’s nomination without veering so far right that s/he can’t move back toward the center lane to win the decisive percentage of the same swing voter segment.  A candidate’s challenge is further complicated by how many other candidates for his/her party’s nomination seek to run in the same lane s/he chooses.

It appears – despite the sage counsel I dispensed in these pages not long ago 😉 – that Mr. Biden does intend to seek another term; but let’s set the Democrats and the political highway’s two left lanes aside for the present, and consider the right two lanes.

Thus far, pundits have identified the following individuals in addition to Mr. Trump and Ms. Haley as among potential contenders for the Republican nomination, listed in alphabetical order:  TX Gov. Greg Abbott; former NJ Gov. Chris Christie; U.S. TX Sen. Ted Cruz; FL Gov. Ron DeSantis; former MD Gov. Larry Hogan; former AR Gov. Asa Hutchinson; SD Gov. Kristi Noem; former U.S. Vice President Mike Pence; former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo; U.S. SC Sen. Tim Scott; NH Gov. Chris Sununu; VA Gov. Glenn Youngkin; and – not in alphabetical order, given her special status – former U.S. WY Rep. Liz Cheney.  They, as well as any other aspirants for the Republican nomination, drive in one of the two lanes: 

In the far-right lane are Mr. Trump and those that have closely associated themselves with the MAGA movement who, if they declare for the Republican nomination, would in effect be seeking to replace Mr. Trump as its leader:  Messrs. Abbott, Cruz, DeSantis, Pence, Pompeo, and Ms. Noem.  (In fairness, although I consider MAGAism a threat to democracy, I do not consider Mr. Pence himself such a threat.  Although I disagree with his domestic agenda and deplore his obsequiousness as Vice President, I am confident that if reasonable evidence showed that he had lost an election, he would accept the result.  I have significant doubts in that regard about Mr. Cruz, and don’t know enough to venture an opinion about the rest.)

In the center-right lane are those who have managed to maintain a perception of distance from Mr. Trump and MAGAism:  Mses. Haley and Cheney, and Messrs. Christie, Hogan, Hutchinson, Scott, Sununu, and Youngkin.  It is no coincidence that Messrs. Hogan, Hutchinson, Sununu, and Youngkin are governors who have been outside Mr. Trump’s maelstrom, while Mr. Scott, the only black Republican Senator, has been able to stake out his own niche.  Ms. Haley and Mr. Christie, although past advisors to Mr. Trump, have to some extent been able to disassociate themselves from him.  Ms. Cheney’s position needs no elaboration for anyone who hasn’t spent the last two years in a cave in Nome.

I have seen any number of professional political operatives opine that given Mr. Trump’s estimated core 30% support among Republicans, he is the overwhelming favorite to win the party’s nomination and that a large field will almost assure his victory.  I have seen these prognosticators scoff at Ms. Haley’s chances, and suggest that the race will quickly become a two-candidate affair between Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis.

They’re professionals and I’m just a retired old blogger, but I see other potential scenarios that I assume at least some of these GOP hopefuls are banking on.  The rest in Part II. 

The Dog that Caught the Bus

There is exquisite irony that then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s disreputable manipulation of Senate procedures — enabling former President Donald Trump to appoint U.S. Supreme Court Justices who thereupon overturned women’s federal Constitutional abortion rights — was likely a notable factor in Democrats retaining their Senate majority in 2022, perhaps costing Mr. McConnell, an octogenarian, his final opportunity to reclaim Senate Majority leadership.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade may well be Republicans’ political gift to Democrats that keeps on giving.

There are seven Justices on the Wisconsin Supreme Court.  Justices are elected to 10 year terms, and such races are nominally bipartisan.  As all who care are aware, in recent decades such races have become decidedly partisan and relations between the liberal and conservative state Justices frequently acrimonious.  Conservatives currently hold a 4-3 advantage.  The winners of the just-past February 21st primary, Milwaukee County Judge Janet Protasiewicz and former WI Supreme Court Justice Daniel Kelly, are vying for a seat on the Court.  Ms. Protasiewicz is unabashedly the liberal candidate; Mr. Kelly, who lost to a liberal in his bid to stay on the Court in 2018, is clearly the conservative favorite.

The Protasiewicz-Kelly contest promises to be a tight race, with millions of out-state money contributed to both candidates.  Partisans on both sides are acutely aware that former President Donald Trump’s challenge to his 2020 Wisconsin electoral defeat – in which he sought to have disallowed a raft of absentee ballots in liberal Milwaukee and Dane Counties — was rejected in the Wisconsin Supreme Court by only a 4-3 margin that found Mr. Trump’s claims “unreasonable in the extreme.” Since the 2024 presidential race again seems likely to be razor-thin in Wisconsin, each party is wildly desirous of securing a majority on the state’s Supreme Court, which will probably be the final arbiter of any challenges to the initially-tabulated presidential election result.

Most now recognize that former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Tip O’Neill’s famous adage, “All politics is local,” is no longer as true as it once was; the spread of media has nationalized our politics even down to the election of a state’s Supreme Court Justices and election officials.  That said, there is a local issue that I would suggest could, by itself, tip the balance in the WI Supreme Court election:  women’s right to abortion in Wisconsin. 

A Wisconsin state law, a vestige of the 1800s, prohibits abortion in the state.  At the same time, Marquette University polls indicate that a significant majority of Wisconsinites – over 60% — support a woman’s right to choose.  The Republican-controlled legislature has refused to allow a state referendum on the issue, presumably because the Republicans know how it will turn out. 

There can be little doubt that if elected, Judge Protasiewicz will vote for any legal rationale that enables women to obtain abortions in Wisconsin.  It seems just as likely that if elected, former Justice Kelly will uphold the current Wisconsin abortion prohibition.

I’m confident that Ms. Protasiewicz is surrounded by savvy political advisors.  If I were them – and it takes no prescience to suggest this – during her campaign stops, and in media advertising and literature, I would place relatively lesser emphasis on the potential impact that the Court’s composition might have on the state’s 2024 presidential election or the manner in which the Republicans have dishonorably gerrymandered the state’s legislative districts, and instead – not unlike the way U.S. WI Sen. Ron Johnson turned his 2022 race against then-WI Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes into a referendum on crime – turn this WI Supreme Court contest into a referendum on abortion.

If Ms. Protasiewicz wins the seat, Mr. Kelly will rightfully be able to lay part of the responsibility for his defeat at the feet of Messrs. Trump and McConnell.

A significant majority of Republicans have wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade for about 50 years.  Their dog finally caught the bus.  At least thus far, it generally hasn’t gone that well.  We’ll see what happens this time.

On Lenten Fasting

Today is Ash Wednesday:  in the Christian world, the beginning of Lent, the 40-day period of reflection and performance of penance for one’s sins in preparation for Jesus’ Passion and Death on Good Friday and Resurrection on Easter Sunday.  It is a time in which Christians have traditionally fasted – customarily understood to mean that one of faith will willingly bear the pang of hunger, or endure some other discomfort – so as to identify in a microscopic way with the Lord’s suffering.  Even so, I offer the following Scriptural description of another means of fasting by which one might embrace the spirit of Lent:

“Would that today you might fast so as to make your voice heard on high!

Is this the manner of fasting I wish, of keeping a day of penance:

That a man bow his head like a reed and lie in sackcloth and ashes?

Do you call this a fast, a day acceptable to the Lord?

This, rather, is the fasting that I wish:

Releasing those bound unjustly, untying the thongs of the yoke;

Setting free the oppressed, breaking every yoke;

Sharing your bread with the hungry, sheltering the oppressed and the homeless;

Clothing the naked when you see them, and not turning your back on your own.

Then, your light shall break forth like the dawn, and your wound shall quickly be healed;

Your vindication shall go before you, and the glory of the Lord shall be your rear guard.

Then you shall call, and the Lord will answer; you shall cry for help, and He will say:

‘Here I am.’”

 Isaiah 58:  4-9    

Post’s Amazon Coverage Wins Polk Award

Set forth below is a link to a Washington Post article reporting that Washington Post reporter Terrence McCoy won the 2022 George Polk Award in environmental reporting for his series, “The Amazon, Undone.”  I’m confident that the Post will not begrudge a proud parent the opportunity to excerpt verbatim from its lead paragraphs:

“Washington Post reporter Terrence McCoy’s coverage of ecological destruction, violence and terror in the Amazon rainforest has won a George Polk Award, a top honor in journalism, organizers announced Monday.

McCoy, The Post’s Rio de Janeiro bureau chief, will receive the environmental reporting award for  “The Amazon, Undone,” a 2022 series that examined how ruthless deforestation, the policies of former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro and the American appetite for beef are rapidly destabilizing the rainforest, which is one of the planet’s last bulwarks against unchecked global warming.

‘The forest is racing toward what scientists warn is a tipping point, when it can no longer maintain its base ecology and suffers a spreading dieback,’ McCoy wrote in a recap of the project, which took him hundreds of miles through the jungle.   …

The Polk Awards, presented by Long Island University since 1949 and named after a CBS correspondent killed during the Greek Civil War, gave out 16 prizes among more than 500 submissions for 2022.”

Many will recall that reporter Dom Phillips was killed this past June during a trip in the Amazon.  This is a moment to reflect upon journalists’ vital contributions in so many different contexts across the globe, sometimes with disregard for their own safety.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2023/02/20/polk-award-terrence-mccoy-amazon-undone/

On the Role of Journalism

Below you will find a link to a recent piece by New York Times Columnist Bret Stephens.  In his essay, Mr. Stephens takes issue with a position recently asserted in the Washington Post by former Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie, Jr., whom Mr. Stephens quotes as declaring that a new generation of journalists “‘believe that pursuing objectivity can lead to false balance or misleading ‘both-sides-ism,’” and that these young journalists “‘feel it [presumably, pursuing objectivity] negates many of their own identities, life experiences and cultural contexts, keeping them from pursuing truth in their work.’”

Mr. Stephens also refers to a report co-authored by Mr. Downie, “Beyond Objectivity,” which Mr. Stephens indicates includes a contention by a quoted editor that Objectivity “is news ‘through the lens of largely white, straight men.’”  (The report – wait for it; this is the best part:  was issued by the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University.  Those of us old enough to remember Mr. Cronkite’s straightforward reporting as longtime anchor of the CBS Evening News – at the end of every broadcast, he told us, “That’s the way it is,” and indeed, we knew, that was the way it was — can be confident that the report’s publication under his name has him rolling in his grave.)

I am not sure whether all reading this note will be able to reach Mr. Stephens’ column behind the Times’ paywall; what follows are a few of his comments that I am pretty confident that he wouldn’t mind me sharing if he were aware:

“[News outlets] are not in the ‘truth’ business, at least not the sort with a capital ‘T.’ Our job is to collect and present relevant facts and good evidence. Beyond that, truth quickly becomes a matter of personal interpretation, ‘lived experience,’ moral judgments and other subjective considerations that affect all journalists but that should not frame their coverage. …

The core business of journalism is collecting and distributing information. Doing this requires virtues of inquisitiveness, independence, open-mindedness, critical thinking and doggedness in the service of factual accuracy, timeliness and comprehensiveness. It also serves the vital interests of democracy by providing the public with the raw materials it needs to shape intelligent opinion and effective policy. This may be less romantic than the pursuit of ‘truth,’ but we could regain a lot of trust by paring down our mission to simple facts.”

It seems that journalists may still be grappling with the challenges of 1950s McCarthyism, when the press (as it was then known) felt trapped by its perceived obligation to continue to report unfounded allegations of Communism by an elected Senator from … er … Wisconsin, even after it realized that Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s accusations were without basis.  I don’t consider the profession’s responsibility to objectively collect and disseminate facts to require ignoring reality.  When former President Donald Trump took office, the Wall Street Journal Newsroom (as contrasted with its Opinion desk) made the point of informing its readers that while it did not intend to specifically point out all of Mr. Trump’s seeming falsehoods, it would juxtapose what its reporters uncovered with Mr. Trump’s declarations, and let the reader decide.  (An old example:  given Mr. Trump’s assertion that his inauguration had drawn the most attendees in history, the Journal posted pictures of the crowds at the inaugurations of former President Barack Obama and Mr. Trump next to Mr. Trump’s claim, and let the reader form his/her own conclusion as to its veracity.)  I was, and remain, very comfortable with such an approach.

As for the notion that “objectivity” somehow reflects a bias of white, straight males:  while one’s being and background will obviously influence the way one perceives the import of a fact pattern, I entirely reject the notion that the standard of objectivity for collection and dissemination of facts should in any way vary according to a reporter’s gender, race, ethnicity, religion, age, or other attribute.

What makes journalism a noble calling isn’t those who shout from talk shows or opinion pages [or blogs  😉 ].  Although TLOML and I watch MSNBC’s decidedly-liberal Morning Joe and I frequently agree with and occasionally cite its panelists’ observations, I would never post anything in these pages based upon such observations unless I found confirmation either with my own eyes (via video) or in the news pages of a reputable newspaper.  We spouters can have our views; what is vital is that journalists, as Mr. Stephens put it, “provid[e] the public with the raw materials it needs to shape intelligent opinion and effective policy.”  That’s all, and that’s enough.  After journalists have fulfilled their responsibility – a sacred one in a democracy — it is thereafter up to our people, for good or ill, to form their own conclusions.

Obviously, I associate myself with the entirety of Mr. Stephens’ remarks, and encourage you to read his entire column – if not accessible to you via the link below, through other means.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/09/opinion/mainstream-media-credibility-objectivity-journalism.html