The Super Fast Summary Why I will not vote for Biden, the supposed moderate, in 2020, if he is the D nominee, you ask? Someone must have asked. I'll tell you. But, first, a superfast sum up of my view on the Republican/Democrat thing since Trump's birther movement. Trump is the worst thing to happen to the Republicans since Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich and they should not take his money or seek his help. That was something like ten years ago I first said that. But, they did take him in and then he took them over.
On the other hand, the D party has been moving further and further left since Al Gore lost in 2000, and he, apparently, was hiding his most lefty leftiness behind his back. John Kerry, who I think a particularly dishonest and backstabbing politician was deemed the most liberal Senator by Ds (there are publications that keep score) and they nominated him for president. Obama was considered the most liberal Senator (or nearly) and they nominated him in 2008. Why were they nominating their most liberal Senators? Well, that was the way they were sailing.
Obama may be a nice man (the only ones I know who don't think so are, not coincidentally, deeply politically opposed to him). But, he was the worst president in my lifetime, including Nixon, failing in almost every category, but most important to me, failing to live up to expectations with respect to racial harmony - rather than be a healer, he made a racial decision (he considers himself black rather than bi-racial) in most controversies and racial anger increased a great deal during his two terms. His foreign policy was astonishingly bad - all our enemies grew stronger - Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea and ISIS was allowed to germinate and spread while he called it and treated it as the "JV." Many of our allies were furious with us during his time, at least for a time (e.g., Germany, Brazil and especially Israel). Even his signature act - the ACA, caused so much dissension in the way it was enacted.
Though perhaps no Trump, who doesn't care if you think he is a liar and lies about the darndest things (and is the only honest pol about others), he was singularly dishonest with respect to the ACA, his campaign and the Iran deal among other things. Trump was helped to be elected by the D party, which also nominated an unsuitable candidate, and, by the press, which was more dishonest and biased in its approach than even Trump. Though I wouldn't vote for HRC or DJT, I did at least feel some validation that the press got a slap in its face. I'd rather they'd come to their senses, but while hopeful, I'm not crazy. We are in that culture war so many thought Pat Buchanan was crazy to suggest in 2000 and the media has become, not for the first time in our history, an active participant. So bad, I canceled my beloved NYTimes yesterday. One, almost every "article" on the front page was really an op-ed with one or two general themes - I only slightly exaggerate - Trump must die and Socialism is really really really cool.
Almost done. HRC was what I call "institutionally corrupt." That is, she and her husband have been playing the game so long, they no longer distinguish between right and wrong, just whether they win. Not that is much different than many other pols, but they still have sufficient reputation, loyalty and power that it is very hard for them to get in trouble. Apparently, there are enough protective forces around them, it is almost impossible. Leave aside Clinton's possible rape, and his affront to so many other women. Except that she was a Clinton, the party's hope and that same party running the Justice Department at the time, it is difficult to believe that she would not have been indicted for her handling of classified information and obstruction. Comey described her as violating every actual element of the law involved and then said no reasonable prosecutor would indict, because of an element not in the law.
Obstruction is a charge which I generally believe we have to be very careful about as it can be twisted by prosecutors to mean almost anything - but it seemed awfully clear that she not only violated the law but that her staff, if not her, and her husband (by boarding the AG's plane) at least attempted to obstruct justice. Apparently, they need not have done so, as the powers at the FBI were taking care of business for them. And no, Trump was his usual bull in a China shop, but he didn't collude or conspire with Russians and he didn't obstruct justice - didn't destroy emails or send emissaries to Mueller, to pressure him. He did want to fire him, and why couldn't he? He did want the press lied to and why can't he? They lie about him every day. And, there clearly was a deep state in the FBI, and it is being reckoned with as I write this. I don't know if anything will come of it though. These things rarely do.
Last, as usual, both parties move further left. I said it - left. It is sometimes a good thing for Rs (most, anyway), who adopt most liberal positions once they've lost (and they almost always do lose), become more moderate. Not always, but over their silliest stuff. For example, how many pols do you even hear talking about fighting same-sex marriage or reinstituting "don't ask, don't tell?" None? At least close to none. But, the D party is moving further and further from moderate, some openly espousing some form of socialism, if not as classically defined, and . . . well, just watch the D debates or read the NYTs, where there has even been a front-page article openly arguing that the Chinese may have the best idea for an economy.
That's the review. Maybe it wasn't super-fast, but I tried. Now for the coming election. First,
Biden. Joe Biden is not Hillary Clinton. Biden is likeable, which she often wasn't, at least in public. It makes a difference to a lot of people, even if it shouldn't. Like her, he is also smart, at least in the terms that he is experienced and seems to understand the issues. I utterly reject that he is dumb because of gaffes. More on that in a bit.
What he doesn't have, is the history of corruption she has, and didn't have a taint of it until recently. And I'm not even going there (by there - the Ukraine and China). But, I am going to tell you why I would not vote for Biden, if he is the nominee, even if he is the most sane of the Ds still running - it's because the party has become insane.
It's not because he can't stop touching women inappropriately. Even though it started to blow up (it happened again recently, even after he should have known better, but got about a day's coverage). Most of the press will not cover it explicitely, perhaps not even those he's running against. And no one really (seriously) thinks of him as a sexual predator. In fact, it's only because of the metoo moment that there has been any serious discussion of it at all. Not that even ardent metooers who are Ds (most of them) seem to care much if he crosses the line - hating Trump trumps everything for the left and they would possibly excuse everything but a rape on tape in their nominee. They have done it before with Clinton and, to be honest, I was right there too with them. I despised the Rs for making everything about sex, even if the president was a dog. But, the press will have to work hard to suppress Joe's clear touching problem. However, I have found lately, to my surprise, that some D women who limit themselves to the "mainstream" media, are not even aware of how bad it is, and there might be backlash someday. Doubt it though. Still, though it doesn't make any difference to me, if he occasionally pats someone's hair (someone should just shudder and say "please don't touch me!") it does seem there's something a little wrong with him.
These aren't accidents where he accidentally put his hands near a women's breast or even touched them inappropriately - such as kissing them. He acknowledges that this is just him - affectionate and hands-on. Where is the line? If Biden gets past a metoo test, then there is not much of it left. Why was Sen. Franken forced to resign again? He wants to know. There are seemingly endless examples exist of Biden inappropriately touching women and children, far, far more than with Franken.
Nor do I care that Biden is the gaffe king. He's at least as bad as Dan Quayle was, if not worse. So what? No, it doesn't matter if he is in New Hampshire and calls it Vermont or tells his crippled friend to stand up and take applause (still my favorite). He's not going to be mad at Iran and scream "bomb Iraq." Gaffes do not mean you are stupid or incapable. Well, they do for your opposition and those who are gleefully partisan. Not for me. If you are out there talking as much as he or other candidates does, you are going to make mistakes and say stupid things. Some more than others and he most of all. It's just that I don't care. And neither will those who are partisan in his favor.
Biden has several attributes that are important to me. He says he likes many Rs and that we have to be civil. I believe him. He was among the more decent partisans, even when fighting hard for his side. Recently, he was beaten up in a debate for trying to show that he accomplished something important early in his career by being civil with segregationists, by Kamala Harris, who played the race card beautifully. And, Biden did something I hate, but which almost all pols do - he apologized, as if he had done something wrong. Yccch. I couldn't do it - apologize for something I shouldn't apologize about in order to garner votes, but I wouldn't get two votes for office (well, I'd like to think my daughter would vote for me, but my evalovin' gf of 29 years would probably give money to my adversary and maybe make anti-David commercials ("Tell David to stop listening to the tv so loud!" "Tell David to stop collecting clutter by his easy chair!!" "Tell David to empty the dishwasher!!"). But, still, more than any of the other Ds, he embraces what used to be common civility, and has a long history of collegiality and crossing the aisle. The other good attribute about him was his leading his boss's administration by the nose towards accepting same-sex marriage. It is true that this was where most of the country was going anyway and perhaps he was just the canary for his administration, seeing how it would go over, but, on its face, it showed some courage. I've seen a lack of that courage lately, but I have to give him his due or I am no different than the NYTimes, and I don't want to have to cancel my subscription to my own blog.
And, in the area of immigration, so far, he is the only rational voice. He was cowardly at the debate where everyone raised their hand to a question that really meant the end of border security (Biden raised his hand slightly to make it look like he was joining in, but could also pass for asking a question - who asks questions to the moderator?) He did say that it was crime to cross the border illegally. And in 2014, when the Obama administration actually had to deal with the refugee problem, he was sympathetic to the immigrants' fears, but reasonably said as follows:
" Look, as I said, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, this is what they're doing. They are enhancing the enforcement and removal proceedings because those who are pondering risking their lives to reach the United States should be aware of what awaits them. It will not be open arms. It will not be come on -- it will be, we’re going to hold hearings with our judges consistent with international law and American law, and we’re going to send the vast majority of you back.
Of course, there is plenty wrong with Trump too and he wins a battle of weirdness or bad personality with most other pols, unless they are running for president. I don't know if Trump violated social norms in being too aggressive with women in the past, as some charge him. The last one - an accuser of rape - blew over quickly because she was clearly crazy (I believe she said "rape" was sexy on national television). If Trump was abusive to women, he did it privately. But, the media has tried that and failed to show it. In fact, before he was even elected, the NYTs featured a story about a woman, Rowanne Brewer Lane, that he supposedly debased - unfortunately for them, she came out that day on tv to say it was nonsense, and that it was a hit job by the Times. Unfortunately, the tactics against Kavanaugh (I watched and have researched it) and the constant drumbeat against Trump means that I can't even believe what usually convinces me - a lot of women coming forward with similar stories (as with, say, Bill Cosby). Because clearly, if it is political, a lot of women will lie. I don't necessarily disbelieve accusations, but I can't give it much credence so as to have any effect on me unless there is a lot of proof (or I know them personally). That's what happens when you cry wolf.
So, what's the problem? I can't stand Trump personally, and though I think there are a number of good things about his administration - especially in the face of such a virulent resistance - part of the problem is how divisive he is. I mean, people hate him with a white-hot heat that this country might not have seen since Lincoln.
But, while the country doesn't deserve the "resistance," he does. He's a jerk so much of the time, it can't be ignored. But, put a gun to my head (otherwise I likely won't vote) and I'd pick him (good f'n God) over even Biden. Right now, anyway. Why? Especially when the thought of Biden inappropriately groping the faces or hair of female leaders of other countries has tremendous entertainment value.
But, seriously, the reasons are as follows:
Biden apparently lies a lot too. Biden either lies or makes the same kind of mistakes Trump does. What? It may be so. In a recent article on RealClearPolitics.com - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/31/trump_lies_biden_slips_-- _but_fact_checks_tell_different_story_141144.html - the author tries to demonstrate that fact-checking shows that Biden is no more accurate than Trump. Not talking about gaffes here, but falsehoods. Does he repeatedly lie, or is he just incapable of knowing what the truth is? Which is worse? It's a small sample, but remember, Biden is the same guy who had a run for president stopped because he somehow adopted the story told by a British politician as his own. It is true that previously, he had credited the politician, but then he stopped doing so. An accident? Maybe. I thought so at the time. But, he's the same guy who told the story of trying to pin a medal on a soldier who begged him not to - that the Washington Post even said was as false as could be (little pieces from a number of stories). Are they all just gaffes? Can they all be? Or is there something deeper? Does it matter? I can't give this one to Trump, but ask if the goal is to have another president we can't trust with facts?
He is a world champion flip-flopper He seems to have the same willingness to change his position that Hillary Clinton did in order to endear himself to minorities, particularly blacks. Worse, even than her. We know politicians kowtow to their extreme sides because they want to get the nomination and sometimes they then run a little more to the middle in the general election. One of the reasons I liked John McCain so much, was that he was relatively honest compared to other pols and often took the brunt of sticking to his positions (it hurt him a number of times). But, even though it made him more a leader than a follower, he kowtowed too at times, particularly to the religious right. At least he was honest enough to admit that he did that type of thing. He's the last candidate for whom I voted for president, so I can't be too tough on other politicians for the same fault either. I (we) actually only really care when I hate the new position. If they flip flop in my (our) direction, I love it - think they've grown. Trump, of course, who seems to have few values which seem genuine, kowtows too. And is shameless in doing so. He'll bend this way and then that - he just wants a deal. So, while not wanting to be too tough on Biden for doing what others do - he does do it a lot and in a direction that frightens me. I'm not going into details right here, because they are other topics - but, both on abortion and race.
He's all about abortion now If he had any claim to his "honor as a Biden" (yes, he referred to that recently; I hope he doesn't do that a lot) he lost it when he, after decades of saying he had reasons of conscience to be for the Hyde Amendment (if you don't know what that is, google it - but it is about the federal funding of abortion). In the last few years, the two sides have hardened their positions on abortion. The right has been tireless in trying to end it and the left in trying to extend it. As I get older, I move closer to the pro-lifers. Even some older lefties have told me that, for them secretly, they do too. Maybe part of that was having a child myself and now a grandchild, and also meeting so many children who were born premature and survived. I was shocked earlier this year by a woman I met who believes that fetuses are not babies, even minutes before they are born (and also, she believes men have no right to have an opinion).
And, clearly, there are a lot of people who accept that same position. I asked her if she thought something magical happened when the baby passed through the birth canal? Not surprisingly, there wasn't an answer. I could much more easily understand no abortions than no limits on abortions. I'm not suggesting that all people on either side have fixed positions, but these are generalizations that are fair to make. It is the direction of the most active people in the parties. But, Biden has gone in the direction I reject - becoming more pro-choice. Even though many conservatives would categorize me as pro-choice because I can accept abortion in the first few weeks - I agree it is more humane to prefer they not have a heart and a brain. Trump, of course, now, is pro-life, if we can believe him. Although I don't think it controls his Supreme Court choices, they have at least been judges who I think will likely say that Roe v. Wade is strong or super-precedent (whatever that really means), and we are not changing it, at least more than the Casey case did.
In my opinion, Roe was bad constitutional law, but politically wise at the time because it stifled a boiling culture war. Maybe it should not have, but that's what happened. Both sides want to overturn Roe at this point, but, each in their own direction. I really don't think it will happen, but if it does - it would be a big problem to outlaw short term abortion for a number of reasons. But, it would be a disaster to take from the democratic process, the right to prevent later-term abortions. I don't know where Biden stands (because he couldn't be honest if he still opposed abortion to any degree and couldn't win the nomination) - but I know where his side stands. And he has shown he will do what they want if he feels threatened.
He will likely exacerbate racial tensions Perhaps, given the direction of "civil rights" issues during the Obama administration, Biden had little to say and just stayed out of the way. But, now he wants to be president and he wants to use his serving under Obama as his way in. He is, in fact, the favorite of black D voters right now and is fighting mightily to maintain it. In doing so, he has said the words "white men" with contempt. In the D party right now, it is okay to say "white men" as if it is synonymous with racist or white nationalist. In the same conversation as he sneered "white men," he said that Anita Hill did not get a fair hearing. She didn't? Was there something that has come out about Justice Thomas that is considered important that wasn't said at the hearing? I wrote about the Thomas hearings recently. He was right, it was a high-tech lynching. He was a black conservative and, like all of the nominees, joyous, until the poison started. And what was he accused of - making a couple of jokes that can't even be considered blue anymore.* Nowadays, we can hear or read the president called a scumbag, and many people say or write "pussy," as if it was never considered a little much for public discourse. If you can say "pussy," why couldn't he make a joke about a pubic hair. And, of course, it was shown during the hearing, that she stayed friends with him even after he was no longer his boss. I was always appalled by the Thomas hearings, and at that time, I still leaned left a bit. The really disturbing thing to me was that rather than disparage how mild the claims were, even the Rs acted like it terrible. Even Sen. Hatch, very much in Thomas' favor (and friend to noted woman abuser Ted Kennedy), said anyone who behaved like that was insane (I think that was the word he used).
* I went to Wikipedia for the allegations: Asking her out, talking about sex at work, talking about sex, mostly movies with women having sex with animals, being raped or having group sex, graphically describing his sex life and describing his anatomy. She gave an example of him asking who put a pubic hair on his Coke can? That's the worst one mentioned. Her detractors mentioned that she followed him to a second job and even gave him a ride to the airport once. I don't really doubt that he said these things, though he denies it and I can't know. I just say, who cares? It doesn't seem like she ever told him it made her uncomfortable, he never touched her inappropriately or mocked her - he was boorish, which doesn't even pass for harassment in NYC.
But, we are talking Biden, not history. He gives every indication of being completely in the tank for what is the new racism, the kind that says that racism is "overwhelmingly a white man’s problem visited on people of color." Which he actually said. No doubt, there was a time it was true. Not anymore. Here's what even Obama said in a speech:
"Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don’t worry — I’m going to get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. If you had to choose one moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn’t know ahead of time who you were going to be — what nationality, what gender, what race, whether you’d be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into — you wouldn’t choose 100 years ago. You wouldn’t choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You’d choose right now. If you had to choose a time to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, “young, gifted, and black” in America, you would choose right now."
Obama can say that to a predominantly black audience because he is Obama. Biden can't. Biden is going to run, and act as president, should he win, as if it still is the 1960s. I guess if a black person says he hates Biden because he's white, that's not racist to Biden. Don't expect anyone to ask him that. Let's see what happens when Black Lives Matter takes over his rally.
The rise of the reverse racism (or if you like - just more racism) when Obama took office is disturbing to me. It is the reverse of a long trend towards equality and less racism. I do believe Trump can be a little bigoted at times, but not in virulent ways. He's even accused of being anti-Semitic, though his own beloved daughter is Jewish and Israel named a whole area after him. Come on.
Climate change I'm still an agnostic on climate change. But, leave me out of it. Hillary Clinton wanted to put 60 billion towards it. Biden wants to put over a trillion. Over a trillion. Over a trillion. Wait, it's actually 1.7 trillion. 1.7 trillion. That's nearly 2 trillion dollars. I got this from joebiden.com, so don't think it's fake news. So, what Clinton wanted times 28.
Does he believe the world is going to end in 10 years like some others on his side? I can't find that. I would say the answer is, it depends on his audience at the time.
Violence It sounds like he is good with Antifa, which is a big problem with me. In Philadelphia, he asked a crowd whether “there’s a moral equivalence between white supremacists, neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and those with the courage to stand against them?" I wonder if he understands that Antifa would knock his teeth down his throat if he disagreed with them. That when they take over an intersection, they are not battling fascists.
When they beat up journalists, they aren't fighting fascism.
Are they morally equivalent? Well, as a group, the officially Klan gave up violence decades ago. Any terrorism or fascism - using force or intimidation to get your way. But, they don't have any. At every rally, it seems, that they are heavily outnumbered, and by forces very willing to use violence. No doubt, there are crazy right-wing nut jobs out there who do kill people, But, they do seem few and are not going to change the country at all. Who is counting left wing violence as terrorism? If antifa and BLM aren't included, the statistics don't mean anything.
Witch-hunting Biden may not be a member of "the squad" yet, but he might if he could get their endorsement. He just suggested that networks shouldn't have Rudy Giuliani on. Personally, I like Giuliani less than Trump, but, that's ridiculous. And they say Trump is a bully? Biden keeps saying he would beat Trump up. Literally, at least twice.
I do need a D candidate who will rail against those who attacked Kavanaugh so viciously, the wasteful Russia hunt and the endless seeking of means to impeach Trump.
And what about the others? Biden is the alleged moderate in the field, along perhaps with Klobuchar. If the moderate wants to spend 1.7 trillion on climate change, thinks only white men can be racist, wants refugees to surge towards our borders, isn't that enough to just say no. Plus, while he was no. 2 in the White House, Al Sharpton was a frequent guest and BLM was there too. Who is next - Antifa?
Yes, I do believe that Biden is more moderate than most of the other candidates. But, if they get the WH too, that's too much power for a party where most of their leaders want to end border enforcement, are pro-Socialist, at least to some degree, some are anti-Israeli, want to pack the Supreme Court, end the electoral college and some want to give felons in jail the right to vote (I'm all for it when they've "done their time"). Remember, many Rs in congress are basically cowards, politically, and tend to wilt in any fight - except Trump.
And, I have found some positive things to say about Trump. I was just reviewing the Kavanaugh hearing (though it makes me sick to do so). I realize that if any of the other Rs had gotten in, they'd have buckled and asked him to withdraw before it was proved that everyone (except perhaps Ford) were lying and large holes were put in her story, effectively ruining his life. He, alone it seems, had the courage to follow through on U.S. law and recognize Jerusalem, to demand that NATO countries actually pay what they promised.
But, most of all, after the violence during the campaign, or the Russia collusion claim or the obstruction claim, the brutality of the Kavanaugh hearings and the Ds refusal to vote for his nominees on important offices (far worse than the Rs were with Obama - I counted the votes myself), the medias endless attempts to blacken and misinterpret everything he says and does and refusal to acknowledge his successes (they claim Obama, who got a Nobel Prize just for being elected, gets credit for the good economy), to make school about learning about "white privilege (NYC and California), violations of the first amendment (NYC just passed legislation making saying "illegal aliens" finable up to $250,000), physical attacks on speakers on college campuses (go to thefire.org), and so on and so forth (I could go on), I'm certainly not voting for whoever they nominate. There are no real moderates running, just relatively more moderates. Probably, Kavanaugh was enough to turn me off, but, with the new impeachment insanity (this is really hard to say), actually, the endless stream of pathetic attempt to impeach him - I might just vote for him. It's so hard to say - I really wanted never to vote for least worst again.
He doesn't deserve it. But the country doesn't deserve the end to our institutions that a radicalized party will bring. And the horror of some moderate Ds who will find out they can't control them, will not make it any better for the rest of us.
On the other hand, the D party has been moving further and further left since Al Gore lost in 2000, and he, apparently, was hiding his most lefty leftiness behind his back. John Kerry, who I think a particularly dishonest and backstabbing politician was deemed the most liberal Senator by Ds (there are publications that keep score) and they nominated him for president. Obama was considered the most liberal Senator (or nearly) and they nominated him in 2008. Why were they nominating their most liberal Senators? Well, that was the way they were sailing.
Obama may be a nice man (the only ones I know who don't think so are, not coincidentally, deeply politically opposed to him). But, he was the worst president in my lifetime, including Nixon, failing in almost every category, but most important to me, failing to live up to expectations with respect to racial harmony - rather than be a healer, he made a racial decision (he considers himself black rather than bi-racial) in most controversies and racial anger increased a great deal during his two terms. His foreign policy was astonishingly bad - all our enemies grew stronger - Russia, China, Iran, N. Korea and ISIS was allowed to germinate and spread while he called it and treated it as the "JV." Many of our allies were furious with us during his time, at least for a time (e.g., Germany, Brazil and especially Israel). Even his signature act - the ACA, caused so much dissension in the way it was enacted.
Though perhaps no Trump, who doesn't care if you think he is a liar and lies about the darndest things (and is the only honest pol about others), he was singularly dishonest with respect to the ACA, his campaign and the Iran deal among other things. Trump was helped to be elected by the D party, which also nominated an unsuitable candidate, and, by the press, which was more dishonest and biased in its approach than even Trump. Though I wouldn't vote for HRC or DJT, I did at least feel some validation that the press got a slap in its face. I'd rather they'd come to their senses, but while hopeful, I'm not crazy. We are in that culture war so many thought Pat Buchanan was crazy to suggest in 2000 and the media has become, not for the first time in our history, an active participant. So bad, I canceled my beloved NYTimes yesterday. One, almost every "article" on the front page was really an op-ed with one or two general themes - I only slightly exaggerate - Trump must die and Socialism is really really really cool.
Almost done. HRC was what I call "institutionally corrupt." That is, she and her husband have been playing the game so long, they no longer distinguish between right and wrong, just whether they win. Not that is much different than many other pols, but they still have sufficient reputation, loyalty and power that it is very hard for them to get in trouble. Apparently, there are enough protective forces around them, it is almost impossible. Leave aside Clinton's possible rape, and his affront to so many other women. Except that she was a Clinton, the party's hope and that same party running the Justice Department at the time, it is difficult to believe that she would not have been indicted for her handling of classified information and obstruction. Comey described her as violating every actual element of the law involved and then said no reasonable prosecutor would indict, because of an element not in the law.
Obstruction is a charge which I generally believe we have to be very careful about as it can be twisted by prosecutors to mean almost anything - but it seemed awfully clear that she not only violated the law but that her staff, if not her, and her husband (by boarding the AG's plane) at least attempted to obstruct justice. Apparently, they need not have done so, as the powers at the FBI were taking care of business for them. And no, Trump was his usual bull in a China shop, but he didn't collude or conspire with Russians and he didn't obstruct justice - didn't destroy emails or send emissaries to Mueller, to pressure him. He did want to fire him, and why couldn't he? He did want the press lied to and why can't he? They lie about him every day. And, there clearly was a deep state in the FBI, and it is being reckoned with as I write this. I don't know if anything will come of it though. These things rarely do.
Last, as usual, both parties move further left. I said it - left. It is sometimes a good thing for Rs (most, anyway), who adopt most liberal positions once they've lost (and they almost always do lose), become more moderate. Not always, but over their silliest stuff. For example, how many pols do you even hear talking about fighting same-sex marriage or reinstituting "don't ask, don't tell?" None? At least close to none. But, the D party is moving further and further from moderate, some openly espousing some form of socialism, if not as classically defined, and . . . well, just watch the D debates or read the NYTs, where there has even been a front-page article openly arguing that the Chinese may have the best idea for an economy.
That's the review. Maybe it wasn't super-fast, but I tried. Now for the coming election. First,
Biden. Joe Biden is not Hillary Clinton. Biden is likeable, which she often wasn't, at least in public. It makes a difference to a lot of people, even if it shouldn't. Like her, he is also smart, at least in the terms that he is experienced and seems to understand the issues. I utterly reject that he is dumb because of gaffes. More on that in a bit.
What he doesn't have, is the history of corruption she has, and didn't have a taint of it until recently. And I'm not even going there (by there - the Ukraine and China). But, I am going to tell you why I would not vote for Biden, if he is the nominee, even if he is the most sane of the Ds still running - it's because the party has become insane.
It's not because he can't stop touching women inappropriately. Even though it started to blow up (it happened again recently, even after he should have known better, but got about a day's coverage). Most of the press will not cover it explicitely, perhaps not even those he's running against. And no one really (seriously) thinks of him as a sexual predator. In fact, it's only because of the metoo moment that there has been any serious discussion of it at all. Not that even ardent metooers who are Ds (most of them) seem to care much if he crosses the line - hating Trump trumps everything for the left and they would possibly excuse everything but a rape on tape in their nominee. They have done it before with Clinton and, to be honest, I was right there too with them. I despised the Rs for making everything about sex, even if the president was a dog. But, the press will have to work hard to suppress Joe's clear touching problem. However, I have found lately, to my surprise, that some D women who limit themselves to the "mainstream" media, are not even aware of how bad it is, and there might be backlash someday. Doubt it though. Still, though it doesn't make any difference to me, if he occasionally pats someone's hair (someone should just shudder and say "please don't touch me!") it does seem there's something a little wrong with him.
These aren't accidents where he accidentally put his hands near a women's breast or even touched them inappropriately - such as kissing them. He acknowledges that this is just him - affectionate and hands-on. Where is the line? If Biden gets past a metoo test, then there is not much of it left. Why was Sen. Franken forced to resign again? He wants to know. There are seemingly endless examples exist of Biden inappropriately touching women and children, far, far more than with Franken.
Nor do I care that Biden is the gaffe king. He's at least as bad as Dan Quayle was, if not worse. So what? No, it doesn't matter if he is in New Hampshire and calls it Vermont or tells his crippled friend to stand up and take applause (still my favorite). He's not going to be mad at Iran and scream "bomb Iraq." Gaffes do not mean you are stupid or incapable. Well, they do for your opposition and those who are gleefully partisan. Not for me. If you are out there talking as much as he or other candidates does, you are going to make mistakes and say stupid things. Some more than others and he most of all. It's just that I don't care. And neither will those who are partisan in his favor.
Biden has several attributes that are important to me. He says he likes many Rs and that we have to be civil. I believe him. He was among the more decent partisans, even when fighting hard for his side. Recently, he was beaten up in a debate for trying to show that he accomplished something important early in his career by being civil with segregationists, by Kamala Harris, who played the race card beautifully. And, Biden did something I hate, but which almost all pols do - he apologized, as if he had done something wrong. Yccch. I couldn't do it - apologize for something I shouldn't apologize about in order to garner votes, but I wouldn't get two votes for office (well, I'd like to think my daughter would vote for me, but my evalovin' gf of 29 years would probably give money to my adversary and maybe make anti-David commercials ("Tell David to stop listening to the tv so loud!" "Tell David to stop collecting clutter by his easy chair!!" "Tell David to empty the dishwasher!!"). But, still, more than any of the other Ds, he embraces what used to be common civility, and has a long history of collegiality and crossing the aisle. The other good attribute about him was his leading his boss's administration by the nose towards accepting same-sex marriage. It is true that this was where most of the country was going anyway and perhaps he was just the canary for his administration, seeing how it would go over, but, on its face, it showed some courage. I've seen a lack of that courage lately, but I have to give him his due or I am no different than the NYTimes, and I don't want to have to cancel my subscription to my own blog.
And, in the area of immigration, so far, he is the only rational voice. He was cowardly at the debate where everyone raised their hand to a question that really meant the end of border security (Biden raised his hand slightly to make it look like he was joining in, but could also pass for asking a question - who asks questions to the moderator?) He did say that it was crime to cross the border illegally. And in 2014, when the Obama administration actually had to deal with the refugee problem, he was sympathetic to the immigrants' fears, but reasonably said as follows:
" Look, as I said, the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, this is what they're doing. They are enhancing the enforcement and removal proceedings because those who are pondering risking their lives to reach the United States should be aware of what awaits them. It will not be open arms. It will not be come on -- it will be, we’re going to hold hearings with our judges consistent with international law and American law, and we’re going to send the vast majority of you back.
We’re moving forward with a plan to surge government enforcement resources to increase our capacity to detain individuals humanely, and adults traveling with the children, to handle immigration court hearings in cases where these hearings are necessary, to do it as quickly as possible. In addition, we’re sending immigration judges, attorneys to represent these young people and families with young people, and asylum officers. They have a right under our law to make the case -- make the case that we’re here because we’re avoiding persecution. We’re avoiding something will physically affect our safety.
They're being assigned to process cases of immigrants apprehended at the border who are claiming credible fear, and are eligible to apply for asylum. But that decision will be made quickly, fairly, with -- but it will be made quickly. We are committed to complying with the law and all international relevant standards. That's how we do it.
But we are prioritizing the need to resolve these cases as quickly as position in light of the humanitarian crisis caused by the -- number of crossings.
Make no mistake, once an individual’s case is fully heard, and if he or she does not qualify for asylum, he or she will be removed from the United States and returned home. Everyone should know that.
We expect many of the recent immigrants -- migrants I should say to fall into this category. My guess is a vast majority, and they will be going home."
I share the feeling of horror at what refugees must undergo, but also the horror of thousands literally storming our borders demanding to get in and go to states which will take care of them on the backs of Americans (yes, that includes Hispanic Americans) and which states will eventually, lets face it, demand to be paid for doing so as their financial problems surge. Immigration reform is probably impossible with Trump, if the Ds maintain their lead in the house and unlikely even if they don't. I blame both sides. But, it is important and there is probably a better chance of it under Biden. I will give him that. However, if it doesn't end catch and release, there is no point to it either. More, given his recent predeliction for flip-flopping (keep reading), I don't trust him at all.
Of course, there is plenty wrong with Trump too and he wins a battle of weirdness or bad personality with most other pols, unless they are running for president. I don't know if Trump violated social norms in being too aggressive with women in the past, as some charge him. The last one - an accuser of rape - blew over quickly because she was clearly crazy (I believe she said "rape" was sexy on national television). If Trump was abusive to women, he did it privately. But, the media has tried that and failed to show it. In fact, before he was even elected, the NYTs featured a story about a woman, Rowanne Brewer Lane, that he supposedly debased - unfortunately for them, she came out that day on tv to say it was nonsense, and that it was a hit job by the Times. Unfortunately, the tactics against Kavanaugh (I watched and have researched it) and the constant drumbeat against Trump means that I can't even believe what usually convinces me - a lot of women coming forward with similar stories (as with, say, Bill Cosby). Because clearly, if it is political, a lot of women will lie. I don't necessarily disbelieve accusations, but I can't give it much credence so as to have any effect on me unless there is a lot of proof (or I know them personally). That's what happens when you cry wolf.
So, what's the problem? I can't stand Trump personally, and though I think there are a number of good things about his administration - especially in the face of such a virulent resistance - part of the problem is how divisive he is. I mean, people hate him with a white-hot heat that this country might not have seen since Lincoln.
But, while the country doesn't deserve the "resistance," he does. He's a jerk so much of the time, it can't be ignored. But, put a gun to my head (otherwise I likely won't vote) and I'd pick him (good f'n God) over even Biden. Right now, anyway. Why? Especially when the thought of Biden inappropriately groping the faces or hair of female leaders of other countries has tremendous entertainment value.
But, seriously, the reasons are as follows:
Biden apparently lies a lot too. Biden either lies or makes the same kind of mistakes Trump does. What? It may be so. In a recent article on RealClearPolitics.com - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/08/31/trump_lies_biden_slips_-- _but_fact_checks_tell_different_story_141144.html - the author tries to demonstrate that fact-checking shows that Biden is no more accurate than Trump. Not talking about gaffes here, but falsehoods. Does he repeatedly lie, or is he just incapable of knowing what the truth is? Which is worse? It's a small sample, but remember, Biden is the same guy who had a run for president stopped because he somehow adopted the story told by a British politician as his own. It is true that previously, he had credited the politician, but then he stopped doing so. An accident? Maybe. I thought so at the time. But, he's the same guy who told the story of trying to pin a medal on a soldier who begged him not to - that the Washington Post even said was as false as could be (little pieces from a number of stories). Are they all just gaffes? Can they all be? Or is there something deeper? Does it matter? I can't give this one to Trump, but ask if the goal is to have another president we can't trust with facts?
He is a world champion flip-flopper He seems to have the same willingness to change his position that Hillary Clinton did in order to endear himself to minorities, particularly blacks. Worse, even than her. We know politicians kowtow to their extreme sides because they want to get the nomination and sometimes they then run a little more to the middle in the general election. One of the reasons I liked John McCain so much, was that he was relatively honest compared to other pols and often took the brunt of sticking to his positions (it hurt him a number of times). But, even though it made him more a leader than a follower, he kowtowed too at times, particularly to the religious right. At least he was honest enough to admit that he did that type of thing. He's the last candidate for whom I voted for president, so I can't be too tough on other politicians for the same fault either. I (we) actually only really care when I hate the new position. If they flip flop in my (our) direction, I love it - think they've grown. Trump, of course, who seems to have few values which seem genuine, kowtows too. And is shameless in doing so. He'll bend this way and then that - he just wants a deal. So, while not wanting to be too tough on Biden for doing what others do - he does do it a lot and in a direction that frightens me. I'm not going into details right here, because they are other topics - but, both on abortion and race.
He's all about abortion now If he had any claim to his "honor as a Biden" (yes, he referred to that recently; I hope he doesn't do that a lot) he lost it when he, after decades of saying he had reasons of conscience to be for the Hyde Amendment (if you don't know what that is, google it - but it is about the federal funding of abortion). In the last few years, the two sides have hardened their positions on abortion. The right has been tireless in trying to end it and the left in trying to extend it. As I get older, I move closer to the pro-lifers. Even some older lefties have told me that, for them secretly, they do too. Maybe part of that was having a child myself and now a grandchild, and also meeting so many children who were born premature and survived. I was shocked earlier this year by a woman I met who believes that fetuses are not babies, even minutes before they are born (and also, she believes men have no right to have an opinion).
And, clearly, there are a lot of people who accept that same position. I asked her if she thought something magical happened when the baby passed through the birth canal? Not surprisingly, there wasn't an answer. I could much more easily understand no abortions than no limits on abortions. I'm not suggesting that all people on either side have fixed positions, but these are generalizations that are fair to make. It is the direction of the most active people in the parties. But, Biden has gone in the direction I reject - becoming more pro-choice. Even though many conservatives would categorize me as pro-choice because I can accept abortion in the first few weeks - I agree it is more humane to prefer they not have a heart and a brain. Trump, of course, now, is pro-life, if we can believe him. Although I don't think it controls his Supreme Court choices, they have at least been judges who I think will likely say that Roe v. Wade is strong or super-precedent (whatever that really means), and we are not changing it, at least more than the Casey case did.
In my opinion, Roe was bad constitutional law, but politically wise at the time because it stifled a boiling culture war. Maybe it should not have, but that's what happened. Both sides want to overturn Roe at this point, but, each in their own direction. I really don't think it will happen, but if it does - it would be a big problem to outlaw short term abortion for a number of reasons. But, it would be a disaster to take from the democratic process, the right to prevent later-term abortions. I don't know where Biden stands (because he couldn't be honest if he still opposed abortion to any degree and couldn't win the nomination) - but I know where his side stands. And he has shown he will do what they want if he feels threatened.
He will likely exacerbate racial tensions Perhaps, given the direction of "civil rights" issues during the Obama administration, Biden had little to say and just stayed out of the way. But, now he wants to be president and he wants to use his serving under Obama as his way in. He is, in fact, the favorite of black D voters right now and is fighting mightily to maintain it. In doing so, he has said the words "white men" with contempt. In the D party right now, it is okay to say "white men" as if it is synonymous with racist or white nationalist. In the same conversation as he sneered "white men," he said that Anita Hill did not get a fair hearing. She didn't? Was there something that has come out about Justice Thomas that is considered important that wasn't said at the hearing? I wrote about the Thomas hearings recently. He was right, it was a high-tech lynching. He was a black conservative and, like all of the nominees, joyous, until the poison started. And what was he accused of - making a couple of jokes that can't even be considered blue anymore.* Nowadays, we can hear or read the president called a scumbag, and many people say or write "pussy," as if it was never considered a little much for public discourse. If you can say "pussy," why couldn't he make a joke about a pubic hair. And, of course, it was shown during the hearing, that she stayed friends with him even after he was no longer his boss. I was always appalled by the Thomas hearings, and at that time, I still leaned left a bit. The really disturbing thing to me was that rather than disparage how mild the claims were, even the Rs acted like it terrible. Even Sen. Hatch, very much in Thomas' favor (and friend to noted woman abuser Ted Kennedy), said anyone who behaved like that was insane (I think that was the word he used).
* I went to Wikipedia for the allegations: Asking her out, talking about sex at work, talking about sex, mostly movies with women having sex with animals, being raped or having group sex, graphically describing his sex life and describing his anatomy. She gave an example of him asking who put a pubic hair on his Coke can? That's the worst one mentioned. Her detractors mentioned that she followed him to a second job and even gave him a ride to the airport once. I don't really doubt that he said these things, though he denies it and I can't know. I just say, who cares? It doesn't seem like she ever told him it made her uncomfortable, he never touched her inappropriately or mocked her - he was boorish, which doesn't even pass for harassment in NYC.
But, we are talking Biden, not history. He gives every indication of being completely in the tank for what is the new racism, the kind that says that racism is "overwhelmingly a white man’s problem visited on people of color." Which he actually said. No doubt, there was a time it was true. Not anymore. Here's what even Obama said in a speech:
"Racism persists. Inequality persists. Don’t worry — I’m going to get to that. But I wanted to start, Class of 2016, by opening your eyes to the moment that you are in. If you had to choose one moment in history in which you could be born, and you didn’t know ahead of time who you were going to be — what nationality, what gender, what race, whether you’d be rich or poor, gay or straight, what faith you'd be born into — you wouldn’t choose 100 years ago. You wouldn’t choose the fifties, or the sixties, or the seventies. You’d choose right now. If you had to choose a time to be, in the words of Lorraine Hansberry, “young, gifted, and black” in America, you would choose right now."
Obama can say that to a predominantly black audience because he is Obama. Biden can't. Biden is going to run, and act as president, should he win, as if it still is the 1960s. I guess if a black person says he hates Biden because he's white, that's not racist to Biden. Don't expect anyone to ask him that. Let's see what happens when Black Lives Matter takes over his rally.
The rise of the reverse racism (or if you like - just more racism) when Obama took office is disturbing to me. It is the reverse of a long trend towards equality and less racism. I do believe Trump can be a little bigoted at times, but not in virulent ways. He's even accused of being anti-Semitic, though his own beloved daughter is Jewish and Israel named a whole area after him. Come on.
Does he believe the world is going to end in 10 years like some others on his side? I can't find that. I would say the answer is, it depends on his audience at the time.
Violence It sounds like he is good with Antifa, which is a big problem with me. In Philadelphia, he asked a crowd whether “there’s a moral equivalence between white supremacists, neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan and those with the courage to stand against them?" I wonder if he understands that Antifa would knock his teeth down his throat if he disagreed with them. That when they take over an intersection, they are not battling fascists.
When they beat up journalists, they aren't fighting fascism.
Are they morally equivalent? Well, as a group, the officially Klan gave up violence decades ago. Any terrorism or fascism - using force or intimidation to get your way. But, they don't have any. At every rally, it seems, that they are heavily outnumbered, and by forces very willing to use violence. No doubt, there are crazy right-wing nut jobs out there who do kill people, But, they do seem few and are not going to change the country at all. Who is counting left wing violence as terrorism? If antifa and BLM aren't included, the statistics don't mean anything.
Witch-hunting Biden may not be a member of "the squad" yet, but he might if he could get their endorsement. He just suggested that networks shouldn't have Rudy Giuliani on. Personally, I like Giuliani less than Trump, but, that's ridiculous. And they say Trump is a bully? Biden keeps saying he would beat Trump up. Literally, at least twice.
I do need a D candidate who will rail against those who attacked Kavanaugh so viciously, the wasteful Russia hunt and the endless seeking of means to impeach Trump.
And what about the others? Biden is the alleged moderate in the field, along perhaps with Klobuchar. If the moderate wants to spend 1.7 trillion on climate change, thinks only white men can be racist, wants refugees to surge towards our borders, isn't that enough to just say no. Plus, while he was no. 2 in the White House, Al Sharpton was a frequent guest and BLM was there too. Who is next - Antifa?
Yes, I do believe that Biden is more moderate than most of the other candidates. But, if they get the WH too, that's too much power for a party where most of their leaders want to end border enforcement, are pro-Socialist, at least to some degree, some are anti-Israeli, want to pack the Supreme Court, end the electoral college and some want to give felons in jail the right to vote (I'm all for it when they've "done their time"). Remember, many Rs in congress are basically cowards, politically, and tend to wilt in any fight - except Trump.
And, I have found some positive things to say about Trump. I was just reviewing the Kavanaugh hearing (though it makes me sick to do so). I realize that if any of the other Rs had gotten in, they'd have buckled and asked him to withdraw before it was proved that everyone (except perhaps Ford) were lying and large holes were put in her story, effectively ruining his life. He, alone it seems, had the courage to follow through on U.S. law and recognize Jerusalem, to demand that NATO countries actually pay what they promised.
But, most of all, after the violence during the campaign, or the Russia collusion claim or the obstruction claim, the brutality of the Kavanaugh hearings and the Ds refusal to vote for his nominees on important offices (far worse than the Rs were with Obama - I counted the votes myself), the medias endless attempts to blacken and misinterpret everything he says and does and refusal to acknowledge his successes (they claim Obama, who got a Nobel Prize just for being elected, gets credit for the good economy), to make school about learning about "white privilege (NYC and California), violations of the first amendment (NYC just passed legislation making saying "illegal aliens" finable up to $250,000), physical attacks on speakers on college campuses (go to thefire.org), and so on and so forth (I could go on), I'm certainly not voting for whoever they nominate. There are no real moderates running, just relatively more moderates. Probably, Kavanaugh was enough to turn me off, but, with the new impeachment insanity (this is really hard to say), actually, the endless stream of pathetic attempt to impeach him - I might just vote for him. It's so hard to say - I really wanted never to vote for least worst again.
He doesn't deserve it. But the country doesn't deserve the end to our institutions that a radicalized party will bring. And the horror of some moderate Ds who will find out they can't control them, will not make it any better for the rest of us.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your comments are welcome.