Presidential Rankings - The Dead Ones

Three presidents did not serve long enough in office to merit ranking.  However, just to make sure that every president is listed, here are the rest:

William Henry Harrison: The oldest man elected president until he was surpassed by Ronald Reagan, Harrison was the first Whig President.  He died after only a month in office - the first president to die in office - and was replaced by Vice President John Tyler.  Virtually all of Harrison's cabinet secretaries resigned within six months of his death, erasing what little imprint he had left on Tyler's Administration.  How do you rank someone who served 1 month?

Zachary Taylor: The second Whig President, Taylor lasted longer than Harrison.  He died during the debate over the Compromise of 1850, the most significant legislation of the time.  Had he survived to shape it (he had different ideas than his VP, Millard Filmore), ranking him would make sense.  His was the longest presidency of the three at 16 months.

James Garfield: A Civil War veteran and long-serving Congressman, Garfield was assassinated by a frustrated job seeker.  He lingered for two months before dying from his wound.  He had been president for 4 months when he was shot and 6 months when he died.

All three were generals.  William Henry Harrison led troops during the War of 1812, though his most famous battle was that of Tippecanoe in 1811.  Zachary Taylor was a leading general during the Mexican American War, winning such plaudits that he was pursued to run for president.  James Garfield was a part of the Ohio Volunteers who rose to Major General during the Civil War.

Graboyes didn't offer any details on them as they were excluded from his rankings.

Presidential Rankings - The Terrible Ones

These are the presidential disasters, highly-negative leaders who clearly damaged the well-being of the nation.

Franklin Pierce: An unknown politician unprepared for the presidency.  His last surviving child died shortly before Pierce assumed the presidency, sending him into alcohol and grief.  He pandered to slave owners and vilified abolitionists.  The Gadsden Purchase took place during his presidency.

James Buchanan: Most impressive resume prior to George H W Bush, but twiddled his thumbs as the country descended into Civil War.  Did nothing as the South seceded after the election but before Lincoln's inauguration.

Andrew Johnson: Lincoln's greatest mistake.  A pro-slavery demagogue who was entirely unsuited to the task of healing a nation in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Woodrow Wilson: Worst racist in presidential history.  Reversed racial progress rather than accept the status quo.  Set the stage for the rise of the Nazis and WWII.  Imprisoned political opponents, notably Eugene Debs.  Held constitutional limits in low regard, ignored civil liberties, refused to negotiate with Senate Republicans in foreign policy (which killed his League of Nations), and hid his debilitating stroke for more than a year at the end of his term.

Herbert Hoover: Tragic figure.  Brilliant, accomplished, and well-meaning.  However, he was a compulsive busybody whose efforts to fix the economy only worsened the Great Depression.  Began many of the New Deal policies that FDR adopted; they were all bad.

Jimmy Carter: Economic incompetence, foreign affairs disasters, angering allies and fawning over enemies.  Responsible for the rise of the Iranian mullahs.  Emboldened Islamic terrorists for decades thereafter by showing such astonishing weakness.  The malaise speech, the misery index, inability to get along with Congressional Democrats, let alone the Republicans.  Acted to undermine virtually every successor, regardless of party.

Yes, I can agree with this bunch.  Franklin Pierce wasn't even considered as the candidate until the 35th ballot.  The big guns - Lewis Cass, James Buchanan, Stephen Douglas, and William Marcy - could not assemble two-thirds of the delegates to capture the nomination.  Pierce was a dark horse who was enough of a blank slate that he won the nomination on the 49th ballot.  Is it any wonder he was not ready for the job.  The Democrats saw their error from 1852 and did not renominate Pierce in 1856, instead choosing Buchanan.  Despite a tremendous resume, he too failed miserably.  Like George H W Bush, Buchanan was groomed for a foreign policy presidency and was unsuited to domestic issues.  Andrew Johnson was a Tennessean who favored the Union.  Straddling both sides, one would think he would be ideal in the wake of the war.  Instead, he paved the way for Jim Crow rather than racial equality.  Wilson did not like the Constitution or the Republic it established.  He was indeed a horrible president.  Hoover had been part of the Harding Administration when Secretary of Treasury Andrew Mellon deftly turned Wilson's post-war depression into nearly a decade of prosperity.  Instead of trying to duplicate that, he tinkered and meddled, transforming a downturn into the Great Depression.  I would guess that Graboyes had first-hand experience with the Carter presidency based on the laundry list of failings.  I've always viewed Carter in much the way he paints Hoover: a well-meaning man who inadvertently did far more harm than good.

Responding to a comment regarding his rankings, Graboyes said that the six terribles led to hell: Pierce & Buchanan to the Civil War, Johnson to Jim Crow, Wilson to Nazism, Hoover to Depression, and Carter to Jihadism.  He also speculates that it might have been better to have 7 tiers rather than 5.

Presidential Rankings - The Bad Ones

To fall under the 'somewhat negative' category, Graboyes states that the president "governed badly, had serious personal failings, or both."

John Quincy Adams: A great man who rose to his highest level of incompetence.

Martin Van Buren: A fixer who was not suited to the top role.  Helpless against the Panic of 1837 that was the hangover of the Jackson years.

Lyndon Banes Johnson: One of the most skilled and competent presidents ever but his policies have left lasting damage, notably Medicare and Medicaid.  No personal ethics.  His handling of Vietnam.

Richard Nixon: Competent and skilled, he resolved LBJ's Vietnam disaster and established relations with China.  However, he embraced bad economic policies (price controls) and destroyed his presidency by his actions regarding Watergate.

Gerald Ford: Creditable job of post-Watergate leadership.  Bad foreign policy and economic policies.

Bill Clinton: Though he had the makings of a somewhat positive president with his political skills, moderated views, charming demeanor, and strong intellect, he poisoned it with his sexual scandals, financial shenanigans, perjury, and unpardonable pardons.

Barack Obama: Ended NASA monopoly on space which allowed SpaceX to flourish, took out bin Laden.  His embrace of racial division, frequent attacks on his predecessor, and beneficial treatment of Iran were harmful.  He created a cult of personality that his party has yet to overcome.

Donald Trump: Despite a long list of impressive accomplishments (Abraham Accords, Jerusalem embassy, smashing ISIS, energy independence, end of the Iran Deal, the COVID vaccine, roaring economy, low unemployment - notably for blacks and Hispanics, border enforcement, Space Force, and Judicial appointments), Trump more than offset it with his verbal diarrhea and J6 catastrophe.

Joe Biden: He reversed most of the positives of the Trump administration.  The end of energy independence once again filled the coffers of adversaries: Russia & Iran. Iran financed Hamas (October 7 attack in Israel and the latest Gaza War), Hezbollah, and the Houthis (Red Sea conflict).  Inflation.  Open border, mobs at homes of the Supreme Court, obvious signs of dementia.

Mostly, I'll agree.  He's a bit hard on Martin Van Buren.  He had some foreign policy successes that determined the borders of the United States and Canada, but that Panic of 1837 really sank him.  The Amistad was just a footnote.  Nixon established the imperial presidency, seeking to create executive positions that duplicated the Cabinet in order to expand those protected by executive privilege.  Given how many positives he lists for Trump, the negatives must really weigh a lot in his estimation.

Presidential Rankings - The So-So Ones

The tier three presidents - rating as 'neutral' - were those who had mixed legacies.

John Tyler: He established that the VP would become the full-fledged president in the event of a president's death.  He vetoed Henry Clay's economic plan and negotiated the annexation of Texas.  However, he died during the Civil War as a member of the Confederacy.

Millard Filmore: He approved the Compromise of 1850 and opened trade with Japan.  He later sullied his reputation by running as a Know-Nothing.

Rutherford Hayes: He ended Reconstruction, peacefully addressed violent labor, fought inflation, and installed the first telephone in the White House.

Grover Cleveland: Resisted the populist impulses of the Bryan era, wanted a strong dollar, but plagued by labor riots and the Panic of 1893.

Benjamin Harrison: Improved foreign relations in the Western Hemisphere and pushed out political hacks for competent personnel.

William Howard Taft: A humdrum presidency between two egomaniacs.  The most distinguished ex-president by serving as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

John F Kennedy: He had the most inspiring rhetoric, set the US on a path to the moon, and turned the Soviets back from Cuba.

George Bush: Significant president who had successes and failures.  Did not partake in the post-presidency criticism of predecessors or successors.

George W. Bush: Also a significant president who had successes and failures.  Did not partake in the post-presidency criticism of predecessors or successors.

Tyler missed out on a higher ranking because of his post-presidency.  It wasn't until the 25th Amendment that his action of assuming the presidency was codified.  He gamed the 1844 election to assure the annexation of Texas.  Filmore may have sent Perry to Japan, but he was out of office by the time Perry returned.  By approving the Compromise of 1850, the Civil War was almost certainly averted for another 10 years that improved the North's chances of winning.  Hayes didn't exactly agree with the end of Reconstruction.  Sam Tilden - the Democrat - won the popular vote and the electoral vote was questionable.  There was a lot of fraud and disenfranchisement of blacks.  In order to assure Hayes as president, Reconstruction was put on the chopping block.  I wouldn't give Hayes credit for that.  Cleveland was a northern Democrat who wasn't so keen on civil rights.  However, he was vastly better than the next Democrat president would be.  Harrison and Taft are suited to the neutral tier.  JFK did give some of the best speeches.  Though outwardly it looked like the US won the Cuban Missile Crisis, it has since been shown to be a draw; Russia got a quid pro quo.  George Bush was trained to be a foreign policy president, to continue the Cold War, and then it ended a year into his presidency!  He was not meant to be a domestic president, somewhere he did not excel.  Despite George W Bush getting re-elected where his father didn't, I'd rate his father as the better president.  However, middle of the pack suits both father and son.

Presidential Rankings - The Good Ones

According to Graboyes, the Somewhat Positive presidents made positive but not earth-shattering contributions.

John Adams: A great man but mediocre president.

James Madison: Another great man who proved to be a mediocre president.

Andrew Jackson: He changed American politics and governance.  He stamped out nullification.  He might have rated among the greats but for his treatment toward Native Americans.

Ulysses Grant: He criminalized the KKK, reversed course from Jackson regarding Native Americans, and sought to stabilize the dollar.  However, his administration was plagued by corruption, which stained him though he supported investigations.

Chester Arthur: Elevated to the presidency in the wake of James Garfield's assassination, Arthur reformed the Civil Service.  Here was a man who had benefited from the existing system and knew what needed to be reformed.  He also strengthened the navy and sought to improve the lot of former slaves and Native Americans.

William McKinley: Though he wanted peace with Spain, he went to war when his efforts failed.  He also strengthened Anglo-American ties.

Warren Harding: Ended the disaster that was the Wilson years - releasing some political prisoners - and began an era of prosperity.  He appointed former President Taft to the Supreme Court and his choice of Andrew Mellon for Treasury was particularly good.  He had good bipartisan relations.  However, he died in office and was stained by stories of his adultery and the Teapot Dome Scandal.

Calvin Coolidge: Harding's vice president, Coolidge was a limited government adherent, resisting efforts of the federal government to infringe on the states.  He advocated individual rights and ran a clean administration.  Ronald Reagan viewed Coolidge very highly.

Dwight Eisenhower: Ike ended the Korean War, didn't get the US entangled in Vietnam, founded the Interstate Highway System and the US Space Program.  Also, he sent troops to Little Rock to enforce desegregation.

This list comes as a bit of a surprise.  John Adams had the Alien and Sedition Acts, which infringed on the First Amendment.  That's a big negative.  He won the Quasi-War with France and was the first president to live in the White House.  Yeah, he only ranks in the somewhat positive as a lifetime achievement award.  Likewise, James Madison's presidency was mostly the War of 1812, which was mostly a disaster.  The White House was set on fire by the British.  If not for Andrew Jackson's success at New Orleans and the amazing performance of the US Navy, Madison would look much worse.  Again, his rating among the good seems like a lifetime achievement award.  I completely agree with his rating of Jackson.  Massively consequential president but also an ass.  The Democrats use the Jackass as their symbol on account of Jackson.  Like Monroe after the War of 1812, Grant had a postwar presidency though it wasn't another Era of Good Feelings.  Though he enforced Reconstruction, there were a lot of Indian Wars in the West during his presidency.  Yes, he wasn't as anti-Indian as Jackson, but he was hardly in their corner.  He might be getting the bump to somewhat positive on account of winning the Civil War.  It starts to look as though the quintile division scheme is forcing some so-so presidents upwards.  McKinley oversaw the expansion of the US into an empire.  The Spanish American War brought the Philippines and Puerto Rico as US possessions.  There was also the annexation of Hawaii.  McKinley was ambivalent about the war; Theodore Roosevelt - who was assistant secretary of the navy at the time, accused him of having the backbone of a chocolate eclair.  Harding is often ranked much lower, but his placement here is fair.  The return to Normalcy is underrated.  Coolidge and Eisenhower definitely rank toward the top of this batch.

Presidential Rankings - The Great Ones

I have long disagreed with the regular presidential rankings that are published every few years.  Invariably, the most recent Republicans are at the very bottom and the most recent Democrats rank very highly.  No bias there.  A couple of weeks ago, I came across one by Robert Graboyes that did not follow the usual rankings.  The presidents are separated into quintiles: highly positive, somewhat positive, neutral, somewhat negative, and highly negative.  There is a 6th category for those who died so early in office that they don't merit ranking.  Let's start with the greats (i.e., highly positive):

Graboyes defines highly positive as leaving "at least one blockbuster accomplishment that swamps any negatives."

George Washington:  He was the first president and established what the office would be.  Everything he did became a precedent, including his resignation after 2 terms.  He defined the presidency.

Thomas Jefferson: The third president bought Louisianna from Napoleon, dramatically expanding the United States.  Where most nations were paying protection to the Tripolitan pirates, Jefferson sent the Marines.

James Monroe: Other than Washington, Monroe is the only president to run unopposed for re-election.  His time in office was known as the Era of Good Feelings.  He announced the Monroe Doctrine, which declared the Western Hemisphere as off-limits to European powers.

James Knox Polk: Nearly doubled the size of the United States and established treasury autonomy.  As a longtime Polk fan, it pleases me greatly that he was placed in the highly positive group.  This surely impacts my view of his overall picks.

Abraham Lincoln:  He saved the Union.  Enough said.

Theodore Roosevelt: He strengthened the presidency and established America as a superpower.  Indeed, he is the first US president to win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt: He led the allies to victory.

Harry Truman: He began the containment of Communism.

Ronald Reagan: He turned the economy around from the Ford/Carter mess, starting a 25-year economic boom.  More importantly, his strategy ended the Soviets without a war.

Generally, this is a good list.  I will quibble about FDR, whose actions regarding the Great Depression and threats of packing the Supreme Court should cost him a great spot.  However, FDR has been listed as one of the three greats - with Washington and Lincoln - in almost every list.  If Mount Rushmore had been carved in the 50s or later rather than the 20s and 30s, FDR would be on it.

Assassin #2

According to reports, Ryan Wesley Routh attempted to shoot Donald Trump while he was playing a round of golf.  Some of his social media posts have been reposted by others.  His profile - if it hasn't been doctored - shows him to be a Democrat, anti-MAGA, and LGBT+ member.  Common enough, but obviously against Trump.  He went to Ukraine in 2022 and sought to recruit foreign fighters and increase funding.  A ten-minute interview was also posted which shows him in Ukraine.  He doesn't seem particularly sharp.  How did this guy know when and where to try a shot at Trump?  He was arrested shortly after the incident and is in custody.  Is he another lone wolf like Thomas Matthew Crooks?  Of course, we don't know really if Crooks was a lone gunman, but that is the working assumption.  Will Jack Ruby show up and shoot Routh before he can be interrogated?

The left has so villainized Trump that it appears to be entirely reasonable to assassinated him before he can reclaim power.  This again demonstrates that there is too much riding on elections today.  This should be choosing someone who carries out the laws that Congress has passed.  Those laws should be relatively benign compared to what the states themselves pass.  No, thanks to a century of consolidating power in Washington DC, national elections become more heated each year.  The heat has risen to assassination attempts.  Either we devolve power away from Washington or the boiler will explode into open conflict. 

Avenue 5

Avenue 5 is a luxury space liner run by the Judd Corporation.  Herman Judd (Josh Gad) is aboard the ship, trying to make the voyage a success.  However, he is a socially awkward mogul who is more likely to get the opposite results.  Captain Ryan Clark (Hugh Laurie) exudes confidence and reliability.  He is famous for saving lives on the Avenue 3.  Of course, he disclaims any credit, stating that it was the fire suppression system that did all the work.  Right as the ship is approaching Saturn's moon of Titan, where they will get a gravity assist to send them back toward Earth, the ship's gravity resets.  This cascades into a series of disasters that cause the Avenue 5 to miss its window for rerouting the ship.  Suddenly, the three week cruise becomes a 3 year cruise!  The passengers are not happy.

Following the disaster, the actual working of the ship is revealed.  The high-tech bridge with its attractive and smartly-dressed crew are just a facade.  They are actors who deliver specific lines from a script.  Likewise, Captain Clark is just an actor.  The real captain was killed in the disaster and the real crew lives below decks in quarters that look like a World War II submarine.  Despite the luxury appearance, it turns out that the ship was cheaply made.

The show is a dark comedy, but the laughs are few and far between.  It has a distopian feel to it.  Among the regulars are Iris Kimura (Suzy Nakamura), Mr. Judd's executive assistant and yes-woman, Matt Spencer (Zach Woods) the ship's activity director and counselor who offers mostly unhelpful and sad advice, Karen Kelly (Rebecca Front), a particularly vocal and nosy passenger who horns her way into authority, Billy McEvoy (Lenora Crichlow), the lead engineer who emerges from below decks and is one of the few competent people aboard, and Spike Martin (Ehtan Phillips), a retired astronaut who is always eager to join whenever he sees an opportunity.

Much of the 'comedy' comes from characters doing obviously stupid things.  Why wasn't someone who knew better in charge of jettisoning weight from the ship rather than a bunch of busy body passengers?  That comic at the comedy club is dreadfully unfunny was not funny.  It was mildly amusing, maybe causing a brief smile but that he went on and on in an unfunny set that later required him to be unfunny was like milking a stone for laughs.  Ugh.  The characters are stupid enough for this to be pure slapstick silliness.  Then again, Herman Judd is quite stupid for a successful businessman.

Mediocre.  It has a second season.  Maybe it improves.

Kamala Interview

VP Harris granted a 10-minute interview to a local reporter in Pennsylvania.  It went so well that the Trump Campaign posted it, stating that the latest ad was out.  Well, I've got to see this.  Overall, it was okay.  Again, a lot of what she said was aspirational and non-specific, but she did offer some idea of what her administration might be like.

First, when asked what she would do about high prices and general affordability issues, she repeated her spiel about growing up middle-class among other hard-working middle-class people.  The American people are ambitious, aspirational, and have a wonderful work ethic.  By the end of her statement, she had not addressed the question of high prices and affordability.  Unless you consider that her mother saving to buy a house when Kamala was a teenager as a prescription.  She did suggest a $50K tax credit for starting a small business, but was off topic.  Well, maybe it was on topic as it might make buying/starting a small business more affordable.  Kind of a niche population for that.  Ditto for the $25K home buying assistance.  Fine, that might help with buying a home (actually, it won't; much like how all the government funding of higher education has just made education more expensive, it will do the same for housing), but what about the grocery bill, utility bills, and so forth?

Next, she was asked how she is different from Joe Biden.  Well, obviously she's not Joe Biden.  Okay, I'll take that as a joke.  She wants to focus on things that haven't been focused on because she is a new generation of leader.  Here was the $6K tax credit.  Americans have dreams and aspirations.  In other words, policy-wise, she offered virtually no space between herself and President Biden.  Of course, this is a trick question because she doesn't want to attack or criticize the sitting president, but he was losing badly so she can't just be more of the same.  Yes, it's a tough question but she needs to craft a better answer.  Also, what is this 10 to 20 year horizon?  You have 4 years to prove yourself or out the door you go.

The gun control question arose, and she was even given credit for being a gun owner.  She noted that her running mate was also a gun owner and believed in the 2nd Amendment.  "We're not taking anyone's guns away."  Great.  But common-sense gun laws and an assault weapons ban are good ideas that she will pursue.  So, she will take away some guns?  Maybe she should have said, "No one is coming for all your guns, just some of your guns."  Well, unless you only own an AR-15, in which case it will be all your guns.

When asked about the Trump appeal and how she would talk to his voters, she said that Americans have more in common than we realize.  She said we should put country first.  I'm sorry, what was that?  You mean like America First?  That's a policy of your opponent.

When asked what she wants Americans to know about her that they might not already know, she really struggled.  She loves her family, she loves to cook, and she never asked a victim their party affiliation but rather 'Are you okay?'

To the average viewer, this will play well.  To the news junkies (like me), this confirmed some of Trump's accusations (i.e., she is stealing his policies - country first, and is a gun grabber) and also painted herself as a 2nd Biden term.  How it is interpretted will depend on the viewer.

Coogan's Bluff (1968)

Arizona Deputy Sheriff Wyatt Coogan (Clint Eastwood) has once again annoyed the sheriff.  Irritated, the sheriff gave him the unenviable task of an extradition from New York.  Coogan arrives in New York City and immediately goes to the police station.  Lt. McElroy (Lee J. Cobb) explains that the prisoner was transferred to Bellevue Hospital and cannot be handed over until the DA & Judge approve.  Coogan is not impressed.  Viewing the paperwork as nonsense, he went to the hospital and bluffed his way into see the prisoner, James Ringerman (Don Stroud).  Claiming that everything has been approved, he convinced the doctor to release Ringerman to him.  On the way to the flight, one of Ringerman's associates clocked Coogan over the head.

Coogan woke up in the hospital with Lt. McElroy castigating him.  Arizona has taken him off the extradition and recalled him.  Unwilling to leave New York as a beaten man, Coogan set out to find Ringerman.  He was not completely without allies; he had met parole officer Julie Roth (Susan Clark).  Initially, he pursued her as a fling to kill time.  However, she was also a parole officer who had worked with a woman who was tied to Ringerman.

Coogan is a womanizer.  While bringing in a suspect in Arizona, he stopped to hook up with a woman; the suspect was left handcuffed on the porch.  In New York, he pursued Julie Roth and had a one-night stand with Linny Raven (Tisha Sterling).  With Julie, he was quite persistent.  She repeatedly declined his offers, but he would not take "no" as an answer.  To modern sensibilities, he was quite pushy.  Despite his bad behavior, she did warm to him, even going to the airport to see him off.

There was a character named Pushie, played by David Doyle (the original Bosley from Charlie's Angels).  It was odd to see him as an unsavory lowlife goon.

The funny thing about the movie is that it is all Coogan's fault.  His loose cannon behavior in Arizona resulted in his assignment to extradition.  His impatience and flouting the rules led to Ringerman's escape.  Once Ringerman is recaptured, Lt. McElroy offers the same DA & Judge spiel that he offered at the start.  This time, Coogan accepted those rules.

The helicopter flight to and from New York City was amazing.  I saw this film before but had forgotten the helicopter landing on the PanAm building.  For more than a decade, it was possible to fly directly from  LaGuardia Airport or JFK to the PanAm building and thus be downtown in 10 minutes.  In a way, it seems like 1968 had better air travel than today.

Speaking of 1968, this movie has plenty of hippies.  The Pidgeon-Toed Orange Peel Nightclub was peak 60's hippie culture in feel.  Linny Raven's apartment had a paint scheme that reminded one of Scooby Doo's Mystery Machine.

According to Quentin Tarantino, this movie became the template for action movies for the next 25 years.  It does have a very familiar feel to it.  Not great, but certainly entertaining.

One-Sided Fact Checking

During the debate, the moderators were Johnny on the spot to offer corrections to Trump but somehow never had any corrections for Harris.  Obviously, Harris didn't say anything that needed fact checking.  Right.  Interestingly, the moderators had some facts on hand for some of Trump's claims, showing they had done their research.  For instance, when Trump brought up the cats being eaten by Haitian immigrants in Ohio, David Muir revealed that ABC had contacted the city manager and could not confirm the claims.  Wow, that's an obscure fact to have already checked.  Impressive.  But then Harris brought up Charlottesville, stating that Trump viewed Neo-Nazis as "very fine people."  Neither David Muir nor Linsey Davis challenged the claim.  So it is true?

No, even Snopes, not known to be a right-wing organization, rated this false.  This is a 7-year-old story where you can watch the video or read the transcript.  It is clear that Trump was stating that the fine people were those who wanted to keep Robert E. Lee's statue and those who wanted to remove it.  He specifically condemned Neo-Nazis:

I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.

Trump offered this clarification in the same response where he said "very fine people, on both sides."  Yet somehow, 7 years after the event, this is still unknown.  The news does not inform, it propagandizes.  The Fine People Hoax was debunked as soon as it was reported, but somehow Muir and Davis didn't have this fact check ready.

Muir himself had questioned Kamala in the 2020 primaries about gun control.  She was in favor of it.  While Biden was saying her executive order plan wasn't constitutional, she suggested he say "Yes we can."  Now, she says no one is coming for your guns.  Muir didn't need to research since he was moderating when she said it.  Silence.

Joe's Endorsement?

When I first saw this picture, I thought it was a phony.  Someone used photoshop to put a Trump hat on President Biden.  No, it turned out it was real.  So, then I thought he was so confused and out of it that he unwittingly wore the hat.  Wrong again.  Biden requested the hat from the man who was wearing it, placed it on top of the baseball cap he was wearing, smiled to the camera, then returned the Trump hat to the original wearer.  Wow, is someone maybe a bit miffed by how his party has treated him?  Coming after Trump stated in the debate that Biden hated Harris, the timing could hardly be worse.  Luckily, this incident won't get much play.  If it does, it will just be Joe Biden joking around.

The Debate

Strangely, it often seemed as though Kamala was the challenger and Trump the incumbent.  She repeatedly said she had a plan for this or a plan for that.  She is part of the current administration.  President Biden is not really the president.  She is second in command, right?  Why doesn't she institute some of these plans now?

That aside, Kamala was much stronger than I expected.  She had been very weak against Pence in 2020, but proved to be quite good here.  Of course, I disagreed with almost everything she said but she delivered well and offered good counterpoints.  Her attacks on Trump landed quite often. In fact, she put him on the defensive more often than he put her on the defensive.  She wisely offered only brief rebuttals to his attacks and immediately shifted to the attack.  By contrast, Trump spent more time countering her attacks which limited his own offense.  Kamala was better practiced and focused.  Trump had some points that he hit repeatedly but was usually unfocused.

The moderators were on Kamala's side.  There were hard questions for Trump and attacks on Trump queued up as questions for Kamala.  The hardest questions against Kamala were about her changing positions.  By contrast, the questions for Trump were along the line of 'Are you a bad person or a horrible person?'  The moderators eagerly jumped in to dispute Trump claims and repeatedly fact-checked him, but let Kamala get away with the fully debunked (even by Snopes) "Fine People" Hoax.  Nor did they have a follow up for Kalama about how she lobbied for bail money for Minneapolis rioters.  It was a three on one debate, which Trump should have expected and been better prepared to counter.  It reminded me of the debate between Trump and Clinton back in 2016.

Overall, it was a wash.  If you are for Trump, Trump won.  If you are for Kamala, Kamala won.  It is unlikely this debate will shift any views.  Where Biden shattered Democrat voters' confidence in the last debate, Kamala reassured them that she's not the incoherent cackler that she has been accused of being.  This will probably do her more good than it will do Trump.

The Cheney Endorsement

In much the way that President Obama's frequent calls for gun control caused gun sales to skyrocket, I suspect that former VP Dick Cheney's endorsement of Kamala is likely to have the opposite result of what he hopes.  From the very start of the George W Bush presidency, Cheney was viewed as the brains behind the administration.  After Bush picked him for VP, the word was that he brought 'gravitas' to the ticket.  Yeah, because George W Bush is not the most eloquent guy.  The Democrats heaped nearly as much blame on Cheney as Bush for the Bush Era.  Cheney spent 8 years as a prime Democrat boogieman, a villain beyond redemption, a former CEO of Halliburton!  Whatever he said was wrong or a lie.  Today, voters should listen to him about who should be president.  Really?

The Bush Administration got the US involved in Middle Eastern wars in a big way with Afghanistan and Iraq.  Though the Biden Administration pulls us out of Afghanistan, it has gotten us entangled in a far more dangerous war between Ukraine and Russia.  Trump wants to stop the war; Cheney endorses Kamala.  Coincidence?  You remember when the Democrats were anti-war?

If a Democrat from 2005 heard that Dick Cheney was endorsing a candidate, the Democrat would vote for the opposition.  Has the party drifted so far that Cheney is now a good guy?  Oddly, I am reminded of FBI Director Comey.  Throughout the 2016 Campaign, he was a hated villain for his pursuit of Hillary and her email server.  There was a natural distaste for him among Democrats.  On one of those late night shows (Colbert or Maher, I think), it was mentioned that Trump fired Comey.  The audience cheered.  They weren't supposed to cheer.  You see, Comey was undermining Trump, so he was a good guy now.  You bumpkins need to keep up with the times.

Topsy Turvy!

Topsy Turvy

The current election is seeing a realignment of the parties.  We have Republicans for Democrats and Democrats for Republicans, unions for Republicans and rich industrialists for Democrats.  It's going topsy turvy.  Here are a few highlights:

1. Former Republican Vice President Dick Cheney has endorsed Kamala Harris for president.  He is following his daughter, Liz Cheney (R), in this.  She was one of 2 Republicans on the J6 Select Committee that led to Trump's second impeachment.

2. Congressman Robert F Kennedy Jr. (D) suspended his independent run for the presidency and has endorsed Donald Trump.  The Kennedys are Democratic Party royalty, so this is more significant than the Cheneys going to Harris.

3. Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D), who ran for president in 2020, has endorsed Donald Trump.

4. Elon Musk voted for Biden in 2020, but is now endorsing Donald Trump.

5. Alan Dershowitz has declared "I am no longer a Democrat."  That doesn't mean he is voting for Trump, but he probably isn't voting for Kamala either.

When I was a youth, the Democrats were the party of free speech and the Republicans were the ones who wanted to put warnings on music lyrics, video games, and so forth.  Now, the Democrats are the party of censorship and the Republicans are the party of free speech.  How did that happen?  In the 1990s, the Democrats wanted to stem the tide of illegal immigration to protect American workers from low wage competition.  Today, the Democrats have opened the floodgates, and the country is awash in illegal immigrants.  What happened there?  I remember when the Democrats were the anti-war party, but now Trump is the anti-war candidate.  What explains that shift?

A realignment is underway in the United States and around the world.  The world order that was created in the wake of World War II is undergoing dramatic changes, breaking old party alliances and creating new ones.  That some prominent Republicans have thrown their support to Harris and Democrats have backed Trump just shows how upside down the world is at the moment.

Who Decides?

He [Musk] has lost his privileges and it should be taken down. ... There has to be a responsibility placed on these social media sites to understand their power. ...  They are speaking to millions and millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation.  That has to stop.

Kamala Harris

VP Harris spoke out against X/Twitter.  From her perspective, Free Speech is a privilege, not a right.  Musk has lost that privilege according to the would-be president.  What could he do to regain his privileges?  She wants oversight and regulation.  Right.  Who decides?  Who are these regulators and overseers who will make sure that social media understands its power and uses it responsibly?  Is her definition of responsible use the same as my definition of responsible use?  She is using the words oversight and regulation when she really means censorship.  What else could it be?  Proper grammar and punctuation?  No, the people have access to information (maybe misinformation) that the government would rather they didn't.  The government doesn't want to fight 'misinformation' with facts; they want to censor it.  The censors are always the bad guys.

France recently arrested a social media mogul for failing to properly regulate and oversee information.  Free speech must be restricted.  To allow the government to restrict it without admitting they are abridging free speech, they come up with terms like hate speech, misinformation, disinformation, and so forth.  Really, our censoring this is for your own good.  Honest.

The Day of the Jackal (1973)

In the early 1960s, many French were furious that DeGaulle had abandoned Algeria.  Some former legionnaires attempted to assassinate him.  The efforts had all failed and the Secret Army Organization (OAS) is too infiltrated with spies and turncoats to launch another attempt.  Thus, they decided to hire an outsider.  The Jackal (Edward Fox) has a brief meeting with the top men of the OAS and agrees to assassinate DeGaulle for $500,000, half in advance.  They accept.  The Jackal immediately sets about planning the assassination.  He gets a passport in a different name, he has a gunsmith make a special rifle that can be smuggled across the border, he scouts potential locations where he can take his shot.

Meanwhile, the French authorities know something is up.  The OAS has taken to robbing banks.  Why do they need the money?  None of those captured know, only that it was ordered.  Then there is the oddity that the commanders are all in hiding, protected by layers of bodyguards.  The interrogation of the one man who connects the leaders to the outside world gains precious little other than "Jackal" and foreigner.  From this tiny clue, Deputy Commissioner Claude Lebel (Michael Lonsdale) gets on the trail of the Jackal.

The Jackal has made extensive preparations.  He has additional passports to change identity.  In this pre-computer world, it took a small army to sort through the paperwork housed at government offices.  Of course, the Jackal also has sources.  There was a leak at the French Ministry and the Jackal knew his cover was blown and he needed to move and change identities.  Lebel was mere hours behind him now.  Despite the dire circumstances, DeGaulle refused to change his schedule.

An excellent thriller that feels very real.  Though the Jackal and Lebel are the central figures, the cast of characters is vast.  Even so, it is a tight story that keeps the focus.  Fred Zinnemann also directed such greats as High Noon (1952), From Here to Eternity (1953), and A Man for All Seasons (1966).

Highly recommended.