Bleeding Minnesota

In the 1850s, Senator Stephen A. Douglas had argued in favor of popular sovereignty, a system where the people of a state would decide whether slavery would be legal or not.  This idea was tested with the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act.  Though both states were north of the previously agreed upon 36th parallel, the act allowed them to organize how they chose.  Unsurprisingly (well, it must have been a surprise to Douglas & President Franklin Pierce), abolitionists and pro-slave forces flooded into Kansas.  Murder and mayhem followed: Bleeding Kansas.  John Brown was quite active, gaining his fame or infamy depending on one's point of view.  It is agreed that this was a big step on the way to Civil War.

Today, the question is illegal immigration.  Again, we have a popular sovereignty where some states encourage illegal immigration and protect those immigrants from deportation.  The term Sanctuary City goes back decades.  There are many who are strongly opposed to illegal immigration.  Unlike the case in the 19th Century where slavery was not only legal, but Constitutional, illegal immigration is clearly illegal.  There is no argument in favor on the basis of law.  Sanctuary cities have always been enabling lawlessness, which the federal government has tolerated to varying degrees.

Just as the slavery question grew more and more contentious as the 19th century progressed, the issue of illegal immigration has done the same.  One could argue that Donald Trump won both his elections on that issue alone.  Trump is to illegal immigration what Lincoln was to slavery.  Why is illegal immigration so important to those who support it?  They would claim human decency.  That is no more convincing than when slave owners declared their slaves to be too stupid to take care of themselves.  No, there are several benefits.  First, illegals count in the census, which is why there was such a ruckus when Trump tried to get a question about legal status on the 2020 Census.  If one accepts the long-stated 12 million illegals, that is 16 seats in the House of Representatives, even if illegals don't vote.  If they do vote (and many have), they are going to reliably vote for the pro-illegal immigrant party (i.e., Democrats).  Then there is the money.  As has been exposed with the Somali daycares, a lot of money is supporting illegals in America.  How much of that gets kicked back to political campaigns or activism?

Much as the American South had built a culture on exploiting slaves, the Democratic Party of today has built a system that exploits illegal immigrants.  Like the slave, the immigrant doesn't have recourse to law; he will be deported.  The illegal immigrant is just a variation of the same old Democratic playbook: cheap labor and greater electoral representation.  Just as they resorted to violence to protect and extend slavery in Kansas, they are resorting to violence in Minnesota.  ICE represents the abolitionists.

Contempt of Congress

Peter Navarro and Steve Bannon both refused to comply with congressional subpoenas to testify before the J6 Committee.  Both were then held in Contempt of Congress.  Eventually, both were found guilty of defying the subpoenas and sentenced to a 4-month stint in jail.  This was an escalation from previous incidents.  For example, Attorney General Eric Holder was held in Contempt of Congress, but he did not go to jail.  Of course, he wasn't going to prosecute himself.  Lois Lerner of the IRS was found in Contempt, but she was not prosecuted either.  Interestingly, Eric Holder was the AG.  It is noteworthy that the Republicans were jailed while the Democrats were not prosecuted.

Bill and Hillary Clinton have refused to comply with congressional subpoenas to testify regarding Jeffery Epstein.  Where the Biden Administration went hard on former President Donald Trump and those who served in his administration (Navarro and Bannon), what will the Trump Administration do?  Did the Democrats cross the Rubicon by jailing Navarro & Bannon and serially prosecuting Trump?  If the Republicans don't do the same in return, will the temperature be lowered when a Democrat again takes office or will they have missed their one opportunity to prevent their demise?  Sounds crazy.

Political assassinations and violence have been rising.  Democrats have shown an eagerness to use government against their rivals, which has been ongoing for a long time.  Lois Lerner was accused of targeting right-leaning groups, thus her contempt charge.  That was more than a decade ago.  By the time President Biden was in office, the FBI was searching a former First Lady's underwear drawer.  Blue states are resisting ICE's efforts to remove criminal aliens, which has resulted in violence and deaths.  Yes, things are escalating.  Tim Pool's long-standing claim that Civil War II is coming - maybe it is already here - looks to be less outlandish every day.

Democrats had no problem attempting to imprison Donald Trump.  Turnabout is fair play.  Jail Bill and Hillary for Contempt of Congress, just like Democrats did to Navarro and Bannon.  Only when the stakes are even can the temperature be brought down.  Either everyone gets the Holder/Lerner slap on the wrist or everyone gets 4-months in jail.  No two-tiered system.

The Race Tightens

Five years after the fact, Trump is on the brink of winning the 2020 election.  Fulton County, Georgia, has admitted that 315,000 ballots were unlawfully certified.  Joe Biden carried the county by a 73% to 26% margin, so most of those votes went into his column.  The margin of victory for the state of Georgia was just shy of 12,000 votes.  Removing the invalid ballots would flip the state to Trump.  It has already been determined that Pennsylvania's new voting law was unconstitutional.  Nixing those invalid ballots would likewise flip that state.  Georgia is worth 16 electoral votes and Pennsylvania is worth 20.  That 36-point shift would drop Biden from 306 to 270 and raise Trump from 232 to 268.  The race is getting close!

Next, it might be time to take a closer look at Maricopa County in Arizona.  Here is a county that has voted Republican in every election since 1952 with the exception of 2020.  That is odd.  Biden carried the state by only 10,500 votes, but the typically Republican County by 45,000 votes.  Perhaps investigate the surge of absentee votes after midnight from Milwaukee in Wisconsin.  Biden carried Wisconsin by only 21,000 votes.  If either of these have issues like Georgia or Pennsylvania, the 2020 election flips.

Does it matter at this point?  Yes.  If our elections are tending toward becoming mere shows, like those in China, North Korea, Russia, and so on, then the country is over.  Once the Deep State can consistently choose the winner (or even just the party nominees), the country is at an end.

Still a Rookie?

Though I have never watched the show, I noted that The Rookie, with Nathan Fillion, is in its 7th season and apparently has been renewed for an 8th season.  Shouldn't the show be renamed?  Generally, you're only a rookie for your first year.  Was the naming of the show just a lack of confidence.  What are the odds this thing gets a second season?  Clearly, better than expected.  That was the danger of such a title.  There was a webcomic called The Noob, which is a common name for a new player.  However, it isn't very long before the character no longer qualified as a noob.  Now what?  Can't very well change the name now.

Looking at this, I strongly advise producers of a Western TV show to avoid the title of Greenhorn.  Don't title a show about college students, The Freshmen.  Donald Trump was able to get away with The Apprentice because it was a new group each year.  

Trump Returns

Trump is back.  He is now the 2nd president to have non-consecutive terms, repeating the feat of Grover Cleveland: 1885 to 1889 and 1893 to 1897.  Trump's inaugural address was a long list of Biden policies that he will reverse or his own former policies that he will restore.  He spent a good portion of his speech decrying the damage done over the last 4 years and his intent to repair it.  Not one to shy away from hyperbole, he declared that the Golden Age of America was beginning now, and that the best four year of American history would follow.  Some of the highlights:

1. We're taking back the Panama Canal
2. Stay in Mexico policy restored
3. Gulf of Mexico is now Gulf of America
4. There are only two genders
5. Military ejected for failure to take COVID vaccine will be reinstated with back pay
6. No more wars.  He will be a peacemaker
7. Weaponization of DOJ will end
8. Denali in Alaska will once again be called Mount McKinley
9. Speaking of McKinley, he liked tariffs.  Let's do that again
10. External Revenue Service - collect taxes from other countries
11. Drill, baby, drill.  Let's get that liquid gold
12. End the electric car mandate
13. DOGE: the Department of Government Efficiency
14. Let's go to Mars!

America is the greatest country and every other country envies us.  They will envy us more now.

It was a practical speech that set out goals and expectations.  Here is the initial blueprint for America's future.  It was a call to arms against the powers that be.  It was missing the line: "There's a new sheriff in town," but it communicated that message loud and clear.  It lacked the soaring rhetoric of Reagan or Obama.  It had the subtly of a cudgel.

Three Time Nominee

Generally speaking, politicians only win the nomination for president one or two times.  Parties normally only nominate the politician for a 2nd time if he is the incumbent.  To take examples from recent years, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton, George W Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump were each nominated for 2nd terms while Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole, Al Gore, John Kerry, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Hillary Clinton were not renominated.  The winners get a second shot while the losers are usually tossed aside.  Of course, there are exceptions.  Sometimes the loser is given a second chance.  For instance, Adlai Stevenson lost to Eisenhower in 1952, but was nominated again in 1956; he lost again.  In a couple of cases, there have been three-time losers: both Henry Clay & William Jennings Bryan were nominees in 3 separate elections.

Looking only at men who served as president, how many of them were nominated on three separate occasions?

Thomas Jefferson was the Democratic-Republican nominee for president in 1796, 1800, and 1804.  He came in second place in 1796, which secured him the vice presidency.  He won the presidency in 1800 and was nominated for re-election in 1804.

Andrew Jackson was one of four Democratic-Republican nominees in 1824.  Though he won the plurality of electoral votes and popular vote, he lost to John Quincy Adams in the contingent election.  He was the Democratic nominee (the Democratic-Republican party had split into factions after the 1824 debacle) in both 1828 and 1832.

Martin Van Buren was Andrew Jackson's chosen successor.  He won in 1836 and was renominated in 1840.  Though he lost in 1840, he became the Free-Soil Party candidate in 1848, marking his 3rd time running in the general election.

Grover Cleveland ran for office in 1884 and won.  However, when he ran for re-election in 1888, he lost to Benjamin Harrison.  He secured the Democratic nomination again in 1892 and won.  He was the first president to serve non-consecutive terms.

Richard Nixon ran for president in 1960.  He lost to JFK.  However, he managed to win the nomination again in 1968 and went on to win the presidency.  He won re-election in 1972, though he didn't finish his term.

Donald Trump duplicated Grover Cleveland's feat.  He won in 2016, lost his 2020 re-election bid, but then came back to win in 2024.

Of this group, Jefferson, Jackson, Cleveland, and Trump were nominees in three consecutive elections.

Maybe the Parties Did Flip?

Recently, someone noted that Trump, RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, and Elon Musk all used to be Democrats.  In fact, Ronald Reagan had been a Democrat in his younger days.  Reagan often said that the party left him rather than he left the party. Tulsi had run for president as a Democrat during the 2020 primaries, but she soon broke with her party on topics such as LGBTQ, the border, and foreign policy.  Her views on all of these would have been mainstream Democrat in 2008 when Obama won the presidency, but were now viewed as 'far right' positions.  RFK Jr. has been an environmentalist for all of his professional life and a vaccine skeptic for nearly 20 years.  He was a Democrat through all that time until last year, when he became an independent.  Then he supported the Republican to Make America Healthy Again.  Why didn't his message resonate with his old party?  Elon voted for Biden in 2020.  However, the censorship that followed led him to buy Twitter.  Like RFK Jr., he is clearly on the environmentalist side of the aisle - traditionally aligning with Democrats - but he too switched to the Republican candidate.  Elon has tweeted this image to show how he didn't leave the party, it left him:

Remember, Obama opposed same sex marriage in 2008, the trans issue was on the far fringe, and Democrats were the anti-war party.  Today, Trump is anti-war, has no issue with same sex marriage, and opposes transgenderism with regard to minors.

When the party flip story is told, it is always about racism.  Democrats grew into anti-racists and Republicans - the party created to oppose slavery - adopted racism to win votes.  No.  That is false.  However, it does seem that the parties have traded some policies over the years.

Department of Cost Cutting?

Trump has talked about utilizing Elon Musk as a government efficiency expert.  Musk himself has posted about a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which neatly aligns with a cryptocurrency that is associated with him.  Clever.  The new idea from Trump was a Secretary of Cost Cutting.  Much as I want government spending trimmed, a new department is not the way to do it.  The department might work worders for an administration or two, but it would soon suffer the fate of all government agencies: a desire to grow.  Soon, the trick of cost cutting would match the current definition.

Today, government cuts are made to the rate of growth.  So, if the Department of Superfluous Spending had a budget of $20 million this year and was projected to get a 10% increase, the Department of Cost Cutting could announce a $1 million cut so that the budget for next year is only $21 million.  Yes, all those budget cuts through the years have been of this sort.  The DOGE would adopt this strategy within a decade and become a useless waste of taxpayer money, like most government agencies.

Even if Elon does a miraculous job, it will only be a brief pause in the ever-expanding government.  Congressional action is required to shrink government.  Departments must be eliminated, not merely partially defunded.  Funds will just pour back in down the line.  Follow Argentina's Milei and slash government agencies.

The Next Assassin

A heavily-armed man (shotgun & handgun) with fake press credentials attempted to enter a Trump rally.  In his vehicle, they found fake passports and driver's licenses.  Whether he intended to assassinate Trump is not clear; the Riverside County Sheriff is certain that an assassination attempt was foiled while federal agencies currently disagree.  Was he just a guy who forgot to leave his guns at home when going to a presidential rally?  Gee, that seems unlikely.  What's with all the passports and the phony press pass and VIP pass?  Based on what I've heard so far, I'd lean toward the sheriff's view.

What is causing all these crackpot assassins?  Usually, assassins are young men, but this one is in his late 40s and the last one was in his 50s.  The crackpot who shot at a bunch of Republicans on a baseball field several years ago was also an older man.  This is unusual.  There is something about our modern society that breeds crazies.  There were no school shootings when I was a kid.  It started in the late 90s and continues today.  What changed?

Turnabout is Fair Play

If it is okay to compare Trump to Hitler, then it is okay to call Kamala Harris mentally disabled.  The gloves have been off for decades when it comes to Democrat attacks on Republicans (I can't remember a Republican presidential candidate who wasn't compared to Hitler), but when Trump replies in kind, everyone freaks out.  The milquetoast Republicans like Lindsey Graham are joining with Democrats to complain about the rhetoric.  This notion that Trump's name-calling is tearing the country apart, but Democrats calling opponents fascists and racists is acceptable is ludicrous.  Let the voters decide whether the rhetoric is appropriate or not.

As for claims that Kamala Harris is mentally disabled, have you listened to her responses to questions?

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.

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. 

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 Kamala 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 put all the blame on Trump, ignoring that he had offered to call up the National Guard beforehand.

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.

President Kamala Harris: Day 1

After more than a month as the nominee, Kamala Harris final agreed to an interview.  Dana Bash started off by asking, "What would you do on day one?"

Well, there are a number of things. I will tell you first and foremost one of my highest priorities is to do what we can to support and strengthen the middle class. When I look at the aspirations, the goals, the ambitions of the American people, I think that people are ready for a new way forward in a way that generations of Americans have been fueled by — by hope and by optimism.

I think sadly in the last decade, we have had in the former president someone who has really been pushing an agenda and an environment that is about diminishing the character and the strength of who we are as Americans — really dividing our nation. And I think people are ready to turn the page on that.

 

Okay, that was a non-answer.  It prompted Dana Bash to a follow-up question: "So what would you do day one?"

Day one, it’s gonna be about one, implementing my plan for what I call an opportunity economy. I’ve already laid out a number of proposals in that regard, which include what we’re gonna do to bring down the cost of everyday goods, what we’re gonna do to invest in America’s small businesses, what we’re gonna do to invest in families.

For example, extending the child tax credit to $6,000 for families for the first year of their child’s life to help them buy a car seat, to help them buy baby clothes, a crib. There’s the work that we’re gonna do that is about investing in the American family around affordable housing, a big issue in our country right now. So there are a number of things on day one.

 

At least this time she offered a policy: $6000 tax credit for a newborn.  Then we have a return to the vague aspirations of her administration.  This is so unspecific that it could come from either a Democrat or a Republican.  That is not accidental.

The funniest thing about her interview was that it gave the impression that Trump was the incumbent and she was the challenger.  Things are tough but we'll sort them out when she is president.  Huh?  Why not sort them now when she is VP?  Then she had her line about the last decade being contrary to the country's spirit.  Even Bash had to point out that she has been VP for the last 3 and a half years of that contrarian decade.

Love him or hate him, Trump doesn't dodge the press or offer empty platitudes.  He'll tell you his policy, even the wreckless and ill-considered ones.  Government funded IVF?  Really?  We don't have enough government funded items?  Trump talks unfiltered for hours while Harris has a 20-minute sit-down with her VP nominee at her side.  This is the 2020 hide-in-the-basement strategy.  Let's avoid making errors and hope Trump implodes.  Let's leave the electorate uninformed about us and hope they paint a rosy picture, like they did with Joe Biden.

Why Not Switch Again?

Donald Trump spent most of the last year attacking President Biden and his handling of the country.  Part of a campaign is defining your opponent and outlining how you would do things differently.  When Biden withdrew from the race, all the effort spent defining the opposition went away.  It was no longer important.  Biden's not the nominee.  Flush all that opposition research and campaign strategy.  A fresh nominee, largely untouched by Trump's long campaign against her predecessor, suddenly surged in the polls.  Where Biden was headed toward almost certain defeat, VP Harris is currently polling in the toss-up range.  Dumping Biden was strategic brilliance by the Democrats.  That astonishingly early presidential debate now looks like a Democratic ploy to sink Biden rather than inform the public.

It has been less than three weeks, and the Harris-Walz Campaign has stalled.  It's still in toss-up territory, but the Republican criticisms are sticking.  Walz may not have been the best choice for VP.  Harris is dodging the press, not having done an interview since her ascension to the top spot on the ballot.  What if she starts sinking?  She was such a weak candidate in 2020 that she withdrew from the campaign before the voting even began.  She is not a strong nominee and is only doing as well as she is because she's not Biden.  What if she is just a place holder, another false nominee for the Republicans to waste their ammunition on?

Are Joe Biden's delegates committed to Harris?  When the Democratic Convention convenes and the delegates vote, what is to stop them from picking someone else?  We are in uncharted waters with this nomination.  Do the rules say that the VP nominee automatically gets the delegates if the Presidential nominee drops out?  If not, it could be a free for all.  Here is another opportunity to dump a candidate that the Republicans have spent a month attacking.  A new nominee would clean the slate yet again.  With the election then less than 3 months away, the Republicans would have to once again adapt their strategy while the Democrats have been attacking the same person all along.

I think it is 50-50 that the Democrats choose a different nominee at the convention.  They need someone with less baggage than either Kamala Harris (Willie Brown's most favored mistress) or Tim Walz (the Afghanistan veteran who didn't go to Afghanistan).

Only a Patsy?

The crazy stories about the assassination attempt on Trump are rolling now.  There is a video that shows the would-be assassin working his way across the roof.  It was filmed by someone behind Trump.  At one point, though very grainy, the figure suddenly vanished.  The commenter claims that was when Crooks was killed, before he even aimed his rifle.  Ergo, his only purpose was to distract from the real shooter while never actually firing himself.  Right.  Another post claims to show a bullet flying in the opposite direction, missing Trump shortly before the bullet that hit him.  Okay.  So, that would be our third shooter?  How many incompetent shooters were there?  I can accept that one guy was a bad shot.  I cannot accept that he was just a patsy for another shooter who was an equally bad shot.  Wait, there's more.  It is claimed that someone shorted Truth Social stock the day before Trump was shot.  Had he been killed, that person would have made a fortune when Truth Social stock price crashed.  Coincidence?  The poster thinks not.  Then there is the oddity that CNN was broadcasting this particular rally.  CNN hasn't regularly broadcast Trump's rallies, but this one in Butler merited coverage.  Coincidence?  Again, the poster thinks not.

Absolutely everything is suspicious and the web of conspiracy theories is growing bigger by the day.  What seems outlandish today will probably look tame a month from now.  Image how many iPhone videos of this event are just waiting to be reviewed.  Abraham Zapruder happened to be filming when JFK was shot and his film has been analyzed frame by frame ever since.  Now we have hundreds of Zapruders with their portable video cameras.  The madness has only just begun.