Debatable

 

Nothing can be said about last week’s presidential debate (debacle, more like) that hasn’t already been. So I will.

Trump lied with every word, avoided questions, made weird faces and no sense. Had President Biden performed as in years past, that would have been fatal for Trump. But he didn’t and it wasn’t. I wish the “moderators” had called out Trump’s lies and diversions; more, I wish President Biden had. But they didn’t and he didn’t.

I wish President Biden had announced, a year ago, that he wouldn’t run again. He didn’t and, so far, he is. I wish Trump had been asked about Project 2025 and said how he’d implement it. He wasn’t, so he didn’t. Because it’s the blueprint for enshrining the clear threat to democracy about which Democrats have been warning since Trump promised, “I am your retribution,” not asking was journalistic dereliction. By dismantling government, protective regulations, public education, separation of church and state, minority protections and making voting harder for them, and curtailing social programs, it’s an authoritarian manifesto that serves only the wealthy.

I wish I knew who has the best chance against Trumpism’s multifaceted threats. Whether the Democrats’ nominee will be President Biden or someone else, I’ll vote for that person without reservation. So should everyone who values democracy and competent, Constitutional governance, who’d rather not live in a far-right theocracy, who thinks science and quality public education are vital to our future. Who prefers safe water, food and consumer goods, breathable air, and a livable climate.

The deba-whatever-it-was didn’t change the stakes. Instead, it confirmed that Trump should never again be within wrecking distance of the Oval Office. No matter President Joe Biden’s acuity, we know he would continue to surround himself with the kinds of experts who helped him end the pandemic, create millions of jobs, begin rebuilding infrastructure, and lots more. And we know he’d respect the law.

Based on what he’s promised, openly, and on Projectile 2025, Trump would do the opposite. First time around he chose incompetents who ended up indicted. The few competents he let slip through ended up leaving and now warn against voting for him. This time he’d replace qualified government employees with people whose only qualification is willingness to help punish the people and entities he resents.

No matter his opponent, assuring Trump’s defeat is a patriotic duty. Don’t believe me? Listen to former MAGA, current conservative Joe Walsh’s NSFW declamation. Nothing is as important. Nothing. Dead people have won elections. We could do worse.

But Trump isn’t the only threat. SCOTUS’ decision about government agencies’ regulatory authority can be summarized in Chief Justice Roberts’ own words: “... [A]gencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do.” Unless Congress spells out every regulation and future need in precise, specific detail, he ruled, experts in government agencies can’t be allowed to define them. Only judges can. They’ll decide which chemicals are dangerous, what medications you can take, whether pollution is bad or climate change is real. Time was, conservatives eschewed that kind of judicial legislating.

Another SCOTUS judgment enshrines government corruption. A bribe, they said, is an illegal gift given before the giftee takes action. The same transaction, completed after gifters get what they want, is a permitted gratuity; a tip. “I’ll do what you want. Just don’t hand me the cash until after.” By no coincidence, Trump has promised to end taxing tips. In the presidential immunity ruling, Alito and Thomas expressed their gratitude.

With no basis in the Constitution, the Roberts Court invented rules saying anything a president does is above the law if defined as an “official act.” Compare and contrast: in my surgical practice, if I made a correct diagnosis, chose the appropriate operation, and carried it out properly, if the patient had complications it’s not, to me, anyway, malpractice. If, however, I chose the wrong operation and did it carelessly, causing harm, it is, no matter how “official.”

If Trump were to accept a “gratuity” in exchange for a pardon, or one from Putin for outing embedded agents, is he “officially” immune from prosecution? Trying to overturn a legitimate, fraud-free election? Stealing critical documents and lying about it? Yes, say John Roberts and his accomplices, arrogating to themselves the power to distinguish official from non-official acts. “Total immunity,” brayed Donald the First, regally.

Could Biden have SCOTUS’ Slaughterous Six arrested now? Guess so. But they understood that’s not who he is, so, casting their gaze upon a man who’s promised dictatorial abuse of power, they told him, “Go forth and subtract.”

The only, and likely the last chance to thwart this double-team attack on democracy is to vote for every Democratic candidate everywhere, sweep both houses of Congress, and then, enlarge the Court with four honest and ethical people.

Paraphrasing Pogo, we have met the remedy and it is us.

Swing And A Miss

Once again, I found myself less than whelmed while watching the (final, thankfully) debate. As to policies, just back and forth with McCain in particular ignoring responses to his thrusts and repeating them over and over. (I do think his dismissal of "health" of the mother -- with air quotes and an ugly face -- when discussing abortion did McCain no good.) With respect to the much anticipated attacks, the "kick his ass" plan of McCain, I'd say he missed badly, sounding crotchety and small, interrupting rudely.

Tie goes to the runner. Obama, being the smooth-running antelope, gets the win.

Bring It On

Sounds like John McCain is going to bring up the terrorism thing in tomorrow's debate. That's good news (and it would prove me wrong). Let's see, once the facts are on the table, how many people are moved to vote for the old guy. My guess: only those already there; way there. I suppose there's a chance Barack Obama could muff it, sound defensive. But I doubt it. Facts, as they say, have a well-known liberal bias.

Meanwhile, it's interesting to hear the rationalizations. McPOW seems unable to grasp that there's a difference between the candidates themselves whipping up the rabble by implying Obama consorts with and is himself a terrorist, and the occasional Obama supporter saying something stupid.

And we still have another three weeks of this crap.

Maver-Icky

In post-debate chatter, many talking heads and tapping fingers have noted that McCain didn't "take the opportunity" to attack Obama face to face over the now-prime issues of his campaign: that he sleeps with terrorists, hates America, and disrespects our troops. The righties say McPOW is too nice or he blew it, or some combination of the above; the lefties say he didn't have the guts.

I think the reason is very clear: he didn't want to give Obama an opportunity, on national television, to refute -- which McCain knows he could have done easily and eloquently -- those smears. He'd much rather be able to continue to use them.

His "failure" to raise the issues was nothing of the sort. It was part and parcel of his cynical, desperate, and extremely revealing campaign. The only amazing thing about it is that there are those, Broderites, who continue to argue that the "real" McCain, the decent hero, hates doing this, and that's why he seems so angry. Bullshit. The real McCain IS angry, all the time. The real McCain is the guy we see now, stripped of his carefully crafted and credulously continued (by the press) disguise. "Stealth candidate?" Now we know who.

Obligatory Post-Debate Post

Sorta boring. No major fluffs. Obama silky, McCain clunky. "That one." "I know how to (insert here, choose among 1) catch bin Laden 2) win wars 3) fix the economy 4) solve problems." "My friends, my friends, my friends, my friends." "Freeze spending." "Spend three hundred billion on mortgages."

"Gentlemen, we worked really hard on these rules." "Green lights." "Red lights." "Arm wave."

Gimmicky format: town hall? Say what?

"You don't announce your intentions to your enemies." "Bomb bomb Iran."

Usual partisan spinners aside, the strong plurality of polls suggest an Obama win.

Are "undecideds" really undecided, or do they just figure (wrongly) it doesn't make any difference?

If I Had A Ham.....

Barack Obama has said the current economic collapse is the "final verdict" on the Bush/McCain economic policies. Republicans are saying it's not the policies, it's the execution. Lowering taxes raises revenues, lowering taxes raises revenues, lowering taxes raises revenues. The only reason it's never worked is because spending was never under control. And the only reason deregulation hasn't worked is because people got greedy.

My mom used to say "If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had eggs."

I'll stipulate: taxing at 100% would stifle the economy. You stipulate: taxing at 0% would stifle the government. Clearly, there's a range, a taxonomic sweet spot. Reagan never found it, Bush and Bush never found it. Clinton seems to have. During his presidency, the economy soared, revenues leapt, the budget was balanced. Over the objections of the Newtonian congress, with only Democrats favoring, taxes were increased. It's been argued that it was only after certain tax cuts were forced, in 1997, by the Republican congress, that the economy really took off. Well, maybe. It's interesting, though, that as soon as things started falling apart under Bush, Republicans immediately started blaming it all on Clinton. So which is it? 1997 was the reason for everything wonderful, or the 1993 plan was so evil it caused problems even after it was Reaganized?

Here's the thing: let's assume it was the 1997 Republicans that saved the economy. Maybe that was, in fact, the sweet spot. What, then, about the increased tax cuts of George Bush? Might we not all agree that he missed the zone? That a return to the tax status of 1997 might, in fact, make sense? And isn't that, after all, what Obama and the Democrats have been proposing? Get back to the tax levels which were, in fact, a compromise between Clinton's 1993 plan and the Republican push-back; and which the Republicans are touting as the real reason for Clinton's success? Seems like an easy agreement. We already made it once.

If we cut taxes, we'll balance a budget, if we cut spending. 

If we had ham, we'd have ham and eggs, if we had eggs.

Mass Debaters

My most clear-headed assessment of the debate is that it was a draw. No major screwups by either man, no clear scores. Minds will not change. In the end, mostly the expected talking points, no new ground broken; the most specific questions were avoided by both.

In other words, generally a waste of time.

I do look forward to the VP debate, expecting hilarity and the dropping of jaws. I hope I won't be disappointed.

[Update: I could be wrong.]