White House Race- March 9, 2024

It has been a long and eventful seven days and every week, there are always items that could be covered that I forget to write about. I had a lot of thoughts about politics during the course of this past week,but it is difficult to remember them all on Saturdays. These posts are definitely an unhappy chore, that I try to zip through as quickly as possible.

The main development is that the general election is now all but set. There is not a huge surprise in that but it is going to be a perilous eight months for the country. The first primaries for Congressional and state offices were held this past Tuesday and those will be the only remaining contests until November that might contain any drama. There could be surprise results on both sides, as polarization within ideological bases of both parties increase. Republicans face it over Russia and Ukraine and Democrats face it going Israel and Gaza.

Looking back first to this past Sunday, I did not even realize that Washington D.C. would be holding a primary. The news was that Nikki Haley beat Donald Trump by a solid margin. Beating a former or current President in any Presidential primary is pretty unheard of, at least since 1980. In achieving this victory in D.C. (which probably irked Trump to no end), Haley became the first ever Republican woman to win a Presidential primary. Also, unless I am overlooking something, I am pretty sure she is also the first Asian-American to ever win a Presidential primary in either party.

This would pretty much be the highlight of the week for Haley though. On "Super Tuesday", Donald Trump romped to large victories almost everywhere. The one footnote was that Haley narrowly took Vermont, in which she was certainly helped by Democrat voters wanting to vote against Trump. The results though from the other states made it clear that Republican Primary voters either really want Trump or had just come to the conclusion that the race was over and voted accordingly trying to officially end it. Still though, one cannot ignore the exit polls which showed that so many of Haley's voters were saying they did not plan to vote for Trump in November.

On the Democrat side, incumbent Joe Biden took all of the states by very sizable margins. Voters in Minnesota were even more vocal though in picking "Uncommitted" than Michigan was a week earlier, showing some warning signs for Biden's party. The one true historical oddity came from American Samoa where the President of the United States lost the Caucus 51 votes to 40. No, not to Dean Phillips, or Marianne Williamson, or a write-in for Oprah or anything like that. He lost it to someone named Jason Palmer, whom I had never even heard of. I would have guessed Jason Palmer was a former backup quarterback or a relative of the fictional President on the old show "24." Instead, he is a Maryland businessman,who never stepped foot in American Samoa, but campaigned there virtually, and the investment paid off. Palmer will now be one of the hardest ever to answer political trivia questions for all eternity. Fifty-one votes to forty.

The Wednesday after Super Tuesday had some headlines. The lesser of which was Dean Phillips ending his quixotic campaign and strongly endorsing Joe Biden, whom days ago, he was saying could not beat Trump. The bigger news though was on the Republican side.

It seemed clear that Nikki Haley was viewing Super Tuesday as the end of the road. She held no events on primary night, and stayed home in South Carolina. There was nothing planned for her campaign in regards to further campaign spots or ad buys. So, on Wednesday morning, she appeared before some supporters and gave a relatively brief statement in which she suspended her campaign. In this statement, she did not endorse Trump, but wished him well and said the onus was now on him to earn the voters of her supporters. She also said, "I hope he will." Well, to say the least that disappoints me but does not surprise me. It seems pretty inevitable that she is looking for a reason to endorse Trump for the general election sooner or later.

Before she spoke, but after it was clear she was dropping out, Trump issued a typical nasty statement attacking Haley. Since then, he has taken no steps to extend any sort of actual olive branch to Haley's voters. Such a thing is just not Trump's style. So, it is clear that he is actively missing an opportunity there and it could be a very harmful one long-term. I will hold out hope that Haley keeps that in mind.

Reportedly, Joe Biden spoke to Nikki Haley via phone on Wednesday. The President's campaign released a very complimentary statement about the former Republican candidate and made it clear that despite differences that might be had, there was a place for Haley's supporters in his campaign. To say the least, this was a very different tactic than Trump took. Such talk from Biden was the reason I actually did what I once thought was unthinkable in 2020 and actually checked a box to vote for him, even though it was a means to oppose Trump. As President though, Biden and his party have shown to me very little inclination to include Republicans, former Republicans, or center-right folks as part of what they consider important. So, it is hard for me to think that Biden and his party actually mean it this time. You know the old saying, one bitten, twice shy. Still, it would be foolish for them not to at least try. I note that the DNC went out of its way to attack Asa Hutchinson and Chris Christie when they dropped out, even though they made it clear they were not going to back Trump.Now, they are following Biden's lead and taking a very different tone in refusing to dance on the political grave of Nikki Haley, even though she will probably wind up endorsing Trump.

With contested Presidential primaries now over, attention turned to Thursday night's State of the Union Address, always an anticipated event, but especially so this year, with an incumbent seeking reelection, and dogged by low numbers and serious questions about his mental and physical health. It was clear that it would be a very political speech, designed more towards the Democrats' activist base than the country at large, but it was even more of a "convention type" speech than I even imagined, just with half the room being the opposition. I realize that the political environment of today basically gave Biden little choice, but still I think it is was sad for the country that our politics has gotten to this point. Now, I will offer some thoughts on the evening.

Biden took his time making it to the rostrum. For one thing, he had to contend with attention seeking Republicans like Marjorie Taylor Green, who violated House rules by wearing a Trump 2024 hat. All of this made for some interesting television. As he approached the front of the chamber, Biden encountered two retiring Senators who happen to be good friends of each other. After shaking hands with both, Biden was caught speaking these words to Joe Manchin, in regards to Mitt Romney. "This guy has total integrity. That's a fact" I agree Mr. President, Mitt Romney is a politician with actual integrity and I am glad you said it. What a departure though from 2012, when he was running against your ticket and you told a black audience that he would "put y'all back in chains." Comments like that contributed to the poisoned political environment that basically radicalized conservatives and led to the emergence of Trump.

In my view, Biden started off the speech strong, He led off right away with Ukraine and then went into shaming Republicans over January 6, 2021. On these parts, I agreed with pretty much everything he said. Speaker Mike Johnson, someone nobody expected would have been in his chair a year ago, looked entirely uncomfortable having to stay seated and silent as others in the House Chamber (mostly Democrats) stood and applauded in regards to supporting Ukraine and opposing Putin. I do not know what Speaker Johnson was expecting, but he looked pained and uncomfortable for much of the speech. I cannot say I felt any sympathy for him, and I will include the part about immigration in which Biden pointed out that Republicans had helped draft a conservative bill that they later jettisoned because Trump would rather have an issue to run on than trying to solve a serious problem.If these were the only portions of the speech, I might be tempted to vote for Biden again.

Alas though, on the substance, from his stance on abortion, to massive new federal spending proposals, to typical left-wing anti-rich class warfare, I did not like so much else of what was part of the speech, After all, I am a conservative and always have been one.

The "style" mattered more than the "substance" though in this speech, as people were curious to how Biden would perform. Sure, there were some minor gaffes and flubbed words, but the political reality is that Biden, who spoke in a very loud voice (which understandably can lead to coughing fits at times) "performed" very well and likely did a lot of damage to the Republican narrative of him being in sharp mental decline. Yes, he looked old, but he seemed to enjoy the stakes of the occasion. Nobody in serious mental decline could read a teleprompter and get at least about 95 percent of the words right. In watching the speech, and hearing and seeing the reaction of Congressional Democrats, I realized that many panicked activists in his party would wind up feeling better about Biden, at least for one night. People, especially young ones, tend to have very low attention spans.

Republicans had been cautioned to be on their best behavior during the speech, but some, like MTG, could not resist themselves and played into Biden's hands. On the way to the podium, the President took a button about Laken Riley, a nursing student recently murdered by an illegal immigrant. That is a tragic story all around. Democrats try to ignore it and Republicans try to exploit it. Many did not think Biden would mention her name, but when MTG started shouting, he held up the pin and said her name, albeit perhaps as "Lincoln Riley."  He said yes she was killed by an "illegal" and his heart went out to her family, and then also tried to point out in somewhat garbled way that many Americans are also killed by "legals." The main takeway was that Biden was lucid and quick enough to have what was seen as a spontaneous moment. He spent so much of the speech openly goading the Republicans and trying to get them to react. In that regard, he got the best of them.

Some on the left were angry though that he used the term "illegal" instead of "undocumented." Pressure from within the base of the party was strong enough for Biden to say today that he wished he did not use that term. I wish he had more backbone.in standing up to his party.

Everyone knew Biden would speak about Israel and Gaza, a huge story that has gone from us largely forgetting what actually happened on October 7 to dealing with the reality of Israel's campaign to eradicate Hamas. I could go on and on about that but it is very clear there are a lot of people in America and around the world who simply cannot accept the fact that Israel allows massive attacks on Jews to go unanswered in this day and age.

The Biden-Harris Administration now uses the word "ceasefire" as a sop to the left, but substantively, they do not seem to actually mean it. They know that realizing hostages and things of that nature are not something Hamas is going to be willing to do. They know full well that the impediment of a ceasefire is Hamas, and not Israel, but yet they have to pander to the anti-Israel crowd. It is all very unfortunate. I think Biden could do himself a favor by positioning himself as a principled leader who is willing to stand up to extremists on all sides. However, he only stands up to the right and not the left. All things considered, the specific words he said in criticism of Israel in the speech were fairly mild, and many on the left were disappointed. I am disappointed he said not one word about all the rising instances of anti-Semitism we have seen in America the past few months. Of course, he would have had to include Islamaphobia as a counter in that as well, but it should have been said.

Benjamin Netanyahu is the long-time (with some time out of office as well) Prime Minister of Israel. He has done so much for his country in his career, but long before October 7, I thought he should be replaced. Term-limits are a good thing everywhere, and I wish they would have applied to him. He seems to have a lot of personal interest in staying in office and has had to do a lot of political things to maintain his office. He will not be Prime Minister forever though and the thought that people only dislike Israel because of him is an incorrect one. No, some folks are going to hate Israel regardless of whom the Prime Minister is. They simply do not think Israel has the right to exist and the bottom line also is that any Israeli Prime Minister will realize they have no choice to fight Hamas for the country's own survival, even if there are unquestioned civilian suffering on the other side as well, because Hamas has put those people in that position. I continue to insist that while thousands have obviously died in Gaza, accepting a specific number directly from Hamas is a very bad precedent.

So, Biden and Netanyahu have been having conflict. I think it is far less of Biden thinking "Bibi" is actually in the wrong, than the realization of what angry anti-Israel leftists might mean to Joe's political coalition and ability to win reelection. Thus, Biden wants it known publicly that he is "mad" at Bibi. After the SOTU was over, Biden hung around forever, chatting with friends and former colleagues who stuck around, largely to congratulate him. He was also still mic'ed up. At one point, he told a Senator and a couple Cabinent members to "don't repeat this"but that he planning to have a "come to Jesus meeting" with the Israeli Prime Minister.

Some think Biden said this intentionally to get out over the hot mic. I do not. I think he intended to say it as a private joke and as a Jewish-American, I definitely found it offensive. Whatever one thinks of Netanyahu, everyone obviously knows he is Jewish and Jesus should have nothing to do with our diplomacy. Had Donald Trump ever used a phrase like this in regards to a Jewish leader, there would have been massive outrage. For that matter, let us consider the international firestorm that would have developed had George W. Bush been caught saying that about a Muslim leader. However, Biden saying it about Netanyahu has largely been shrugged off by everyone in the media. When asked about it, Biden refused to offer any sort of apology, which is far different than what he was forced to do over the use of the world "illegal."

 

I do not think Biden is an anti-Semite, but this was a very inappropriate thing for any American President to say, whether "eavesdropped" or not. A Christian saying a Jewish person needs to "come to Jesus" might seem like a metaphor, but it has historical meaning and has been used to harm Jews for generations.  This is not the time for anybody to be engaging in anti-Semitic tropes, even in a joking or symbolic way. I will note that some Evangelical Christians on the right who criticized Biden for this probably should check themselves, because they happen to openly believe that all Jews must "come to Jesus" or face eternal damnation. Speaking for myself, this off-hand comment from Biden really soured me on any inclination I had to be happy about him giving a kind of speech that might help him against Republicans,. Our politics is very confusing these days for someone like me though.

Bizarre is the word that can best describe the official Republican response given by 42 year old freshman Alabama Senator Katie Britt. Official responses to the SOTU usually get panned. It is a tough assignment to do, but this one was really weird. Republicans always trot out a female for this role (there has been some talk that Trump himself might be the one to give it), but in this case, they literally had Britt deliver it in her kitchen, which is some unfortunate symbolism.

The weird thing is that Britt is actually very respected. She is clearly the smarter Senator from Alabama and was seen as a rising star in the party. She has very deep "establishment" credentials and when I have seen her speak before, she sounds absolutely normal. Clearly, she was going to be very harsh on Biden in this speech in terms of the substance but it was the style that generated all the attention. I will also note that I do not believe she mentioned Donald Trump's name a single time,and I have to think that is something that really upset the former President. If Britt was auditioning for the VP slot, she did herself no favors.

I believe tonight are the annual Razzie Awards in Hollywood signifying the worst acting jobs of the year. Britt would quality. It was just all so weird. In any form of communication, political or otherwise, a speaker is more respected if they are at least seen as speaking in an "authentic voice." For this big moment, Senator Britt did not play her actual role as a U.S. Senator, but instead debuted two characters in what felt like a horrible off-Broadway one woman show/YouTube rant. If she was a YouTube character, she should have at least played the ukulele as she spoke or something.

There was so much that a Republican elected official could say in response to the policy matters discussed by Biden in his speech, but the Republican Party no longer seems like a serious party, so we got a farce like this. Britt spoke in not one, but two inauthentic voices, alternating between them constantly. She went from sounding like a cheerful, perhaps even ditzy housewife to an angry "Karen" on the verge of tears, back and forth. Whomever Senator Katie Britt actually is, neither one of these characters were her, and whomever decided this was what she needed to do with the country watching did her and her political career a disservice. Saturday Night Live probably cried tears of joy. Tonight, there is no doubt their cold open will a take on Britt's response. She was basically doing their job for them. They will not even need to make fun of Biden on tonight's show.

This weekend, both Biden and Trump are on the campaign trail. The most tribalist of supporters on both sides are probably feeling pretty good or at least better about their guy at the moment. However, this is the matchup that about 80 percent of Americans said they did not want to happen. Soon, the biggest topic of discussion in America will be about if there will be debates or how debates might occur or who is dodging debates, who is scared to debate, etc. This is going to be everywhere, very soon, and it is going to be nauseating. The only thing more nauseating might be an actual Trump vs. Biden debate. If I had to guess today, I would say that it will never occur and that both sides do not actually want one to occur although they will claim, especially Trump's side, that they do.

With Biden vs.Trump symbolically etched in stone (and a lot less talk for now about Democrats dumping Biden), will there be another option for America, not counting weirdos like Cornell West and RFK Jr? It is getting close for "No Labels" to come to a conclusion. People from Joe Manchin to Larry Hogan have already taken themselves out of any consideration. The people within that organization had a meeting yesterday and it is said they are planning to indeed run a bipartisan ticket, but who knows if it will actually happen?

I was pretty happy to hear the name of Geoff Duncan, the former Republican Lt. Governor of Georgia mentioned yesterday as now being a real possibility. Some will scoff because he was only a Lt. Governor, but I would be beyond enthusiastic to support him for President. Ideologically, he is very much my kind of Republican and I think he could do a world of good for advocating the views of center-right Americans who despise Trump but also fear Biden and his party.

No, he would not win the Presidency in 2024, but despite the hysterical worries of the Democrats, I actually think he would hurt Trump more than Biden, especially in the key battleground state of Georgia. The tribalists always go to the place of assuming that people like me are dumb because we think a third party candidate can win. It is really not that at all. We just want to be able to vote for someone and feel good about it. Obviously though, America is hungry for a different choice beyond picking between the two cranky old men.

If Democrats were smart, they would want Duncan running (at least in Georgia) because there are people who would vote for him that would otherwise vote for Trump there and elsewhere. Do they really think that a conservative, Pro-Life Evangelical is going to take more votes away from their party? If so, they probably should re-examine their whole party. I am in the position of believing No Labels will actually nominate a candidate when I see it. There are a lot of reasons why they may not, but in my dream world, America could "Run on Duncan."