Uncategorized

How to Kill a Country? Try to Save Everyone.

Leave a comment

I have recently been reading William Shirer’s excellent, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany. What is striking, and probably unknown to most people is that World War II (at least in Europe) was the high price the world paid to purchase a scant few weeks of peace for the rest of Europe at the expense first of Austrians and later Czechoslovakians.

Granted, Europe had just suffered through the horrors of World War I, so perhaps Neville Chamberlain should be forgiven a bit of his naivete concerning Adolf Hitler, but the megalomaniac dictator’s continued lies and broken promises should have been a clue to the British leader long before Nazi tanks rolled into Poland.  The irony is that had France and Great Britain stood up to Hitler when he moved on Austria, the German dictator most likely would have been overthrown by his own generals (who were not eager for a conflict they knew they would certainly lose). 

Instead, Hitler was appeased which only fed his obscene thirst for power and his irrational and evil hatred of the Jewish people. Unfortunately by the time that Chamberlain (and to be fair, he wasn’t alone) learned what the true cost of peace at any price would be, history had lost its chance to avoid an unimaginably deadly second world war and a holocaust of indescribable horror. It was too late; the bill was due and millions of mostly innocents would pay the price.

So what does all that have to do with coronavirus? Well, the idea that we should bear any economic price to prevent as many coronavirus deaths as possible is akin to peace at any price. The truth is, like Chamberlain, we are almost certainly only deferring the cost of the pandemic and as in World War II, the bill for such naivete, when it arrives, may be much larger than the cost of the pandemic itself would have been.

Life is precious. No one wants anyone to lose a loved one, friend, or colleague to this disease. However, this is true of all diseases, accidents, and other things that cause people to die.  Nearly 60,000 people die from the flu each year on average, for example. And last year, nearly 35,000 people died in traffic accidents. Yet we haven’t outlawed cars and we never instituted a lockdown for the flu in the past.

Coronavirus, is, admittedly, different from those things.  It appears to be much deadlier than the flu (although just how much more so is uncertain and apparently not so much as initially feared) and it is particularly hard on the elderly and people with underlying health problems. It is, as President Trump has described it, an invisible and chilling enemy. People are scared, and no one can blame them for being scared. I am not indifferent to these fears. My mom (mid-seventies) and my dad (late seventies) both have underlying health conditions. My own health could be better. My parents are rightly concerned about their prospects should they be exposed to this virus, as am I, both for them and for myself. I think my parents (and anyone who knows themselves to be at risk) should lock down—I mean really lock down, not this half-baked, sort of semi-lockdown that the country has been engaged in for the past two months—one that has arguably failed to slow the virus but has successfully wrecked the economy.

Such self-lock down by the most vulnerable people should continue until we have a vaccine or we have achieved verifiable herd immunity by letting everyone else (and here is the tricky part) go back to work, school, restaurants, gyms, bars, massage parlors, etc.  Why is it tricky? Because yes, some people will die. Why? Well, because some people may not know they have underlying health conditions, some may decide to risk it and suffer the consequences (others may get lucky), some may just get unlucky and be exposed in some bizarre manner, some will have family members selfishly expose them, some will have family members accidentally expose them, and some will die for reasons we just don’t really understand (the same way this happens with the flu and countless other diseases that are usually just uncomfortable but occasionally are fatal to an unlucky small percentage). Again, why? Not to sound callous here, but because we are all, after all, mortal.

There is ample evidence that the lockdown, such that it is, just is not working. After all, we have been in lockdown now for nearly two months and yet the number of infected individuals for a disease with a 14-day incubation period keeps rising. Fortunately, the mortality rate keeps dropping.  However, even a low mortality rate applied to a massive infection number will produce hundreds of thousands of deaths.

So, isn’t the lockdown worth it? Well, maybe not. Turns out, coronavirus is not the only thing that kills people. In the United States about 5,000 people each day are diagnosed with cancer. By one estimate, about 80,000 cases have likely gone undiagnosed during the COVID crisis. Many of those may be diagnosed later but for some aggressive cancers this delay will be the difference between beating the cancer and dying. Others who have already been diagnosed have missed crucial chemotherapy treatments because these have been postponed or the patients are too afraid to risk going into health care settings, especially with immune systems often compromised by cancer treatments.

And it isn’t just cancer. Many elective heart surgeries and other important elective medical procedures have been postponed either by facilities or the fearful patients themselves. Don’t let the term “elective” fool you. These procedures are not “elective” in the sense that they are not needed but in the sense that the patient elects to have surgery (which carries some risk) that may prolong their lives rather than foregoing such risk and accepting a potentially shorter life. Many people make these choices every day and most choose to take the risk for a longer life—though virus fears have dramatically altered this calculus. 

The human cost of lost jobs, lost opportunity, and lost optimism is harder to determine but no less real. The virus is no doubt wreaking a tremendous toll on our country. It will continue to do so no matter what we do. The question to be answered: Is the short-term benefit worth the long-term cost? We are flattening the curve on corona virus deaths, but we are also flattening the curve on our economy. And remember, a totally flat line is a symbol of death.

Uncategorized

Trapped in Coronamerica

Leave a comment

Okay, first, let’s make the necessary assurances: all life is precious, every death, whether from coronavirus, flu, or other cause, is a tragedy in some respect. My heart breaks for those who have lost loved ones, friends, and colleagues to this virus. I can’t imagine how difficult that must be.

Next, let’s stipulate to the main and first argument that anyone who dares question current conventional wisdom on the coronavirus response is assailed with: no, I’m not an epidemiologist (doctor of infectious disease); nor am I a medical doctor of any kind. I’m not a scientist either.

However, it does not take a scientist or a doctor to look critically at a situation and notice that some of what is being said (by the same experts noted above) does not seem to add up. I’m not saying they are wrong, but I am saying, I need help understanding why they’re right.

I have heard many news reports that describe scientists’ continued search for the so-called “patient zero,” i.e., the first person to acquire the virus (from a bat they think) and from whom the pandemic sprung, officially infecting (as of 10:35 a.m., EST, on May 1, 2020) some 3.3 million people worldwide, including almost 1.1 million here in the United States.  Almost a quarter million people have died—more than 60,000 of them Americans. Preliminary research suggests the actual number of infected may be much more—perhaps as much as 10 to 50 times more (the so-called orders of magnitude).

Still, as we near the halfway point of our second month in national lockdown, nearly 31,000 new confirmed cases were reported just yesterday (almost 4,700 in New York alone).  Yet, we are told we are “flattening the curve” and that our businesses and institutions will begin reopening very soon. Indeed, many have already started, joining the many businesses that never shut down at all in beginning to draw us back to something resembling normalcy.

So, pardon me for asking, but how exactly is this going to work? If 3 million cases sprung from a single patient zero case in Wuhan, China, how is it that we can start to return to normal when tens of thousands of new cases are popping up across the nation without incurring a spike similar to—actually one would think intuitively worse than—the one that started the lockdowns in the first place? I’m sorry but that doesn’t make sense. Please explain.

The truth is the lockdown was never meant to “keep us safe.” In fact, if we parse the words carefully, it wasn’t initially sold that way. Remember, “15 days to slow the spread.”  Slow the spread, not stop it. The lock down was intended to save not individuals but our medical system, as our experts feared the COVID deluge would overwhelm our hospitals and leave patients without treatment. This is the only scenario in which a lockdown makes any sense. Otherwise, as explained in the previous paragraph: What is the point?

So why isn’t it working. Well, it probably is—somewhat. However, not to the extent Americans were led to believe. The main reason is that we didn’t truly lock anyone down. We couldn’t; people would starve to death among many other problems. So, instead, we left so-called “essential” businesses and institutions open. Obviously, this includes grocery stores, police, fire, and ambulance, hospitals, etc., but also others. After all, if your pipe busts in the middle of the night a plumber is pretty essential, so also hardware stores, etc. To get to work these people need to drive their vehicles so add in gas stations, mechanics, part shops, etc. In other words, we didn’t really lockdown. What we did do is more akin to patching a leaky boat with a piece of screen door.

Now, as new evidence comes to light as to how easily this virus spreads, it is clear it never could have—at least not in the way most Americans assumed. Fortunately, this same new evidence is showing that the death rate is much, much lower than feared as well. Yet, faced with the optics of a decision that might seem callous to deaths, politicians have made a “political” decision to continue extending and tightening (in some cases to near draconian levels) the lockdown. This as our economy crumbles.

As these new findings emerge—seemingly falling on the deaf ears of our leadership—some people have begun calling for a different approach. One that has a commonsense chance of actually working. From the very beginning, I’ve told people we should severely lockdown people in the at-risk group because, despite the cursory examples that we must endure daily that some younger, seemingly healthy people do die from the disease, it is overwhelmingly a problem of the elderly and/or people with underlying health problems. Meanwhile the majority of the country could get back to work, school, etc., contract the virus, build the so-called herd immunity, and save the economy. Yes, certainly some people would die from the virus under this approach just as some people continue to die from it under the current approach (not to mention deaths caused by the lockdown itself from postponing elective medical treatments—biopsies, cancer treatments, etc.).  At some level of herd immunity, it would be safe for the at-risk population to emerge as the potential carriers dwindled.

Unfortunately, people who pose such questions or ask about such approaches are shut down—typically with the “you’re not a doctor” or a “listen to the scientists” justification. However, the fact is that many doctors and scientists, including leading epidemiologists, are asking the same questions, pondering the same theories. They are being ignored—even censored—by the media. And it isn’t just theory. Leaders in Sweden took such an approach, and guess what? They’re death rate is no higher than other countries in Europe (better than many) and they haven’t totally flushed their economy down the toilet. But again, the media does it’s best to keep this story from us.

Why? Why is the media suppressing the voices of scientists who offer different solutions and ignoring evidence that such solutions work? Science is supposed to be the realm of inquiry. Aren’t Scientists by nature continually questioning previous laws and assumptions? After all, even some of Einstein’s theories have turned out to be incomplete or incorrect. The answer, unfortunately, as it usually does whenever one side wants to shut down debate as “settled” lies in the politics. Most politicians first concern, despite what they may tell us is to keep their own jobs (even as millions of Americans lose theirs). No one wants the stigma the media would attach to any leader who didn’t follow the conventional wisdom. Can’t you just imagine the on-screen CNN body tally for a state that dared ease restrictions against the advice of the preferred scientists? The second concern of a good many politicians, is (again unfortunately for a suffering America) to remove Donald Trump from office by any and all means. A broken economy with tens of thousands of dead Americans due to his supposedly slow response is the perfect vehicle to do so.

Yes, I know. I’m not a doctor. But I’m not a mathematician either, yet when someone who is tells me that two plus two no longer equals four, I should be allowed to ask: since when?

Slouching Towards Gomorrah

Blasey Ford More Likely Than Not a Liar

Leave a comment

Advance apologies for this far too long post.

In a dramatic vote made much more uncertain than it should have been, Brett Kavanaugh was finally confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court earlier this month. He began hearing his first arguments the following week. Much of the talk since has centered around the winners and losers from the overheated process. A common theory is that the passions stoked by the ugly spectacle will ratchet up voter enthusiasm and translate into a midterm wave. Both parties seem to think or at least at this point are claiming that such will be the case.  While it remains to be seen how the whole sordid affair will impact the mid-term elections, one clear loser is Brett Kavanaugh.

Yes, Kavanaugh earned his seat on the Court. Good for him, a lifetime of hard work and service did not go unrewarded. That does not make him a winner. His name will forever be linked to the accusation and liberals will cast him as illegitimate for the rest of his career. Just ask Clarence Thomas who is still hounded by liberals over unsubstantiated accusations made by Anita Hill. The same week Kavanaugh was confirmed, a student at Savannah College in Georgia started a petition to remove Thomas’s name from a building. Hysterical liberals have talked about impeaching Kavanaugh citing “lies” in his Senate testimony.

As is generally the case with women claiming sexual assault, Dr. Ford has been treated with kid gloves. Whether out of genuine concern for someone who may be a survivor of sexual assault or at least the need to appear genuinely concerned, few people have dared to call her accusations into question despite glaring inconsistencies and holes large enough to fly the late Paul Allen’s experimental plane through. Like many people, I was reluctant to cast Dr. Ford as an outright liar, partly to avoid creating additional pain for her if she is indeed a victim of sexual misconduct but also partly because I had a hard time reconciling myself with the idea that someone would intentionally destroy an innocent person’s life in an effort to win a political victory.

However, I’m getting over that reluctance as evidence continues to pile up. Before I recount such evidence, I want to focus for a minute on the selfless and principled speech given by Senator Susan Collins of Maine before she did the selfless and correct thing in voting to confirm Kavanaugh. One part, in particular, demonstrated a measured and fair approach to arriving at a consequential decision given murky information. Senator Collins, conceding that the senate’s role in advise and consent was something other than a court room, nevertheless very logically determined a standard not so much for believing the allegation but more importantly a standard for acting on allegations that are not mostly but indeed are wholly uncorroborated.  Her standard—does the evidence suggest the allegations were more likely than not true or accurate. This seems to be to be a very reasonable approach which carefully weighs the accumulation of various bits and pieces of information and determine what they may suggest. Obviously Dr. Ford’s claims could not withstand such a standard. Senator Murkowski would have been wise to follow suit. Instead, she attempted to walk a tight rope with conservatives and the Me Too movement that went something like this: He’s a good man but not the right man. Well. That wistful attempt not to anger anyone is sure to be seen by everyone for the dodge that it certainly was.

Nevertheless, with the high drama of the actual nomination behind us, and given time to reflect on the big picture, it now seems obvious to me, given what we learned during and since that time, that not only is Brett Kavanaugh more likely than not innocent, but also that Blasey-Ford was more likely than not part of an orchestrated effort to stop the nomination at any and all costs.

First, let’s consider her story. For a moment, let’s ignore the inconsistencies and focus on the holes.    Let’s start with her inability to state exactly or even approximately when this happened. She did at some point propose the summer of 1982 but that is really too large of a time frame to even be deemed approximate, let alone helpful. Further, she has repeatedly stated she cannot even be totally sure of that. My Spidey sense tells me this was to protect herself from potential charges of false accusation should Kavanaugh, as he very nearly did, present alibis for the entirety of 1982.

Regardless, this is a big hole, and Brett Kavanaugh’s calendars illustrate why.  Sure, the calendars themselves are not dispositive, but they illustrate why Dr. Ford’s memory lapses are so, ahem, complicating.  Kavanaugh’s calendars suggest in fact that he has a pretty good idea of his activities that summer of 1982—a summer filled with a bevy of activities, many of which could in fact be verified so as to be dispositive proof of his innocence.  Of course, it’s unlikely anyone could account for every minute of every day for even a recent three-month period of time, let alone multiple high school summers from 36 or so years ago.  A date certain, or for that matter, a narrower approximation might have clashed tellingly with verifiable facts. Of course, it might not have. However, if someone was to fabricate an incident and did not have access to the target’s whereabouts, a date certain could be problematic. A memory lapse in such a case might be convenient.  Further, an exact or even approximate date might have allowed an investigation to check if the other named attendees (all of whom have no memory of any such event) could have attended.  It wouldn’t do to say, for example, that Mark Judge was in attendance and then learn he was instead at camp, on vacation with his parents, working at Safeway, etc. The same could be said for Leland Keyser.

It’s against this backdrop that senate Democrats actually suggested Kavanaugh had to prove his innocence.  Seriously. On its own, this memory lapse might be taken as merely unfortunate, but when combined with other lapses, holes, and inconsistencies, let’s just say it’s curious.

Also curious is her inability to narrow down the location of the alleged attack. As with the date dilemma, a firm or even somewhat firm location could have been checked to see how well the location matched the details in her account. For example, who owned the house? Did it belong to someone who conceivably may have allowed one of the party’s participants to use it? Did one of the attendees live there? Were they house/pet sitting? These are things that might lend credence to the story or to the denial. Instead, again, no memory of these details. By not remembering the location, such potentially exculpatory facts cannot be checked. Nor can the architecture. Is the narrow stair case as described? Is there a small bathroom right across from a bedroom?  And by the way, why did Dr. Ford need to go upstairs to use the bathroom? No, this is not blaming the victim. I’m not suggesting that Ford was promiscuous, but that her story here begs questions that need to be answered.  One question is why she would have been going upstairs to use the restroom? Don’t most two-level residences have a downstairs bathroom precisely to avoid that problem? Ironically, Ford’s own explanation of Keyser’s failure to remember is telling – nothing unusual happened to her (except that her close friend and the only other female in attendance disappeared without warning or explanation). Ford on the other hand claims to remember because a traumatic event had seared itself into her hippocampus.  Well, not so much.

Now let’s consider the host of inconsistencies in her story. First let’s return to the question of when it happened.  She states she cannot be sure but has pegged the incident at various times as occurring in the early 1980s and the mid 1980s. She has said in one account it happened in her early teens, while in another she said it was her late teens.  These discrepancies are important.  If something happened to Ford in the mid 1980’s, she would have been in her late teens, and Brett Kavanaugh would likely have been at Yale.  A timeline that puts the incident as occurring in the early teens and early 1980s on the other hand changes that equation.  So, which timeline came first? How was one timeline eventually accepted and the other discarded? Why was there a discrepancy to begin with? The incident was, after all, burned into Ford’s hippocampus.

Next, let’s review Ford’s account of who was at the party. At various times, she has indicated there were four boys in the room, then two. She said four boys were at the party, then changed to three, then said four but she couldn’t remember the name of the fourth. Keep in mind, everyone but Ford denies knowledge of any such party, let alone of the incident. Ford has offered various explanations for all of this.  She claims, for example, that her therapist made an error in the notes. After saying Kelsey wouldn’t remember the party because nothing unusual happened to her, she went on to speculate that her friend’s lack of memory could be explained by her “health issues.” I wonder if her health issues resulted from being thrown under a bus. Seriously, while this might not quite constitute a pattern, it is somewhat, well, curious. Ford and her supporters went so far as to play a game of semantics with whether Keyser “refuted” her claim or just didn’t remember. Come on. Saying “I don’t remember that” is really a polite way of saying, “it didn’t happen.” Honestly, Keyser here is a hero. How easy it would have been to support her friend (as she was apparently urged to do) and say, “Yes, I remember that party. I wondered why Christine left without saying anything.” Can you imagine how differently things would have turned out?

At this point, we’ve arrived at the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back for me in terms of affording Ford any benefit of the doubt. Such straw comes in the form of the utterly ridiculous notion that Ford ever wanted or intended to remain anonymous. This claim amounts to something my granddad would have described as equine excrement. To believe such rubbish one would need to suspend any notion of common sense. Ford wants us to believe she came forward (but wanted to remain anonymous) out of a sense of civic duty. Really. Strange that someone who possesses a Ph.D. and a couple of master’s degrees would think that an eleventh hour anonymous charge would accomplish anything whatsoever.  If anonymous allegations were all it took to derail a nominee, no one from either party would ever be confirmed again. Such is the current political climate. Of course, Ford knew this.  That she planned all along to come forward is supported by her decision to hire an attorney and submit to a lie detector test.  Why take those actions if you intend to remain anonymous?  The idea that her name was leaked to the press is actually pretty ridiculous. While it’s true that newspapers seem to be in a frenzied competition to sink to new journalistic lows, doesn’t the publication of a sexual assault victim’s name against their wishes violate about a gazillion ethical norms? Not one word of criticism came from any Democrat or for that matter Ford herself that the media named her. This ridiculous story was a poorly conceived attempt to explain why senate Democrats waited until the last minute to spring the allegations, in hopes that it would at least delay the confirmation (I think they knew all along the story was too weak to stop it), in hopes that Democrats could retake the Senate in the midterms. Feinstein’s excuse for not bringing the allegations forward earlier (Ford wished to remain confidential) is as flimsy as the notion itself. The Senate Judiciary Committee could have conducted a confidential investigation without the public learning anything about it. Feinstein obviously didn’t think Ford meant completely confidential anyway as she clearly shared the information with her staff and both she and Ford obviously spoke to Ford’s attorneys about the matter. Please.

There are numerous other gaffes that just make the whole account stink.  There is the remodeling project with the apparent disagreement that led (six years later!!) to the therapy wherein Ford finally divulged the attack. This is so silly it hardly warrants response, but we’re four pages into this now, so why not?  By Ford’s story she was trapped beneath Kavanaugh but managed to escape (out the bedroom door to a bathroom). Her story does not suggest the bedroom door was blocked or that a second bedroom door would have been a help. Plus, it turns out, that many homes in the area where Ford lives have been modified to add a second door to allow homeowners to take advantage of the ridiculous housing costs in the area and rent out part of their homes to tenants or for operating a business. Ford’s remodel seems to better fit this scenario and in fact, has served both purposes.

Another part of the Ford narrative that has now been thoroughly debunked is her supposed fear of flying. This was even said to be directly linked to the attack. Media speculated that an airplane represented the ultimate confined space. Yet, it turns out that Ford flies frequently both for business and for pleasure. A long time boyfriend shared that she never expressed a fear of flying or closed spaces and stated she had flown frequently including in small prop planes. Still, this fear was given as the reason she needed more time to travel to Washington (she ended up flying anyway). When questioned at the hearings she admitted to flying frequently “unfortunately” and said she had worked up the gumption to fly to the hearings. She noted she would have preferred that the committee come to her, and claimed ignorance that such an offer had been made. Nonsense.  The discussion of Ford’s supposed fear of flying was all over the news as was Senator Grassley’s offer to bring the committee to her. She would have been better off saying she just decided she needed to go to Washington, but instead, caught flatfooted, she feigned ignorance. Likewise, she was supposedly ignorant of how to contact her senator. Yes, this is what credible looks like to our biased media.

Similarly, the notion that Ford had nothing to gain by making a false accusation is simply ludicrous. Of course Ford had many things to gain, and she will gain by this claim regardless of its veracity. Just for starters, if Ford is, as her past political activity suggests, a committed liberal, she had to gain the stopping of a judge who she and other leftists believe will tilt the court opposite their ideologies.  Remember, a Democrat senator on the Judiciary Committee had already called Kavanaugh “evil” and accused his supporters of being “complicit to evil.” Another said “millions” would die as a result of his confirmation.  If Ford believed this heated rhetoric, she might have fancied herself saving millions of lives. Ultimately, the Democrats hoped the delay would be followed by a midterm upset in the Senate at which point they could block ANY Trump nominee to the Court until at least after the general election in 2020 election and hopefully permanently assuming a Trump defeat. Not only would Democrats get even with republicans for icing the Merrick Garland appointment, but they could potentially gain the majority and further advance their liberal agenda.  Further, Ford will be lauded (this has already started) with awards and acclaim for her “brave” actions throughout academia and liberal society. This in fact has already started.  How long does anyone think it will be before a book comes out? A movie on the Oxygen network? Nothing to gain? Sure.

The only thing more disingenuous than the claim that Ford had nothing to gain was the relentlessly repeated refrain that “all” Democrats wanted was an FBI allegation. Democrats hammered this point incessantly, even goading Kavanaugh to join in on their request if he was “really” innocent and wanted  to “clear” his good name.  “Uhm, yes, Senator, I see your point.  After watching my family endure death threats as loons literally came out of the wood work with every salacious allegation they could dream up, I was hoping to put them through another couple of week of hell. I wonder though, could you lay off the ‘evil’ comments for a couple of weeks?”

Just submit to another FBI investigation and we can move on, they said. Well, almost. They left out a few words. All they wanted was an FBI investigation that accomplished their goals.  Anything else was destined to be labeled a sham and right on cue they did so. The investigation was supposedly a sham because the FBI didn’t interview Ford or Kavanaugh again (two sworn statements and several hours of testimony before the judiciary committee apparently not being sufficient). Democrats and their media lapdogs immediately labeled the investigation a sham. The FBI which they had previously lauded as the only organization capable of getting to the bottom of the allegations was suddenly a pawn of the Trump administration. That’s right, the FBI is now carrying water for the same Trump administration that daily does battle with the Justice Department and has been critical of the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton as well as their actions in the 2016 campaign. Initially, Democrats and the media screamed that the full FBI report should be made public, though interestingly, not Diane Feinstein. However, that narrative quickly died, as word leaked out that the investigation, far from corroborating Dr. Ford’s allegations, actually cast new doubt on her truthfulness. An eerie silence has followed. Curious.

Speaking of new doubts, we’ve recently learned that Dr. Ford’s testimony about not having knowledge of how to prepare for a lie detector test and not having coached others to take lie detector tests is likely untrue. Not only does Ford’s work as a psychologist cast doubt on this claim, but one of Ford’s old boyfriends swore under penalty of felony that he witnessed her helping friend and former FBI agent Monica McClean prepare for a polygraph (He also helped her find a tiny apartment in Hawaii after she apparently overcame her fear of small confined spaces, at least temporarily.  Initial reports are that it had only one door). Now it has been learned that Ford’s friend, Leland Keyser told the FBI that she felt pressured by McClean to change her statement. Ford’s attorneys and McClean have called the claims lies and vicious smears. They don’t deny contacting Keyser, just pressuring her. So now, Keyser is lying about how she feels? I guess it’s those medical issues again.

Finally, the whole idea that Ford was “credible” is a fitting testament to this whole ugly charade.  Ford’s story has zero corroborating evidence other than therapists notes made 30 years after the alleged incident that do not even mention Kavanaugh’s name, differ from Ford’s account due to the therapist’s “mistake,” apparently do not mention Kavanaugh by name, and have yet to be produced. Let’s see if I follow this correctly. Ford wants to use as her only corroborating evidence something that she herself says is flawed, is based on her recollection that she came to understand during therapy, and that she won’t produce. Wow. Oh, yes, and her husband recalls her mentioning the name Brett Kavanaugh during the therapy, apparently another mistake on the part of the therapist. You cannot make this stuff up. When it comes down to it, the only thing people have to rely on when it comes to determining Ford’s credibility is her own testimony and the “emotion” she displayed, except that she came off about as believable as Kevin Costner’s British accent in the movie Robin Hood. Seriously. Even a three year old knows how to produce a lilt in the voice to simulate the holding back of tears. Parents generally fall for it for about ten minutes. First of all, the idea that she would be on the verge of tears describing a 36 year old attempted assault is a little rich. I’ve watched interviews of women who were held prisoner for years and repeatedly raped who sounded less frazzled. It felt a lot like someone trying to put themselves in the mind of a 15 year old victim who had never in fact been one. Sorry, that’s what it felt like.  Nowhere was a genuine tear, sniffle, or tissue observed. Contrast that with Kavanaugh.  Now that was emotion. Several body language experts have chimed in agreement.  When she wasn’t choking up, Ford was alternately giggling and playing the look at me, aren’t I cute card. She doesn’t wear it well.  What I saw was someone who could hardly contain her excitement at being the center of the national spotlight. I haven’t seen someone act so puerile while testifying before Congress since Sandra Fluke.

Now that the Kavanaugh fight has ended, Democrats and their media accomplices have shifted to a new narrative-the potential for packing the court with more judges should they ever (God help us) take back control of the White House and Senate. This should serve as pretty clear evidence of their intent all along – win at all cost. This approach is nothing new. It was first employed by Harry Read, who over then minority leader McConnell’s warnings was the first to jettison the judiciary rules around cloture. House and Senate Democrats followed suit ramming through the Affordable Care Act (better known and more accurately named as Obamacare) using reconciliation, and through executive orders that even then president, Barak Obama had previously called unconstitutional.  No, the willingness of liberals to eviscerate judicial nominees is hardly new (see Robert Borke and Miguel Estrada), but the conviction of Republicans to stand up to this nonsense is. That is why liberals are getting wackier with every passing day.

I want to close this far too long post by re-emphasizing that I abhor people who commit abuse against others, especially abuse of a sexual nature.  This should go without saying, but because anyone who asks for evidence or, shame, advocates for a presumption of innocence is labeled an abuser themselves complicit in the alleged behavior, must be endlessly repeated. Done. However, it is a scary world where accusations alone can destroy a man’s reputation and career. This is not just something for white men to fear, it is something we all should fear. White males are not the first group to be unfairly targeted in this way (many black males have suffered under a similar burden of proving innocence to name just one example), nor will they be the last if this travesty is allowed to stand. The truth is, as I stated on a previous post, no one but Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh will ever know for certain the truth about her allegations. However, as I stated earlier, absent the ability to know for certain, I am adopting Senator Collins’s approach. To that end, given everything I know, I believe that Christine Blasey Ford is more likely than not a liar.

Slouching Towards Gomorrah

Is it Time to Tap the Brakes on Me Too?

Leave a comment

Sexual misconduct is a serious matter. Certainly, I would agree, that behavior such as attempted rape and harassment would be disqualifying conduct for a seat on the Supreme Court, and frankly for any other job involving the public trust. I further understand that this is a sensitive issue, especially for victims. They absolutely should not fear being re-victimized as a consequence of reporting their abusers.

False allegations are, likewise, a serious matter. They may be rare, but they are not unheard of. Despite the serious nature of sexual misconduct, we should never forget that American jurisprudence is founded on the idea of a presumption of innocence. The system is sometimes inconvenient, to be sure, but it is vital to the rule of law and the functioning of a just society.  Certainly this means that guilty people sometimes escape justice. This is unfortunate, but far better than the alternative—the injustice of innocents paying, possibly dearly, for offenses they did not commit.

I have no idea whether Brett Kavanaugh is guilty of the allegations of misconduct 36 years ago of which he has been accused. I have a hunch, but it is only just a hunch. I do know this. Outside of God, no one but Kavanaugh and Blasey-Ford really do know. I do not wish to malign Dr. Ford in any way, but the fact is she has offered scant details about this alleged attack which by her own admission she mentioned to no one for more than 30 years. Potential witnesses have failed to corroborate her claims. Now, a second Kavanaugh accuser, with an eerily similar story has come forward claiming the judge exposed himself to her at a party 35 years ago when they were at Yale together. As with Ford’s allegations, Ramirez has offered scant details and there is little, if any, corroboration and absolutely no hard evidence.

Kavanaugh’s appointment to the court was on the ropes, so to speak, as it was, so this latest accusation will likely put an end to his prospects to serve on the court. That is regrettable. Not because I’m certain that he is innocent but because I’m not certain he isn’t. I don’t think we want to become a country where someone can destroy a political opponent, rival, or simply someone they didn’t like in school with allegations that cannot be proven or disproved. I fear we are heading that direction, on a slippery slope and picking up speed.

Women have worked hard in this country to achieve equal rights and fair and equal treatment. I would be the first to admit that although our society has made progress in this area, more remains to be done. That said, we cannot right the wrong of injustice to one group by perpetrating it on another. Women should not be dismissively silenced but nor should men be summarily condemned. We must hold people accountable for their actions but only through due process and allegations against those accused must be proven true rather than proven false. To that end, while the Me Too movement is generally a good thing for women and for America, we might want to tap the brakes on it when it starts to ruin lives without solid evidence. That may mean that some bad behavior goes unpunished, but it is necessary ensure that we do everything we can to make sure that only the guilty are punished. Right or wrong, the ends do not justify the means when the collateral damage is innocent people.

Moreover, such things have a habit of getting out of control. The next person accused just might be you. Will justice be done?

Crossroads: Liberty

Why I Stand Up for America

Leave a comment

So, erstwhile rock star wannabe, and current senatorial aspirant, Beto O’Rourke, recently opined that he believes kneeling in protest at America’s national anthem, is, ahem, the essence of patriotism, or something along those lines. Well.

Beto’s wrong. Here’s why.

First, however, let’s give due homage to the supremely gifted athlete we have to thank for this debate and who selflessly sacrificed his pro football career to advocate for social justice.  Just kidding, it was Colin Kaepernick.  Okay, I’m not a football analyst, and certainly Kaepernick is a gifted athlete. After all, only gifted athletes make it on any level of professional sports. That said, Colin Kaepernick, despite a couple of stellar years, was mired on the bench when he began his great social justice crusade.  It’s worth noting also, that he was not mired on the bench behind some hot-shot rookie or aging superstar, but Blaine Gabbert, himself a journeyman quarterback, winding down his career in a series of backup roles. All this on a team that went 2-14!

So committed was our hero that he announced, after opting out of the final year of his San Francisco 49er contract (in what should go down as one of history’s biggest miscalculations) that he would not continue his anthem protests the following year.  Unfortunately, for Kaepernick, his fellow NFL players, the NFL itself, and football fans everywhere, the virus was already loosed, infecting other disenchanted players, a gleeful media and many on the left, with Beto O’Rourke only the latest to try making hay out of pooh.

Putting Kaepernick aside, some of these folks may genuinely believe in the cause for which he stands, uhm, kneels; though I suspect that for many, the true cause is a genuine loathing for our country. However, assuming good intentions on the part of O’Rourke and others, and even assuming, for argument’s sake, the legitimacy of their cause, dishonoring our country and its symbols is hardly an effective approach for rallying public opinion in a populace that still very much sees the greatness of America—and yes, America is still and always has been great.

That sentence, by the way, is not just a throw away.  America is and always has been great.  It is not and never has been perfect.  That is why from our founding until now we have striven to form a more perfect union. Obviously the blight and stain upon our nation that was slavery should not be ignored. The scars remain, as they should, to remind us of what happens when we fail to live up to the spirit of our own high ideas. Likewise, institutionalized racism, discrimination, and segregation, are blights on our history, the wounds from which are still raw and tender. Although we cannot and should not ignore them, these wounds will never heal as long as we continue to pick at them.

We can certainly debate police actions, but that ironically isn’t the point of this post or my argument. If all Americans or even most Americans could be genuinely said to be a perfect reflection of the American idea, perhaps protests against that idea would be warranted. The truth is we all fall short to varying degrees of the American idea. That’s okay, we are better for embracing it and trying, much as Christians are better for embracing and trying to live up to the ideas expressed in the Bible, though falling short repeatedly. Some may believe that the protestors who triumphed during the Civil Rights movement did so by changing the American idea, but the truth is, the Civil Rights protests succeeded by forcing Americans to take a hard look in the mirror. It wasn’t a pretty sight, and we couldn’t deny that we were not living up to our celebrated creed. Sure, some Americans continue to fall short in this area, but many did fundamentally reassess their actions and beliefs in light of everything for which America is supposed to stand.

And that is where those who disrespect the symbols of America are going wrong. Read the Declaration of Independence; read the constitution; the Bill of Rights. Yes we fall short. But it is we, humans, who fall short of the American idea, not the American idea itself. Certainly some Americans are still racists, bigots, etc. Clearly some people, including police officers, politicians, and reporters, fail to live up to the values for which our country stands. We need to call attention to that—not by disrespecting the ideas, but by illuminating such shortcomings. And that is why I will always stand up and cross my heart for the pledge and the national anthem, not because I’m perfect, but because I’m not. And that is why I stand up for my country, the United States of America.

Crossroads: Liberty

Do Americans Still Want to Live Free?

Leave a comment

So, after nearly a two year absence (long enough to enjoy a healthy portion of crow), the Red, Right, and True blog is back. I’d like to say back by popular demand of my readers (otherwise known as my family and friends), but in truth, my re-energized need to express my thoughts on current events to anyone who cares to indulge me. First, mea culpa. Donald Trump defied all prognosticators, especially this one, in walloping Hillary Clinton (aka the worst candidate ever) and winning the presidency. I am exceedingly glad he did for a number of reasons that can be distilled down to two: First, and most obviously, Trump winning means Hillary did not (how fortunate that is for our country cannot be overstated!); Second, Trump has governed far more conservatively than I imagined (from tax cuts to Supreme Court nominations), which is not to say that I love everything the Tweeter in Chief has done. I don’t.

With that said, however, I want to focus this post on what I believe to be the defining issue of our time: freedom. That’s right, freedom—not global warming, immigration, health care, or gun control, though certainly elements of all of these issues relate to our freedoms. The same is true for Russian election meddling, police shootings, and even our foreign policy. Why? Because, freedom lies at the core of what America is all about. In fact, the constitution, which is considered by many as one of the greatest documents ever created, is basically a freedom manifesto and contract between a government and its citizens.

Sadly, an alarming segment of the population (on both sides of the political divide) are at best ill-informed if not downright ignorant of what this great document says. Perhaps that should be—at best ignorant and worse ill-informed, since it is a toss-up as to which is more dangerous. Regardless, few citizens really understand that the constitution was written specifically to define and limit government powers. In fact, you might be surprised to learn that many of the founders opposed the Bill of Rights—not because they didn’t want Americans to have those guaranteed rights, but because they feared the list might be interpreted as a finite description of citizens’ rights. The tenth amendment, thereby, is largely a compromise aiming to explicitly limit federal power to what is outlined in the constitution.

Thus, the tenth amendment makes it absolutely clear: the constitution was not designed to be a living, breathing document; it was intended to be interpreted as written, which is to say: here’s what the government can do—nothing else. Okay, so maybe they wanted it to be barely breathing, which is why they included a daunting amendment process. Clearly though, changes were not supposed to be easy, and they certainly weren’t supposed to happen at the whim of judges. Therein lies the rub: Every time a court breathes new meaning into the constitution or one of its amendments which increases federal power, we citizens lose a little bit of our freedom, whether it’s a mandate that citizens purchase a product, a limit to the amount of money they can contribute to a political campaign, or countless other encroachments. The irony is how many and how often Americans are not only willing to not just surrender our freedoms but to demand the government usurp them. Doubtless that many do not realize that they are doing this. Like me, they probably grew up seeing freedom and equality as two sides of the same coin. In fact, however, they are mostly in stark opposition to each other. Others are content to trade freedom (especially when they see it as someone else’s freedom because it comes in the form of someone else’s money or property) for something they feel more valuable or more palatable. They are woefully mistaken. One American’s loss of freedom is every American’s loss of freedom. They’ll get around to all of us eventually.

Freedom, after all, is hard. It’s messy. It means putting up with things you may not like.  It means outcomes that are uneven, illogical, and seemingly unjust. It’s painful and precious, and has made this, despite what Andrew Cuomo might think, the greatest country in the history world. A lot of our countrymen sacrificed greatly to give it to us. We’d better start appreciating it and working harder to preserve it.

2016 General Election

A Very Expensive Lesson

1 Comment
The best lessons come at the highest cost—or so they say.

If that’s true, I hope America is paying attention. We are about to learn a very expensive lesson.

As the parent of an autistic child, I am quite familiar with misdirected anger. Though I know that my son’s occasional outbursts and brain-numbing stems are a manifestation of a disability over which he has little or no control, I still allow them to get under my last nerve from time to time. Despite my best efforts I lose my temper from time to and raise my voice (actually usually just talk in an unpleasant tone). The very short moment of satisfaction I derive from venting my frustration comes at a price and is soon replaced by a lasting regret—lasting because my anger inevitably worsens the situation and delays its resolution. I’m learning but logic, patience, and common sense still elude me from time to time.

Speaking of misdirected anger…. Yesterday, a good friend and enthusiastic Trump supporter confided in me that he now believes the Republican nominee will likely be defeated.  Hillary Clinton, the second-worst presidential candidate ever, is set to become president. Who is the worst candidate ever, you ask? Three guesses; you’ll only need one.

Though my friend honestly assessed the damage done by the latest revelation of Trump’s character—or lack thereof, it didn’t take him long to veer into the land of rationalization. Trump only said words he parroted; Bill Clinton did actions.  Well. I’m not so sure Trump only said words, but even if that were true, remember, as a famous person once said: “Words matter.” Sorry Trump supporters, but most, if not all, of the greatest atrocities in history started out as words. Words have a nasty habit of leading to actions. They are often a way to test the acceptability of actions. If the words are okay, the actions must be also.

It’s just locker room talk, my friend repeated lamely.  Really?

I’ve been in many locker rooms and the language in them is indeed often lewd, crude, and otherwise colorful. In all those times, while I’ve heard many disgusting things about women, and, I’m ashamed to admit, laughed at them from time to time, I’ve never heard a father sanction or condone such talk about his own daughter. Of course, every woman is someone’s daughter and this is why men should cease such talk about any woman. Not just because such talk is disrespectful, but because talk leads to action. Not for everyone, maybe, but for some, maybe even many.  It is precisely why many conservatives have criticized hip hop music for its portrayal of women.  Should such talk be prohibited? Of course not. But understand, free speech has never been truly free; people who engage in the type of speech Donald Trump routinely uses, therefore, should not expect a pass from people judging them in life nor in the voting booth.

Such behavior also calls into question Trump’s judgement.  Sure, he may not have planned to run for president, but for a businessman to disparage women in such a way doesn’t seem very wise.  Wouldn’t he expect to need to do business with women from time to time? Rationalizing his bad behavior by pointing to the bad behavior of Bill Clinton is a weak effort to deflect from his own shameful behavior and not exactly the foundation upon which virtue is built.

The idea of a Hillary Clinton presidency literally scares the hell out of me. It should scare the hell out of anyone who loves America. Unfortunately, like my misdirected anger at my autistic son, the GOP electorate misdirected its anger at the Republican party and in doing so, has virtually guaranteed a Hillary Clinton presidency and a generation or more of liberal supremacy on the bench. The idea that the GOP didn’t fight hard enough to stop Obama is ludicrous.  GOP leadership did everything possible given their numbers to deter the president.  That is why Obama resorted to his illegal executive actions.  Now, those who complained about a lack of real opposition to liberal ideas are about to see what a real lack of opposition to liberal ideas looks like. With another four to eight years control over the executive branch, possible control over both houses of congress and a solid majority on the court, gun rights, religious rights, and even free speech will face the most serious threats in our nation’s existence.

It didn’t have to be that way. We knew who Trump was. But sadly, he wasn’t nominated despite his character flaws; to a large extent, he was nominated because of them. What were so-called conservatives thinking? Now, the same people who decried the establishment sticking by candidates such as McCain and Romney are invoking the same arguments to insist that Republicans stay true to Trump.  Rance Priebus, public enemy number one not so long ago and the very epitome of the mythical “establishment,” is now unwavering in his support for the party’s deeply flawed nominee.  Well.

Meanwhile, true conservatives, who stand by their principles and distance themselves from Trump are the new “establishment.” Give me a break. By any honest standard, Trump is no conservative, no matter how hard Sean Hannity tries to make him seem so.  Sorry Sean, you’re just not that talented. For Trumpeteers, it always comes down to one argument: He’s not Hillary Clinton. True. But really, how far must we follow this sleaze nominee down that road? Could Trump, as he claimed, actually murder someone and still retain his core support? I can hear it now: “What’s one innocent life? We’re talking about the future of our country here.”

Hillary Clinton is such a horrible candidate and was so easily beatable. Any of the GOP candidates—Cruz, Rubio, Walker—hell, even Rand Paul or Jeb Bush—could have easily trounced her, given all the dirt that has come out. Instead, out of anger, thirty to forty percent of the GOP electorate, propelled by Hannity, Coulter, and other loons, foisted this idiot upon us because for a brief moment it felt good to jab their fingers in the eyes of the “establishment”.  Now, that moment has passed, and we are left with only regret. It is likely to be a lasting regret—lasting because it will inevitably weaken if not destroy the republic. If the republic does somehow manage to endure, maybe in the future logic, patience, and common sense will trump (pun intended) the anger that got us into this mess. After all, the best lessons come at the highest cost.

Or so they say.
2016 General Election

End of Days for the GOP, America?

Leave a comment

Well, October is upon us, and with it, the homestretch of the 2016 presidential election, otherwise known as the End of Days for the GOP and potentially for our republic as we have known it. After a crushing defeat in the first general election presidential debate, Donald Trump, who appeared unprepared and ill-informed (in other words, genuine) is in yet another self-induced tailspin, and Hillary Clinton, who should be losing this election, and losing it badly, has not only recovered from her recent swoon (both physically and in the polls), but has in fact jumped ahead entering the final month of the campaign.

To be clear: despite an electoral map that greatly favors Democrat candidates, this did not have to be an uphill battle for Republicans. Hillary Clinton is a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad candidate. First of all, she has no true accomplishments, either in the private sector (unless you count cattle futures), as first lady, or in her sham of a senatorial career.  Her tenure as Secretary of State is more memorable for scandal and ineptitude, lost emails and murdered diplomats, failed interventions, and lack of foresight, than for true accomplishments, notwithstanding her flimsy claims of negotiating hostage releases and human rights agreements. She lacks charisma and is possibly the worst public speaker ever to get paid to do so more than once. In short, she is nothing and has nothing save the tattered coattails of a disgraced and impeached husband.

Yet, she is leading and likely to win. How? Because, against all odds, the Republican electorate, with some help from disaffected industrial workers, is on the verge of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory because it nominated someone equally flawed to oppose Clinton.

Donald Trump claims to be some kind of business miracle worker. He is rich and savvy, at least he would have you believe he is, though he refuses to release tax returns that might shed light on just how rich he really is, while his history of bankruptcies, reneging on contracts, and shady partnerships (not to mention, the probably fraudulent Trump University) do seem to cast some doubt on the savvy part. We are supposed to believe he is really, really great because, well, he tells us he is—a lot. We are supposed to believe everything he would do as president would be “so good” because, well, he tells us it will be—constantly, with little or no specifics. Remember, though, during the GOP campaign he said he would beat Hillary and it wouldn’t even be that hard. Well, okay.

In the past several weeks, as the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency has loomed ever larger, hesitant GOP leaders, including Ted Cruz, have climbed reluctantly aboard the trump train. This late change of heart is apparently a last-ditch effort to save the Supreme Court, which will surely be lost for a generation if Hillary is elected, because, technically, Trump is ever so slightly less certain to do permanent damage to the constitution, grasping at straws being, after all, a warped version of optimism.

Trumpeteers, predictably are already preparing for defeat by peddling yet again their ridiculous claims that the so called “establishment” of the party has undermined the people’s choice. This is of course ludicrous, being that whatever “establishment” mechanism actually exists within the party has allowed and even aided the bombastic populist in his efforts. It is interesting that anyone who opposes Trump is quickly labeled “establishment” even the face of contravening logic. If there truly was an establishment, why didn’t they choose a candidate (Jeb Bush was the supposed favorite of this group) and then twist the arms of the other “establishment” candidates (pretty much all the rest of them to hear Trump supporters talk) and get them out of the race so to clear the path for their candidate. At that early juncture of the primaries, it wouldn’t have taken more than 35 or 40 percent to oust Trump. The truth is, it was all of the so-called anti establishment candidates clogging the field that divided the sensible conservative vote.

Walker, a fiscal conservative who cut taxes, lowered unemployment, erased a budget deficit, and took on labor unions, all while successfully warding off multiple efforts by democrats to unseat him in a state that has been consistently democratic blue for some time, never gained any traction.  Perry, another former tea party favorite, who was among the first to drop out, never really had a chance.  Ditto for Rand Paul, whose foreign policy agenda could be summed up with the question “Can’t we all just get along?”

Rubio of course, lost his bona fides due to his flirtation with immigration reform (the failure of which resulted in the open borders policy better known as Obama’s Executive Amnesty).  That bill may look pretty good in retrospect and surely will once Hillary Clinton opens the borders. Interestingly enough, Trump’s immigration policy, depending on the day and to the extent anyone can actually figure it out, may end up softer than that of Rubio and the Gang of Eight.  Go figure. Cruz apparently was unacceptable because he was not a very nice guy. Really.

If there truly is a Republican establishment , it is certainly one of the most inept bodies ever to try to control an election. If this “establishment” had any real power, they would have cleared the field for a chosen candidate. Wrong. Instead they engaged in a circular firing squad where everyone was a target except Trump. When the smoke cleared, they had damaged each other just enough to allow Trump to win in  South Carolina. These actions hardly support the conspiracy theories of a coordinated effort to push an establishment candidate. What they suggest instead is a collection of egos that all expected Trump would eventually flame out (what rational person didn’t?) and their self serving hopes to be waiting in the wings to pick up the pieces. Now what?

Well, now, as it becomes more and more evident that Hillary will prevail, regret is beginning to sink in. Too bad. Seldom have the stars aligned so perfectly for a Republican victory, with a deep bench of young and successful senators and state governors pitted against the poster child for the left’s tired old progressive agenda with emphasis on the old and the tired. Hillary Clinton, literally wobbling under the weight of her scandal-ridden past and present, was a GOP landslide waiting to happen.  The architect of many of the worst liberal policies over the past eight years – from the Arab spring to the Russian reset, she barely fought off an 80-year-old avowed socialist. The momentum of a strong GOP candidate might have propelled the senate to a filibuster-proof majority instead of crossing our fingers and hoping that the democrats do not regain control. Oh what might have been.

So why won’t that landslide and GOP wave happen? Because conservatives in their zeal to clean house in their own party, destroyed their best candidates and left standing the only one who could actually lose to Hillary. And he will.

GOP Presidential Campaign

GOP Electorate Backing Off the Ledge?

Leave a comment

The GOP electorate has spent the summer collectively standing on the ledge, flirting with political suicide. Half seem so enamored by the euphoric feeling of poking the establishment in the eye that they have become what they loathe, embracing a bombastic, non-conservative with no general election appeal. The other half, dragged onto the ledge kicking and screaming in sheer disbelief, are ready to jump to end their own misery. Meanwhile, democrats, especially Hillary Clinton, rejoice that the WWF show created by the Trumpster is drawing the media’s attention away from politically damaging coverage of Clinton’s email scandal and the party’s contortionist-like support for Planned Parenthood and their Auschwitz-like abortion clinic tactics.

However, at long last, there are at least signs that Republican voters have caught sight of the ground below and realized that political suicide is not a very efficient way to make a political point. Let’s hope anyway. Though far from a certainty, the latest polls at least provide hope that real estate mogul and circus master Donald Trump has peaked and, with the withdrawal of Rick Perry and Scott Walker, more realistic GOP candidates are beginning to emerge and peck away at Trump’s lead.

The sad truth, however, is that the summer of Trump has done the most damage to candidates that were the most conservative. Sure Jeb Bush has faltered badly, but he is still in it, and because of his fund raising apparatus, likely will remain in it at least for the next several months. Setting aside Rick Perry, who never really had any traction, it is Scott Walker who Trump’s candidacy most damaged. Long a tea-party darling, the conservative governor of Wisconsin, who cut taxes, balanced his state’s budget, and stood up to unions, all while fighting back multiple attempts to unseat him, faded badly out of the gate and never really had a chance.

Likewise, Ted Cruz, though still in it, has yet to crack the top five in the GOP field and despite strong favorability ratings among conservative voters, has failed to generate much excitement. As I wrote in an earlier post, he must feel like the jilted boyfriend who did everything right only to watch his love run off with the tattooed, motorcycle-riding, bad boy from the wrong side of town.

Why? Because Tea Party conservatives, including evangelicals, have chosen to embrace Donald Trump, a man who advocates for tax increases, who until recently called himself “very pro choice,” who has confessed to rarely attending church and has a lifestyle history that suggests he wasn’t listening much on the occasions he did. I’m baffled, honestly. Yes, I get it that Trump stands up to the media and rankles the feathers of the so-called Republican establishment, but really? Supporting Trump is absolutely the best example I have ever encountered of the old adage about cutting off one’s nose to spite the face. Ted Cruz has also stood up against the media and called out the “establishment” wing of the Republican party, but he does so in the context of legitimate political ideas and substantive debate and discussion.  Trump’s idea of substantive: “I will be so good at (fill in the blank) that it will be amazing.” Really?  I mean, come on, conservatives, really???

Let’s face it, Trump rose to popularity solely based on his stark immigration talk. GOP voters, especially the far-right conservative segment of the party, have long been frustrated by the lack of any action to curb illegal immigration. They know that the social welfare system instituted by liberal politicians over the last several decades is heading for collapse and that the addition of these immigrants will only hasten such collapse and the economic chaos that will surely follow.

They are angry about the drug trafficking which wrecks the lives of so many American young people while sending money (often stolen from family and friends) back to criminals in Mexico and leads to millions more spent at treatment centers here to try to repair the damage. They worry about losing their culture and are rightly terrified about the national security risks associated with such an easily penetrated border. All these concerns are justified and understandable. Trump was right to point out these problems associated with the immigration issue. Unfortunately he chose to do so in a way that fueled the worst lies that liberals perpetuate about people who want to crack down on illegal immigration—namely that it is driven by racism and xenophobia. Sadly, though Trump’s brash talk may resonate with the frustrated base, it will do little to sway voters that could actually help make such policies happen.

Conservatives often scoff at the idea that moderates need to be swayed, but it seems only logical to conclude that if conservatives alone had sufficient political strength to enact such policies they would already be in place. Therefore, we need to win voters over. We certainly have a better chance of doing so with moderate voters than with far-left leaning liberals who basically advocate for open borders and who quite literally, I believe, hope that doing so will forever alter the general electorate and put America even more firmly on the path to a European-like socialist system. Ignoring moderates and attacking our own party members who hazard to suggest compromise, will almost certainly lead us to yet another defeat.  Many conservatives feel that Republicans have lost the last two presidential elections because the party did not offer a true, conservative alternative to the democratic candidate.

Such reasoning is absurd. Mitt Romney was very clearly more conservative on any issue one can think of than Barak Obama, probably the most liberal president in history.  Staying home and thereby helping ensure Obama’s election is akin to a starving man turning down a burger because it isn’t a steak.  Again, really?

This post has focused on the presidential campaign, but GOP bickering is not just a presidential matter. Infighting in the GOP congressional delegation is not helping the party. Tea party backers and far right leaning republican voters are no doubt celebrating the resignation of speaker John Boehner. To be clear, I have not been a fan of Boehner. The whole crying thing got him off to a bad start and established the narrative which he has been unable to shake of a weak leader. Likewise, McConnell has too often seemed too eager to “reach across the aisle,” despite how many times it has resulted in having his hand bitten and the utter unwillingness of democrats to capitulate.

However, the idea that Boehner and McConnell are the reasons that the GOP/conservative agenda has been thwarted in just stupid, to use a Trump-like invective.  Barak Obama and his veto power are the reasons the conservative agenda has little chance of succeeding at this point.  While it is true that the GOP controls both houses of congress, it is also true that their thin majority is not sufficient to override certain presidential vetoes on key planks of the Obama agenda e.g., Obamacare and now the Iran nuclear deal).

Absent control of the executive branch, a party needs a veto-proof majority (67 in the senate) to effectively influence public policy. At present, in the senate the GOP lacks sufficient strength to even achieve cloture on key bills. I realize that democrats have in the past blown up senate rules and traditions to achieve their legislative goals, but they did so knowing that their party controlled the executive and that such measures would be supported by the president.  On the contrary, should the GOP change rules to bypass cloture, they would do so with the knowledge that a certain veto awaited.  I’m not sure how forcing a presidential veto advances the GOP argument since the president has clearly made his stance known.

The real sin that GOP leadership is guilty of is making promises to the electorate over the past several campaign seasons without sufficiently explaining that absent a veto –proof majority (or at least the ability to reach cloture) the party was certain to be hard pressed to keep.

Tea Party conservatives complain about the lack of true conservatism among the so-called GOP establishment (if you can’t tell, I hate this narrative), yet not a single Republican supported either the Iran nuclear deal or Obamacare.  The “establishment” is also accused of failing to support some Tea Party candidates in general elections, thus leading to the election of democrats. This too  is rubbish. The problem, too often, has been that Tea Party zealots have run hard line conservatives without vetting their overall electability (see Christine O’Donnell, Todd Akin, and Sharron Angle). Recall that in the wave election of 2010 voters were deeply dissatisfied with the democrats and all three of these races, especially the Akin and Angle races, held the real potential for a GOP flip had the party ran its strongest candidates rather than simply the ones that managed to move the farthest right.

Akin actually enjoyed a substantial lead before his “legitimate” rape comments doomed his candidacy. His refusal to withdraw and allow a more electable candidate a shot is a microcosm of how GOP in-fighting has damaged the party.  To be clear, democrats may very well have held on to these seats anyway, but imagine what the party might have accomplished by flipping those three seats and dislodging Harry Reid as senate leader.

Likewise, attacks by moderates on strong conservatives such as Ted Cruz only serve to reinforce the narrative that the “establishment” does not embrace conservative values. These divisions within the party do not bode well for the unified effort that will be needed to regain the White House, whoever the democratic nominee might be. Democrats do not have such divisions, at least not amongst the punditry and the politicians themselves, though the electorate is clearly anxious about Hillary Clinton.

While no one can seriously doubt that Clinton is becoming more annoyed by the day with Bernie Sanders and all the talk of a possible Joe Biden run, she has been careful to avoid criticism of either, no doubt recognizing that she will need full support of their backers in the general election. Instead she has confined her attacks to GOP candidates, along familiar lines such as the war on women, republican bigotry, social injustice, etc.

GOP voters, especially those in its conservative wing, hate how democrats frame these “issues,” arguing (correctly) that there is no war on women and that GOP supporters  are no more bigoted than democrat supporters, possibly less. Yet, these fallacious attacks are made easier by the invective of the current front runner and play into the narrative that democrats feed to moderate voters otherwise inclined toward GOP policies.  Which is why the apparent peak in support for Trump is good, and hopefully, lasting news.

The polls all show an electorate deeply dissatisfied with both the direction of the country and our current president. Clinton’s email scandal and democrats’ continued support of Planned Parenthood and their grotesque practices, leave both extremely vulnerable to a solid (but one) GOP field. This is no time for conservatives to be flirting with disaster, stamping around on the ledge, just to show we can.

One could fall, after all.

GOP Presidential Campaign

The GOP Meltdown

Leave a comment

As the parent of a special needs child, I’ve learned to recognize the difference between my autistic son’s typical tantrums and his occasional meltdowns.  Most parents over time learn the value of picking your battles, and we are certainly no different. Once our son enters meltdown territory, it is nearly impossible to reverse, even by appeasement. By this time, the struggle has become a power play, with our child determined to do the opposite of anything we offer or suggest. It can be an unnerving experience because children having a meltdown can hurt themselves or others or cause other real damage.

Such, in my humble opinion, is the case for the supporters of Donald Trump, erstwhile reality television show host turned frontrunner for the GOP presidential nomination.  So disillusioned are conservatives by the failure of the party to contain the President (or even in their judgment to try) that they (it would seem) have moved beyond mere tantrum and are undergoing a full-blown meltdown, having decided to take an “anybody but” approach to choosing their next nominee. Even Rush Limbaugh has explained the chief appeal of Donald Trump as not who he is but who he isn’t – namely any of the (scary word alert) “establishment” candidates, which apparently includes anyone whoever even hinted at “working” with the other party. I’m not sure we can fairly accuse Ted Cruz of this transgression, but he must have done something nice for a Democrat at some point because his support has slipped into the weeds with other one-time conservative standard bearers at around 6 percent. In full meltdown mode, they have abandoned even those who have steadfastly done their bidding.  Who knows? Maybe Ted Cruz held the door open for Nancy Pelosi at some point.  RHINO!

After my last post, I had promised myself not to post again on Trump unless and until it was time to celebrate his demise. I vowed to wait for the day when  the stupid pills (to borrow a Trump debate point) that many members of the former party of ideas were apparently slipped,  wore off.  However, I must admit, listening to a Limbaugh caller liken Trump to John Wayne and praise his fight against political correctness has nearly pushed me over the edge once again.

First, setting aside the fact that the personas embodied by John Wayne in most of his roles were fictional, Donald Trump is nothing like the symbol that John Wayne represented. John Wayne was a fighter, but he did so with class. He didn’t stand on a podium calling people names. Second, John Wayne was proud but humble. That is why people saw him as more than an entertainer. Ironically, some people accuse Trump of being an entertainer. They are wrong. He is truly as full of himself as he lets on.  Further, he is not fighting the battle of political correctness. Even I fell for this somewhat (as evidenced by my last post) but I’ve thought more about it now and realize that this is simply not true.

Political correctness is the process of trying to ban perfectly good language from the lexicon ostensibly because it is offensive but in reality because it is accurate or effective in making a point. For example, we discourage people from saying “illegal alien” (how can a person be illegal?) and are told not refer to United States citizens as Americans because this term should apply to anyone from anywhere in North or South America (I kid not!). Never mind that the peoples in these other countries refer to us as Americans and are perfectly content to refer to themselves as Canadians, Mexicans, Columbians, etc. Those are examples of battles we should be fighting against political correctness. Calling someone an idiot, disparaging their appearance, or calling them third-rate broadcasters is just rude. Doing so doesn’t demonstrate Trump’s courageous defense of speech but rather his outrageous disdain for common decency.

As George Will has noted, each day that Trump is identified with the Republican party and worse conservatism is a day the party and conservative ideas are diminished. The longer he remains competitive in the GOP field, the less likely we are to elect a Republican president and turn back the disastrous policies of the last eight years. If the GOP meltdown continues and Trump somehow gets the nomination we will lose. And in the words of the Daniel Kaffee character from one of my favorite movies (A Few Good Men), “we’re going to lose huge.”