Postscript: Democrats devouring their own

Postscript: Democrats devouring their own Featured

LAST week's events were interesting not only for Americans but for observers of American politics. The presidential debate, where two aging protagonists confronted with insipid questions from the moderators responded with non-sequitur replies coated in sound bites. The debate format did not test Biden or Trump for the job of president. It was a made-for-TV production where CNN made millions in their four commercial breaks. It is unfortunate that the harsh focus of the tube played not on the raging issues and comparisons of their presidential stints but instead on the personalities of both, highlighting senility, age, cognitive dissonance, soundbites and lies that couldn't be fact-checked instantly. Biden had the short end of the stick, showing him to be a stuttering, raspy-voiced old-ager with cognitive issues, looking old and sounding old.

Trump, on the other hand, was perfect for this format, a reprise of "The Apprentice." He ambushed the old warrior with lies and prevarications, where the moderators allowed these to go unchecked.

Trump never did respond clearly and directly to the moderator's question of whether he will abide by the results of the 2024 elections — win or lose. Up until now he negated Biden's 2020 election that precipitated the Jan. 6, 2020, Capitol Hill riots. He instead proclaimed the participants of this mob to be patriots and freedom-loving protesters. And once elected, he will pardon all of them. And the scary prospect is Trump's sense of retribution, promising to weaponize his justice department to go after his perceived enemies and rounding up millions of undocumented immigrants, shipping them out of the country.

Democrats in a panic

The unintended consequence of the debate was panic — by definition, a sudden episode of intense fear triggering irrational behavior when there really is no real danger. Based on one lousy debate performance, the knee-jerk reaction of the Democrats is to have Biden replaced — equivalent to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. This created a flurry of negative press.

The next day, the New York Times, in an op-ed, decreed that Biden, to serve his country, should abandon the race. This played right into the hands of Republicans ramping up calls to invoke Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, urging Vice President Kamala Harris to use her constitutional powers to convene the Cabinet to declare Biden unable to carry out his duties as president, allowing the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet or Congress to deem the president "unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office." Under such circumstances, the vice president would immediately become acting president.

The Philadelphia Enquirer saw through these inanities and came up with a totally different take by its editorial board published June 29 with a banner headline: "To serve his country, Donald Trump should leave the race."

"We cannot be serious about letting such a crooked clown back in the White House. Yes, Biden had a horrible night. He's 81 and not as sharp as he used to be. But Biden, on his worst day, remains light years better than Trump on his best... There was only one person at the debate who does not deserve to be running for president. The sooner Trump exits the stage, the better off the country will be.

"Now, Trump is a convicted felon who is staring at three more criminal indictments. He is running for president to stay out of prison."

SCOTUS on presidential immunity

After weeks of dilly-dallying, the US Supreme Court came out with a ruling stating, among others, that "the nature of presidential power entitles a former president to absolute immunity from criminal prosecutions for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."

Legal experts maintain that former President Trump is not above the law. But this Supreme Court ruling kicks back to the lower courts for verification, as predicted, the question of whether some acts are official or unofficial, buying time for Trump, moving his trial date conveniently after the November 5 elections. The six conservative members of the court, three of whom were appointed by Trump, are complicit in allowing Trump breathing space. The implications here warm the heart of the MAGA cult: if Trump wins, as president, he can direct the American justice structure to drop all charges and cases against him — and even pardon himself for any and all transgressions. And go after Biden's people.

If he loses, the Supreme Court ruling does not preclude the courts from proceeding with the prosecution of Trump on his three remaining cases: the Georgia election interference case in which Trump is charged with illegally conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results; the criminal mishandling of classified documents taken by Trump from the White House to his Mar-a-Lago residence obstructing the FBI's efforts to retrieve the files; and the Manhattan District Attorney's office and New York Attorney General's office cases, both on Trump's illegal financial dealings, including tax fraud, insurance fraud and other financial crimes. These three cases, if Trump is convicted, would earn him additional years in prison.

The silver lining

My take on all of what's happening post-debate may be from an outsider looking in. My utter dislike for Trump does not translate into approbation for Biden. But this is of no consequence. I don't vote in American elections. But I see in the post-Biden-Trumpon debate and the subsequent US Supreme Court presidential immunity ruling a different angle — a personal perspective.

For one, I don't subscribe to Trump undergoing another trial after having been convicted of 34 counts of falsifying business records in the Storm Daniels case. That whole trial gave him a bump in the polls, allowing a surge of sympathy contributions to his campaign coffers. The fact that he holds the ignominious record of being the first former president in US history to be criminally convicted should have been enough psychic reward until after the presidential elections.

Thus, the Supreme Court's immunity ruling moving the trials after November 5 should play right into the hands of Democrat strategists. Redirect focus on more substantial issues on the economy, the superior record of Biden's administration compared to Trump's disastrous four-year stint, while exposing the ignorance of Trump on the nuances of governance and his cognitively impaired and insane ramblings.

Trump needs to be challenged to run on issues and not to be perceived as an aggrieved white male — a victim of America's rigged justice system — which these trials will induce.

The Electoral College

Biden will not win the US presidential election by winning debates or garnering popular votes. He and the Democrats should focus on a must-win campaign for only three crucial swing states for their electoral votes: Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The other Blue and Red states are already immutable, and their electoral votes are fixed for each political party. Now, instead of the stupid idea of replacing Biden, Democrats should concentrate on beating Trump on November 5.

And put him in prison after Biden wins the presidency.

Read 85 times Last modified on Wednesday, 10 July 2024 11:35
Rate this item
(0 votes)
More in this category: « A failed presidency