Tag: Joe Biden

Why Are You Offended?

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

It is not a secret that I do not like Donald Trump as a person and I do not think that he is fit to be the President of the United States. That was true when he ran in 2016, when he ran in 2020 and when he sort-of ran in 2024 (I say sort-of since he declined to participate in the GOP debates and the Republican party did not require him to do so). And, since 2016, I have used my Facebook account to point out the concerns that I have with Mr. Trump, including his actions in office.

But suddenly, in the past month, I have had three individuals–all trusted brothers in Christ–approach me to express concern over my posts about Mr. Trump. I appreciate that they were willing to approach me; far too often we believers—especially, I dare say, Christian men—shy away from difficult, iron-sharpening-iron conversations. All three me approached me in the right way, following biblical principles, and all three, I believe, had an appropriate motive. To my knowledge, none of them knew anything about the other talking with me.

I will be the first to admit that if three Christian friends approach you about the same thing, it would be wise to listen. And I did listen. I don’t think I became defensive. I said that I would think and pray about what they had to say, and I have done that. But I should add that within the same time period I received, unsolicited, feedback from two or three people thanking me for taking a stand. I then solicited feedback from three other friends–people I have known for a long time, whose opinions I respect and whom I believe would tell me if they thought I was in the wrong–whether they thought I was out of line or risking offense with my posts. I have reached three conclusions as a result of those conversations and my prayerful reflection on them and I feel it is appropriate to share them here.

First, I care about politics and I like to argue. Debate would sound more polite, but argue may be more accurate. I have followed presidential politics since 1988. My undergraduate degree is in political science. I thought, for a long time, that I would be serving in an elected office or working for an elected official. God showed me that, thus far anyway, that has not been His plan for my life. But I am still interested in politics, I still like to argue and I definitely still have opinions. So maybe I have posted about Mr. Trump more than I should. I will continue to prayerfully evaluate that.

Second, the concern that was expressed, and all of the feedback and pushback that I have received about my posts and comments about Mr. Trump have come from other believers. And I cannot help but wonder why. None of the men who approached me suggested that I have posted anything that was factually wrong or biblically inaccurate. So why are the posts potentially offensive?

Strangely, some people who have taken issues with my posts have pointed out that God appoints leaders to accomplish his purposes on earth. There are two things to consider in regard to that. First, if you believe that, then you have to believe that God also appointed Joe Biden for office and that He had a purpose for having Biden in office for four years. You have to believe that about every office holder in the country. You don’t get to claim God is in charge only when things are going your way; God is in charge all of the time. The vast majority of the people who are now questioning my posts about Mr. Trump are the same people who repeatedly claimed that the 2020 election was stolen, said of Biden that he’s “Not my President!” and proudly wore shirts and flew flags proclaiming “Let’s Go Brandon!” But God put Trump in office for “such a time as this,” they say! Okay. Did he also put Biden in office for such a time as that? And Obama? And Bush? And Warren Harding? You can’t have it both ways.

Second, that argument is, I assume, based on Romans 13. That passage deals with being subject to rulers—including the often-overlooked instruction to pay taxes to whom taxes are due. But it begins with this verse: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” The verse says that governing authorities are instituted by God. But who is the governing authority in the United States? It is “we the people.” God, in His sovereignty, has given the citizens of the United States of America the ability to choose our own leaders. That does not mean that God chooses who our leaders will be. He allows them to be in office, because nothing happens that He does not allow, but there is a significant difference between what God allows and what God ordains. Check out 1 Samuel 8. The people of Israel wanted a king. God warned them of the results, but He also let them have what they wanted. The fact that Donald Trump is the President of the United States means that God has allowed Him to be; it does not mean that God ordained Him to be or put Him in that place.

Also interestingly, those questioning my posts repeatedly disregard Mr. Trump’s actions on January 6, 2021, and suggest that he did nothing wrong. It was all a peaceful protest or it was all manipulated or it was all faked. It was none of those things. I, and many, many others, watched it live. The testimonies of many who were there tell us what happened. People died. People were seriously injured. It was an incredibly sad day for America. Yet, they keep trying to claim that the J6 Committee destroyed evidence, which is a sure sign that they faked it all. Except that when I ask, as I have done repeatedly, for any evidence at all that the evidence was destroyed I get…crickets. That’s because there is no truth to that claim. (You can find far more evidence than you probably have time to read on GovInfo.gov—all there for you to look at it whenever you would like).

But what about the assassination attempts? Is God responsible for the fact that Donald Trump is still alive? Of course He is. He is responsible for the fact that I am still alive, and you are still alive and every person who is currently alive is still alive. That’s what it means for Him to be the almighty, sovereign God of the universe. It is not proof positive that God ordained Trump to be the president right now.

As I said, I have been following presidential politics since 1988. Since I have been old enough to vote, my preferred candidate in the primary election has only won the White House once, and that was in 2004 when George W. Bush was reelected. But I have prayed for every one of those presidents. I have prayed for wisdom and discernment and protection. And, when I felt it necessary, I have criticized the actions of every one of those presidents. Therein lies the rub…

The fact that I criticize some of what Donald Trump does, or how he does it, does not mean that I disagree with him on everything. When it comes to substance, I agree with him on more than I disagree with him. But he is not a nice man. He is not a good role model for young people. He does not have habits or leadership skills that anyone would tolerate in almost any other setting. He is arrogant. He is vindictive. He is petty. And he seems to have either forgotten, or not to care, that he is not a dictator and he cannot rule with the squiggle of his Sharpie. I think birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants should be reconsidered. I think the Department of Education should be eliminated. But he can’t do that on his own. He has to go about it the right way. This is a republic. We have rules and laws that must be followed. When he does admirable things the right way, I will probably comment on that. But when he does admirable things the wrong way, or things which are not admirable, I will definitely comment on that. Not because I am better than he is or because I enjoy it, but because I cannot sit idly by while so many people who profess to be followers of Christ blindly embrace his every move and follow in lock step his plan to Make America Great Again. I want America to be great, but that’s not what the Lord has called His children to pursue.

So, if you’re a follower of Christ, and my posts offend you, why is that? I am asking sincerely. I would honestly like to know. Are you really concerned about my relationship with the Lord—or are you bothered by the fact that I am not as gung ho about Donald Trump as you are? If it’s the latter, so what? I probably don’t cheer for the same sports team(s) you do either, or watch the same TV shows or prefer the same music. What difference does that make? But if it’s the former, that’s a real cause for concern—unless you’re equating the two. And I’m not being dramatic. I am aware of a church that has informed its congregants that if they do not support Donald Trump, they need to leave the church. That’s heresy. That’s idolatry. That’s elevating Donald Trump to a position of being more important than fidelity to the Word of God. And that cannot be ignored. The Bereans were commended for testing what Paul taught. We are exhorted to do that in our churches. We need to do it in the political sphere, too. Just because Trump says it or posts it on Truth doesn’t mean it’s true. Do some research. Don’t live in an echo chamber. Read, watch and listen widely—even, sometimes, to people you’re sure you disagree with. Be mature enough to admit that Trump makes mistakes and has flaws.

And please, keep in mind that when I post about Trump, I don’t mean it as a personal attack on you.

The third conclusion I have reached is that populism is so dangerous. It is not coincidental that Mr. Trump has a portrait of Andrew Jackson hanging in the Oval Office. It was during Jackson’s presidency that the worst domestic riot at the White House ever occurred—celebrating his election to the White House—and it was during Trump’s first term that the worst domestic riot at the Capitol ever occurred, trying to prevent his loss to Joe Biden from being certified by Congress. At least Jackson had lawfully invited “the public” to the President’s House, but the resulting fiasco resulted in such a mess that it took a week to clean it up. I have never seen—and in my study of history I am not aware of—a U.S. president who has gained such a cult-like following as Donald Trump. Sure, for decades now people have used pins, bumper stickers, t-shirts and signs to demonstrate their support for a political candidate and to encourage others to vote for that candidate. But those things generally disappear after an election other than in museums and in the hands of collectors. Not with Trump, though. People continued to wear MAGA hats and fly Trump flags for the duration of the Biden presidency. Entire MAGA stores sprung up. And Trump has capitalized on the blind loyalty of his followers, making money selling everything from Trump-branded shoes to Bibles to silver coins to cryptocurrency—and that’s not an exhaustive list.

Andrew Jackson would not, historically, be considered a populist, since most historians date the emergence of populism to the end of the 19th century. But the explanation of populism provided by Brittanica fits Mr. Trump to a t.

In its contemporary understanding, however, populism is most often associated with an authoritarian form of politics. Populist politics, following this definition, revolve around charismatic leaders who appeal to and claim to embody the will of the people in order to consolidate their own power. In this personalized form of politics, political parties lose their importance, and elections serve to confirm the leader’s authority rather than reflect the different allegiances of the people. Some forms of authoritarian populism have been characterized by extreme nationalism, racism, conspiracy mongering, and scapegoating of marginalized groups, each of which served to consolidate the leader’s power, to distract public attention from the leader’s failures, or to conceal from the people the nature of the leader’s rule or the real causes of economic or social problems.

Donald Trump’s supporters are no longer about the Republican party—they are about Donald Trump. He claims he has a mandate from the people to enact the sweeping changes he is instigating though his electoral victory was actually quite thin. While he did win a clear electoral vote, he won a bit less than half of the popular vote, making him the first minority president since…oh, Donald Trump, in 2016. When he was elected in 2016, Trump received a smaller percentage of the popular vote than any president since George Bush in 2000. But Trump is all about nationalism, scapegoating and conspiracy mongering. Watch out of you get out of step with him, even if you used to be his buddy. Just ask Nikki Haley, Mark Milley, Christopher Wray and a host of others. He seems to think he’s still starring on The Apprentice, firing people left and right, including the Archivist of the United States.

Since taking office three weeks ago, Trump has issued 59 executive orders. That’s more than any president has averaged per year since Jimmy Carter was in office. Executive Orders were designed to be rare. The first ten U.S. presidents didn’t issue as many combined as Trump has issued already. Not until Andrew Johnson did any single president issue more than Trump has in the past three weeks—and he was definitely serving during uniquely challenging circumstances. Not even Abraham Lincoln, who was widely criticized for expanding the power of the executive branch, possibly illegally, issued as many executive orders in his four-plus years in office as Trump has in the past three weeks—and Lincoln was literally trying to save the Union. No single president averaged as many executive orders per year as Trump has issued in three weeks until Theodore Roosevelt—who was president, interestingly, at the height of populism. Executive orders became a popular means of presidential influence through his cousin Franklin’s three-plus terms in office (he averaged 307 per year) but since then have declined sharply. In fact, Trump has already exceeded in number his own per-year average from his first term.

People have become so angry about the state of affairs in Washington, D.C.—and, in many cases, rightly so—that they don’t care what Trump does to “drain the swamp.” But doing the right thing the wrong way is still wrong. This is the United States of America, not some banana republic. Do you remember the Pledge of Allegiance? It says, “…and to the republic, for which it stands….” The power here resides with the people, not with the president, regardless of who he is.

We’re about to see if the courts will slow Trump’s abuse of power—or if he will even care if they try. If they don’t, or he doesn’t, we the people better care. We better take action—legal action, through our elected representatives—to bring him to heel. Throughout history, no story beginning with someone claiming that they are accumulating power for the good of the country has ended well, and it won’t this time, either.

Image credit: John Scott Comedy.

Whiner in Chief

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

On December 29, 2025, former president Jimmy Carter passed away. In keeping with both precedent and U.S. statute, President Biden ordered that flags fly at half-staff for thirty days. That thirty day period overlaps with the inauguration of Donald Trump on January 20, something Trump simply could not abide. On January 3 he posted on his Truth Social platform:

The Democrats are all ‘giddy’ about our magnificent American Flag potentially being at ‘half mast’ during my Inauguration. They think it’s so great, and are so happy about it because, in actuality, they don’t love our Country, they only think about themselves.

Ignoring the fact that flags only fly at half-mast on a ship, this pathetic rant proves only to demonstrate that Donald Trump is the Whiner in Chief. He thinks of no one but himself and casts anyone and anything that gets in his way as un-American.

President Biden had no control over then Jimmy Carter died. And I cannot imagine even Donald Trump would have the audacity to suggest that Carter timed his own death to somehow cast a shadow over Trump’s inauguration. President Biden did not arbitrarily pick thirty days. As I said, that’s actually stated in U.S. Statute.

The United States Code, 2011 Edition, Title 4, Chapter 1—The Flag states the following:

The flag of the United States shall be flown at half-staff on all buildings, grounds, and naval vessels of the Federal Government in the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its Territories and possessions for the period indicated upon the death of any of the following-designated officials or former officials of the United States:

(a) The President or a former President: for thirty days from the day of death.

This was signed by President Dwight Eisenhower when little Donald Trump was just eight years old. Surely no animosity toward Trump, or any presidential inauguration, was intended. And I dare anyone to suggest that Dwight Eisenhower didn’t love America.

Yesterday, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson announced, “On January 20th, the flags at the Capitol will fly at full-staff to celebrate our country coming together behind the inauguration of our 47th President, Donald Trump. The flags will be lowered back to half-staff the following day to continue honoring President Jimmy Carter.” Here’s the rub: Johnson has no authority to do that. But rather than display some semblance of a backbone, Johnson—who owes his continuation in the Speaker’s chair to support from Trump—kowtowed to Trump’s bullying and bluster.

Not only Johnson, though; as of today, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Nebraska Gov. Jim Pillen, North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds—all Republicans—have announced that flags will fly at full staff in their states on the day of the inauguration, too. Like Johnson, they lack the authority to override the order of President Biden that flags will fly at half-staff for thirty days.

Stupidly, those governors are citing sections of the same federal statute in support of their position. Their arguments, however, demonstrate either a severe lack in reading comprehension skills or the presence of deluded legal counsel in their administrations. Maybe both. One section they have touted says this:

It is the universal custom to display the flag only from sunrise to sunset on buildings and on stationary flagstaffs in the open. However, when a patriotic effect is desired, the flag may be displayed 24 hours a day if properly illuminated during the hours of darkness.

I’ve been a teacher for a long time. If I gave those two sentences to a student and asked them to explain them to me only to be told that it means that flags must fly at full-staff during presidential inaugurations I would promptly give the student an F. That section of the statute provides only for a longer-than-usual display of the flag; it says nothing whatsoever about the flag being at full- or half-staff.

The other section they’ve used says this:

The flag should be displayed on all days, especially on New Year’s Day, January 1; Inauguration Day, January 20; Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday, third Monday in January; Lincoln’s Birthday, February 12; Washington’s Birthday, third Monday in February; Easter Sunday (variable); Mother’s Day, second Sunday in May; Armed Forces Day, third Saturday in May; Memorial Day (half-staff until noon), the last Monday in May; Flag Day, June 14; Father’s Day, third Sunday in June; Independence Day, July 4; National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day, July 27; Labor Day, first Monday in September; Constitution Day, September 17; Columbus Day, second Monday in October; Navy Day, October 27; Veterans Day, November 11; Thanksgiving Day, fourth Thursday in November; Christmas Day, December 25; and such other days as may be proclaimed by the President of the United States; the birthdays of States (date of admission); and on State holidays.

You noticed, I am sure, that Inauguration Day is included. Fine. Of course flags should be displayed on Inauguration Day. But no where in that section is there any suggestion that flags must be displayed at full-staff on any of those days. And no one suggested that flags should be flown at full-staff on January 1 of this year, which was within the thirty days. Were the inauguration not falling on Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday this year, I am sure no one would have suggested it for that day, either.

This is not about a desire to honor America. It is purely about Donald Trump’s narcissism and the desire of weak politicians—almost always Republican—to get, or stay, on Trump’s good side so that they do not face the recriminations that would otherwise come their way.

Congratulations, America. Next Monday we are returning to office the Whiner in Chief.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

A Tale of Two Fathers

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment
Joe and Hunter Biden.

I know that I am by no means in the minority when it comes to people disgusted by Joe Biden’s pardon of his son, Hunter. In fact, an AP-NORC poll found that only 22% of Americans approve of the pardon (though another 26% either didn’t approve or disapprove or didn’t know). Even among Democrats, only 38% approve. Partially the disapproval comes from the idea of a president using the power of his office for the benefit of his son and partially it comes as a response to Biden’s repeated statement that he would not pardon his son.

If you’re one of the few people not aware of what’s going on, Hunter Biden was convicted on both tax and gun charges. Biden said that the charges were a “miscarriage of justice” and White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said that Biden ultimately decided to issue the pardon “because of how politically infected these cases were” and “what his political opponents were trying to do.”

The “politically infected” argument might have carried a little more weight if Hunter Biden had not already pleaded guilty to the charges and if Biden’s pardon were not so expansive. As to the guilty plea, Biden said that if the negotiated plea deal had held, “it would have been a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.” But because the plea “unraveled in the courtroom” and a number of Republicans “taking credit for bringing political pressure on the process,” Biden felt justified in issuing the pardon. Even if you want to accept that argument, though, Biden went further, issuing Hunter “A Full and Unconditional Pardon for those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.” In other words, Hunter was pardoned not just for the two crimes to which he plead guilty, but for any and all crimes he may have committed during an eleven-year period leading up to the issuance of the pardon. No matter what Hunter did, or may have done, during that period—at least half of which he was addicted to drugs and/or alcohol—he will get off scot-free.

As reprehensible as this from a political standpoint, and as dangerous as the precedent is that it sets, Biden’s choice is understandable from a purely parental perspective. Every parent knows the tug that is felt when their child is in trouble and the wish that there was something that could be done to save them the pain of their choices. If anything, Joe Biden’s tug when it comes to Hunter would be even stronger, exacerbated by the fact that he was unable to do anything to protect his first wife or the two other children he had with her. Neilia, his first wife, and Naomi (known as “Amy”), their one-year-old daughter, both died in a car accident in 1972. Biden had just been elected to the Senate and was on his way to Washington, D.C. when, one week to the day before Christmas, Neilia was driving the family station wagon with all three children and was hit broadside by a tractor trailer. Neilia and Amy were pronounced dead on arrival at the hospital. Beau and Hunter survived, suffering a broken leg and fractured skull respectively. There was nothing Biden could have done for his wife and daughter.

Their first-born, a son named Joseph R. Biden III, but known as Beau, died of brain cancer in 2015. There was nothing that Joe Biden could do to protect him, either. Beau was a veteran, receiving the Bronze Star for his service in Iraq, and became the Attorney General of Delaware. In 2010, he suffered a stroke, but it was not debilitating. Three years later, after becoming weak and disoriented, a lesion was found on his brain and removed. He was given a clean bill of health but later that year was diagnosed with brain cancer. He underwent surgery, chemotherapy and radiation, but died in 2015. Despite the fact that he was the vice president of the United States at the time, there was nothing Joe Biden could do about it. Leaving behind a wife and two children, Beau was just 46—and Joe Biden had outlived a second child.

So, as I said, it is completely understandable that Joe Biden would, now that he finally had the ability to do so, act to protect his son Hunter from time in prison. But the fact that it is understandable doesn’t make it right. In fact, it will be a lasting blemish on Joe Biden’s career of more than fifty years in public service. Whenever the time comes and his obituary is written, it will certainly be mentioned. It also sets a dangerous precedent that will surely be followed by Biden’s successors.

All of that has been on my mind since Biden issued the pardon on December 1. But last night, lying in bed trying to go back to sleep after a mid-sleep trip to the bathroom, I was thinking about it being Christmas Eve and what that is really all about. Somehow, in the middle of that somewhere-between-sleep-and-awake state, I thought about the contrast between Joe Biden and God. Yes, I know, the differences are extensive, but I do have a point.

Joe Biden used his power to enable his son to avoid the consequences of crimes he committed. God, despite His unlimited power, sent His Son to earth in the form of a human baby with the sole purpose of living a perfect, sinless life in order to die an excruciating death on the cross for crimes (sins) that He did not commit. God did that, and His Son consented, in order to provide a way for me to be pardoned—for me to avoid the consequences I rightly deserve to pay for the crimes (sins) I have committed. When He rose three days later, Jesus conquered sin, hell and the grave. Today He is alive and seated at the right hand of His Father. But that in no way negates or diminishes the awesome gift of salvation or the unimaginably self-sacrificial obedience of Jesus Christ.

Joe Biden loves his son and he thinks that using his power to enable him to avoid the just penalties of his crimes is a demonstration of that love. It really isn’t, but that’s not the point I want to make here. God loves His Son, too. But He also loves the world (as John 3:16 tells us). In fact, He loves the world so much that He sent His Son to “save His people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). Joe Biden let his Son off the hook for what he did; God put His Son on the hook for what He didn’t do. In so doing, He gave “the gift of…eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). That was given “in accordance with the riches of God’s grace” and, as a result, I have “redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of [my] trespasses” (Ephesians 1:7)

You can have that, too. That’s the first, and best, Christmas gift.

Photo credit: REUTERS/Craig Hudson

A Division of the Republic

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Today is January 6. I would love to say that is only noteworthy for those who celebrate Epiphany, those who, like my nephew, have a birthday today, or because of the historically significant events that occurred that day prior to last year. There are several of those by the way—Samuel Morse unveiled the telegraph, Theodore Roosevelt died, New Mexico joined the U.S. as the 47th state, and it is the day on which both George Washington and George H.W. Bush got married. For pop culture fans, it is the day on which “Wheel of Fortune” premiered. For sports fans, it is the day that Nancy Kerrigan got attacked in 1994. Hopefully in the long run at least some of those events will prove more memorable than what happened one year ago today.

On January 6, 2021, something happened in Washington, D.C. Sadly, what you think of the event, even what you call the event, seems to be heavily influenced by your political leanings. A riot seems to be the most frequently used term, as well as the term that I find to be accurate. Dictonary.com gives three definitions for the noun riot: “a noisy, violent public disorder caused by a group or crowd of persons, as by a crowd protesting against another group, a government policy, etc., in the streets; a disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons acting together in a disrupting and tumultuous manner in carrying out their private purposes; violent or wild disorder or confusion.” All three are fitting for what happened on that day.

History.com says that “a mob of President Donald Trump’s supporters descend on the U.S. Capitol, attempting to interfere with the certification of electoral votes from the 2020 presidential election. The rioters assaulted the Capitol police force and ransacked the complex, destroying property and sending members of Congress and their staff into hiding in officers and bunkers. A protester who was shot by police, died in the chaos, and more than 100 police were injured.” None of that is really debatable, though there are plenty of attempts being made to spin those events.

Mike Huckabee, writing yesterday, said, “Get ready for a surreal couple of days during which the Capitol Hill breach will be presented as ‘one of the darkest days of our democracy’ (quoting Colorado Rep. Jason Crow) and worse than the Civil War, Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Combined.” Huckabee is noted for his wit and sarcasm, but trying to minimize what happened last year through hyperbole is not only ineffective, it smacks of disregard for the reality of what occurred. To be fair, Vice President Kamala Harris did say in her speech this morning, “Certain dates echo throughout history, including dates that instantly remind all who have lived through them where they were and what they were doing when our democracy came under assault. Dates that occupy not only a place on our calendars, but a place in our collective memory. Dec. 7, 1941. Sept. 11, 2001. And Jan. 6, 2021.” I don’t think last year’s riot rises to the level of Pearl Harbor or 9/11 in its magnitude or long-range impact, but at the same time, January 6, 2021 was the act of U.S. citizens and cannot be minimized.

 At least Huckabee used the word riot when describing the events later in his piece. Just that word sets some people off. One of the commentors on Huckabee’s web site is a perfect example; he wrote, “it distresses me to the point of anger when anyone refers to what happened last Jan 6 as an ‘insurrection’ or ‘riot’ Both of those involve violence and destruction of property of which there was little if any… at least not at the Capitol building.” Such is the denial of reality we see among Trump followers.

But Huckabee took issue with Brit Hume’s comments two days ago. ““We are not living in normal times. What we need is for people to calm down. The bitter divisions that we see in this country are exacerbated by this tendency to exaggerate, and to do so grossly,” Hume said. Huckabee seemed okay with that part of it. But he took exception (his words) with Hume saying, “It was a cockamamie scheme by Trump that was bound to fail and did.” Huckabee countered that with, “He had called for a peaceful protest that was PRO-democracy. And we certainly can’t blame him for the riot.”

That, of course, is the recurring theme among Trump supporters—he cannot be blamed for the riot.

In An AP article by Jake Coyle, published yesterday, it was reported that a Quinnipiac poll found that 93% of Democrats considered the riot an attack on the government while only 29% of Republicans felt that way. A separate poll found that 40% of Republicans saw the riot as violent while 90% of Democrats did so. In what has to be the most idiotic statement I have come across about the entire event, Representative Andrew Clyde, a Republican from Georgia who is in the pictures of a door to the House chamber being barricaded by men with guns drawn against the mob, said last May, “Watching the TV footage of those who entered the Capitol and walked through Statuary Hall showed people in an orderly fashion staying between the stanchions and ropes, taking videos, pictures. You know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit.” Florida Representative Matt Gaetz has uttered plenty of baloney about that day, but then uttering baloney is what Gaetz does best.

I am not going to get into whether or not Trump provoked, or inspired, the riot. There are plenty of others out there who have commented on both sides of that. It is a fact, though, that as he concluded his speech that morning, Trump said, ““We fight like hell, and if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore. So we are going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue – I love Pennsylvania Avenue – and we are going to the Capitol.” We do know that Trump did not act to deter the riot or to distance himself from it. His first tweet during the event was to say that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution….” Not until 4:17 p.m. did Trump release a video asking those in the Capitol to go home, while also calling them “very special.” That was more than two hours after the Capitol was breached and five minutes shy of two hours after Pence was escorted out of the Senate chamber. Trump’s tweet about Pence lacking courage went out, by contrast, two minutes after Pence was escorted out.

Albert Mohler, who has maintained his support for Donald Trump, opined about the riot in his WORLD Opinion piece posted today. He writes of three Americas revealed by discussions of the January 6 events and rightly suggests that “mainstream America” is probably in agreement that “the events were a national embarrassment, a riot against lawful order, a stark portrait of political violence, and a sobering vision of a crowd out of control.” I am pleased that Mohler has the courage to call the events “horrifying, and bizarre,” and to acknowledge the Capitol was broken into by force, that the lives of elected officials were threated and that the Capitol was desecrated. He said that American witnessed a mob “expressing total disdain for our constitutional order. A nation that tolerates this kind of behavior and lawlessness undermines its own legitimacy.” He even said that “the passions behind those events were incited and flamed by the 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump. The mob was encouraged by the president….”

Trump and others are trying to downplay the event even today. Conservative radio host Jesse Kelly tweeted that “All the January 6th stuff this week is a distraction technique….” Matt Braynard has asserted that “January 6th was America’s Tiananmen Square.” Trump himself said that President Biden’s speech this morning “used my name…to try to further divide America.”

In the midst of the riot I posted this on Facebook: “This nonsense in Washington, D.C. is not okay, folks…. Storming the Capitol is not a protest. This is no different, and no more excusable, than the CHOP foolishness in Seattle last summer. Anyone who really loves this country and really believes in the principles on which this country is founded should condemn this. Looking through the pictures of the hooligans inside the Capitol makes me sick…both angry and painfully sad.” I feel no differently now. The riot was exactly that—a riot. It was not a protest, it was not peaceful and it is nothing to be proud of, by any stretch of the imagination. I believe that there were peaceful individuals and events in D.C. that day, and I am sure that there were some people who got swept up into the crowd and even went into the Capitol who had no intention of defacing property, attacking anyone or engaging in criminal behavior. There is, though, a reason why “wrong place, wrong time,” is a cliché. The bottom line is that our nation is deeply divided. Donald Trump plays a considerable role in that division but neither he nor anyone else can bear the blame alone. Every one of us who truly cares about our country, about the ideals upon which it was founded and about basic, common decency must stand up for our convictions. We have to speak the truth and we have to demand the truth. We cannot allow ourselves to go along with unscrupulous individuals or to contribute to the division because it seems to be the best available option or the candidate most likely to win at the time.

Please note that I am not suggesting that we compromise on our convictions or beliefs. (Quite the opposite, in fact. Had more conservatives not compromised by deciding to support Donald Trump we would probably not be in this position right now). Convictions are good. The United States government was designed to allow for disagreement and to work slowly so as to prevent quick changes and knee-jerk reactions. Amy Gutmann, in the Fall 2007 issue of Daedalus, wrote, “In a democracy, controversy is healthy,” adding, shortly thereafter, “The public interest is well served by robust public argument.” She was absolutely right. But she was just as right when she said later, “when disagreements are so driven and distorted by extremist rhetoric that citizens and public officials fail to engage with one another reasonably or respectfully on substantive issues of public importance, the debate degenerates, blocking constructive compromises that would benefit all sides more than the status quo would.” That was published before Donald Trump was elected, indeed before Barack Obama was elected. And yet, in the fourteen years since it was published, we have seen her words come alive. Disagreements are distorted. Extremist rhetoric is used on both sides. Politics has become a zero-sum game, with both leading parties casting aside members who dare to hold to their convictions rather than party demands. Just look at Tulsi Gabbard, Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney as three recent examples or consider the opposition Kyrsten Sinema and Joe Manchin have faced for refusing to support the repeal of the filibuster or the passage of Biden’s bloated spending plan.

Last year, shortly after the riot, John Horgan, Distinguished University Professor of Psychology at Georgia State, said in an interview, “The United States is in a very precarious spot right now. We’ve witnessed a steady erosion of democratic norms, with increased polarization and radicalization that has reached a boiling point.” He later added, “The country is now so polarized it will take years to heal. It will require positive, constructive leadership at many levels, bipartisan reconciliation and a very basic recognition that we came close to losing a sense of what it means to be a democracy. I don’t believe we realize just how perilous things are right now.”

Gutmann was right and so was Horgan. Sadly, President Biden has not brought positive, constructive leadership. Sadly, Donald Trump has not only continued to demonstrate the same kind of attitude he had while in office, but he is considered the front runner for the Republican nomination in 2024. We don’t need Joe Biden and we don’t need Donald Trump. Nor do we need political parties that pursue victory at any cost.

In 1780 John Adams wrote, “There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”  Two hundred and forty years later, I think we have seen that he was right.

Photo credit: Blink O’fanaye, Flickr.

Go Away, Brandon!

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment
A “Let’s Go Brandon” flag from Liberty Maniacs

Unless you have been living under the proverbial rock, you have heard and/or seen the phrase “Let’s Go Brandon!” The use of the phrase began with a NASCAR race on October 2 in Talladega. Driver Brandon Brown was being interviewed by a reporter who suggested that the crowd was chanting “Let’s Go, Brandon!” That was not at all what the crowd was saying, though; turns out the actual words were far less encouraging. In fact, they weren’t even polite. The crowd was actually saying, “F— Joe Biden!” I did not take long for “Let’s Go Brandon!” to catch on as a way of expressing dislike for President Biden.

The only good thing about it is that it does not contain the actual profanity the crowd was chanting, which, sadly, I have seen displayed numerous times in public, often on flags using the same design as pro-Trump banners but with the other words. It was not that long ago that publicly displaying the “f-word” would have been considered extreme and unacceptable. Now people are literally flying it from their front porches.

In an AP article, Colleen Long called “Let’s Go Brandon” the “G-rated substitute for its more vulgar three-word cousin.” The problem is that despite it G-rating, everyone now knows exactly what the phrase means. And precisely because it is, in and of itself, G-rated, people who would never utter what the NASCAR crowd was chanting or fly profanity from their porch are perfectly comfortable displaying and/or being seen with the child-friendly alternative. You can find it on flags, stickers, t-shirts…even “ugly sweaters.”

In the same AP article quoted above, Long pointed out that Republican Rep. Bill Posey of Florida ended a speech on the House floor with the phrase, South Carolina Republican Jeff Duncan wore a “Let’s Go Brandon” face mask at the Capitol, Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas posed with a “Let’s Go Brandon” sign at a World Series game and the press secretary for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky retweeted a picture of a sign in Virginia bearing the phrase. Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert famously wore a dress with the phrase on the back to meet with former president Donald Trump. (The dress was also a dig at Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Tax the Rich” dress worn to the Met Gala). When Boebert tweeted a picture of herself in the dress standing next to Donald Trump giving a thumbs up, she headlined it with “It’s not a phrase, it’s a movement! #LGB”

In late October a pilot for Southwest Airlines concluded his address to passengers with the phrase. Just a few days ago I saw someone wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the phrase at a Christian school. Jim Innocenzi, a founding partner at Sandler-Innocenzi and a prominent figure in political advertising for the GOP called the phrase “hilarious” and said, “Unless you are living in a cave, you know what it means. But it’s done with a little bit of a class. And if you object and are taking it too seriously, go away.”

Well, I have news for Mr. Innocenzi: G-rated or not, that’s not okay. There is no way to say “f—” with class. Not even a little bit. To normalize such a profane insult toward any elected official, much less the President of the United States, is not appropriate or respectful. While it is true that we enjoy freedom of speech in the United States, and the ability to express our displeasure with and dislike of our elected officials should not be taken for granted or infringed, there is still something to be said for basic decency.

Just yesterday Amanda Prestigiacomo published an article on The Daily Wire in which Mike Rowe of Dirty Jobs fame defended the use of the term. Rowe, according to Prestigiacomo, said that the phrase is “a refutation of not only the president, but of the media and the Left’s effort to change the meaning of language.” I am afraid Mr. Rowe is being too clever by half. While he is correct that much of the American public is growing tired of the mainstream media telling them “that what they’re seeing and what they’re hearing is not what they’re seeing and hearing,” he is bestowing upon “Let’s Go Brandon” far more intention and meaning that it really has. There is zero evidence that Kelli Stavast, the NBC Sports reporter who claimed in the interview with Brandon Brown that the crowd was chanting “Let’s Go Brandon!” did so with any intentionality. Bruce Haring, on Deadline, said that Stavast “is either hard of hearing, or a very, very quick thinker.” There were immediate claims that Stavast was gaslighting the public and that the media would do anything to protect Joe Biden. I suspect, however, that Stavast is not hard of hearing and that her misinterpretation of the chant was not quick thinking on her part. She was trying to conduct an interview. No doubt she had an earpiece in, was trying to hear Brown, and was trying to do all of this with a noisy crowd screaming to be heard on the live camera. Stavast certainly could not repeat what the crowd was actually chanting, and it is entirely plausible that she thought the crowd was showing support for Brown’s first victory. It strains credulity to think that Stavast was intentionally, as Rowe suggests, trying to tell the television audience that they were not hearing what they eventually realized they were hearing.

Later in the Daily Wire piece, Rowe is quoted as saying, “I don’t think people who yell it are necessarily enemies of the president. I think they’re enemies of being told that what they’re seeing and what they’re hearing isn’t real, that it’s somehow a figment of their imagination. People are sick of that.”

I am sure they are. But let’s not try to excuse a euphemistic means of saying “F— Joe Biden” by instilling in the phrase something that it is not. To do so is to do exactly what Rowe claims people are sick of—to claim that what people are saying is not what they are really saying. Stavast was in an of-the-moment situation with conditions that were not ideal. Rowe is speaking a couple of months after the fact, having had plenty of time to think through what he is saying. If anyone is gaslighting here, it is Rowe. He makes valid points that are worthy of attention. Unfortunately, he detracts from a valid and important discussion that needs to be had by claiming that those legitimate concerns are encapsulated in “Let’s Go Brandon.”

So, I have a better idea… Go away, Brandon. Please.

Tulsi Who?

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Tulsi_Gabbard_(48563636361)Super Tuesday did not go so well for Michael Bloomberg and today he, too, dropped out. The DNC plan to have Joe Biden win the nomination went quite well yesterday and though Bernie Sanders still won several states and is, for all intents and purposes, tied with Joe Biden in the delegate count right now, the race is not over. There are four candidates remaining, though you would be hard pressed to know that from the limitations one of them is facing. Tulsi Gabbard, congresswoman from Hawaii, has not given up her quest for the Democratic nomination—and frankly, I doubt she will anytime soon.

If you are thinking, “Who is Tulsi Gabbard?” you are not alone. In fact, according to a businessinsider.com article on February 28, only 44% of likely Democratic voters have heard of Gabbard. Until last night, when she was included in the reporting only because there were so few candidates remaining, she had received scant attention from the major news networks and opposition from her own party. But last night she was included. In fact, Donna Brazile was trying so hard to make the point that the DNC is not favoring any candidate that she insisted on FOX News that Karl Rove list Gabbard and her one delegate from American Samoa on his little dry erase board. That little exchange was dually noteworthy since Karl Rove had said, earlier in the day, that Elizabeth Warren was the only woman left in the race. But Gabbard is very much a woman and very much still running. In fact, she later took to Twitter to address the swipe, posting, “I’m not quite sure why you’re telling FOX viewers that Elizabeth Warren is the last female candidate in the Dem primary. Is it because you believe a fake indigenous woman of color is ‘real’ and the real indigenous woman of color in this race is fake?” (That was a dig at Rove and FOX but also at Warren, who famously, and erroneously, claimed to be Native American).

Earlier this week, in The New Yorker, Andy Borowitz wrote a satirical piece that began this way: “Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) is under intense pressure to drop out of the 2020 race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, her nine supporters announced on Monday. The announcement from Gabbard’s nine followers surprised many Democrats, who had been unaware that the Hawaii congresswoman was still running.”

Of course satire only works when it has an element of truth, and it seems that even many of those who are aware that Gabbard is running are simply choosing to ignore her. Consider, for example, Andy Kroll’s March 2 piece for Rolling Stone, entitled “Operation Bernie Block Is in Full Effect.” It said:

The Democratic field is now down to five candidates: Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Mike Bloomberg, and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. One way to organize the field is into two camps: the progressive flank (Sanders and Warren) and the moderate establishment flank (Biden and Bloomberg). Going into Super Tuesday, there is a leader and secondary figure in each flank — Sanders for the progressives and Biden for the moderates.

Did you notice that? Kroll acknowledged that Gabbard is still a candidate and then immediately discarded her. She was not included anywhere in the rest of the article.

I should point out here that I am not a Tulsi Gabbard supporter. I have admired a number of things about her over the past few months but I am not aware of a single political issue that we agree on, so I certainly would not vote for her. But a considerable part of my interest in Gabbard has been how completely and obviously she has been shut out by the Democratic party. On paper, Gabbard checks every box one would think the DNC would love to have in a candidate. Specifically:

  • She is a combat veteran. She deployed, voluntarily, twice—to Iraq and to Kuwait—becoming the first state official to voluntarily step down from public office to serve in a war zone. She currently holds the rank of Major in the Hawaii Army National Guard.
  • She is the first Hindu to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives.
  • She is the first-ever voting member of Congress who is Samoan-American.
  • She is young – only 38.
  • She is, obviously, female.

In addition to all of that, she holds views consistent with the Democratic party in just about every area. She is a combat veteran who opposes war. She favors increasing the federal minimum wage to $15/hour (and even a universal minimum income). She wants to abolish the death penalty and do away with private prisons. She thinks college should be free and existing debt-relief plans for student loans should be fixed and expanded. She supports universal background checks and banning assault weapons. She favors Medicare for All and opposes restrictions on abortion. She wants to legalize marijuana.

So, what’s not to like?

Well, Gabbard is a rebel. Just over four years ago she resigned her position as vice-chair of the DNC in order to endorse Bernie Sanders for president. She gave the nominating speech putting his nae forward at the Democratic National Convention. She openly criticized the DNC’s handling of the 2016 election and accused it of rigging the election so that Hillary Clinton would be the 2016 nominee. In November 2017 she said, “The DNC secretly chose their nominee over a year before the primary elections even occurred.” She said the DNC and federal campaign finance laws need to be overhauled.

Earlier in 2017 Gabbard faced considerable backlash after she revealed that she had met with Bashar al-Assad while she was on a fact-finding visit to Syria, though she said she had no intention of meeting with him when she originally planned the trip.

Last summer, in one of the debates she has actually been allowed to participate in, Gabbard harshly criticized Senator Kamala Harris, at that time considered one of the leading Democratic candidates, for her work as a prosecutor in California. Matt Taibbi then wrote in Rolling Stone, “Having wounded a presumptive frontrunner [Harris] backed by nearly $25 million in campaign funds, Gabbard instantly became the subject of a slew of negative leaks, tweets, and press reports.”

In December, Gabbard voted “present” on both articles of impeachment against President Trump. Gabbard said that she had reviewed the 658-page impeachment report and decided that she could not vote against impeachment because she thought that Trump was “guilty of wrongdoing” but that she also could not vote for impeachment “because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.” In other words, Gabbard accused her own party of a politically-motivated impeachment.

In January 2020 Gabbard filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton for defamation. Clinton had referred to Gabbard as “a favorite of the Russians” and even a “Russian asset”—and Gabbard alleges that Clinton made that allegation as “retribution” for her backing of Sanders in 2016 and that Clinton “holds a special hatred and animosity” for Gabbard. Gabbard is suing for $50 million. She is not backing down from the suit, either; according to a February 12 interview with Maria Bartiromo, Gabbard says the first court date has been set.

Then, in February, after Trump had been acquitted on both counts of impeachment, Gabbard said that Trump was acting within his prerogative when he decided to fire Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, who had testified against him during the impeachment hearings, from his position with the National Security Council. That, of course, rubbed many Democrats the wrong way. Joe Biden, for example, said that Vindman deserved to be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

I do not know that Tulsi Gabbard is likely to win many more delegates than the one she picked up last night from American Samoa. And her continuation in the race will continue to bring criticism from those that choose to acknowledge it at all. (Anderson Cooper and others have suggested that she is auditioning for a place on FOX News). She might find herself gaining considerably more support from those who dislike their choice between the 77-year-old Joe Biden and the 78-year-old Bernie Sanders. Gabbard is, after all, literally half their age. Even setting age aside, some might not like the choice between “socialism and senility” as Marc Thiessen put it last night. But the only way Gabbard has any chance of gaining much support is if the DNC actually lets her participate in debates. She has been excluded from the last five—and took considerable umbrage to the fact that the DNC changed its qualifying rules to allow Michael Bloomberg to participate in the last two—but she does, at the moment, qualify for the next debate, scheduled for Sunday, March 15. In order to be a part of the last Democratic debate, candidates had to have one or more of the following: at least 12 percent support in two DNC-approved South Carolina polls, at least 10 percent support in four DNC-approved national polls, or at least one delegate from any contest that had been held so far. With her delegate from American Samoa, Gabbard now qualifies. But remember, I said at the moment. That’s because Xochitl Hinojosa, the communications director for the Democratic National Committee, already tweeted that the qualifying threshold “will go up” before that debate. And if it does, Gabbard will be left out again.

 

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0)

Besting Bernie

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

1920px-Bernie_Sanders_-_Rally_at_San_Jose,_CA_-_2I have been paying attention to presidential elections since 1988. I know that is not all that long compared to some who may be reading this, but it is long enough for it to mean something when I say I do not think I have ever seen anything like what has happened among the Democratic candidates for president over the past few days.

Last Saturday, Nevada held its caucus. Bernie Sanders won, with nearly half of the vote. The remaining half went to Joe Biden (20%), Pete Buttigieg (14.3%), Elizabeth Warren (9.7%), Tom Steyer (4.7%) and Amy Klobuchar (4.2%). Sanders essentially tied Buttigieg in the first caucuses, held in Iowa on February 3, with only 0.1% separating them. Following them were Warren (18%), Biden (15.5%) and Klobuchar (12.3%). About a week later Sanders and Buttigieg switched places in New Hampshire, with Sanders winning with 1.3% more of the vote than Buttigieg received. But there Amy Klobuchar finished third. A strong third, with 19.8%. After her it was Warren (9.2%), Biden (8.4%), Steyer (3.6%) and Tulsi Gabbard (3.3%). At that point it was clear that Bernie Sanders was a force to be reckoned with, that Pete Buttigieg had managed to drum up more support than most anyone would have thought possible when the crowded Democratic field was taking shape…and that Joe Biden was in trouble. Ahead of the New Hampshire vote, USA Today said, “the former vice president is battling for his political future in a state that has a history of determining who the nominee will be.” Biden had told a gathering in New Hampshire, “Excuse my language, but I’ll be damned if I stand by and watch us lose this country to Donald Trump a second time.” And then he went on to finish fifth. Of course, it did not help Biden any that when a young woman asked him about his unimpressive finish in Iowa, and said in response to Biden’s question that she had been to a caucus, Biden called her a “lying dog-faced pony soldier” in a Q and A that then went viral. The USA Today article also quoted Quinnipiac University Poll analyst Tim Malloy as saying that Iowa had hurt Biden’s perception of electability, which was what many had considered his biggest asset.

So, what happened after New Hampshire? Nevada had its caucus eleven days after New Hampshire’s primary and then, on February 29, South Carolina held its primary. Note that in the first three contests Biden had finished fourth, fifth and second, with his 20% second-place finish in Nevada his best showing of the three. Many called South Carolina a must-win for Biden, and no doubt it was. He touted the fact that he had “worked like the devil” to win the state and his popularity among African American voters figured to be a factor in the outcome. In the South Carolina Democratic debate, though, the tenth one of the campaign season already, Biden did not acquit himself all that well. CNN said that Biden “turned his outrage meter WAY up” in the debate and made some points, but also observed, “Biden is still not a terribly good debater, however. He repeatedly stumbled as he tried to make his points.” Not only is not a terribly good debater, he looked old and weary during the debate. All of that pales, though, when considering that Biden also asserted that “150 million people have been killed since 2007 when Bernie [Sanders] voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability, more than all the wars, including Vietnam from that point on.” Jeffery Martin was being polite when he wrote for Newsweek that Biden had “misquoted statistics” about gun violence. Biden did not misquote—he seemingly made them up. According to the Center for American Progress, the number of gun deaths from 2007 to 2017, whether violent or accidental, was 373,663. In other words, Vandana Rambaran was not as kind but was much more accurate when she wrote on FOXNews.com that Biden had “grossly overstated the numbers.”

What about the others in the debate? Pete Buttigieg was “at his absolute best” CNN said, and Amy Klobuchar “did more with fewer opportunities than almost any other candidate on stage.” Elizabeth Warren was “totally fine” CNN claimed, though it also acknowledged that that was likely to make much difference for her. Michael Bloomberg was participating in his second debate. It would have been tough for him to do worse than he did in his first, so when CNN said that he “was better in this debate than in the last one” it could not help but quickly follow up with “but he wasn’t good.” When even CNN points out that Bloomberg “committed a near-Freudian slip early in the debate when he started to say he ‘bought’ a Democratic House majority before re-calibrating…” you know it wasn’t a good night for him.

That debate was held on February 25. The day before, Biden spoke at a Democratic Party dinner in South Carolina and said, during his comments, “My name’s Joe Biden. I’m a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate.” Yikes. Biden left the Senate twelve years ago. So common have such Biden blunders become that Ken Pittman, who hosts a radio show in Massachusetts, wrote, “I’ve tried to give him the benefit of the doubt, but it is now time to consider whether or not former Vice President Biden is showing early signs of senility, dementia, Alzheimer’s or some other affliction of one’s mental capacity and predominantly in our senior citizens.” I couldn’t agree more.

Still, on March 29, Joe Biden did something he had never done before, despite this being his third presidential run. He won a primary. He did what Sanders had done in Nevada, winning nearly half of the vote (48.4%) and Sanders did what Biden had done in Nevada, coming in second with about 20%. Tom Steyer had his best showing yet, with 11.3% and a third place finish, followed by Buttigieg (8.2%), Warren (7.1%), Klobuchar (3.2%) and Gabbard (1.3%). (It should be noted that Gabbard has not qualified for the last several Democratic debates).

This is when the craziness began. Tom Steyer “suspended his campaign” (which is political speak for “dropped out”). He had achieved, by far, his best performance, but he decided it was not good enough. “I said if I didn’t see a path to winning, that I’d suspend my campaign. And honestly, I can’t see a path where I can win the presidency,” he said. He had banked on South Carolina, too, having spent more time and money there than anyone else. And, despite his third place finish, he received no delegates from South Carolina, leaving him still sitting on zero after the first four contests.

On Sunday, March 1, Pete Buttigieg dropped out. That morning he went on “Meet the Press” and indicated that he was staying in the race, saying, “every day we’re in this campaign is a day that we’ve reached the conclusion that pushing forward is the best thing that we can do for the country and for the party.” Suddenly, that evening, he had changed his mind. Buttigieg went back to South Bend, Indiana, and announced that he was finished. Elena Schneider wrote on Politico.com that the result of his decision was “opening up a wider path for former Vice President Joe Biden to become the moderate alternative to Bernie Sanders.”

Monday it was Amy Klobuchar’s turn. Despite the fact that her home state of Minnesota will vote today, Super Tuesday, Klobuchar called it quits. And what did Elena Schneider say of that decision? It “pav[es] the way for Biden to capture a greater share of moderate Democratic votes against Bernie Sanders.” I assume you are noticing a theme here….

Tom Steyer had no delegates, and because of the way the system works it is not likely he was going to gain any…at least not anytime soon. But Buttigieg had 26 delegates and Klobuchar had 7. Sure, those are small numbers, but remember…it’s still early! Right now Sanders has 60 and Biden has 54. Today is what will make a significant impact, as Super Tuesday awards over 1,300 delegates. So why drop out days—or, in Klobuchar’s case, a day—before Super Tuesday? How much money would one really have to spend, after all, to see how it went for another day or two? Well, the Democrats just are not willing to risk it, and for two reasons.

The first reason is Bernie Sanders. Andy Kroll wrote an article for Rolling Stone headlined, “Operation Bernie Block Is in Full Effect.” Indeed it is. “That sound you hear is the collective exhale of the Democratic establishment after Joe Biden’s landslide victory in South Carolina,” Kroll began.

Biden’s victory unleashed a flood of endorsements by party fixtures and card-carrying members of the old guard — former Virginia governor and DNC chairman Terry McAuliffe, former DNC chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, former Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, along with dozens of mayors, state legislators, and sitting members of Congress. The New York Times reported Monday night that former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke would also endorse Biden less than 24 hours before voting began in the Texas primary.

Beto O’Rourke? He dropped out as a presidential candidate himself back in November. His campaign slogan was Beto For America, Beto For All, but he made it quite clear that it was really Beto for people who think like Beto…and that included commitment to policies such as the confiscation of guns and the elimination of tax-exempt status for any church or school that opposes same-sex marriage. In other words, you know you’re desperate—especially if you paint yourself as a moderate, which Biden usually does—if you are asking Beto for help.

The second reason is Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg formally entered the race not too long after Beto O’Rourke dropped out, but he then decided to skip the first four states and pour all of his attention, and his considerable personal wealth, into Super Tuesday. The DNC manipulated its debate rules to let Bloomberg into the last two debates, but that’s only part of their Beat Bernie strategy. At this point, though, the fear is that if Steyer, Buttigieg and Klobuchar had remained in the race, and picked up some of those 1,300+ delegates at stake today, the race would drag on and even possibly run the risk of producing a contested convention. There hasn’t really been a contested convention since the Republican Convention in 1976 when Ronald Reagan almost swiped the nomination from Gerald Ford. But if a contested convention really did occur Bloomberg might find himself getting some traction. He even went so far today as to admit that that’s exactly what he needs. According to the AP, he told reporters today in Miami, “It’s the only way I can win.” Bloomberg says he is the only candidate that can beat Donald Trump, but show me a candidate who hasn’t said the same thing about themselves. The Democrats do not really want Bloomberg, either. In many ways he would be another Donald Trump. He brings plenty of his own baggage, and he has a knack for inserting his foot in his mouth, too. See the above reference to buying congressional seats, for one, and his recently resurfaced assertion that farming is so easy that he could teach anyone to do it for one of plenty of others.

The bottom line is simply this: the Democratic National Committee is absolutely determined to run the candidate it wants, and it doesn’t want Bernie Sanders. Not that it should, mind you. He is a committed socialist and he has gone so far recently as to praise Fidel Castro. But that is no excuse for manipulating the process. Sure, right now there can be no definitive proof of manipulation. Steyer, Buttigieg and Klobuchar really might have all decided to drop out over the last three days. Of course, the Astros might have just been banging out a rally rhythm on their dugout trash can, too. But there is a reason that people are skeptical of someone overly objecting to something, and when it comes to Donna Brazile’s comments earlier today on FOX News, Shakespeare’s line, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks,” could not be more fitting. Sandra Smith asked Brazile about RNC’s chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel suggesting that a brokered, or contested, convention is looming and that the DNC would manipulate it to make sure Bernie Sanders is not the candidate. Brazile started her response by attacking the Republicans for canceling primaries (there is really no one opposing Donald Trump for the nomination) and then brought in the Russians before finally shouting, “Ronna, go to hell! This is not about — No, go to hell! I’m tired of it!” McDaniel saw through the smokescreen, too, tweeting, “It’s ok, @donnabrazile, I’d be having a bad day too if my party was still hopelessly divided. Talk of a brokered convention and the DNC trying to stop Bernie obviously hit a little close to home.”

Yes, it did. We’ll have to see what the DNC has up its sleeve after today’s results come in. Who knows, they might even have to let Tulsi Gabbard back on the debate stage!

 

Photo credit: By Σ – Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=87818665

Love Wins

~ jbwatson ~ Leave a comment

Unless you live under a rock you have been already been inundated by news stories, blog posts, Facebook status updates and tweets about the Supreme Court’s decision last Friday making homosexual marriage legal in the United States.I could comment at length on the decision itself, and perhaps at some point I will. In reality, most of what I would say has already been shared in this space before in my warnings about the slippery slope we are on and where that will lead once we step onto it. With Friday’s ruling I believe we have stepped fully onto that slope–not gingerly or cautiously, but jumped on with both feet. As we slide down that slope we will pick up momentum and there is, sadly, no telling what kind of condition we will be in when we come to a crashing stop at the bottom.

Perhaps the most common hashtag over the past few days has been this one: #LoveWins. I have no idea how many times it has been tweeted or otherwise posted around social media but I suspect it would be in the millions. President Obama and Vice President Biden both tweeted it. Hillary Clinton tweeted it with instructions on how to get a free bumper sticker from her presidential campaign that features the word HISTORY in the ubiquitous rainbow color scheme of the homosexual movement. Above the bumper sticker was the headline “All love is equal.” STOP-Homophobia.com tweeted “It’s only a matter of time before #LoveWins worldwide.” Coca-Cola was one of many companies quick to embrace the ruling and be sure everyone knows that they celebrate the decision, and Facebook made it possible for uses to place a rainbow-colored overlay over their profile pictures in a show of support.

The problems here are almost innumerable, so I am not going to get into many of them. Let me just say this briefly. The definition of marriage, and the redefinition of marriage by SCOTUS, has nothing to do really with love. Love is both an emotion and a decision, and it is something that many people feel and have toward many other people. Whether or not someone loves someone else is not the only necessary ingredient for marriage. (Indeed, one could argue whether or not it even is a necessary ingredient, but that is a completely different conversation). That “love” seems to be what everyone is celebrating with this decision is part of that momentum with which we are hurtling down the slippery slope toward a high velocity collision at the bottom. If marriage will be based and defined solely on whether or not people love each other than we have–as I have warned repeatedly before–obliterated any grounds on which we could now restrict marriage to a man and a woman, two men or two women. How could we now say that if a man and three women love each other they cannot be married? How can we say that if an adult and child love each other they cannot be married? If someone claimed to be in love with a dog, how could we not allow that person to marry that dog? Anyway, enough on that; it is not really my point here today.

What troubles me most of all about the #LoveWins mess is that it distorts what love really is. I will not delve too deeply into that right now either, though. Instead, I want to focus on the fact the love won a long, long time ago. Actually, Love won, and God is Love. In the beginning, God created humans with a free will. If I were God, I would have seriously considered nixing that idea I think, particularly since God’s omniscience means He was well aware of what we would do with that free will. That free will led to Eve yielding to Satan’s temptation, Adam following her lead, and the sin nature that each of us is now born with. That free will God gave us paved the way for every sin we have ever committed, every decision we (collectively) have made to reject God completely or to reject His instructions and guidelines periodically or consistently. It was because God loves us that He gave us a free will; He would rather be loved by those who have chosen to love and follow Him than by legions of human robots who have no choice but to love and obey.

More importantly, God’s love is so great that when sin did separate us from Him He decided to send His only Son to pay a penalty we could never pay–a perfect, sinless blood sacrifice on the cross at Calvary. When Jesus Christ was crucified, paying for your sins and mine, when He was buried and rose again, conquering sin, death, hell and Satan, love won. Satan cannot win. He still fights on with dogged determination but even knows how the story ends. Our understanding of love from a human perspective is distorted, perverted and skewed by selfish desires and the pursuit of pleasure and happiness. God IS Love, and His love is unfathomable. We can understand it enough to appreciate it and accept it, but the realities of its scope and depth and breadth are incredible. I have addressed this here before as well, and it would be easier for to you just read God’s Love Is than for me to restate what I think has already been well articulated. What I want to leave with here is this: Yes, Love Won, but not on Friday when five people in black robes decided to redefine marriage. Love Won over two thousand years ago when Jesus Christ died, was buried and rose again. Love Won from the moment God spoke the universe into existence. The approval of a redefinition of marriage to allow homosexuals to marry is not evidence of love; rather, it is evidence of the workings of Satan and of man’s desire to remake truth to fit his own wants and whims. Despite our best efforts to ignore, change or destroy His Truth, God’s Truth and God’s Love are the same today as they have always been and as they will always be. Not because of the SCOTUS decision, but in spite of it, Love Wins.