Farewell and Thanks So Much, Joe

When someone runs for president, there are required preliminaries, one of which almost has to be some kind of autobiography, either written or ghostwritten, carefully outlining policy preferences without coming right out and announcing the candidacy. If the momentum follows, there's plenty of time to do that through an 'exploratory committee' and the like.

So when Joe Biden, ex-Vice President, appeared at the Pabst Theater in Milwaukee back in 2017, ostensibly to hawk his book Promise Me, Dad, it didn't take an unimpeachable swami to figure out that he was on a fishing expedition in a battleground state, seeing if there would be enough takers upon which to base that candidacy.

I was there. I've always been a Joe Biden fan. I liked his style, his personable approach, what passed as genuineness (but with politicians, you never know), his inclination to laugh at himself, his readiness to see that rubbing elbows and working a room is how to get people comfortable enough to make deals--which is what democracy has always been about, when it has worked sufficiently.

But I was moved by what the host, former Wisconsin governor Jim Doyle, said about the Obama Administration: "Barack Obama saved the United States of America" when it looked like it was about to plunge into financial ruin back in 2009-12.

Looking back, that's hard to disagree with. For sure, Obama saved public education by guaranteeing its funding, even though his insistence in cleaning up flaws in the standardized testing system, instead of getting rid of it, would also be a focus. That's a trade-off made to go. The liaison for that thinking, at least between his folks and the NEA, the nation's top education union, was Vice-President Joe Biden.

Biden was also the point person in Obama's effort to get meaningful gun control legislation passed in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre of late 2012. But even that horror couldn't budge Republicans to stand down on profit-sharing (in a way) in lieu of saving kids from deadly ambush.

Certainly, Biden has his flaws. He has a propensity to forget when the camera's on. He's had to watch himself making 'friendly' gestures toward women (and survived an accusation of sexual touching from a woman who just as suddenly disappeared when she couldn't get much traction), So you can say that Biden's time for the White House may have had as much to do with the lower standards advanced by ex-, who has absolutely no standards except teetotalism, which is hidden behind the anarchy of amoralism.

That couldn't possibly be Joe Biden's watchword. The motivator for his book was the death of his son, Beau, from brain cancer in 2015. It also was a motivator behind not running for president in 2016, standing down from a battle with Hillary Clinton, though he had given it serious thought. "I was still grieving," he wrote about that withdrawal, and added,

I made sure to be upbeat, to keep my shoulders back, to smile. I had no prepared speech, just notes, but I knew I wanted to make it clear that I was still optimistic about the future of the country and that I was not going to stop speaking out. "I believe we have to end the divisive partisan politics that is ripping this country apart, and I think we can. It's mean-spirited. It's petty. And it's gone on for too long. I don't believe, like some do, that it's naive to talk to Republicans. I don't think we should look at Republicans as our enemies. They are our opposition, not our enemies. And for the sake of the country, we have to work together. Four more years of this kind of pitched battle may be more than this country can take."

Eight years later, the words echo. The polarization has hardened. Biden couldn't intercept the process because it's been led by someone spurred on by personal ambition alone and a strange ability to make supporters tune out from the obvious peril into which they would also be thrust. It's much harder to find a Republican with whom to have a decent conversation.

I'm sorry, Joe. Ex- is the enemy of what the United States of America stands for: Good governance, consensus-building, getting along with those who disagree, moving the country forward, or at least trying to. You tried to leapfrog the opposition that's bound and determined to rocket us back 75 years, but you couldn't. I'm not sure anyone could.

Add to that the sharp reaction of what's left of the undecided public to Biden's awful, withered, frail appearance on the debate stage, and the writing quickly appeared on the wall. Joe Biden didn't lose his quest for a second term just because of a bad night; he lost it because the presidency wears a person down. At 81, he no longer has what has become obvious that a person needs to sustain themselves in the position: An unquenchable source of energy. That night was the manifestation of it, though there had been earlier signs that denial and staff protection had disguised. Four years of wondering about that was too much for too many to contemplate.

Biden railed against the trend he'd set into motion for three weeks or so, but numbers don't lie. His top two aides delivered the bad news Saturday night: There was no path to victory, which meant, ironically, that his stubbornness and selfishness, not that of he with nearly a monopoly on both, would take him, his party and the country down with them. Too.

He made the best decision, a self-sacrifice that will be recalled by historians forever, flying in the face of what nearly all politicians crave. Behind him is a legacy of a quiet return to governmental competence; something of a national recovery from a terrible bout with Covid; absolutely no Cabinet or Executive Branch scandals or any significant controversy (with the possible exception of the Secret Service's strange, recent inability to protect ex- from an assassination attempt, which should bother everyone); and dropping inflation to an acceptable level (Interest rates remain a problem, though they're one of the chief mechanisms.). He could have done better on the border, too, but a deal he tried to set into motion with Congress, one that would have been highly acceptable to Republicans, was denied for fealty to a monster.

Biden tried to point some of those things out in a speech from the Oval Office. He tried to frame the campaign in terms of saving democracy. He's right, but the way he got through his speech did little more than advertise that time and duties have reduced his presentation abilities that, now lacking, are inimical to sustain the vitality of the office and confidence in it. He has governmental competence and ex- has bluster; it would seem that one would have been squandered for the other.

Here's hoping Kamala Harris brings that up and helps people think about that, maybe posturing that with her, you just might get both. Too. I do not envy her. The opposition is already trying to deflect her talents with smearing and lies and innuendoes and exaggerations, and it will get far worse. But her mind is quickly responsive and razor sharp, and I'm already looking forward to whatever debate the two can have. 

There's no guarantee of a logical, factual approach leading to ex-'s defeat. But with the cloud hanging over Biden now gone, there may be some discussion of policy alternatives, which the Democrats have consistently won during this century. We can only hope.

Biden has suggested his would be a transitional presidency. That it will be--either to a brighter new day, or down the stairs to a new disaster led by a con man with unprecedented lust for power for which the Supreme Court has already paved the way. That will be our call.

In the meantime: Farewell, Joe. Thanks so much for saving the United States of America. Again. At least for a while. "Still" would be a better word, but we can't use that one. We don't know if democracy will survive. Yet. But we know that in yielding, you've given it its best chance in this perilous moment.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

Ron Johnson Read the Wrong Speech and No One's Surprised

Ron Johnson. Some say he's nobody's fool. I say he's everybody's fool.

He did it again at the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, of all places. He said he read the wrong speech.

I have a number of reactions to that:

1. Really? He called Democrats "a clear and present danger" to the country, and it was the wrong thing for him to say to fellow Republicans, geared as they are to hearing lies? I'm not believing it.
2. The teleprompter goofed, huh? Nice. That happens. Never completely rely on electronics. Too often, they get in the way of what you want to do, including giving speeches. If the air conditioning fails, in other words, get out the fans. 
3. That means that Johnson had nothing prepared to provide backup, nothing to say on his own. And this is a U.S. Senator. I learned in my particular, politically charged position, and sometimes the hard way, that when you're considered representative of something, anything, have three things to say in case someone wants a comment and you have nothing prepared in front of you; not two, not four, just three. Be ready to recite them at any time, under any situations. You don't have to talk a lot, just have something of substance to say. Blend in the purpose of the meeting and something attached to your organization. Then sit down. People like that.
4. It's vital that, in such situations, you at least sound professional, competent, like you've been around and know a couple of things for sure. You might not, but you have to sound that way. Johnson participated in an incompetent goof, then explained it later. Bad look, Ron. But then, that's your style.
5. The smart thing would have been to acknowledge the electronic blip right there, on the stage, then launch into some version of those three boilerplate points. A short speech at a major party convention! Is there such a thing?
6. OR--that really was the speech he was to give, and, facing severe backlash for the ridiculous stupidity to which we're accustomed with him, he backed away and blamed the teleprompter. Which would make his comments a lie--lying about lies--which is what Republicans have been saying, and will continue to say, all week. So what would be worse--that it's true, or that it isn't?
7. Being just one of ex-'s toadies--aren't they all?--it meant that he was too scared to say another word, anything, that might cause anyone in the room (thousands, remember) to look cross-eyed at him. If so, he's in the wrong business, but we've known that for 14 years now.
8. He looked sadly pedestrian, as if he wandered in off the street and had something stuck under his nose that he'd never seen before. But he looks like that all the time, except when he makes up his own reality, twisted and pathetic.
9. All of this just deepens my contempt for him, since he wanted to help ex- on January 6 (see #7 above) and underwrite the list of phony electors as emanating from his office. That is quiet, non-violent insurrection, but insurrection indeed. He slithered out of responsibility. I will never forgive him for that.
10. And--it furthers the mystery as to why this state wanted to elect him not just once, not just twice, but three times. Granted, Mandela Barnes flat-out blew a tremendous chance to send this clown back to Oshkosh in 2022. Too often, politics involves winning by default, and this was one example of that.

We have one good U.S. Senator, though. Her name is Tammy Baldwin, locked in a tussle with her Republican opponent, who's as phony as Johnson, far more of a novice, and whose campaign is glossed over with serious money. She's presently beating him, but she still needs your help. Send her some money, please. The presidential race no longer looks good here, but if Democrats can hang onto the Senate, that will tie up ex-'s plans to undo practically everything. We can't let that happen. Gridlock is still within reach.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

In Over Her Head, She Finally Finds A Way Out

Aileen Cannon is and always has been one of the top examples of ex-'s incompetence and manipulation that we never knew until it was too late. Her behavior throughout what has become the fiasco of the investigation and legal machinations against him being prosecuted for obviously, egregiously, and defiantly violating laws against revelations of important papers to massage his incredible ego has demonstrated that incompetence, and his insistence to place loyalty of personality over loyalty to country.

It has also become an egregious example of rope-a-dope, fighting off a process she didn't want anything to do with, yet didn't seem she could get out of. Until she had a brainstorm, apparently, and got lots of advice from the prime ex-er on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, another sublime example of judicial corruption and incompetence, who seemingly has bailed her out by claiming that a federal statute about special counsels enacted over 30 years ago no longer applies, or doesn't have to apply, even though it's been unchallenged since.

So she's saying: Here. Someone on the Suuuuuuuuupreme Court told me I didn't have to have this trial if I put this roadblock in the way. Of course, she's right. Either way, she'll never see this case again.

But neither might we, if ex- manages another colossal blend of nonsense and now emerging pity party to regain the presidency. He has gone two inches from having the back of his head blown off to four months from ruining the United States of America forever. He will protect Cannon, and himself, though the latter always has been far, far more important. If she's protected, it's only as a residual.

Beyond all that, those papers will never see the light of day. I'm betting he wants to keep them as souvenirs--see how great I am?--and show them to people who come by Mar-A-Lago both during the campaign (which he will) and during and after his new and horrible time in office (where he will most likely charge people money to see them, thus setting up an endless side gig--no emoluments, remember? But that doesn't matter anymore, either, since the papers describe some of the "duties of the office"--while taking on, and running from, the rest of the world).

They won't because the appellate process (her ruling will lose, but it won't matter; see above) takes time, and during that time, he will have gone on to gain office again. One of the first things he'll do is declare that whole effort toward litigation null and void, declare those papers off-limits to anyone but him, and (I'll bet) threaten prosecution toward those who challenge that. If Jack Smith has a cabin somewhere near the Maldives, I'd advise him to repair to it, and soon.

But back to Judge Cannon, who has gleefully set all of this into motion. This isn't about justice. It isn't about keeping some things in government under wraps to protect those who protect us. It's all about her and what appears to be undying loyalty to her liege, from which she can claim, what, brownie points? 

She already has everything she needs--a cushy, lifetime job into which she can now crawl back underneath the rock she occupied before she drew the short end and was assigned this incredibly important case for which she's way-way over her head. Otherwise, she wouldn't have devised a method to delay the proceedings by proposing that both sets of lawyers concoct their own rules of procedures--upon which she would have taken her good natured time to evaluate--which she should have automatically distributed and published for them. That figured to take weeks, during which, in one of her darker moments, she probably came up with the idea of reaching out with desperation to Clarence Thomas, whose ethics we now know disappeared long ago. Help me, Daddy! Save me from the bad guys!

I know that sounds horribly sexist, but what else are we to conclude? Appointing a woman to a crucial federal judicial position assumes proper vetting for competence, that things like this, momentous as they are, can be handled by a woman just as interested in equity as the next person. That clearly was not done. 

But with ex-, it doesn't have to be done. It's better that it isn't done. Loyalty is the only requirement. It always has been in a fascist state. It will only be repaid if it occurs to him. She may wind up being the next  Supreme Court nominee.

For which he laid the start of the groundwork four years ago. Because it's the courts that determine the strength (or lack of it), endurance (or lack of it), and viability (or lack of it) of democracy--or lack of it. This rigged Supreme Court majority has already given him carte blanche to take whatever liberties he wishes, should he regain power. There is only one step left--the crucial one in November, and you can bet that if he loses it, he will invoke the assassination attempt as part of an overriding conspiracy to keep him from power--and claim access to voting processes that, four years ago, were barely prevented from him. He will use all the levers the Constitution affords him, plus the most important one provided him by the Supreme Court, to ruin the Constitution and its meaning.

No, I didn't, and don't, want him shot to death. I wanted him convicted of obvious crimes and sent to jail for the rest of his life, which he so richly deserves.

But the new, desecrated judicial system has already partly been put in place that, if the clock is allowed to run out and the public emerges as really being that stupid, will turn on that same public with the same degree of vengeance that ex- has promised. Our civil liberties will disappear. The civil rights movement will become a relic of the past. Anything resembling good government will, too. We will each be on our own, awash in ex-'s horrible, lying, fetid rhetoric that few will want to hear, much less believe, for at least another four years, if not beyond that, as he has promised to challenge the two-term presidential limit, designed, as it turns out, for ugly buffoons like him.

But that would assume respect for the Constitution, for which he has none, nor anything or anyone else who could possibly stand in his way. Laws will be just words which can be manipulated into favorable meanings, regardless of intent. Opponents are now potential criminals. So go absolutist autocrats, which we will get, and deserve, if we allow that to happen in November. Aileen Cannon just took us a step closer to that terrible fate. She joins an enemies list of lackeys and sycophants who aided and abetted him, a list that will grow with breathtaking speed.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark

This Is Not A Good Ruling, Regardless of What Happens in November

The imperial, unitary presidency just got a huge shot in the arm. Our democracy may not last long.

The Supreme Court, favorable to the kind of presidency that mimics a monarch, just allowed the president, whoever they may be, to do lots of things nobody else can do in a regulated society. We don't even know what they are.

Ex- filed suit to get out of prosecution for what he led on January 6, 2021, and he may yet get his way. That may not even be the worst thing that can happen because of this.

John Roberts wrote that the president's "core constitutional duties" no longer can be subjected to legal analysis--the determination of which is left, of course, up to the president himself. But that's a matter of interpretation, and more court rulings, which would face unalterable delay once those acts are committed, making their determination quite moot. So, too, with whatever is referred to as "official acts," the definition of which was intentionally left unmade. No one knows what that means--only that any president can now make up any excuse to do anything at any time to anyone. Roberts thus became, at last, either an open member of the Republican cabal to seize power, or has exposed himself as the most naive justice at the worst possible time.

We could have presidents who get us into unalterable trouble because they can't see past their shirtsleeves--and we are left to gather up the damage. Damage, this time, that we can feel immediately, not just dead bodies from other shores. Damage to people's lives.

Either way, this makes the upcoming election incredibly crucial. Do you want ex- to now take over the office again, armed with these newly stated powers? The Constitution gives the president wide range anyhow. Ex- would take that to a broad dictate to do things like utilize the Justice Department to arrest political opponents and charge them with sedition or treason; warn opposing media about the same thing; take military powers and fling them around as one would a snarling dog.

Since the Republicans in Congress have pretty much left impeachment out to dry, what's there to prevent ex- from becoming a full-time dictator? Probably nothing.

The slow motion coup d'etat has become a reality, full blown, out of control. The system has been effectively gamed. While in abstentia, ex-'s judicial appointments have set the stage for him to become an overwhelming autocrat, protected by a twisted interpretation of the Constitution that no one anticipated and that Republicans have become ultimate hypocrites about--talking about limited government, but in fact in favor of whatever their side can conjure to maintain frightening, unhinged power with a frightening, unhinged, unprecedented decision.

In other words, if ex- is re-elected, the very idea of the United States of America will be lost, perhaps irrevocably. We will not be in a democracy anymore. It will have lasted 238 years--not an incredibly long time in world history: upon Nixon's first visit to China in 1972, Henry Kissinger asked Chou En-lai what he thought of the effects of the French Revolution, which had happened a little more than 180 years before that, and Chou replied, "It's too soon to tell"--and historians will note that democracy is, perhaps, too fragile to last forever.

Which would be true, since its best and most optimistic proponent will have disappeared into an autocratic, narcissistic milieu the results of which would be devastating for the world. Unquestionably, ex- would handle incoming immigrants in an inhumane way--and get away with it. Failing at that, he could start a war with Mexico--and get away with that. He could start wars with either North Korea or Iran--and get away with that, assuming but not guaranteeing that we would be safe from counterattack. Discussions are already going on regarding the re-institution of the draft: There can be no reasons other than bellicose anticipation of foreign or domestic altercation (yes, a president with these powers could enlist the military to permanently maintain civil order, then dare anyone to oppose him or her).

Think of the worst case scenario. We are there now. Even if we should survive ex-'s power seizure attempt, presidents elected four years, eight years, twelve years later will have these amazing, unalterable, unmuted powers. This is a terrible ruling, regardless of what happens in November.

But now the one person who can head this off has been exposed as not only confused and ineffective in public debate, but unable to recognize that his time has passed and that while policy initiatives will live on, he will not.

You know who I'm talking about. We are at a desperate place. Next will be a two-part presentation dealing with what to do next. Our republic, or what is left of it, depends on it.

Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.

Mister Mark