Debates Sound So Good Now. But.

I had this thought the other day, which was absolutely delicious. Then I had the next thought. Which wasn't. Wonder if you have, too.

Kamala Harris now has the Democratic presidential nomination sewed up, days after Joe Biden got out of the race pretty much the way he got us out of Afghanistan--Okay, we're done here. The Democrats also pulled off a refreshingly united, seamless convention in codifying the unification of their efforts. 

If you're like me, you're looking forward to having her take on ex- in a debate, which is happening on Sept. 10. Kind of licking our chops, actually.

I can think of a bunch of reasons, too: Because Harris chooses to use the brain her parents gave her; because she's not nearly as likely to freeze up when ex- says something incredibly untrue or incredibly stupid; and because she'll put the best foot forward when explaining the successes of the Biden Administration, which the president so strangely failed to do in the last, disastrous debate.

The mistake you might be making--and I can't blame you for doing so--would be to put a great deal of weight on the results: First, because regardless of the lies that ex- will be mouthing, people continue to believe them as well as reject any factual information that Harris will put forward; second, he's at his best when deeply, ridiculously insulting someone; and third, you have to admit that he's getting pretty good at upfront non-answers, avoiding any responsibility when he can possibly do so.

The momentum has shifted, though. A surge seems on. The Democratic deep dive in the polls has stopped, and Harris has regained some of the losses Biden absorbed. All that does is assure that the election will be a photo finish at best, and once again, a few thousand votes in a few states will decide whether we go on in some degree of gridlock, forcing compromise, or descend to mindless, devastating, undemocratic authoritarianism.

Ex- can read, so he knows that debates, which he figured to avoid, must be taken on. Harris might do well. She might stumble. Ex- will try to undo her, to frazzle her, to discombobulate her. I doubt that he will succeed, but the total effect he leaves has to be to diminish her in some way, to get the public to conclude that having the first woman president will make the country weaker. But the total effect will be unknown until they finish and wags like me prattle on. 

The election seems hers to lose now, though, and her demeanor seems very fit to face down this awful person. She must come through. One of the results of the debacle of the earlier debate was that Biden's performance was so disturbing that it distracted from how awful ex- actually was himself. He has feasted on withdrawal from reality, counting on enough of the country to bask in it so he needn't face any of it; recall how often he spoke facing the floor. It is he who is dangerous, not Harris. If Harris can show that, she may run away with the whole deal. At bottom, she must avoid appearances of intimidation.

I can't help but remember, though, during my first few days in Texas in 2014, the gubernatorial debate between Greg Abbott and Wendy Davis, which stands as a template to consider the effectiveness of any debate between any two people. Abbott was riding a huge lead, and Davis was hoping to cut into it. By any stretch of logical deduction, she buried him with facts and fresh approaches to problems that had been plaguing Texans for decades. Much of what he did was shrug and go aw-shucks, diverting and ducking any problems that Republicans had been responsible for.

Anyone with a brain walked away from that display with nothing but respect for Davis' strong delivery on things like women's rights and tax fairness: Not only what she did but the way she did it. I couldn't help but think that, with this show of competence against Abbott's show of wishy-washy blather and constant inclination toward avoidance, she had to start cutting into his lead.

Didn't work. Not even close. I looked it up again. She lost by 21 points. Didn't even get to 40 percent. Abbott, as we so sadly know, went on to do things like send thousands of undocumented immigrants to so-called "sanctuary cities," to show everyone what a challenge dealing with such people can be. He signed a bill, too, limiting Texas abortion rights to a minuscule, nearly impossible, token degree.

So there is no assurance that, when ex- takes on Harris, the results will make any sense at all. (Look at the last unexpected result.) But you never know. That was ten years ago, and Texas is Texas. You would like to think, though, that Harris will leave folks with a better impression than President Biden did.

Ex- also keeps giving Harris plenty of new ammunition, what with his ridiculous, strange, and totally false assumption that the Black part of Harris' race has somehow been kept in hiding until recently. That message, says more than one commentator, is for sharpening the support of his pliant MAGA backers, who believe and accept anything that comes out of his pathetic mouth.

The debate would, in the end, be significant for those last five percent who are still unsure of what to do. (I find that remarkable, but maybe they're smarter than the rest of us.) As usual, they will decide the election, either by throwing up their hands, holding their noses and choosing at the last minute, or by staying home and letting someone else do it for them--definitely the wrong move. That not nearly enough of us spend not nearly enough time reading and talking about this devastatingly big choice--which takes, in its essence, so little time but means so much for so long--is enough of an abrogation of political responsibilities for the maintenance of our republic. The tokenism of it all is sometimes awful to consider.

But here we are. Again. In about 73 days now, a good and worn down man will be replaced by either someone who wants to take democracy somewhere new, or a bad and worn down man who wants to take democracy, flush it down the toilet (along with some important government papers, but I digress) and replace it with Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation's blueprint for illiberalism. Maybe debates will allow that to emerge as a realization. It could actually save us from ourselves for another four years.

Let us hope. Here we go.

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

Mister Mark

I Met Pete Buttigieg. Here Are My Impressions.

I was once in a position to meet important national politicians, so I wasn't at all nervous to step up and talk to Pete Buttigieg. Once I spotted him, I was looking forward to it.

Senator Tammy Baldwin held her 12th annual barbecue just outside of Stoughton, which is a little bit southeast of Madison, last Sunday. The crowd was nearly overflowing and charged with enthusiasm--not only, I would guess, from the sudden and inspiring emergence of Kamala Harris as a real threat to stop ex- from the White House, but also because Baldwin's campaign opponent, Eric Hovde, a superficial and phony impostor with vague notions that remind me of Ron Johnson (who has never stopped being a bloviating phony), has run a slick, attractive media campaign with $14M in self-funding (so far) because he's a bored billionaire. It has made the race tight as a tick, which shouldn't be--Baldwin has been a hard-working, genuine legislator focused on what she can do for the state and not at all anything connected with ego. 

Hovde is running on nothing but ego, with little demonstrable knowledge of Wisconsin's challenges, throwing whatever mud he can at Baldwin's connections with what was once a struggling Biden ticket. It remains to be seen whether Baldwin can refocus the state's attention to her genuine, lasting accomplishments for Wisconsin and the country in these last 75 days; I certainly hope so. If Harris keeps surging, she might grow coattails. Baldwin's reserved, humble manner should still fit well within Wisconsin, but plenty of money semi-legitimizes plenty of nonsense, sad to say. 

This race looks to be cliff-hanger. I had to show my support. A 90-minute drive didn't seem excessive to do that. I arrived fashionably late and walked into a cabin teeming with energetic Democrats.

The buffet serving line at The Fields Reserve wasn't moving very fast, which was annoying until I took a closer look. Moving successively down the long row and pressing the flesh, as he was brought out to Wisconsin to do, was our Secretary of Transportation and his husband, Chasten. Of course, everyone took a few moments to say hello and kibitz. It owes to Buttigieg's natural, very real friendliness and down-home kind of charisma that it all took so long.

So I had a moment to prepare what I was going to say. It came simply, because I meant it: "I'm glad you're here."

Buttigieg looked me right in the eye: "So am I." He seemed to mean it, too. And his grin wins you over instantly.

He is disarmingly small. He can't be 5-9 (Take a good look at the holy picture I finagled on my Facebook site.). I thought of him as taller. But that made some sense: Buttigieg's public stature, earned by countless appearances, especially the daring ones of earned media on Fox News, which have no doubt helped keep Democrats and the Biden Administration real and grounded in fact, have already given him something of a larger-than-life presence. 

But that disappeared instantly with me. I liked him immediately. He struck me as having few pretenses--an extremely valuable benefit for someone who might still be seeking more national attention.

I was also impressed that he brought Chasten. Pols don't normally do that unless they are also running for office. Then it struck me: Maybe he is, in 2028. He tried a presidential run in 2020 and came up short. But, as a well-spoken union pol was accustomed to pointing out, politics is the land of ten thousand tomorrows. Harris' election might result in his continuance as Transportation Secretary, but might also open more doors for juicier, more noticeable spots, like national security advisor, say. Right now, though, Buttigieg can utilize his Cabinet position to remain relevant to public conversations. Because his position is more publicly noticeable because he presents so well, he can have it both ways for another few months.

Regardless of how this presidential campaign turns out, four more years of seasoning will only help him. Perhaps it will put more grey hairs on him, which wouldn't hurt: His looks are still, dark beard notwithstanding, breathtakingly boyish. He's incredibly smart and quick on his feet--use You Tube and review the interview he did with Stephen Colbert Wednesday night--but he also looks like he might have just cut your lawn. It comes off as almost too modest. But his talents win out; he can't help it.

On the stump, Buttigieg doesn't bellow. He rarely raises his voice beyond a few decibels. He does that for emphasis, not intimidation and certainly not as a self-serving demagogue. He tries hard to be as matter-of-fact as possible. It is a clear, unwavering voice that is as reassuring as the facts he brings to you. That he stays in that lane, exaggerating almost nothing, establishes that one factor that people want and need in their politicians: trust. Say what you want about Mayor Pete, he won't fill your head with nonsense. He doesn't have to. He has his finger on enough simple truth to carry the day.

Will Buttigieg be president someday? It feels like he still wants to be and wants to try again. We know the hurdle he must climb, so he may never get there. A multi-racial woman overcoming a traditionally white male bastion, though--granted, an awful example of it--in November might edge that door open and leave accessibility available to those of other minorities. A Kamala Harris victory might do even more than save our democracy; it may also change the presidential paradigm.

I look forward to watching his progress through our often chaotic political system. That Buttigieg has gotten this far so soon indicates that others have noticed his obvious talents and are comfortable at the way he has handled the attention. Where all this goes from here is anyone's guess. But a disappearing act, at least not right now, is not in the cards.

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

Mister Mark

Only One of Them Sang

I wonder if anyone else noticed.

The Olympics is, somewhat sadly, about patriotism as much as about the world-class competition, which once again had breathtaking moments over 16 days. If that isn't true, then why do nearly all of the gold medal winners sing the words to their countries' anthems when they are being played in celebration of their victories?

Nearly. Not all. And I couldn't help but think about the U.S. men's basketball team, all NBA players, as they observed their own hard-earned gold medal last Saturday.

Twelve of them stood there, initially locking arms as they stepped up to their top podium. The Dream Team Avenged, they had struggled to put away the two other medal-winning teams, Serbia and France, in their last two games. Basketball, once an overwhelmingly American-dominated sport, has now become a world display of skill and talent. That world has caught up. This may be the last of America's latest streak of gold medals for some time.

Maybe it was that realization that evoked more relief than elation with them. Perhaps some journalism ex post facto will reveal that. But pure joy it could not have been.

The big names in U.S. basketball were there: LeBron James, Steph Curry, Kevin Durant. The whole was so much better than all the parts that players like Jayson Tatum, an NBA All-Star if there ever was one, barely got a chance to play. And all three of those above mentioned players stepped up when the pressure was greatest. They made great plays and timely baskets.

Thing is, they had to. France and Serbia did not go gladly into their nights. A rim-out here, a bad bounce there, might have led to a significant U.S. embarrassment. After all, these were the best players in the sport's best country. Right?

But the NBA has globalized, too. Some of its very great, or soon to become very great, players--Nikola Jokic, who has entered the conversation as the world's best player; and Victor Wembanyama, the upside to whom isn't even close yet, which makes him really, really scary and who will likely make Jokic's reign of greatness seem puny in comparison--are from elsewhere in the world. They play in the NBA, but are nowhere near as intimidated or humbled by what they face in the States. Rather the other way around.

James, Curry, and Durant are in all likelihood through with Olympic basketball (though with LeBron, you never know; at 39, he still defies age). At least, we will not see the combination of them ever again. It all felt like a page was turning. Maybe they felt it, too.

So when the Star-Spangled Banner played in Paris' basketball stadium to celebrate the 39th of America's 40 gold medals, I thought it odd that only Steph Curry sang the words.

That's it. Only him. The camera scanned the group. All the other players stood respectfully, but none of the others sang. In fact, they didn't even smile.

You can't help but think that the fact that all of them were black must have had something to do with it.

And this: LeBron went out of his way to say, in his post-game interview, that America had a lot wrong with it right now and at least it could forget about all that for a few days and unite behind this great team.

It was like, in its own way, a challenge: Okay, you wanted us to do this and we did it. What are you going to do now?

To which some of us might respond: Hey, every last one of you has more money than God, with your gushing NBA contracts, which don't even require that you play in all your scheduled games. Now you have gold medals, too. You are the pinnacle of black success in a country which has denied it to others who also have deserved it for centuries. And you want something else? Where do you get off?

What they want cannot happen, or won't for more decades: Acceptance of genuine equality. Blindness when it comes to noticing race. Respect for thinking that might not dovetail with whites. Maybe some of that washed up into standing (mostly) silent for the Star-Spangled Banner; maybe it was a statement of dominance in one of the few categories where it can be shown and demonstrated. Tough to say. I hope some of them reveal their thoughts.

Admit it, though: Had the men's basketball team not won the gold medal, the whole U.S. Olympic effort might easily have been written off as a partial failure. It took twelve talented black men to temporarily combine their efforts and emerge victorious against the rest of the world that's certainly gotten a lot better.

They did it again: They bailed us out again. Just like blacks showing up at the polls will be vital in battleground states to bail us out against a terrible threat to democracy that will turn our lives inside out should he still rally and win. They saved Joe Biden. Will they save us through Kamala Harris?

We don't make nearly enough of that. Either. Way-way overdue.

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

Mister Mark

A Wise Bow to the Teachers' Unions

Political choices are fraught with cross-cutting issues. It's often not what you get with them, but what you don't get that truly matters.

With Kamala Harris' choice of Tim Walz for her running mate, she gets some of both. But the cutting edge of that decision involves what will now happen, instead of what won't.

Josh Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania, would at first appear to be the best choice. He's a great speaker and carries with him a unique combination of being both slick and down-to-earth (and there's a strong connection with Barack Obama, too). People would look at him and say to themselves, "Now, he would be a great successor to Harris should something happen to her."

Which, on the surface, would certainly be true. Except for two things: He's Jewish, first of all. Normally, this would be an excellent twist to the ticket, but being associated with Israel in any palpable way right now carries with it considerable baggage because of its decidedly destructive, relentless war with Hamas. Anyone who's been following the news lately knows of the left wing of the Democratic Party, which seems far more in pity with how the Palestinians have been suffering (and they sure have), in lieu of the simple fact that Hamas started this conflict and should have plenty of fingers pointed at it.

The Harris campaign is vociferously denying this. But it can't be unseen. Harris would have to deal with far greater pro-Palestinian protests at her speeches with Shapiro in tow. Call it "we're better off without" rather than "can't do it at all," to divert the discussion from anti-Semitism (which it wouldn't be, but accusations of which couldn't be avoided) to an unnecessary political burden (which it would be, undoubtedly). Hopefully, all of that will diminish from a crisis to an annoyance.

This election, the support for which has plainly shifted toward Harris (and probably a photo finish), would be a shame to blow if the left wing failed to show up at the polls, which they certainly could if she didn't bow at least a little bit toward their concerns. She's already tried to do so by declaring that, while Israel has a clear right to defend itself, it's time to settle this matter and stop the fighting and destruction. She knew she had to do that because every vote will matter--just as it did in 2020. At least they won't have an excuse not to show up, which is about all Harris can hope for.

No, not that, though that might have been problematic. What would have been a disaster is taking on Shapiro's insistence on support for school vouchers. The major teachers' unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, has been on board for decades, now, as being dead set against vouchers, which drain public schools of money to satisfy ultra-moralistic religious school advocates who want everything both ways. These blind idealists claim that public schools remain godless and eschew morals, which is nonsense; if you don't teach the importance of religion in the history of the country--including how it has been manipulated to causes not associated with goodness, too--you've missed quite a bit. Tim Walz, former public school teacher of social studies, knows this very well.

Beyond that, anyone who backs vouchers runs afoul of the very ground troops placed within every state who can and will, with the backing of the right people, knock on doors and people-up polling areas in solid and undying consistency. And that also means anyone who has such a person on their ticket.

So who arranged for Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota and firm supporter of teachers' unions? Those very unions. I assure you--someone got to the Harris campaign and told it that they were playing with way-way too much fire if they did anything that would make the potential supply of volunteers and voters for that ticket in narrowly decided battleground states, look askance. But Harris is from California, the bastion of the leading state affiliate of the NEA, whose backing she's already needed in her races for state attorney general and U.S. Senate, so I doubt if she needed much of that.

Now, of course, these very unions have no excuse other than to turn out the maximum number of enthusiasts to drive this victory home. There's no assurance that that's going to happen, but the Harris campaign can now say that they touched all the bases and tried to please everyone they could, and so now let's get on with it.

There are other reasons to take Walz, too. He's a fine speaker from a state that tends to carry for Democrats. He's good on the stump and quick on his feet, too. That stands to reason, because he was a teacher, and those are some of the hidden skills that make for good teachers. He has a folksy way about him that people will consider--the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with. He's also a hunter who has supported reasonable, logical gun control laws. He's a successful football coach--what can be more American than that?--whose team won the state title. And his state was the first to codify Roe v. Wade when the Supreme Court reversed form and ruled against it two years ago.

Teachers who understand their positions know they have to play politics sometimes, though they may hate it. Another one who knows this is Tony Evers, the governor of Wisconsin.

Of course the Republicans will attack him as being too liberal and conjure other lies. It's knee jerk and I don't think will stand the test of time. Instead, Walz will provide ballast to an assertive woman who might otherwise threaten people to give second thoughts about her. He, too, would make an excellent successor to Harris should something happen to her.

So Walz checks a lot of boxes for a running mate. That's great, because we are now within 90 days of making an incredibly important decision. Harris has made up for the deficit that Biden presented her with, says an average of polling recently taken. That momentum must continue. But taking Tim Walz as a running mate isn't likely to hurt it, either--unlike ex- taking J.D. Vance, which is proving not only unproductive to him, but damaging.

There's energy back in this campaign, and fresh attention paid to it. It's too easy to assume that this will go without unforeseen challenges. But so far, Kamala Harris has given herself as good of a chance as there is. Joe Biden, as good of a president as he has been, could no longer do that.

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

Mister Mark