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

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