NOTE:  My absence the past couple of weeks is, as is often the case, due to a convergence of two or more situations.  First, today I am posting entry #800 and wanted to make sure the content matched the milestone.  Second, I am finally recovering from a bout with the flu which has made it hard to concentrate when both researching an issue and then writing coherently about it.  Third, the fire hose of news the past month has made it difficult to focus on any single event.  Therefore, I have chosen this occasion to put a number of observations in a broader context.

75 years of life is a milestone birthday, often referred to as the platinum celebration. (sage.com)

Carl Jung would suggest it is no coincidence that someone like myself, who is so steeped in the study and practice of politics, was born on January 20th, the date established under the 20th Amendment (a mnemonic which makes it easy to remember), adopted in 1933, on which a newly elected or re-elected candidate for president of the United States takes the oath of office. Even though January 20, 1950 was not an inauguration day, but the mid-point of Harry Truman’s full term as president, the die was cast.  And assuming you can do the math, you already realize the milestone referenced in the title of this post is still more than 14 months away.  Most people have no idea what they want for their next birthday, much less one that is more than a year in the future.

Why, then, would I have an obsession with this far off event?  Simple.  While it may be a personal milestone for me, what happens at noon on January 20, 2025 may be the defining moment for what is often referred to as the “American Experiment.”  The next president and commander-in-chief could be someone who:

1. Refused to accept the outcome of what his own chief of election security called the “most secure election in the nation’s history.”
2. Incited followers, whom he knew were armed, to march on the U.S. Capitol to disrupt certification of the electoral college votes.
3. Illegally retained and shared classified information with donors and journalists.
4. Said he would terminate provisions of the U.S. Constitution if  they got in his way.
5. Called Americans who gave their lives in defense of the United States “suckers” and “losers.”
6. Was embarrassed to be seen in the presence of wounded warriors because “…it doesn’t look good for me.”
7. Called for the execution of the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff.

Any one of these offenses would have disqualified an individual as unfit to serve in a pre-MAGA world.  Which raises the question, “What changed?”  This morning, I got my answer watching Morning Joe.  Host Joe Scarborough interviewed Representative Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) who is co-chair of a bipartisan caucus of House members referred to as the “Problem Solvers.”  To their credit, this group was instrumental in assembling the bi-partisan votes to avoid a national default earlier this year and a government shutdown last weekend.

The conversation then turned to Scarborough’s suggestion that Democrats had put party loyalty above institutional well-being when they voted in mass to oust Speaker Kevin McCarthy.  If you had just turned into the program, this might seem like a reasonable question.  However, in previous segments, Scarborough proclaimed McCarthy’s downfall was just the latest example that appeasement never works.  Furthermore, he and guest panelists made reference to the multiple times McCarthy violated institutional norms to win and then hold on to the speaker’s gavel.  Gutting a bi-partisan agreement which governed when and how members could file a motion to vacate the speaker’s chair.  Giving a disproportionate share of key committee assignments and chairmanships to extreme Freedom Caucus members. Promising an impeachment inquiry even though GOP leaders have yet to identify a single instance in which Joe Biden committed a high crime or misdemeanor.  Giving exclusive access to Capitol security tapes to Tucker Carlson.  Unilaterally initiating the impeachment inquiry without the promised floor vote.

Although Gottheimer did not make the analogy, he implied that for Democrats to keep giving McCarthy cover based on empty and broken promises was equivalent to Neville Chamberlain’s pact with Adolph Hitler which would guarantee “peace for our time.”  After peppering Gottheimer, Scarborough admitted he probably would have done the same thing if the circumstances were reversed.

The exchange between Gottheimer and Scarborough is just the latest example of projection and disinformation which unfortunately has corrupted civil discourse in the U.S.  Democrats are accused of being anti-institutionalists when, for the last nine months, the GOP majority has pounded House norms harder than Speaker Pro Tempore Patrick McHenry banged the gavel to declare the House in recess Tuesday afternoon.  Violent rhetoric is said to be protected under the First Amendment (which it is not).  At the top of the list is the sadly successful GOP campaign to convince voters there is no difference between the parties.

Then how do you explain this.  Donald Trump who was declared liable for defamation and sexual assault in the case of E. Jean Carroll, was found liable of persistent business fraud and faces 91 criminal counts has the support of  57.9 percent of GOP primary voters according to the latest Real Clear Politics average of polls.  In contrast, the first poll following the indictment of Democratic New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez shows the incumbent has the support of just five percent of likely primary voters.  For Democrats, character still matters.  And none have called for defunding the Department of Justice or FBI or firing any prosecutor following indictments of members of their tribe including the president’s son.

One more thing. Given the chance to start fresh with a new speaker, the two front-runners to replace McCarthy, majority leader Steve Scalise and judiciary chairman Jim Jordan both voted to decertify Joe Biden’s 2020 victory just hours after they were seen running to save themselves from the violent mob that invade the Capitol building on January 6.  In an early morning post on Truth Social, Trump endorsed Jordan, a man who cannot remember when and how many times he talked directly to Trump on January 6th and later inquired about the prospect of pardons, according to Cassidy Hutchinson, although he never specifically requested one as did six other members of the Freedom Caucus.

Yes, January 20, 2025 will be my personal platinum jubilee.  All I wish for on that occasion is Americans hopefully made the right choice to ensure the United States remains a nation governed by the Constitution, the rule of law and people of character.  If they choose otherwise, we will need to coin a new phrase to describe something that dies on its 236th anniversary.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

~George Santayana

It was August 1999.  Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan hosted the National Governors Association annual meeting in St. Louis. I was there.  I ran into PBS NewsHour political commentator Mark Shields on an elevator.  He asked if I knew why the Republican attendees had scheduled a private meeting.  At the time, I did not.

The Republican Party had lost the last two presidential elections.  Elections they believed they could have easily won, especially the 1996 contest, against an unpopular incumbent Bill Clinton.  Before the party anointed Kansas Senator Bob Dole as their standard bearer, the roster of wannabe nominees included:

• Former Nixon and Reagan advisor Pat Buchanan
• Former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander
• U.S. Congressman Bob Dornan (CA)
• U.S. Senator Phil Gramm (TX)
• Forbes Magazine editor Steve Forbes
• Former assistant Secretary of State Alan Keyes
• U.S. Senator Richard Lugar (IN)
• U.S. Senator Arlen Specter (PA)
• California Governor Pete Wilson

Only Dole and Buchanan remained in the race in August when Dole secured the nomination at the national convention in San Diego.  It could hardly be called a love fest.  Religious conservatives were disappointed the party platform did not include more powerful pro-life language.  And, to avoid a repeat of Buchanan’s divisive oratory at the 1992 convention, he was denied a speaker’s slot during the four-day gathering.

The 30 Republican governors who attended the 1999 NGA meeting in St. Louis decided they would not let this happen again.  They agreed to pre-select one of their own to represent them.  And with the endorsement of the governors in 29 other states, their choice would be guaranteed the nomination.  Texas Governor George W. Bush emerged as the consensus candidate and won enough delegates by March 2020 to wrap up the nomination.

On the other hand, Democrats never seemed to learn that lesson.  In 1968, a bitter fight between incumbent Vice-President Hubert Humphrey and the anti-war branch of the party, led by Senators Eugene McCarthy (OR) and George McGovern (SD), doomed Humphrey’s chances of succeeding Lyndon Johnson.  More notably, in 2016, even the last-minute truce between Senators Hillary Clinton (NY) and Bernie Sanders (VT) was not enough to bring the party together.  I need not tell you what that led to.

Which brings me to 2023 and “old” Joe Biden.  Yes, he’s going to be 82 years old in January 2025.  Yes, age and the still present effects of being a “recovering stutterer” deprive him of the kind of relationship with the English language that defines great orators.  But he has one thing no other Democrat can claim.  He has the endorsement of the breadth of the Democratic continuum from Bernie Sanders to Montana Senator Jon Tester.  From moderate Representative Steve Cohen (TN) to member of “the squad” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY).

Now, just imagine if Biden withdrew from the race, as so many have suggested.  Does anyone who believes a second Trump term is not a clear and present danger to democracy and the rule of law really want to see an open contest similar to the dumpster fire that was on display at the first Republican debate?  Democrats, independents and former Republicans who have left the reservation need to remember it took every one of those 82 million Biden votes to drive Trump from the Oval Office.  And it may require the same effort next year.  Democrats cannot afford to take the chance some of those voters will stay home or turn to a third party candidate.  A contested nomination would likely do just that.

Yes, I know he’s old, but there is one more reason I do not share the same concerns of those who question his ability to serve another four years.  I challenge his detractors to give one specific example where his age prevented him from fulfilling his presidential responsibilities over the past three years.  He was there every time he was needed.  Garnering support for Ukraine including a clandestine, multi-day trip to Kiev to boost morale.  (How easily we forget Donald Trump could not attend a D-Day memorial for American soldiers because it was raining.)  Strengthening NATO with the addition of Sweden and Finland to the alliance.  Negotiating with Republican members of Congress and a few recalcitrant Democrats to pass major bi-partisan legislation and avoid a default.

“What about Afghanistan?” Republicans are sure to ask.  Would a younger president have allowed such a debacle?  Most likely.  The immediate collapse of the Kabul government and Afghan military was contrary to the intelligence information that would have guided any commander-in-chief.  Biden’s decision to use the withdrawal agreement negotiated by (you guessed it) the Trump administration as the opportunity to end a military engagement he believed had already gone on way to long was the rational and strategic choice.

The case against Joe Biden is not unlike Rudy Giuliani’s explanation of his crusade to overturn the 2020 election to Speaker of the Arizona House Rusty Bowers.  “We have a lot of theories, we just don’t have the evidence.”  Yes, there are a lot of theories.  Nikki Haley believes a second Biden term is a death sentence.  Chair of the House Oversight Committee James Comer thinks Biden will be impeached and convicted of some unidentified corruption scheme.  We should not choose a president based on unfounded theories.  Until there is real evidence, when it comes to protecting democracy, I see only one choice.  JOE BIDEN.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Yesterday, the world bore witness to the first public emasculation since August 5, 1305 when Scottish independence leader William Wallace was executed for treason. However, there was one major difference between Wallace and this most recent victim House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.  Wallace’s punishment was administered following a tribunal in Westminster Hall.  McCarthy’s was self-imposed as he stood at a podium in front of the Speaker’s office where he begged for the mercy of his executioners.

This epic story begins on January 7, 2023, when McCarthy, during private negotiations with members of the GOP Freedom Caucus, makes numerous concessions to secure the 218 votes he needs to become Speaker.  This backroom castration, though slightly less humiliating than yesterday’s public surrender to the occupants of Earth 2, was a precursor of things to come.

On the day of McCarthy’s ascension to the top of the House leadership, Forbes contributor Brian Bushard reported that the wannabe Speaker made the following concessions to the Freedom Caucus.

1. Separate votes on each of 12 appropriations bills rather than approving them simultaneously under an omnibus spending bill.
2. Cap discretionary spending at FY 2001 levels which would require a rollback of major Biden era legislation including the bipartisan infrastructure program and the Inflation Reduction Act.
3. Create a special subcommittee to address alleged “weaponization of the federal government,” which would eventually lead to impeachment of Joe Biden.
4. Reduce the number of caucus members required to initiation action to “vacate the chair” (i.e., remove the Speaker) from five to one.

Did McCarthy think this was a multiple choice question?  That he only had to pick one of the options?  That by picking #3  he could renege on the other three promises?

Within two hours of his announcement he had authorized an impeachment investigation he learned what he should have known all along.  Giving in to the Freedom Caucus would only embolden them to pursue their other demands.  To drive home that point, Matt Gaetz, speaking from the podium on the House floor, let McCarthy know he was not off the hook.

I rise today to serve notice. Mr. Speaker, you are out of compliance with the agreement that allowed you to assume this role. The path forward for the House of Representatives is to either bring you into immediate total compliance or remove you, pursuant to a motion to vacate the chair.  I know that Washington isn’t a town where people are known for keeping their word. Speaker McCarthy, I’m here to hold you to yours.

One has to keep in mind McCarthy and his MAGA-verse minions are the ones who claim everyone from the military to the FBI are too soft.  Yet, it is McCarthy who is displaying weakness.  Nancy Pelosi, with an equally small majority and fractured caucus in 2021, would never have tolerated such disrespect from any Democratic member of the House. Or who can forget Pelosi challenging Donald Trump over U.S. engagement in Syria at a meeting in the White House cabinet room (below).

When McCarthy told Liz Cheney she would lose her GOP leadership position after she told her colleagues, “We cannot let the former president (Trump) make us complicit in his efforts to unravel our democracy,” she did not negotiate or compromise to keep her job.  Following the removal vote, Cheney told reporters, “”I will do everything I can to ensure that the former president never again gets anywhere near the Oval Office.”

These occasions became fodder for myriad political jokes about Pelosi and Cheney wearing the big boy pants or growing their own pair of cajones.  However, female leaders in the United States and around the world have proven, time and again, they do not need testicular transplants.  Why would they need cajones, when they already have equally powerful ovarios de acero.

For what is worth.
Dr. ESP

For decades we heard the cry, “NOT IN MY BACKYARD!”  You did not need to finish the article or watch the rest of the news broadcast to know what it meant or what it referred to.  Communities protesting Section 8 housing in middle class neighborhoods.  City residents, although decrying a rise in crime, blocked construction of a new prison in their municipality.  And perhaps the most famous example, the three decade effort to stop Nevada’s Yucca Mountain becoming the repository for the nation’s nuclear waste.

There were exceptions.  In mid-1980s Texas, rural communities on the verge of extinction competed for these projects.  They brought jobs to towns in which the historical source of family income and public revenue had long disappeared.  Where affordable housing for the unemployed and underemployed was non-existent.  Where the out-migration of young residents robbed these places of their future workforce.

Two news stories this past week foretell a “new NIMBY,” one with a major difference.  The outcry is not about what is being built in a community, but projects which may go forward whether they are needed or not.  The first is an exposé in the September 7 edition of ProPublica about the Navy’s abandonment of the LCS (littoral combat ship) project, conceived in the late 1990s as a smaller, faster off-shore alternative to the more costly and less agile destroyer class. 

In his article, “The Inside Story of How the Navy Spent Billions on the LCS (Little Crappy Ship),” Joaquin Sapien documents the project budget overruns, design flaws and lack of reliability.  According to Sapien, “Scores of frustrated sailors recall spending more time fixing the ships than sailing them.”  He described the LCS’ history as ” a vivid illustration of how Congress, the Pentagon and defense contractors can work in concert — and often against the good of the taxpayers and America’s security — to spawn what President Dwight D. Eisenhower described in his farewell address as the “military industrial complex.”

Perhaps the best evidence of this debacle is the saga of the USS Freedom, the first commissioned LSC which left the shipyard on October 8, 2008.  Despite promises of a 25-year useful life for the vessel, it was decommissioned on September 29, 2021, just short of its 13th birthday.  Three more of the first five ships have been decommissioned, the most recent being the USS Milwaukee on September 8, 2023 after less than eight years in service.

Common sense tells you the LCS would be a good place to start trimming unnecessary expenditures in the FY2024 defense budget.  As early as 2019, the Navy proposed cutting back on production of the LCS, requesting just one more in the FY2020 budget.  In what could only be described as a rare bi-partisan moment, Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) recruited President Donald Trump to support American-made products and avoid the layoff of workers in her state.  Sapien reports, “On May 24, in a move that shocked the defense community, the Trump administration inserted one more ship into the budget after it had already been sent to Congress.”

This example of the “new NIMBY,” the eventual inclusion of three more ships than the Navy wanted in the FY2020 budget, shows how the term can now be attributed to a totally different kind of situation.  While every administration and member of Congress talks about balancing the budget, the necessary spending cuts required to achieve that goal “better not come out of my backyard.”  Even when continued spending makes little or no sense.  The easy solution would be to either mothball every LSC or offer them to coastal states for civilian purposes similar to the disposition of military bases following recommendation of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission at the turn of the century.  However, congressional members representing San Diego, California and Mayport, Florida, home bases for the remaining LCS fleet, continue to lobby for continued operations at these home ports.

The next example demonstrates how the “new NIMBY” can convert even the most ardent budget hawk into a dove.  Earlier this year, Representative Randy Weber, a Republican from Friendswood, Texas and a member of the Freedom Caucus, voted against Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s bi-partisan deal to avoid default because it did not go far enough to reduce the federal deficit.  Yesterday, he turned the other cheek.  According to Texas Tribune writer Matthew Choi:

The deeply conservative Friendswood Republican holds a distinction that separates him from several other caucus members: He is Congress’ top requester of earmarks this year at a time when many fellow conservatives have turned their backs on steering funds to local projects in their districts.

His asks include $100 million for the Ike Dike, an ambitious Gulf Coast hurricane protection project, as well as protections for some of the nation’s biggest energy and trade facilities. 

When it comes to backyards, Texas is among the biggest.  And to paraphrase the Lone Star state’s slogan, “Don’t Mess with Texas,” I wonder if the license plate on Congressman Weber’s personal car reads, “DMWMB.”  DON’T MESS WITH MY BACKYARD.  On the bright side, his request for the Ike Dike could be viewed as an admission that “there just might be something to all that climate change hoo-ha.”  But don’t bet on it.  He still has another cheek to turn.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP