The answer to all your questions is MONEY!

Don Ohlmeyer/Former NBC West Coast President

This quote is most often used in relation to sports.  It made the news cycles again last week when the NFL, after claiming they were reinventing the kickoff for player safety, announced a plan to expand the regular season from 17 to 18 games.  At 17 games, the playoffs are already a war of attrition.  The answer of course, as Ohlmeyer said, is money.  Despite the fact half the squad may be on injured reserve, replacing a third pre-season game with one that determines playoff contenders is a no-brainer, figuratively for  the owners, literally for the players.

However, sports has no monopoly proving Ohlmeyer’s theory correct.  I realized that when I read “Does Trump even want to win?” by Washington Post columnist Jim Geraghty (August 5, 2024).  Geraghty presented a laundry list of behaviors, most recently his attacking Georgia governor Brian Kemp and his wife, that he suggested was the exact opposite of someone serious about winning an election.

• “Trump is laying the groundwork for another election conspiracy theory and another set of excuses if he loses the state of Georgia in November.”
• “Maybe it’s a sign Trump is panicked because switching Biden for Harris couldn’t have gone much better for Democrats.”
• “Saturday night was just the seemingly billionth example that at any given moment, Trump cannot prioritize anything…”
• He knows “…reporters are drawn to conflict, and ‘Trump vs. other Republicans’ is always a storyline that excites them.”
• “It is fair to wonder whether Trump’s heart is in his check-the-box statements about the policies he intends to enact.”

But Geraghty waits until the final paragraph to launch the most damning possibility.

If you had the best-selling soft drink in America, wouldn’t you remind shoppers of that every day?  If you had a dominant share of the automobile market, wouldn’t you encourage non-buyers to experience the same joy of driving current owners have?  And if you had the most effective drug for treating a medical condition, wouldn’t you be flooding the airwaves with facts about your success?

Of course you would.  Which is why, for way too long, it puzzles me that Democrats have shied away from exploiting their advantage when they are on the popular side of most issues about which Americans care.

• 74 percent agree “the wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes.” (September 2021 POLITICO/Morning Consult Poll)
• 63 percent say “abortion should be legal in all or most cases. (Pew Research/March 2024)
• 88 percent support universal background checks for gun purchases.  66 percent support bans on high-capacity magazines.  And 64 percent want a ban on assault weapons. (Pew Research/June 2023)
• 62 percent have a favorable view of the Affordable Care Act.  (Kaiser Family Foundation/April 2024)
• 74 percent favor free breakfast and lunch programs for all students. (Data for Progress Poll/2021)
• 69 percent do not think teachers are paid fairly. (IPSOS/NPR/May 2023)
• 65 percent oppose banning books from classrooms and school libraries in their own district. (IPSOS/NPR/May 2023)
• 74 percent support U.S. participation in global efforts to address climate change.  66 percent favor federal government incentives to support alternative energy sources.  (Pew Research/March 2023)

It may have taken too long, but “the times, they are a-changing.” That is why I get excited when Tim Walz dares the Trump campaign to call him a “monster” for signing universal school breakfast/lunch legislation in Minnesota.  Or when Kamala Harris does not hesitate to promise when she is president she will sign legislation requiring universal background checks, red flag laws and a ban on assault weapons.  Or that Democrats now know it is not enough to tell voters Trump and Vance are on the wrong side of an issue.  Politicians who want to ban books or make your personal healthcare decisions or peek in your bedroom windows are just plain “weird.”  “Mind your own damn business!!!!”

Not only do Democrats have the right message, they have the right messengers.  All the charts in the world have failed to convince voters of the truth about the success of the Biden/Harris administration on the economy, immigration and crime.  But when a former prosecutor and a Nebraska farm boy tell you violent crime is at a 50 year low, undecided voters are more likely to say “Huh?” instead of “You’re lying.”  And when the say “Huh?” maybe, just maybe they Google “crime in the USA” and hit on the headline, “Joe Biden is correct that violent crime is near a 50-year low” (Source: Poynter.com based on FBI data).

Of course, they have not done this alone.  And perhaps their best ally is Trump, Vance and their brain trust.  You don’t like inflation?  Every page of Project 2025 has a solution to an imaginary problem that will raise the cost of living for every American.  Shut down NOAA and home insurance costs rise because actuaries have less reliable data.  Eliminate Head Start and the parents of children in that program now have to pay for nine months of day care per child.  Deport 10 million migrant workers and the cost of fresh produce will skyrocket. 

Which is why Donald Trump now lies about his attachment to the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025.  He originally bet on what he thought was the same ambivalent, disorganized and inarticulate Democratic Party which has let him and his sycophants get away with murder for eight years (hundreds of thousands if you count COVID).  A bet which seems likely to add to his portfolio of bankruptcies.

It reminds me of the sign in many retail establishments.  “If you break it, you own it.”  In this case, it’s just the opposite.  By owning their shared affinity with American voters on most issues and challenging GOP lies which camouflage that affinity, Harris and Walz can break a pattern of timidity which has plagued their party since the Reagan Era.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Amelia Island/August 6, 2024/9:12 a.m.

If you have not placed your bets on the Kamala Harris Veepstakes, it is not too late.  As I previously wrote about the efforts to replace Joe Biden at the top of the ticket, it was less important who picked up the baton, but how and why it was done.  This morning I looked at her choice of running mate through the same lens.  And the winner is:

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz

And as I always try to do, this choice is not based on what most pundits feel are his strengths. 

• Six years as governor with an approval rating of 61 percent. 
• Having  grown up in rural Nebraska, he can celebrate the achievements of small town residents as opposed to the negative stereotype depicted by JD Vance.
• He has been a …

FLASH:  At 9:19 a.m., CNN is reporting (drum roll) Tim Walz will be on the Democratic ticket in November.  Damn, scooped again!

With this news, let me share the counter-intuitive reason I think this is the perfect choice.  For undecided voters who are fed up with both parties, Walz is a reminder of a time when so many Americans sought a life/citizenship balance.  And how did they do that?  By focusing on their full-time lives and part-time engagement in civic give-back.

Tim Walz is not a career politician.  Following his graduation from high school in 1982, he joined the Army National Guard in which he served for 24 years.  During that same period he was a high school social studies teacher and assistant football coach.  His first foray into elective politics involved part-time jobs as county commissioner and state legislator.  His primary concern was for his family and students.  His elevation to presumptive vice-presidential nominee was certainly not planned as he suggested last night referencing his “rise” from high school geography teacher to national political figure.  “Life comes at you fast.”

Equally important, Walz is the embodiment of what middle-class voters would view as the American dream.  He did not attend an elite Ivy League university but earned a BS in social studies from Chadron State College and an MS in educational leadership from Minnesota State University, Mankato.  All paid for, in part, benefit of the G.I. bill.  He served his country as a non-commissioned officer, a Command Sergeant Major in the 1st Battalion, 125th Field Artillery Regiment.  He remains married to his college sweetheart Gwen Whipple (Will Trump accuse her of squeezing the Charmin?) with whom they have a son Gus and daughter Hope.

His experience more than his words will resonate with many middle class voters.  And his time in the National Guard means, when he talks with veterans, it is from the perspective of a “foot soldier,” not the brass.  His story has no Silicon Valley sugar daddy or blown inheritance.  It is about hard work, self-reliance and a joy of life.  You cannot tell me that will not “play in Peoria.”

I’ll end on one quick observation about Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.  If as Tim Russert might have said, “It’s Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania,”  Shapiro was touted as the right “political choice.”  I disagree.  Ask Mike  Dukakis who assumed picking Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen would assure the Lone Star State would be in his column.  I wonder if there would have been a backlash by Keystone State voters.  “We elected him to be our governor and six months after telling us he wanted to serve Pennsylvanians, he wants to leave the state for DC.  He’s just another ambitious, hypocritical opportunist.  (Add your own expletive.)”  And you know, Trump and his MAGA surrogates would have a ball accusing Harris of caring more about the election than the nation and claim she could never carry the state without him.

Harris/Walz versus Trump/Vance?  My money is on the Democratic “10 letter ticket.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

If the major television networks are looking for mid-season replacements once the plethora of uninspired new fall programs are cancelled, let me suggest “Everyone Hates Roberts,” a sitcom which answers the question, “How did the Supreme Court of the United States’ become more despised than used car salesmen?”  [Note:  In a December 2021 Gallup survey of the most dishonorable jobs in American, only 9 percent of the respondents believed car salesmen were reputable.  The profession considered to be the most honest and ethical was nursing.]

I know, any question about the Court’s standing among Americans is the equivalent of asking, “Who’s buried in Grant’s tomb?”  All you have to do is look at the well publicized combination of corruption, conflicts of interest and 6-3 decisions in which the “originalists” suddenly lost their ability to read English.  In response, President Joe Biden has offered three reasonable proposals to reform the Court’s makeup and operations.

• Limit justices to one 18-year term.
• Enact a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices with a mechanism to enforce violations.
• A constitution amendment that ensures a sitting president is not immune to prosecution for violations of the law during his/her tenure in office.

The reaction was mixed.  Some SCOTUS watchers think it is a good start.  Others, such a Harvard constitutional law professor Ryan Doerfler described the Biden proposal as “inadequate.”  He elaborated, describing any effort to reform the court as “a political project.”

Because judges and justices are selected by the public only indirectly, one should expect that where elite and popular opinion diverge, judicial attitudes are likely to skew even more strongly toward elite consensus than the views of elected officials.

Until last Friday, I agreed with Doerfler, but was not quite sure why his assessment resonated with me. As is so often the case, enlightenment emerged as the result of a totally unrelated event, a Washington Post headline which read,  “Senate Republicans block a child tax credit expansion.”  More importantly, the actual bill never came to a vote.  Its demise was the result of a procedural vote when, according to the Post, “The measure fell short of the 60-vote threshold required to defeat a filibuster, on a 48-44 vote.”

I then realized any attempt to change the rules under which SCOTUS operates was a dog barking up the wrong tree.  Despite term limits, an unethical justice can do a lot of damage in 18 years.   We know there are always loopholes to evade ethical standards.  And the only reason presidential immunity came before the Court is because, for the first time in American history, a former president used it as way to wash his hands of alleged criminal behavior.

It has nothing to do with any provision of Article III of the Constitution or any law related to the judicial branch.  As always, it is about the individuals who wield the power.  Which brings me to today’s history lesson since much of what ails the court is related to the role of the Senate under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2: Advice and Consent.

He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

While the Founding Fathers specifically required a super-majority of present Senators to approve a treaty, they provided no such restraints on life-time appointments to the highest court in the land.  Until 1860, nominees were not subject to to committee hearings and most were approved by voice votes.  The first nominee summoned to appear before the Judiciary Committee was Calvin Coolidge’s attorney general Harlan Stone in 1925.  Judiciary committee hearings became standard procedure in 1955 though most nominees were still approved with large bi-partisan majorities.

That changed in 1987 with the rejection of Ronald Reagan nominee Robert Bork based on his opposition to the Court’s pro-civil rights opinions and his role in Watergate when, as solicitor general, he fired special prosecutor Archibald after attorney general Elliot Richardson and his deputy William Ruckelshaus refused to do so and resigned.  [Historically Ironic Note:  Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh opposed Bork’s nomination and signed a letter to the Judiciary Committee which criticized Bork for being “an advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy.” (Source: New York Times/July 26, 1987)]

The most significant change came during the Obama administration when, under Senate rules, consent of federal judges required a super majority of 60 votes.  Republicans used this loophole to block many of Barack Obama’s nominations to lower federal courts.  To resolve the backlog, Senate Democrats invoked what was called “the nuclear option,” changing the rules to require only a simple majority for lower court appointments.  Then in the aftermath of blocking Merrick Garland’s nomination in 2016, Senate Republicans applied “the nuclear option” to Supreme Court nominees.  Since then, four justices have been confirmed with the following votes:

Neil Gorsuch/54-45
Brett Kavanaugh/50-48
Amy Coney Barrett/52-48
Ketanji Brown Jackson/53-47

Though many Republicans blame this rank partisanship when it comes to confirmation votes on the way Robert Bork was treated by Democrats, the evidence proves otherwise.  After Bork’s rejection, Ronald Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy, considered a mainstream conservative.  He was approved by a unanimous 97-0 vote.

Which brings me back to the intersection between Supreme Court nominees, this week’s vote on the child tax credit and Doerfler’s observations about Biden’s efforts to reform the court.  My question, “Why does a Senate vote on tax policy which can easily be changed within two years when voters can flip congressional leadership require a super-majority of 60 votes, and a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court can be confirmed with a simple majority?”

It makes no sense.  One decision is temporal and should be reconsidered if voters elect a different congressional leadership, a clear signal they disapprove of policies put forth by the incumbent majority.  The other, according to Neil Gorsuch, makes decisions “for the ages,” is without accountability to the electorate.  Common sense tells us the threshold for Senate consideration of these two distinct responsibilities should be the exact opposite of what it is today.

Therefore, the first thing that needs to be done in the next Congress, regardless of the majority party, is to end the filibuster and reverse the 2017 Senate rule, again requiring a super majority to confirm Supreme Court justices.  Having mainstream left-center or right-center nominees who can garner the necessary majorities for confirmation will return confidence in the Court faster than any Constitutional amendment or new law.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP