Category Archives: Politics

An Unwitting Asset

Culture, Politics

In 2006, comedian Robert Wuhl co-wrote and starred in a two-part HBO special “Assume the Position.”  Wuhl plays a professor in a history class at New York University (the students are actually film majors).  At the outset, he prepares his students (and the HBO audience) for what is to come with the following:

  • Tolstoy said, “History is a wonderful thing, if only it were true.”
  • The key to history is who tells the story.
  • When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

The first example Wuhl provides is Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s ode to Paul Revere.  Revere was neither the first or the most rigorous messenger when it came to informing the colonies, “The British are coming!” The more deserving hero was Israel Bissell, a postal rider who on April 19, 1775 carried word of the battle of Lexington and Concord from Massachusetts to New York to New Jersey and eventually arriving in Philadelphia on April 24, a distance totaling more than 300 miles.  In contrast, Revere’s gallop from Lexington to Boston was approximately 15 miles.  Unfortunately,  the rhyme scheme “Listen my children and you shall HEAR of the midnight ride of Paul REVERE” rolls off the tongue more easily that whatever rhymes with Bissell. 

“The key to history is who tells the story.”  The same is true of other media. Not only should Wadsworth’s poem been titled, “The Five-Day Ride of Israel Bissell,”  Grant Wood’s painting of the same name as Longfellow’s poem would include an image of the postal worker and one of the two horses he rode over the five-day journey.  And Walt Disney’s movie “Johnny Tremain” would have featured Tremain as a postal service apprentice rather than a protege of silversmith Revere. 

[Cinematic Note:  The “Johnny Tremain” cast included character actor Whit Bissell (1909-96), better known for his roles in “The Time Machine,” “Hud,” and “The Manchurian Candidate.”  I could not find any documentation whether Whit Bissell was related to Israel Bissell.  Even if it is not true, it should be.  Just remember, you heard it here first.]

This week, I found myself hoping Wuhl would revive “Assume the Position” to cover Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. As he debunked popular myths about Revere, Christopher Columbus and other historical figures, Wuhl could start by debunking the myth Trump is the leader of the MAGA movement.  At best he gave it a catchy name and bumper sticker.  Instead he is the unwitting asset of a cabal of more than 100 right-wing organizations who needed a media savvy racist, misogynistic, homophobic isolationist supply-sider to be the public face of its agenda.

This was never more apparent than last weekend when the liar-in-chief claimed he knew nothing about about Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation’s plan for the first 180 days of a second Trump administration. It’s not that Trump disagrees with the policy recommendations, his enmity is due more likely to the fact the Project 2025 team did the one thing he will not tolerate, taking credit rather than attributing it to him.  From “About Project 2025” on their website:

The project is the effort of a broad coalition of conservative organizations that have come together to ensure a successful administration begins in January 2025. With the right conservative policy recommendations and properly vetted and trained personnel to implement them, WE (my emphasis) will take back our government.

There is no “we” in Trump.  And the very thought that Kevin Roberts did not give Trump the opportunity to claim he coined the phrase, ” a second American revolutionary, bloodless if the radical left lets us,” shifted Trump’s Truth Social thumbs into overdrive.

If Trump thinks civil service employees were running the show during his first administration, just wait until he encounters the 50,000-strong army of Schedule F hires (based on loyalty rather than expertise) vetted by his Office of Personnel Management.  Again, from “About Project 2025”:

Paul Dans, former chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) during the Trump administration, serves as the director of the 2025 Presidential Transition Project. Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to the president and associate director of Presidential Personnel, serves as associate director of the project.

Dans and Chretien understand who will be driving the agenda for a Trump transition and beyond.  That is why they are now part of the Heritage Foundation and not the Trump campaign.  And there will be loyalists throughout every federal federal agency.  However, their allegiance will not be to someone who theoretically should be in office for just four years.  Roberts’ “revolution,” which began during the Reagan years could be there long after Trump is gone.  Schedule C civil service offers only a lifetime of service to one’s country without political pressure or interference.  In contrast, Schedule F provides longer tenure and a career path to become more than just a foot solder in an ideological movement based on your allegiance to the cause.

Donald Trump is not the master of his domain.  He is a wholly owned subsidiary of a conglomerate that was created 64 years ago.  Which explains why you never hear the Heritage Foundation, the Federalist Society or any other architects of this revolutionary transformation of the American experience complain about the time Trump spends at his golf courses.  That is exactly where they want him to be. 

The only remaining question?  Who will tell the story of this battle for the soul of America?

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

One Cult, Two Cult, Red Cult, Blue Cult

Politics

When Tyrion Lannister (Peter Dinklage), hand to Daenerys Targaryen (Emilia Clark) in “Game of Thrones,” announced her arrival he made sure no title was omitted.  They included:

  • Princess of Dragonstone
  • Queen of the Andals and the First Men
  • Protector of the Seven Kingdoms,
  • Mother of Dragons,
  • Khaleesi of the Great Grass Sea
  • Breaker of Chains

Not only is that a lot of power and responsibility for one person, the likelihood of one individual possessing all the skills needed to successfully fulfill each and every one of those responsibilities challenges one’s imagination.  And as was the case in Daenerys’ kingdom, unquestioned loyalty was the expectation.

Which brings us to the pending contest between Donald Trump and Joe Biden for president of the United States.  Trump has been compared to many historic figures from Jesus among his supporters to Hitler and Mussolini by his detractors.  Let me add Daenerys Targaryen, though fictional, to the list.  Trump wants us to believe he is:

  • Once and future monarch of the United States
  • Victim of the Deep State
  • Master of Real Estate
  • Purveyor of the Scripture
  • Perpetual Curator of Classified Documents
  • Champion of the Masses
  • Protector of the Persecuted
  • Speaker of Truths

This illusion depends on the unequivocal allegiance of a cult of followers who accept his word as gospel and criticism as “fake news.”

However, we need to recognize the evolution of an imperial presidency, thanks in part to the timidity of Congress to exercise its Article I authority and activism by Supreme Court justices who claim to be “originalists,” except when it does not serve their ideological purposes.  Which means every occupant of the Oval Office, has become, to some extent, a Daenerys-like, cult leader in terms of responsibilities and titles.  For example, Joe Biden is currently:

  • Chief Executive of the United States
  • Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces
  • Leader of the Free World
  • Guardian of the Constitution
  • Titular Head of the Democratic Party

On top of all that, in an election year, he is expected to be a master orator and debater.  Finding a single individual with the skill set to cover every one of these roles is next to impossible.  Which is why, when either American political party finds something they believe can answer the call, that person necessarily takes on a cult-like persona.

Which brings me to the purpose of this post.  The past few entries have focused on options to defeat Donald Trump if Biden decides to bow out of the campaign.  Today, I want to explore how the Biden/Harris ticket, despite the growing pessimism, can pull off a decisive victory.  The proposed campaign strategy is based on two distinct observations in the past five days. 

First, based on the rejection of far-right extremists in Great Britain and France, this should not be a contest between Biden and Trump.  The Democrats need to look at the election as though America also has a parliamentary form of government.  We know Trump will lie.  And as he just did, disavowing “Project 2025,” he will try and make voters believe he is not the right-wing radical the Democrats portray him to be.  To undercut his lies, Democrats should shift the focus away from what voters already know about Trump and run against MAGA, the Heritage Foundation, evangelical extremists and the Federalist Society.  Here is the message.

  • Donald Trump says he is not a Christian Nationalist, but people in his inner circle believe he is.
  • Donald Trump says he is not a white supremacist, but people in his inner circle believe he is.
  • Donald Trump says he opposes a national abortion ban, but people in his inner circle believe he will sign one into law.
  • Donald Trump says he is for hard-working American families, but people in his inner circle support extension of tax cuts for the one percent and major corporations.
  • Donald Trump has no idea what he would do about climate change, but people in his inner circle believe it is not a problem and would repeal Biden administration laws and regulations which address the issue.
  • Donald Trump now says he will not go after his political opponents, but people in his inner circle believe he must and will.
  • Donald Trump says he will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who honor the Constitution, but people in his inner circle applaud the activist justices he has already appointed and want him to pack the court with more Alitos and Thomases.
  • Donald Trump says he believes in First Amendment Freedoms, but people in his inner circle are all too ready to run the country in accordance with their religion, ban books and cancel the broadcast licenses of media outlets which criticize their leader.

The kicker, of course, is the fact these people in his inner circle will not only make up the 3,000 Schedule C political appointments to which all presidents are entitled, but also the 50,000 civil servants Trump promises to replace with political loyalists.  And there are people, like “Project 2025” director Kevin Roberts, who promise a “new revolution.”  The lesson from the recent elections in Europe is that a majority of the British and French voters rejected parties that emulated MAGA in terms of domestic and foreign policy.  It had little or anything to do with the party leaders’ personalities.  The Biden campaign should, therefore, focus on policy, not personalities.

Ironically, the second part of this strategy emerged as I was researching who might be a good Republican running mate if Kamala Harris was at the top of the ticket.  My choice of Lisa Murkowski was greatly influenced when I pulled up her Senate web page.  A banner at the top of the home page reads, “Over $8.2 Billion in funding through the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act and counting!”  Were there similar banners on the home pages for California Governor Gavin Newsom, Michigan Governor Gretchen Witmer, Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers or Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro?  No, no, no and no!  Why not?  There should be lottery-like billboards in every battleground state that provide running totals of Biden/Democratic investments and net new jobs.  Every speech by an incumbent governor or member of Congress should begin with a status report of such investment and how many citizens of their respective states or districts have health insurance under ADA.  Or how many seniors are saving more than $300 per insulin injection.  Let the presidential ticket focus on the existential difference between the two parties’ policies and visions of the future.  Leave bragging about accomplishments to the folks closest to the voters.

When Brits ousted the Conservatives last Thursday, they did not vote for Keir Starmer.  They rejected 14 years of failed isolationist foreign policy and supply-side economics.  And in France, voters did not reject Marine Le Pen.  They spurned what she stood for.  Thinking of the November election in parliamentary terms has one additional benefit for Democrats.  It makes no difference whether Biden or Harris heads the ticket.  The message?  When you vote Democratic you are not voting for an individual.  We do not want you to be a cult beholden to any standard bearer. We want you to vote for an idea, an idea that has served America well for 248 years.  An idea based on the founding documents.  An idea that is too precious to risk on a party that believes we need a new revolution.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The Next Closest Thing

Culture, Politics

During his interview with George Stephanopoulos, President Biden suggested that the only call for him to step down he might heed would have to come from “God Almighty.”  It’s said the Lord works in mysterious ways.  If that’s the case, imagine the following scene between Biden and actors James Earl Jones and  Kevin Costner, reprising their roles as Terrence Mann and Ray Kinsella in Field of Dreams.

This excerpt is based on page 67 of the original screenplay by Phil Alden Robinson:

MANN
I wish I had your passion, Joe. However misdirected it may be, it’s still a passion.  I used to feel that way.

BIDEN  (TO KINSELLA)
You got another message, didn’t you?

KINSELLA
You’ll think I’m crazy.

BIDEN
I already think you’re crazy.

After a little thought, Ray smiles sadly.

KINSELLA
It said, “The man’s done enough.”

Actually, the man’s done more than enough.  But that does not make the decision any easier, although not quite as tough as a fictional John Kennedy faces in my novel In the National Interest.  Kennedy is terminally ill and asks the protagonist Secret Service Agent Mason Rhodes, while aboard Marine One, whether he would rather be “a Wilson or a Lincoln.”

In Biden’s case, he might ask Rhodes, “Would you rather be a Jim Brown or a Muhammad Ali?”  For non-sports fans,  at age 30, Brown announced he was ending his career as a running back for the Cleveland Browns.  At the time he held records for most single game rushing yards, single season rushing yards, career rushing yards, total touchdowns, total rushing touchdowns and total all-purpose yards  In 1964, he led the Browns to the NFL championship.

I need not tell you how Ali’s career ended.  He continued to fight long after family and close friends urged him to stop.  His last two fights, losing his heavyweight title to Larry Holmes and failing to bounce back against Trevor Berbick, were hard to watch.  And each punch added to the accumulated cranial damage Ali suffered over his ring career.

Brown’s and Ali’s respective choices might help us understand why Biden is so determined to stay in the 2024 race for the White House.  Jim Brown, in the absence of free agency, had limited potential in the NFL.  He had to play for the Cleveland Browns at the salary offered by owner Art Modell.  In Terry Pluto’s book “Browns Town 1964,” he describes how Brown’s salary feud with Modell was the beginning of his racial activism.

I remember interviewing Jim Brown and he said, ‘I’m very interested in Black power, but I’m even more interested in green power because green power will give you Black power.’

If football capped his wealth potential, Brown proved he had a better option.  In 1964, he was cast as a buffalo soldier in “Rio Concho,” which led to his cinematic breakthrough in the 1966 production “The Dirty Dozen.”  When filming in London took longer than originally expected, Brown did not attend training camp.  Modell’s response?  He fined Brown $1,000 (real money in terms of a 1966 NFL salary) each week he was not in camp and told Brown he was letting his teammates down, a claim disputed by other members of the squad who knew Brown would be there when they needed him.  One can argue Modell’s actions robbed Brown of even more records and glory as the premiere running back in the game’s history.

A career cut short also applies to Ali, however, in his case, his absence from the ring was involuntary.  At the height of the Vietnam war, Ali was classified 1-A (fit for service) and faced induction in the U.S. Army.  In April 1967, Ali refused induction based on his claim of being a conscientious objector.  Two months later he was found guilty by a Houston jury of violating Selective Service laws.  On June 28, 1971, by a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the conviction, explaining that the basis for the government’s denial of conscientious objection status was flawed.

For most of the time between Ali’s 1967 conviction and his successful 1971 appeal, he was without a passport and was denied a boxing license in all 50 states.  What should have been the prime of his boxing career was taken from him, which is why, this morning, I find even more empathy for Joe Biden as he faces the toughest decision of his political career.

In another reality, Joe Biden would be on the verge of leaving the political stage next January as a successful two-term president.  As the heir apparent to continue the policies and programs of the Obama administration, I have no doubt Biden would have handily defeated Donald Trump in 2016.  The party line was that, following the death of his son Beau, Biden was not prepared to launch a rigorous campaign.  But New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd argues just the opposite. On August 1, 2015, Dowd wrote:

Beau was losing his nouns and the right side of his face was partially paralyzed. But he had a mission: He tried to make his father promise to run, arguing that the White House should not revert to the Clintons and that the country would be better off with Biden values.

Unfortunately, it was too late. Obama and the Democratic National Committee were committed to a Hillary Clinton candidacy to which Biden deferred.  The title of Dowd’s column was, “What Would Beau Do?”  Therefore, I cannot help but wonder if this obsession with a second term is driven by regret that Biden did not listen to his dying son back in 2015.  And whether the voice Joe needs to hear is not God Almighty or an invisible specter in an Iowa cornfield, but Beau Biden’s telling him:

The man’s done enough.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

 

Government Bailouts

Economics, Politics

England and America are two countries separated by the same language!

~Mallory Brown, Christian Science Monitor
September 1942

Brown’s observation was never more true than last night as BBC correspondents reported the Labour Party’s landslide victory after 14 continuous years of Conservative Party rule.  For example, as the vote counting ended in each parliamentary district, a “returning officer,” the equivalent of our supervisor of elections, issued a “declaration” rather than a “certification” of the results.  However, these amusing differences in language paled in comparison to the decisiveness of the massacre Scotland Yard would be hard-pressed to explain.

How did Labour pull off this landslide while the American electorate seems mired in a 50/50 standoff, despite the fact both nations face many of the same issues coming into the election?   Inflation.  Immigration.  Support of the wars in Ukraine and Israel.  Health care.  Availability and cost of housing. Above all, this was a Tory defeat, not an enthusiastic endorsement of Labour or its agenda.  As reported by the BBC,  Labour’s share of the total national vote increased by a mere two percent from 32 to 34.  In contrast, support for Conservative candidates fell from 44 to 24 percent.  In many districts, the Conservative candidate ran third behind Labour and Nigel Farage’s Reform Party.  As the head of BBC’s exit polling analysis explained, voters split their votes between Labour and the Reformists based on a strategic decision which candidate had the best chance of ousting the incumbent Conservative MP.

From a U.S. perspective, the obvious question is, “What does this tell us about out November election?”  First the good news.  Labour’s success is due in part to Keir Starmer (the incoming prime minister) rejecting the extremist and bigoted views of and calls for nationalization of commerce by former party leader Jeremy Corbyn. The majority of voters have been and probably will remain in the center of the political spectrum.

In his victory speech, Starmer acknowledged that it was no easy task to convince voters Labour was once again a center-left party. “Four-and-a-half years of work changing this party… this is what it is for. ”  Democrats can make the same argument in November.  Contrary to MAGA claims that Democrats are socialists at best and communists at worst, the numbers say just the opposite.  The dollar is strong.  Equity markets are at all time highs.  Likewise for job creation, wages and productivity.  And not one industry has been taken over by the government.  Inflation, though higher than one would hope, is lower than in any other G7 nation.

The bad news?  Incumbency is a disadvantage.  Not because incumbents have done a terrible job.  Expectations have changed.   In America, the question is no longer, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” It is now, “Are you as well off as you think you should be?”  It makes a difference.  On July 5, 2020, these were the New York Times page one headlines.

  • As Coronavirus Slams Houston Hospitals, It’s like New York ‘All Over Again’
  • As Neo-Nazis Seed Military Ranks, Germany Confronts ‘an Enemy Within’
  • At Mt. Rushmore and the White House, Trump Updates ‘American Carnage’ Message 2020

In July 2020, unemployment was 10.2 percent and new unemployment claims rose to 18 million.   Exactly four years later, despite a slowing economy finally responding to high interest rates, June unemployment remains at 4.0  percent, and initial unemployment claims for the week of June 29, 2024, totaled 238,000.

So what does this have to do with government bailouts?  The answer is simple.  One of the two political parties in the United States consistently bails out the the other’s bad policies and performance.   George W. Bush, after eight years of GOP economic orthodoxy consisting of tax cuts and deregulation, handed Barack Obama the worst recession since the Great Depression.  Eight years later the economy was on an unprecedented growth streak.  And what did Donald Trump do?  He returned to the same failed formula but still claimed in his 2020 state of the union address, “Our economy is the best it’s ever been.”

[NOTE:  Last Wednesday, former navy intelligence officer Malcolm Nance told Democrats to stop whining and get ANGRY.  In that spirit, this angry blogger wants to put Trump’s bullshit about his economy to rest.  At the time of his January 2020 declaration, pre-COVID, the average annual growth in gross domestic product (GDP) during his administration was 2.58 percent, seventh when compared to Lyndon Johnson (5.05), Kennedy/Johnson (4.65), Clinton (4.45), Reagan (3.87) and Nixon/Ford (2.85).  Oh, I forgot one more.  Even Jimmy ‘F***ing’ Carter, when he left office in January 2001, delivered an average annual GDP growth rate of 3.27 percent.]

Here’s the difference between what happened in Great Britain yesterday and what may happen here in November.  The Tories stayed in power for 14 straight years.  And they continued the same failed policies year after year and things got worse and worse.  The British economy stagnated.  The National Health System deteriorated.  There was no cavalry to save them from themselves.  Even after Boris Johnson was ousted by his own party for mishandling the pandemic, the Conservatives answer were more tax cuts, deregulation and reduced services.  None of which resulted in benefits for average British working families.

Now, just imagine Donald Trump had been reelected in 2020 accompanied by MAGA majorities in Congress.  Want to take a wild stab what his economic recover plan might have been?  You do not have to guess.  It is all laid out in the Heritage Foundation’s blueprint for a second Trump administration “Project 2025.”  More tax cuts.  More deregulation. Reduced services including “elimination of the Head Start program.”  The same policies, that after 14 straight years in Britain, led to a historic defeat for the ruling party.  After eight straight years of MAGA rule, I am betting Americans would have overwhelming followed their British counterparts and shown Trump and his lemmings the exit door.

But Joe Biden stepped up with a different approach.  Investment rather than tax cuts. Investment that  defied the experts who predicted an inevitable post-COVID recession.  Investment that is reinvigorating American manufacturing in strategic industries. e.g. computer chips and alternative energy.   Investment that translated into historic job growth. 

The United States is better off for that change in direction.  However, a Democratic administration again bailed out MAGA world and saved it from itself.  Unfortunately, by doing so, Biden may have sealed his own fate.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

Plan Z

Politics

In his book Innovation at the Speed of Laughter. John Sweeney, owner of the Minneapolis-based improvisation theater Brave New Workshop, describes the value of injecting the adage “always have a Plan B” with steroids.  The process he uses to encourage his troupe to push for new and better ideas when developing material from concept to full-blown skit does not stop with two or three alternatives.  He recalls how he demands hundreds of variations on a theme before picking the one  that eventually gets added to a performance.

I thought about John Sweeney when I received an email from a regular follower of this blog.  In response to Sunday’s post “Not Who, How.”  She wrote, “Appreciated it very much.  Doubt it will happen.”  My reply?  “Agree, it is unlikely to happen, But, as you know, that is never my goal.  It is to raise options without judging their plausibility.”  Remember, I am the guy who spent 19 years constructing a version of John Kennedy’s assassination that even I do not believe happened.

The need for more options when it comes to the 2024 presidential election increased in magnitude yesterday when the Supreme Court laid the groundwork for Donald Trump to become the first imperial president in the nation’s history.  Though no blood was spilled, the idea that the occupant of the Oval Office could avoid accountably for criminal conduct by invoking a manufactured doctrine of “presumptive immunity” was, for believers in the American experiment, no less gut-wrenching than Hamas’s terror attack on innocent Israelis.  The question is whether it is shocking enough to declare war against the perpetrators.  If so, what does that mean?

Although Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly surrendered the high ground during the nine months since October 7, 2024, he initially understood that defeating Hamas was unlikely with a divided government, which resulted in his inviting political opponents to be members of his “war cabinet.”  Likewise, preventing a second Trump presidency, especially with the Court’s decision to roll out the red carpet for implementation of the unitary theory of executive power in which the other two branches of government have limited control over the president, is equally unlikely with a hopelessly divided electorate.

Joe Biden believes Donald Trump is an existential threat to nearly 250 years of American democracy.  He portrays the 2024 election as a choice between democracy and autocracy although I would argue the other side is more akin to a Russian-style oligarchy with rich donors using Trump as their showrunner.  He says this is not about blue states versus red states, liberal versus conservative or white versus black.  If stopping the Trump machine is that important, Plans B through Y are probably too squishy.  Desperate times require bold thinking.

I therefore offer Plan Z, an audacious and daring signal to the American voter that “business as usual” is not an option.  I present it as an unlikely extreme, but put it out there as a conversation starter.

  1. On the morning of July 4, 2024, the 248 anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Joe Biden announces he is resigning immediately.
  2. At noon, Kamala Harris takes the presidential oath of office.
  3. As her first act as president, she nominates Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) to become her vice-president and urges Congress to confirm the nomination with all deliberate speed.
  4. Harris then names Joe Biden as a senior advisor.  This is not without precedent.  During a 2003 training project for the Singapore Civil Service College, John Altman and I had the honor of a private audience with Lee Kwan Yew, one of the newly independent country’s founding fathers and first prime minister.  When we met Yew, he was 79 years old and held the title of “senior minister” with an office in the Parliament House.
  5. At the Democratic National Convention in August, Harris confirms Murkowski will be her running mate.
  6. The theme of the convention is “The United States v. Donald Trump.”  Speakers will be a mix of Democrats and former Trump allies.  Democrats will focus on their vision for America.  Republicans, as the did before the January 6 Select Committee, will remind voters of the political and personal norms that Trump and his sycophants have crossed.

Why a Harris/Murkowski ticket?  Let’s start with Harris.  First, she has the advantage of being mentored by Joe Biden and watching what he has been able to accomplish based on personal relationships and willingness to compromise.  Second, she is a skilled and experienced prosecutor, best evidenced by her questioning of attorney general nominee Bill Barr during his Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.  A Trump/Harris debate might be the closest thing we get to cross-examination of the former president.  And imagine his dilemma.  He can either face the music or appear weak and scared by refusing to participate.  Third, the practical matter of continuity.  Since the FEC campaign finance documents were signed by both Biden and Harris, she would automatically have access to the existing funds.  It is not clear that would be the case for other candidates, and no doubt, Trump lawyers would file court challenges to prevent or delay access to another Democratic candidate.

And why Murkowski?  First, Murkowski has bona fide conservative credentials which puts her in a position to argue Harris is open to a spectrum of ideological policy input.  Second, Murkowski lost the 2022 GOP nomination for reelection to her senate seat to a Trump-endorsed candidate.  However, running as an independent, she won the general election with 54 percent of the vote.  Third, she is a strong advocate for women’s reproductive rights, calling the Dobbs decision flawed.

Today the Supreme Court went against 50 years of precedent in choosing to overturn Roe v. Wade. The rights under Roe that many women have relied on for decades—most notably a woman’s right to choose—are now gone or threatened in many states.

Fourth, she regularly demonstrates her fealty to the Constitution and rule of law.  She voted to convict Donald Trump for attempting to overturn the 2020 election.  And she opposed filling the vacant Supreme Court seat following Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s death.

For weeks, I have stated that I would not support taking up a potential Supreme Court vacancy this close to the election. Sadly, what was then a hypothetical is now our reality, but my position has not changed.

Again, this is not a call for Biden to step down.  That is a personal decision he must make.  However, if he so chooses, here is one more option to make sure his personal sacrifice has the best chance of achieving the desired outcome.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP