COUNTERPOINT: Election Analysis

By Anonymous

November 13, 2024

Earlier this week I posted an after-election analysis called “Can Democrats Accept the Truth?”

It drew quite a bit of reaction; it was prescriptive in nature, while a lot of people were still in the middle of raw reaction. One of them was a friend who years ago moved from his big city to a smaller town in the Midwest; coastal liberals might consider this “living behind enemy lines.”

Below is his take on the election…

I write from a bright red county in a battleground state that Trump won in 2016 and again last week. The election was a surprise to the ME that lived through the short-lived Harris era, but it was no surprise to the ME who lived through most of this year.

A Trump victory was obvious to plenty of observers here starting back in the winter. It grew steadily more dire for a long time, only to be interrupted with an illusion of hope for a few months before the gut punch Tuesday night.

As for why Kamala Harris lost ... count the ways. If a profoundly overqualified white woman couldn't beat him 8 years ago, why did anyone think an overqualified Black and Asian woman would win this year? 

So, don’t let anyone tell you sexism and racism wasn’t part of the winning equation for Der orangefarbene Anführer.

But it was more than that, of course. Perhaps the biggest influence was the right-wing media sphere, which is much stronger than I ever appreciated. There are people here in Red County, USA, educated people, mind you, who only consume FOX and The Epoch Times and listen to Joe Rogan or whatever their nondenominational evangelical pastor says. 

And don’t forget Facebook. You and your kids probably don’t use it anymore, but it’s the best, free tool for organizing people. The Facebook of 2024 is an archipelago of private and public groups and pages designed to appeal to anyone's biases, but mostly biases on the right. If you’re blessedly ignorant of those spaces, good for you. 

I thought back in 2020 that Biden might just be our Alexander Kerensky, the democratic centrist who ran Russia for a short period in 1917 before the Bolsheviks swept him away. Biden, indeed, was our four-year dose of sanity, destined to deposed by the revolutionary masses. 

Maybe 2022 favored Democrats simply because Trump wasn't on the ballot, and a bit because Dobbs was so recent then. 

What I objected to in your most recent analysis was any notion that the young men of this country need to be mollified or coddled or catered to. Speaking generally, the 20s and 30s men in this country have been nothing but coddled, allowed to remain children, playing video games and blasting the libs on Twitter, while women take care of them and orient their lives to serve the man/boy in the house. I see it here, where the ultra MAGA moms always seem to have an ambitionless male child who can't figure out how to navigate daily life.

I know your argument was more complex than that.  But I just don't care about the young men. They came out for Trump because there's nothing an immature man loves more than a bully. When Trump is gone, they'll go back to their virtual porn and protein shakes ... until the next Trump comes along (mark my words ... Barron Trump in '48 or '52...)

So, Harris lost and it was Trump. Trump has been in our lives since I was a teen way back in the 1980s. He's a celebrity. And there's nothing Americans like more than a celebrity (Reagan, Schwarzenegger, that jerk from Minnesota, Jesse Ventura). 

And Trump was clear on what he stood for -- mass deportations, eliminating taxes on tips and overtime, and punishing his enemies. 

Harris was for ... sanity and protecting the vulnerable. She had detailed policy proposals for elder care and so much more. But in the age of mass right wing media and an electorate numbed by outrage TV and manosphere podcasters, none of that amounts to a platform that voters will actually hear. 

And since few voters live in a world where they were exposed to all the good the Biden administration has done in the past 4 years, they didn't have any reason to reward him by electing his VP.

We are in a post-literate world where the worst people's voices are amplified and anyone who says "ouch" is called a woke libtard. And that's thanks to Zuckerberg and Bezos and Murdoch and the Kochs and ... so many more.

The Democratic Party is broken ... for now. Yes, the working class (which is more than truck drivers in MAGA hats) needs to be won back over. My only worry is that no matter who or how the Dems come back, the media ecosystem won't allow their message to get out. 

And that means we are left with a series of 2008s and 2020s, where economic crises and pandemics made worse by GOP mismanagement allow Dems to win just long enough to clean up the mess...before being tossed out by angry voters upset over not being allowed to insult gays or tell sexist jokes.

Sorry for the rant. The rational side of me just can't believe the American people did this. Even I had more faith in them, and I'm cynical through and through

But really, it’s no surprise. The failure to hold Trump accountable in 2021 put us on a trajectory to his return to power. Lots of blame to be shared for that. 

If there is another presidential election in 2028, Trump will be the GOP nominee again, unless the well-done steak and vanilla ice cream diet he lives on results in the inevitable coronary. Don’t bother with quoting me the 22nd Amendment. With a cavalier rulebreaker the de facto king of America, the rules no longer apply … 

Good luck, folks. We were warned, and the schadenfreude won’t be as much fun when all the victims of MAGA impunity are starving in the same camps.

Sincerely,
Anonymous

# # #

Can Democrats Accept the Truth?

By Don Varyu

November 11, 2024

Before the election was even called, liberal pundits were already dissecting what went wrong. The recriminations flew far and fast: “It’s Biden’s fault for not dropping out sooner;” “she should have done Rogan’s podcast;” “I said all along she needed to spend less time talking democracy and more time attacking Trump” (or vice versa). A hundred small beliefs...ignoring a larger truth. 

Because in total, all these little things are twaddle. It obscures the overriding point: this defeat wasn’t due to a campaign misstep or strategy error. This was an outright thrashing: 91% of all American counties moved towards Trump compared to four years ago. This wasn’t just Trump rising on his lies. Something even larger caused the Dems to falter. 

In fact, by reviewing voting tallies, you could make a more valid  argument that the Dems would have been better off just sticking with Biden. After all, he beat Trump, while Kamala lost to him by five million votes.

But I don’t believe that. She was a glorious candidate who ran a near-perfect campaign. The true fault lies elsewhere.
_____

So, what went wrong? The answer has been in the making for at least a decade, beginning at a time when Kamala was still an elected official out in California. It consists of the way Dems have come to define themselves...who they have decided to talk to…and how they do that talking.

For liberals, these may be difficult lessons to swallow:

Lesson 1: Democracy won. Five million more voters chose Trump than Harris. The election was “clean.” In the words of old Chicago mayor Richard “Boss” Daley, “the people have spoken.” In other wors, we lost fair and square.

Lesson 2: Character doesn’t matter. In the closing weeks of the campaign, every day Trump did or said something more preposterous, more vulgar, and apparently more self-defeating than the day before. Democrats feasted; he was clearly “unfit” for reelection. In fact, exit polls showed voters actually liked Harris more than Trump on a personal level. But more of them still voted for Trump. To win anymore,  you don’t need to be the “better person."

Lesson 3: The “woke mind virus.” This phrase was coined by Elon Musk and is instantly offensive because it suggests that all liberals think alike and act in lockstep. Even Musk had a tough time clearly defining this, mumbling that it’s, “…anti-meritocratic…anything that suppresses free speech.” Uh, OK. It’s unlikely  if you randomly asked 100 of the MAGA faithful for a clerer definition, that any could come up with one.

But I’m here to tell you this: there IS a woke mind virus. And it can simply be described like this: seeing every issue through a lens of race, gender, or abuse—and frequently, all three. Democrats talk inclusion, but in fact practice exclusion—cancelling anyone who doesn’t voice this particular flavor of grievance. It’s like the cover charge at a club: if you don’t have it, you don’t get into the club.

Here’s a quick example of how this exclusion happens. When any social problem is discussed by liberals on cable networks or online, it’s typically supplemented with the phrase, “…particularly for people of color.”  That may be factually correct, but  using it reflexively inflicts political self-harm. It suggests that others don’t really suffer the same way these specific subsets do.

In the hours after the election, CNN’s Van Jones (who I admire quite a bit) said among the first people he thought of was how a new Trump era would hurt “Black women” and “the parents of transgender kids.” Do you know who wasn’t thinking about them? The people who voted for Trump. And there are  more of them than there are of us.

The same kind of reaction comes when Democrats push for things like forgiving college loans. Again, a worthy goal. But the sheet metal worker is left asking, “why don’t you also wipe out the loan on my pickup?” We keep talking about help for some--but at the exclusion of others. 

If you want to win elections, find issues and phrasing that embrace “all” people, not just a subset. (And by the way, Kamala was excellent on this point on the campaign trail. She always referred to her campaign as being for “all the people.” She never once defined herself as a woman or a “person of color.” That is the template Democrats need to employ moving forward.)

Lesson 4: Look outside your silo. It’s obvious by now that Democrats have lost the working class to Trump—and likely to any potential successor. Which is maddening since that working class used to be the core of the Democratic electorate.

Let me ask you a few quick questions:

• Do you have a college degree?

• Do you purposely avoid Walmart and McDonalds?

• Is your income determined on an hourly basis? Does it include overtime or tips?

• Do you often use an Uber, but never take the bus?

• Is your iPhone less than five years old?

• Do you attend church or a synagogue?

• Do you have a 401k or an investment portfolio?

• Do you own a home espresso machine?

• Do you own a gun?

• Do you own a power drill?

I think you see what I’m getting at here. You understand that tens of millions of people would answer almost every one of these questions exactly the opposite of the way you did. And not only are they different kinds of people; they are also the majority. Three out of every five U.S. workers live paycheck-to-paycheck. It’s time to stop thinking "woke" and start thinking "broke," Until Democrats start talking effectively to those voters, there will be more election days like 2024.

Lesson 5: Right now, America’s truly disadvantaged group is young men. This is going to rankle a lot of Democrats, because what I’m telling you may violate your personal worldview. So let me explain. Pundits are asking why millions of young Latino men defected, and why young Black men didn’t turn out as expected. But by putting the questions that way, those "experts" are simply practicing the reflexive orthodoxy I described above. They’re segmenting “young men” by race, when the fact is that the same issues facing them also predominantly affect all struggling young men.

These are the young guys who long heard the promises of college and a professional career--but dropped out because “college wasn’t for me,” or never enrolled in the first place because of test scores or cost. Many women have largely overcome these same obstacles, but many (most?) young men have not. It’s not enough to (properly) celebrate the rise of women without also recognizing that young men are falling backward.

Also, most young men feel they can only “meet” potential mates online. But they soon find themselves swiped away because their profiles hardly scream “positive long-term relationship potential.”  They are left seeing no way up and no way out. And they aren’t just disillusioned—they are resentful and pissed. 

And then they hear something else: Donald Trump. When he declared, “I am your retribution; I am your vengeance,” they felt like he was talking directly to them. In exchange for a vote, he’s promising them a way out—even though he never details any plan to do that.

Next, I did not invent the idea I'm about to lay out, and I am not alone in stating it: I believing that men have a cultural and biological bias towards protecting and providing for their families. Many women will say, “I don’t need protection, and I don’t need any man providing for me—I can do that for myself.” But respectfully, I’m not talking about you—I’m talking about them.

Despite all the false bravado that comes with projecting virility, power, and force, men carry the base impulse to take care not just of themselves, but of others. When they feel that this impulse is blunted by the inability to earn a "respectable" living and make a positive mark in the world, bad things happen. People have written books explaining this (e.g., see Richard Reeves’ Of Boys and Men). To go further into this topic here is beyond the scope of this article. But strategically, if you want to choose a demographic for more care, this is the one to understand and talk to—that is, if you want to start winning  elections again.
______

I am gratified that some Democrats are starting to call this out…to voice what I’ve stated above...and for a long time.

Bernie Sanders has always been viewed as a leftwing firebrand, but it’s instructive to remember that when Trump first won in 2016, the overwhelming second choice among Trump voters was Sanders. Maybe he understands what to say and how to speak to those voters? A couple days after the election, Sanders told the New York Times:
"The Democratic Party is a party which has increasingly become a party of identity politics rather than understanding that the vast percentage of people in this country are working class."

Jon Favreau is a former speechwriter for Barack Obama, and now hosts the popular Pod Save America podcast. At its core, his job is observing the Democratic party. In his day-after-the-election group discussion, he said this:
"If there’s one thing we are seeing…(it’s that) people’s racial, gender and ethnic identities are not the most salient elements in their politics. I think we, as a party, have to stop treating them that way. It’s demeaning .This party cannot be the sum of its interest groups. There has to be a bigger message about improving people’s lives. We have to have a message that reaches everyone…that everyone can see themselves in."
 
And Favreau’s cohost, comedian Jon Lovett, suggested a thoughtful approach moving forward:
"Kamala talked about joy, and I do think that what gave us a sense of hope was seeing that joy. That is not invalid because we lost. (Trump) wants a country that is angry and at each other’s throats. We can’t let Donald Trump make us the angry and awful version of ourselves that he wants us to be. Not just because it’s bad for our souls, but  because we have to be a movement that people want to join."

May those voices echo across the progressive universe.       
 
# # #

A "win?" Maybe. A "victory?" Not yet.

By Don Varyu

October 28, 2024

A newborn comes into the world full bore; bursting into chaos. Suddenly there is loud commotion and blinding light. Gone is the comfort of the womb. But that child is also surrounded by support and love--and hope. This is the very first minute of a baby’s limitless opportunity. Nothing is impossible.
If you superimpose that thought onto your political memory, does it not remind you of the first election day for Barack Obama? Almost a quarter million people gathered in Chicago’s lakefront Grant Park. Tens of millions more watched on TV and online. And they heard Obama utter the words that stuck at our collective yearning for unity: “I have never been more optimistic than I am tonight….as Lincoln said--to a nation far more divided than ours--we are not enemies, but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection."
Oh…to ever get there.
Now, in the throes of a gutting national campaign, Kamala Harris is echoing Obama’s summons for unity, promising to be “a president for all the people.”
As I write this, I’m feeling optimistic—cautiously, I admit. I simply can’t conceive of an America whose majority favors the fever dreams of this current monster.
So, the question remains: can Kamala win? Well, of course.
But can she also claim a “victory;” in the sense of unity that Lincoln and Obama imagined?
No--not now, not soon, and maybe not ever. Certain things are beyond her control.
This is because her presidential “birth” will not resemble that of a newborn baby. Instead, she will come to life as a baby chick…surrounded by hard shell… needing to find the strength and resilience on her own to peck her way into existence.  

And she will confront a shell with several thick layers.
___

Consider, for a minute, all that has to fall apart before she can begin putting things back together. To be sure, she won’t be responsible for the rubble that confronts her; and she can’t control the pace of its demise. The only surety is that there will be resistance.

1. MAGA. Of course, this is foremost on everyone’s minds. To what ends will they go to prevent Harris from taking office? Legal and political landmines? At least some level of actual violence? This seems inevitable. But it’s only a start.

2. GOP electees. A Harris victory would apparently put them into a vice. After spending years kowtowing to Trump, what happens when Trump eventually evaporates? These lawmakers are conditioned to follow, not lead. They obstruct reflexively, without considering the consequences. So, what do they do? Will they try to rally behind a “new Trump,” a fresh face running the same old playbook? Or will some moderate their behavior (and votes), already thinking about their own survival in elections that are, for some, only two years away?

3. Former GOP. Several courageous GOP officials have come out condemning Trump, urging votes for Harris. In doing so, they know they can never "go home again." The cult of Trump has cancelled them. The GOP beyond MAGA is an endangered species. So what do they do? For Harris, the challenge is to craft a legislative agenda that will allow them to reconstruct their party, while also moving America forward. That will be a messy and contentious business. 

4.  SCOTUS. This obstacle may not be fixable at all—at least not for decades. In three indefensible decisions (Citizens United, Dobbs and presidential immunity) the majority has demonstrated its full willingness to spit on the Constitution in order to serve those who privately revile what the Constitution actually stands for. Those justices are legal terrorists. But the question remains: are they vulnerable to public pressure, led by a President Harris? Such an attack is dangerous stuff—but it may be the only move she has to break their ranks.

__
 
I lost a friend this week. She was 89. She descended from southern slaves, endured numbing discrimination as a child, married a lifetime Air Force guy and thus traveled and learned the world. She was kind and funny and wise.
And she lived long enough to watch a large clan of children, grandchildren and great grandchildren come into the world and achieve better lives simply because of who she was.
She lived long enough to see the world open up to wider opportunity.
But she didn’t live long enough to cast her ballot this year.
Still, I hope on election day she and her husband are looking on, sipping her favorite cognac, and toasting Kamala’s effort to acheive even wider opportunity-- for everyone.
It will take some time.
 
# # #

Are We Repeating History--160 Years Later?

By Don Varyu

August 28, 2024

Eactly one hundred and sixty years ago, as the heat of summer began its surrender to the shorter days of fall, Abraham Lincoln sat disconsolately in the White House. His four years in office brought him the deaths of two of his sons…and the loss of mental equilibrium for his wife. He had ample reason to mourn.

And yet, he saw his greatest loss still ahead of him. The final blow would be not personal, but monumental. His grand vision to press for equality…to help construct a more perfect union…was dead in its tracks. The Civil War was stymied, with troops hopelessly stalled in Virginia and outside Atlanta. His reelection bid would be decided that November, and leaders in his own party called for someone else to replace the already-nominated Lincoln on the Republican ticket. He restricted his thoughts to what small steps he might take in his remaining months before a stinging electoral defeat.

Some urged him to delay the election; after all, no democracy had ever conducted one in the middle of a civil war. He demurred: “We cannot have free government without elections. And if rebellion could force us to forego or postpone a national election, they might fairly claim to have conquered and ruined us.”
___
His torment was compounded because of his opponent, the Democratic nominee George McClellan. Lincoln knew him and understood he would immediately cave to the growing national demand for a negotiated settlement. That would mean either the establishment of a separate Confederate nation…or its incorporation into a disfigured union which would permanently lay to rest the ideal of equality.

Lincoln understood this because McClellan had been Lincoln’s first general of the Union army, reporting directly to the Commander in Chief. But McClellan proved to be a cowardly lion. Again and again he refused to attack, despite holding overwhelming advantages. In the early months of the war, he sat passively, and ignored an opportunity to seize the confederate capital of Richmond, which would have almost certainly ended the war before it ever really began.

Due to McLellan’s passivity, nearly 750,000 American soldiers—from both sides--never went home again. And among those who did, many arrived with a missing arm or leg.

In that late summer, this was the legacy Lincoln pondered: a futile and failed attempt to preserve a United States.
___
The Confederacy had entered the war with raucous spirit and a blood-curdling “rebel yell.” Southerners won most of the early battles…while McClellan dithered. Their dream of a “second American revolution” seemed not only possible…but maybe even likely.

Northerners had once looked at the rebels as rich whiners and hopeless rubes, caught up in their own fever dreams.
But after four years, with no end to war in sight, the resolve of the Nrth had flagged.They cared not so much that the V=Confederacy be defeated--just make them go away. Good riddance.
___
Then, stunningly, good news broke. The deeply entrenched city of Atlanta, the transportation hub of the deep south, fell to Union troops. Hope in the north exploded. Lincoln and Union troops pressed their advantage, laying waste to everything during their fabled “march to the sea." The brave, “chivalrous” leaders of the Confederacy not so much fought to the death as simply withered away. There was no ultimate battle that settled everything. The surrender was calm. The South’s fever dream  evaporated.
___
Could it be that the shocking ascendency of Kamala Harris could be repeating the historic turnaround of those days of early fall in 1864? Well, we can’t begin to foresee telling events that may answer that question.

But the majority of America does seem aligned on wanting to put our political civil war behind us. Enough. Maybe the right idea is not to make America again what it never really was…but to make it something different...something better equipped to tackle challenges of climate, technology, and man’s eternal inhumanity to man.

It’s been said that history doesn’t repeat itself--but it does rhyme.

I don't knowf for sure, but I think I hear harmony in the air.
 
# # #

The MAGA Test

By Don Varyu

August 22, 2024

Picture in you mind what you see as a typical MAGA voter. What does he look like? What does he wear? Where does he live? What does he (or did he) do for a living? What’s his marital status? What does he like to do in his free time? What does he like to watch on TV?

Now picture three other men in your mind: Donald Trump, JD Vance, and Tim Walz. Which of them most resembles your MAGA prototype?

The answer is obvious to us—and it is to MAGA world, as well. That guy is Tim Walz.

So, am I foolish enough to think that the vast majority of the hard core MAGA world is suddenly going to switch their votes away from Trump? Of course not. But that’s not the point. Because there are a lot of MAGA wives who are not quite as hard core as their husbands. And there are a lot of MAGA-adjacent men who talk the talk in their hometowns because going along is how you get along. But to benefit Kamala Harris, they don’t have to vote for her—they just have to not vote for Trump. No one looks over your shoulder at the voting booth, or when you seal your mail-in ballot at home. This factor alone could decide the election.

And the secret weapon in all this is, of course, Walz. The Democrats’ existing weakness in this election is men. The young and macho may be beyond reach; the “power” Trump projects is the power they believe they one day might have. But older men can relate to Walz on multiple levels, from football coach to hunter to outstanding dad.

Walzis the ticket to those voters and why Harris was 100% right to choose him over Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro. The pairing of Shapiro and Harris would have been exactly the same mistake Trump made in picking Vance. The purpose of a VP pick is not to double down on your own strengths, but to expand your appeal to voters otherwise beyond your grasp.

So, three cheers for Harris—and four for Walz. If Harris is “for the people”, Walz is clearly “of the people.” He is the factor for which Trump and the GOP have no answer.

# # #

Biden Campaign: The Four Horsemen of His Apocalypse

By Don Varyu

June 4, 2024

While journalists obsess over any impact of the Trump guilty verdict on polling, Joe Biden has far bigger concerns. In fact, four of them:

1. Netanyahu

   1. Very soon after the Oct. 7 massacre, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanahyu flew to meet with Biden in Washington. When he descended from the plane, Biden rushed up to hug him.

   2. This was Biden to the core, a man overflowing with  empathy. Besides, he has known Netanyahu for decades, so the hug was also a gesture of friendship.

   3. But diplomatically, optically, and politically, it was instantly a disaster. By then, Israel had already begun leveling entire blocks inside Gaza, as part of some never-explained strategy that would somehow weed out the Hamas bad guys.

   4. Biden has moved slowly (too slowly) from his blind support of Netanyahu, realizing that Netanyahu does not care what Biden says or wants.

   5. Biden needs to face the truth: Benjamin Netanyahu wants Donald Trump elected.

2. Putin

   1. Gaza has also harmed Biden in another way. It’s captured the war headlines that used to be dominated by Ukraine.

   2. Into the breach, Putin’s sympathizers on the GOP side of Congress have slow waked--and even shut down—vital military aid to Ukraine. The Russians are advancing. Ukraine is holding on to swaths of territory with its fingernails.

   3. Biden needs to call out this capitulation for what it is, because Vladimir Putin wants Donald Trump elected.

3. Tik Tok

   1. It’s no secret that people under 30 aren’t getting their news from broadcast networks or newspapers. Some think this means they’ve just tuned out (and many are). But many more have not. And where they are most likely to get their “news” is from Tik Tok.

   2. Studies this year have shown that Tik Tok carries twice as much content identified as pro-Trump as pro-Biden. And to put that in context, views of that pro-Trump content exceed 9 BILLION. In addition, searches for #Trump 2024 on Tik Tok exceed #Biden2024 by a ratio of 12:1.

   3. Tik Tok is part of parent company BytDance, which like all major Chinese companies, operates under the auspices and dictates of the Chinese government.

   4. To close the circle, Xi Jinping wants Donald Trump elected. 

4.  Evangelicals

   1. All Biden’s enemies aren’t overseas; many are hiding in plain view all across the plains. We wrote six years ago how easy it is for people who have “given their lives up to Jesus” to make the same leap of faith to support someone like Trump.

   2. Legendary reporter Ted Koppel recently interviewed Trump supporters at a Trump rally in Pennsylvania. One attendee, asked about the upcoming election, said, “he (Trump) will not lose. It’s in God’s hands…He’s going to straighten this country out.” His friend added, “I think God’s behind everything we do here.”  Secreted under many (most?) red MAGA hats are self-anointed halos.

 
So, Joe Biden’s list of powerful adversaries includes three leaders from among the most powerful nations on Earth. Thats a lot.

But if Jesus also wants Donald Trump elected…well, dear God!
 
# # #

Trump Guilty

By Don Varyu

May 30, 2024

I'm happy, so instantly I want to be snarky. 
But I'm going to restrain myself to make a single point.

There are millions of American voters under the age of 30 who are severely disconnected from the news, and any intention to vote.
There are millions of older Americans who feel that Trump's grievances match their own grievances.
In the moment that he walked out of the courthouse, Trump's message was predictable and clear--in effect, "I've been screwed!"

This is now assured to be his constant whine all the way to election day. Nothing else will matter to him. Which leaves a huge opening for Joe Biden and the Democrats.

Whether you're a young, disgusted voter...or an older, enraghed one, there is only one question to be put to you. What is Donald Trump promising to make your life better? To lower prices? To make housing affordable? To reduce homelessness and political polarity?

Of course not. One hundred percent of his concern is now permenantly cemented on himself.
He has no platform...no promises. 
He's devoid of both empathy and humility., 

Biden needs to say every day,"where are his solutions?"

For Donald Trump, this is the “emperor has no clothes” moment.

# # #

How the NBA Explains Government

By Don Varyu

April 19, 2024

The National Basketball Association presents the absolute superstars of the sport—the biggest, fastest, strongest, and most confident players on Earth. Crowds scream and swoon over their thundering dunks, and the three-point baskets they nail from almost as far away as Caitlin Clark’s.

But these physical and cultural titans can’t get away with anything they want. That’s because there are also three other people on the court—the referees. They are shorter people who wear black and white striped shirts, and who decide what the superstars can and cannot do. Their work is widely vilified by fans, whether on site or watching from home. They only see the “blown calls.” Either the refs are being too lenient (“letting ‘em play”), or whistling minor (“ticky-tacky”) infractions. For the record, the refs don’t get to sit and rest for ten or 15 minutes at a time, like the players do. And even the most accomplished ref won’t make half the salary of the greenest, least-used rookie on the bench.
__
Of course, there’s a wider world beyond the NBA court. It’s a world that’s also combative and punishing, but can be richly rewarding. It’s called capitalism.

Like the NBA, the titans of tech and business believe themselves to be the biggest, fastest, strongest (and unquestionably most confident) players in the game of wealth. These folks think they have “earned” their fortune and acclaim, even if they just inherited everything. from dad. (The latter have created a class of delusional and dangerous delinquents like Donald Trump, Jr., and Jared Kushner.)  But whether earned or bequeathed, the vast majority in the billionaire class believes its wealth and power equals wisdom, and thus the right to do anything it wants. After all, they’re smarter, so it's logical they should determine everything for everyone. These people call themselves “libertarians.”

A small number in their ranks—people like Warren Buffett, Mark Cuban and MacKenzie Scott--stand on the sidelines, shaking their heads, and use vast sums of their own wealth to make the world better. Not just their worlds—the whole world.
__
Greed is an irrepressible force, in both humanity and society. Empathy and fairness are not. So, to prevent greed from befouling everything, a counterbalance is required—acting like the referees in an NBA game. Force requires counterforce. That’s why we have firemen and fire hydrants to quell voracious flames. In the history of capitalism, only two such counterforces have ever worked against it: labor unions, and governments. Capitalism has effectively de-capitated unions (pun intended) …which leaves only governments. However, in this battle, the power of the monied has rigged the game. It’s turned the fans (citizens) decidedly against the refs (government).

The “little people” have been convinced that:

• Tax cuts for billionaires will trickle prosperity down to them (it never has)

• Higher taxes for the rich are unfair and probably communistic (wrong on both counts), and,

• Every person connected to a government—from the Department of Justice to the IRS to your local DMV office—is a lazy, incompetent grifter. (To my mind, this is the most outrageous and false claim of all.)

In America, complaints about the government have existed since the day after the Constitution was signed. But in popular culture, they probably reached a zenith when Ronald Reagan claimed that the nine most “terrifying” words in the English language were, “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” Very quippy—but, of course, not original. And that's very ironic coming from a man who ran the government of America’s largest state, and then the entire country. His real message was clear—get government out of the way and let the rich do as they will.
__
Anyway, let’s finish by returning to the NBA. Let’s imagine what a game would be like with no referees—the way libertarians and other lying self-servers envision a perfect nation. There are no fouls…because there are no rules. The only purpose of the game is to put the ball in the basket, and without refs, anything goes. Any player intending to dunk could receive an elbow to the gut…or be felled by a cross-body tackle before his feet ever left the floor. A sharpshooter at three-point range might be able to get a shot off—but would then risk the likelihood of fists to the face. And even then, giants at the basket could block the ball before it ever reached the rim. If you’ve ever seen a rugby match, imagine that on a confined, hardwood floor.
__
This is exactly the kind of Thunderdome in which the self-styled Mad Maxes of Silicon Valley and Wall Street see themselves. Not as fighters—heaven's no! But as the undisputed masters of capitalism, freed from all responsibility or morality toward any of society’s combatants. The rich stand high above it all, gloating from their luxury suites.
__
I, for one, vote for refs—for strong government, despite all its flaws.
If you, on the other hand, decide to vote based on Ronald Reagan's "terrifying" threat posed by all those people and agencies working to protect us, you will be welcoming a national Thunderdome, where you most assuredly will suffer.

 Have fun.

# # #

Independents respond to Biden SOTU

By Don Varyu

March 8, 2024

I’m not a great believer in polls, particularly ones taken right after a one-off event like the State of the Union address. We know what the reactions will be. People supporting the party of the President will like it; those in opposition are not realistically going to change their minds.

What value there is might come from independent voters—at least those who claim to be. In any case, I do think Joe Biden’s SOTU screen test (for the role of perfectly viable old guy) did come out well for him, at least as measured by the independent voters CNN recruited. The results fore independent respondents on individual issues are listed below in the before and after columns:

These have to be encoueraging for the Biden camp. But it’s only one poll, and as they say themselves, it’s still more than half a year until election day.

But it’s also important to report the reaction of former President Trump to Biden’s performance; he informed his Truth Social followers that Biden’s hair looks better from the front than the back (seriously). And let’s face it—the man pays no small attention to hair.

 # # #
 

UPDATE: Joe Biden and Age

By Don Varyu

March 2, 2024

Recently I published a piece attacking the New York Times' obsesive coverage of Joe Biden's age, and its supposed impact on his ability to effectively hold office. (If you missed it, that first story is here.)

In that piece, one of the paper's leading reporters suggested his own extensive reporting showeed no one suggesting that imparied performance was evident.

Now a second NYT star, David Leonhardt, has also weighed in on the issue. Appearing with popular podcaster Scott Galloway, here is how he responded to a Biden age question:

"Age is absolutely a legitimate issue...for both candidates. At the same time, as a journalist, I'm a little bit haunted by a Gallup poll that came out after the 2016 campaign that asked Americans what they'd heard about each candidate. And the number one thing that most Americans reported hearing about Hillary Clinton was about her emails.

"I think Hillary Clinton's emails were a legitimate story; (but) surely, they were not the most important thing about Hillary Clinton in 2016.

"And I worry a little bit that those of us in the media are at some risk of repeating that in talking so much about Joe Biden’s age, in particular, that we come to make it seem like this is the only issue in this election.

"Joe Biden's performance as president suggests he absolutely can do this job. And so we're not dealing with someone who appears to be incompetent as president, whether you agree or disagree with his policies. Just look how much legislation he's gotten passed; nore than I expected, quite frankly—much of it bipartisan!

"I'm just trying to get to the fact that on the one hand, it's a legitimate issue, and on the other hand, I think sometimes  those of us in the media have a tendency to take a legitimate issue and make it seem like the only issue…and I think we'd be making a big mistake if we did that with Joe Biden's age."
 

The NYT is Destroying Joe Biden

By Don Varyu

February 16, 2-24

Psst…want to know a secret? It’s about that Biden guy—you know, the President. Well…it turns out…he’s REALLY  OLD! As Biden himself would say, I mean it!
Wait…what? You already heard that?
Well, of course you did. Over and over and over again.
___
But in the opinion of the New York Times, you haven’t heard about it nearly enough. It has been the staple of their Biden coverage for many months; there is no sign of this stopping. And their obsession becomes a plague, because the paper is the de facto managing editor of all American journalism. No self-respecting national outlet puts together its rundown of articles or broadcasts without reviewing what the Times is doing. The Times' biases command not just attention, but allegiance. Their rundown is the nation’s rundown.  

This is both disgusting and extremely dangerous. Let me explain.
___

Let’s begin with reality. Joe Biden is unquestionably 80 years old. He frequently uses a wrong word and swallows others; but this has been the case since he was a kid, suffering from a speech disorder. Second, he shuffles along from the White House to his helicopter, or up steps and across the stage to a podium. The medical fact is that he suffers from arthritis in his back. If you share this condition, you understand it has exactly zero impact on your mental faculties.
And if you think all this collectively diablos Biden in terms of fulfilling his duties…you disagree with all people who have directly dealt with him, even in the last year—including Republicans—who swear he is just as sharp as he’s ever been. Beyond that, I assert that his record--his actions and stances, even if you disagree with them--have been clear and decisive throughout.

But this, for whatever reason, has not stopped the NYT from obsessing. over his mental capabilities. They simply cannot say it enough. Its own database, searched for articles on “Biden/age”, lists more than 2,000 entries.
___

After spending most of 2023 clutching its pearls over Biden’s age…and speculating repeatedly on who in the party might replace him…things at the Times calmed down a little over the holidays. But then, a Republican special prosecutor concluded that while Biden did nothing illegal in retaining governmental documents in his home. However, he based this decision in part because Biden was “a well-meaning, elderly man with memory problems.” Among his proofs was the fact that Biden could not remember the exact year when his son died. What the prosecutor did not mention was that his interview with Biden began the day after the deadly Hamas massacre of Israelis…when Biden (or any President) may have been preoccupied with other matters.
This special prosecutor, Robert Hur, took it upon himself to repeatedly comment in his report on what he thought of the President’s memory and mental acuity. Hur majored in English literature as an undergraduate, and philosophy as a graduate student. Somehow, that led him to law school. How anything in this prosecutor's background qualifies him to make psychological or medical conclusions about anyone ‘s health is entirely unclear. Maybe he just thought doing so would help you know who.

Regardless, the Times was quick to react. It immediately went back to publishing stories on whether it was too late to replace Biden. (Even though realisticaly they know it is.) The paper’s popular Daily podcast scrambled the jets, interviewing the paper’s lead White House correspondent, Peter Baker, on the reignited crisis. They dutifully replayed sound clips demonstrating Biden’s verbal and memory lapses. But they were quick to gloss over Baker’s own reporting citing multiple interviews with dozens of Biden aides, members of Congress, foreign diplomats and heads of state. Baker concluded, “nobody has said to me they don’t think he can do the job,” and those sources declared nothing “…has affected his capacity to make the decisions you would want a President to make.” In fact, Biden’s record in the face of such delusional Congressional opposition is unrivaled in modern U.S. politics. But that hardly registered. The podcast host was quick to repeat how “damaging” and “embarrassing” this situation is. After all, he implied, the polls prove it.
This, my friends, is the very definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
___

The endless conjecture has persuaded so-called liberal commentors like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart to gleefully join the chorus of “both sides-ism.” People like them just want to safely protect their credentials inside the oh-so-sophisticated thought bubbles in Manhattan and Malibu. These guys continually whine, “can’t we do better than these two old guys?” As if the two old guys were the same thing. They don’t even see the damage they’re doing. By implying or outright stating that Biden and Trump represent the same danger, they are undeniably helping Trump. Their assessments, to people who don’t pay much attention to politics and elections (i.e. the majority), thus give permission to these folks not to even bother casting a ballot. After all, since both candidates are equally inept, why take the time? And while the MAGAs will vote in force, the vaguely disinterested non-voters can award Trump the election by doing nothing.
___
Which is beyond ironic. Because right wing shills are the ones who began this whole “Biden age” meme in the first place. That exploded shortly after they suffered stinging losses in the 2022 midterm elections. Clearly, what they had communicated to voters on issues in that campaign (particularly abortion) was downright repellent. Being devoid of any fresh policy proposals, they needed something new. Aha! “Hey, you know what? Biden is old!”  

Not surprisingly, it resonated with GOP voters immediately. But comments from the likes of the Times, Maher and Stewart made sure the left wing would similarly start sounding the alarm. If it’s true that politics makes for strange bedfellows, surely this is over the top. The far right and the clueless left are now aligned, intentionally or not, to put you know who back in the Oval Office.
___

The sin for the country is that there are at least a dozen issues far more important than Joe Biden’s memory or ability to run a 100 meter dash. Don’t believe me? OK, here goes: the Ukraine war, the Gaza war, crank Republicans kidnapping Congress, the Catholic-controlled Supreme Court, inflation, the potential demise of NATO, the fentanyl crisis, housing, homelessness, mass shootings/gun control, the border crisis, Trump’s promised “one day dictatorship”, social media damage, and the rise of artificial intelligence.

And that doesn’t even begin to consider the Kardashians.
___

­­­Still, I know that people will watch Biden and say, “come on—look at the guy! He can’t do this for four more years.” 
As I’ve written previously, groundbreaking medical research has established a new reality on aging. Individual organs of the body can and typically do age at different, unrelated paces. For example, kidney disease can kill someone with a perfectly healthy heart. Lung cancer can kill someone whose brain is “young” for its age. Even without considering death, the organs just don’t age on a common timeline.
In modern times, the activity and influence of people in their 80’s, or even 90’s, is indisputable (whether you love them or hate them): Nancy Pelosi, Rupert Murdoch, George Soros, Chuck Grasley, Harry Belafonte, Clint Eastwood, Willie Nelson, Jane Fonda, Bob Dylan, Bernie Sanders, Paul Simon and Mick Jagger. Somehow, they kept on keeping on.

So, when someone is inclined to say (about Biden or anyone else), “he’s just too old to handle the job anymore”, perhaps it would be more helpful for those folks to look in the mirror and consider the possible ignorance gazing back at them.
___

One final picky annoyance on this topic. Much of the corrosive conjecture from the Times spews from its editorial pages. So far as I know, there is no one in their regular stable who has any expertise in identifying or analyzing the effects of aging.
No matter. Recently, columnists Bret Stephens and Gail Collins jointly published a pseudo-real time conversation with each other. It was unmitigated groupthink and drivel. And spoiler alert: the topic was Biden’s age. Who could have seen that coming?
Stephens is a longtime Republican firebrand; strongly pro-Iraq War invasion, climate denier, reflexive apologist for Israel. His credentials include a stint heading up the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the intellectual sewage dump which serves as the equivalent of Fox News for people with too much money. So, his intentions in damning Biden are, to put it mildly, transparent.
But Collins, the arch liberal, takes the cake. In their piece, she laments, “I must admit I’m worried about (Biden) stretching things into his mid-80s.”
Which is delicious. Because when Biden is (hopefully) inaugurated in March of 2025, Gail Collins herself will be 79.
Apparently, the New York Times deathly fear of aging does not apply to its own.
# # #
 

Elephant Cracks

By Don Varyu

June 1, 2

There’s an old saying about how the two political parties choose their presidential candidates: “Democrats fa
ll in love. Republicans fall in line.” In a wider sense, that seems to describe the GOP as a whole. They often manage to wrestle control of the levers of government despite representing a clear minority of voters. They hang together. Republicans get their marching orders--and then they march.

But now, on several levels, that unity seems to be cracking:

(1) Presidential Candidates. Things haven’t been “nice” in the GOP ring since Donald Trump rode down his escalator and started throwing haymakers. He mocked his opponents in 2016 (“Little Marco”, “Lyin’ Ted”. He even made public Lindsay Graham’s cell phone number.) No matter. By election day, the party had fallen in line.

Trump is back and field-testing more nicknames, but this time he can expect more of a fight. Ron DeSantis’ initial message was kind of clever; to paraphrase, “yeah, he used to be wonderful. I wonder what happened to him?” That’s designed not to insult Trump’s base. But he’ll have to take risks in order to make any real headway.

In any case, things will definitely get a lot messier when Chris Christie announces his run. He is weighing in with a clear anti-Trump game plan. Whether that gives him even a remote chance isn’t as important as fomenting more GOP disharmony. Think the Animal House food fight.

(2) McCarthy’s Dilemma. House speaker Kevin McCarthy managed to get a “default bill” passed through his House. But it won more Democratic votes than Republican. His own caucus definitely did not fall in line. He continues to tap dance on a knife’s edge, knowing that at any minute just one disgruntled fellow GOP congressman could call for his ouster. Will people like Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene suddenly decide to stay silent? Just as likely they would opt to stop breathing. That default vote win for McCarthy put moderate House Republicans in the ascendency. Could they now move vocally to deflate their radical fringe?

(3) Texas. This is just one state--one entirely under the control of far-right wing conservatives. But those conservatives are definitely not getting along these days. The Governor and the Lieutenant Governor are conducting a public feud. The state Attorney General, a Trump toady, has been impeached by his own GOP-controlled state House. And another GOP representative was tossed out of office entirely—also by Republicans—for conducting a not-so-secret sexual affair with a drunken 19-year-old staffer. They say everything is bigger in Texas—maybe even the right-wing fractures.  

What connects all these things is a firestorm swirling around just one man—(predictably) Donald Trump. Republicans are caught between a reality that says no one gets elected without his base voters; and the counterpoint fact that his candidates most frequently crash and burn. What to do?!

Which defines the discord now roiling the GOP. Will moderates win back the party’s public face from the wackos? Or will crazy stay in the saddle?

While all this percolates, it inarguably opens a lane for Democrats to capture more independent voters: e.g., “these guys can’t even get along with each other. How could they possibly run a government?”

# # #

Are We Ready for the God Conversation?

By Don Varyu

May 7, 2023

Every mass murder further desensitizes us. The latest one, at an outlet mall outside Dallas, left nine dead. The shooter, a neo-Nazi sympathizer, used and AR-15 to massacre his victims. How unoriginal. 

Yes, it was horrific—and also almost routine. However, this one raised a new wrinkle. The state legislator who represents the district where the murders occurred, Republican Keith Self, first released a statement saying, “…our prayers are with the victims and their families…”  Later, he was properly asked by a CNN reporter to respond to critics who point out that “thoughts and prayers” have done absolutely nothing to stem this parade of slaughter.

He responded, “…those are people who don’t believe in an almighty God who…who has…who is absolutely in control of our lives.” (I’ll skip the part exploring why an almighty, "controlling" God loves slicing up so many innocent people with automatic weapons.)

Many accused Self of “hiding behind the Bible.” Fellow state legislator, Roland Guiterrez, also a Christian, claimed, “it is unconscionable for this man to use the Bible or God in any way to defend (this).” He called for Self to be removed from office.

And there it was. The reflexive "God" defense was publicly put on trial; the supreme being himself caught in the rhetorical crosshairs. 

It's about time. 
--

On the same day, an ocean away, a very odd couple officially became the King and Queen of the United Kingdom. Charles was crowned both the sovereign of the realm and also “defender of the faith”—i.e., God’s translator on Earth. (In his defense, Charles doesn’t really like that role—and he’s nobody’s image of an exceptionally holy person, anyway).

During his very holy coronation, he claimed he was taking the role “not to be served, but to serve.” (He stole that line from his Mom.) In any case, it seemed a little hollow from a man who has had multiple personal servants every single second of his entire  life. And one who always travels with a large contingent of those servants, as well as his own mattress, six different types of honey, and both his personal toilet seat and toilet paper.

But forget that for a minute. So what if his Camilla is the only single human he’s ever felt human around--including his two sons.

More important is a development among our oh-so-sensible northern neighbors in Canada. That division of the royal corporation has decided that they will drop the part of Charles’ title as “defender of the faith” from all official documents and ceremonies. He can be “king”—but he's not God’s guy anymore.

Nobody seemed to mind.
--

Donald Trump may not known how to hold a Bible, but his disciples surely know how to weaponize it. It’s the shield deployed to deflect any actions that don’t conform to their sordid depiction of “a Christian nation.” That includes gun control measures backed by nearly 90% of Americans.

Imagine their response to a declaration that America become a “Muslim nation” or an "athiest nation." Deathy by hypocrisy.

Certainly religion—or its absence—can be a source of comfort, peace and inspiration in the soul and mind of anyone. But that’s where it belongs. That's why the very first amendment to the Constitution calls for, "...no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Attempting to export religion to other people—or to an entire government—is always a tool of propaganda, corrupt power and hate.
--

If Canada doesn’t care…if Charles doesn’t care…maybe we shouldn’t, either. Why should religion play any part in our laws?

Withou it, maybe fewer Americans would wind up slashed to bits by automatic gunfire. That's what Americans want. But that's what the small minority of bible-beaters keeps from us. 

So, the question: if God can't control the carnage, why would we allow him to control government?

Tucker and TikTok

By Don Varyu

April 24, 2023

Well, Tucker Carlson is history--bounced by Fox News. Which means, among other things, that I was wrong. I thought Rupert Murdoch would not risk losing his biggest cash cow. 

Which has led to immediate speculation on why--particularly why now? That might be the easiest question to answer--this happened in the direct wake of a settlement that cost Murdoch’s empire $787 million (although how much of that might be covered by tax write-offs and insurance is unclear). To ditch Carlson before the settlement could have been construed as a separate admission of libel--and cost them even more.

So the bigger question is what exactly was it that finally got under Murdoch's skin?:

• The persistent, virulent racism?; the repeated allegations of a "white replacement" theory?

• The antisemitism rampant on his staff, as claimed by a former producer in a current lawsuit?

• Carlson's constant rejection of the idea that the Jan. 6 attack was an insurrection?

• His support of Russia in its invasion of Ukraine?

• His continued on-air shilling for Trump...while off air claiming he "hated" him?

• My favorite were his comments under oath that the Fox management team was too old, too proud and too liberal (wha?!) Even billionaires get insulted.

We'll probably never know, and in the end it doesn't matter. What does matter is the true nature of Carlson's menace. It's the same one that we see other places.
--
Recently both Republicans and Democrats showed a rare display of bipartisanship in skewering the U.S. head of TikTok on why his company should not be banned in America. The most-stated charge was that this Chinese company was in fact doing the bidding of the Chinese government by scraping the personal data of U.S. citizens. In reality, the Not  Chinese have much simpler ways of doing this. But more to the point, if the typical consumer was truly concerned, Siri or Alexa would not be listening to their conversations...placing their phone calls...or making all types credit card orders and reservations. The secrets are already out there--voluntarily.
--
Finally, think about that nice young man Jeff Zuckerberg who invented a way for Grandma to keep in touch with her family and old friends-. Unfortunately, it also gave grandpa the means to unearth fellow wackos who share his rage and paranoia. 
--
So, what is it that ties all these things together: Carlson's venom, TikTok’s endless carnival...and Zuckerberg's hellscape?

Each was programmed to work under the same operating instructions: providing a vehicle for foreign adversaries to sow anger, outrage and chaos inside American borders; to act exactly opposite to what was once called the American way of life. Stomp, scream, fight. Find someone to hate--and hate him. 

The Russians used Facebook to distribute false claims that helped swing the 2016 election to Donald Trump. 

TikTok uses an invisible algorithm that prioritizes its content, and thus makes decisions over time that could steadily convince young people that its homeland is silly, vulgar--or worse. 

But Carlson provided the most graphic nightly flood of societal sewage. His sneering slants and lies were designed only to make his viewers seethe. In retrospect, it doesn't matter if he was a racist or an antisemite or an apologist for every foul deed and dictator.  Rage meant ratings. Why would the old Aussie at the top care how much America was kneecapped in the process? 

China is subtle. Russia will be more direct. In either case, the goal is to turn Americans against Americans. And it seems to be working just fine. But don't assume Carlson's departure will make him disappear. Just hours after his axing, two different Russian TV programs invited him to join them. 

The mouth shall rise again? 

 # # #

Fox Loses--and Wins Again

By Don Varyu

April 18, 2023

Yep--we all wanted to see it. That sniveling Tucker Carlson sweating bullets in the in the witness box...trying to explain how he was a journalist...and more importantly, what he meant when he texted that he hated Donald Trump "passionately." That would have been sweet.

But the settlement between his employer, Fox News, and the Dominion voting machine corporation was nothing more than a fizzle. Fox agreed to pay $787 million--not exactly pocket change--but they got off without issuing an apology or any promist to change anything.

Three things on this:

(1) The Cost is Small. Three quarters of a billion dollars is not nothing. It is effectively ten times Dominion's market value. But the hedge fund that owns Dominion (and likely called the shots on the settlement) is probably very happy. This, for them, is found money--minus attorney fees. To take this cash was a no-brainer. On the other hand, the settlement is just seven percent of parent company News Corporation's revenues last year...and less than five percent of the total assets on its balance sheet. This is just a cost of doing business.

(2) The Game Plan is Unchanged. For years, the Fox News battle plan has been to invent lies...and reap the rewards. Among those most rewarded is the hypocritical corpus known as Tucker Carlson. Fox News reportedly pays him $6 million a year...but that's not relevant. As an heir to the Swanson (now Hungry Man) frozen dinner business, he, and his four Stepford children, will never have to eat a frozen dinner in their lives. His net worth is estimated at $30 million--and growing. But do you think Fox will in any way punish him for taking part in any action that led to the $787 million judgement? Seems impossible. As stated above, why break up a winning formula? Tucker's show is reputed to be the third most popular in all of television. The man will keep getting paid--and gloat all the way to the bank.

(3) So Why Did Dominion Settle? The quick and easy answer is that the hedge fund guys clearly understood that going before a jury is rolling the dice. They could always lose--despite the evidence. But I want to think something more was at work, on a human level. Trump's big lie led to death threats not only against Dominion workers, but also election workers in contested states, and even targeted the Secretaries of State in both Georgia and Arizona. As this case neared trial, those online threats only increased. So are these endangered workers reason enough to rob us of the glee watching Maria Bartiromo go full Cruelly de Ville on the stand?

A corporate crisis expert told ABC News, "If you’re running a company in this situation, you have to keep your people safe. You also have to think about how to ratchet down the level of media combat. Fighting fire with fire doesn't help."

So, Dominion called off the dogs. Let's hope everyone stays safe.

But this still galls me… 


# # #

On Indictment Day…

By Don Varyu

by Don Varyu

April 4, 2023

…the most important thing that happened was not Donald Trump formally facing charges. Important? Of course. But it was only symbolic. We knew the charges were coming…this was just the ceremony. The same way that your high school graduation was symbolic. Meaningful…but mainly signifying your survival skills after spending four years surrounded by other hormonal teenagers.

Coverage of the Trump court appearance was pure personality pornography. News networks, whether gloating or grim, all drafting off of Trump’s ratings appeal.

And lost in that wall-to-wall reality show, back in D.C., was something far more vital. A group of Senate Democrats was vowing to present a measure that would require the U.S. Supreme Court to adopt a clear standards of ethics and a meaningful posture of transparency—or the Court’s Congressional funding might be jeopardized. This sounds like the kind of hardball tactic you’d expect from a DeSantis or Abbott. But this is necessary because something much higher is at stake.

Trump has spent years whining that his title of President made him immune from any form of prosecution; justice coming after him would be the same as shredding the Constitution (or, I would say it would be more like sending storm troopers to break into the Capitol to prevent the certified winner from actually winning).

Defenders of the right-wing terrorists on the high court then trotted out the same argument that Trump does. You see, these nine judges are better—they’re different from every other federal judge in America, each of whom is subject to an ethics code. Several have been removed for violating it. But no such code exists for the Supreme Court. Like Trump, they consider themselves beyond reproach. They won’t be bothered with silly concepts which apply only to lesser mortals. Like Trump, they can’t be bothered. Go away.

GOP critics then charged that the without full funding, the safety of the SCOTUS justices could be jeopardized, because they might have to look out their windows at home and see people on the street protesting. Imagine! That would certainly be more ghastly than assuring the safety of Capital police on January 6th trying to protect democracy…or the kids who faced their demise in the face of automatic weapons fire at Columbine or Sandy Hook or Nashville.

Lesser Americans should follow rules and deal with reality.

Trump and the Supreme Court are above all that…
 
 

# # #

Maximize the Momentum...

By Don Varyu

Feb. 22, 2023

For the momeny, Joe Biden seems to be on a roll. Coming off the midterm wins, the feisty State of the Union address and the secret trip to Ukraine, he is radiating competence in contrast to opposing craziness.

Of course, it’s ridiculous to project this into any impact on a reelection that’s 20 months away. But insiders are saying his campaign will increase focus (as we’ve previously encouraged) to pay attention to white, non-college educated voters. But how, exactly, to do that?

There’s on simple message that can act to unify not only the Democratic party, but Inddependents and undecideds—all the way down the ticket.

The secret potion is right here…

# # #

The Liar and the Dunce

By Don Varyu

Jan. 18, 2023

George Santos, even by modern day standards, is a world class liar. Solomon Pena, even by modern day standards, is a deluded political terrorist. They have something in common.

Santos was elected to Congress from a New York district despite building a monument of lies to convince voters of his worthiness. There’s no reason to document them all here, but note that he hit the deceiver’s trifecta when he claimed he required two knee replacements after being injured playing volleyball in college. In fact, he had no replacements, he didn’t play volleyball, and never attended the college. You can’t get much more brazen than that.

Solomon Pena ran for the state legislature in New Mexico—even though he’d spent seven years in prison for robbery. He lost by 48 points. Nevertheless, owing to his intense MAGA loyalty, he screamed that the election had been ‘stolen’. He seems to believe that. When no one listened, he allegedly hired four men to fire bullets into the homes of four different election officials. Fortunately, no one was injured. But at least one of the rounds rifled through the bedroom of a ten-year-old girl.

The knee-jerk reaction was predictable. Where could people get these kinds of ideas…that lies and violence are the way to seize political power? Hmm…that sounds a lot like Donald Trump, doesn’t it?

While that’s not untrue, it’s too easy.

Next came the second and third order deflections. Why didn’t their opponents call them out? Why didn’t the media uncover this? That’s just lazy. (And in fact, Pena’s opponent did point out his criminal record—repeatedly.)

The commonality between these two criminals is the full support of the Republican party. They are the responsible actors. GOP officials in New Mexico could have deep-sixed Pena’s candidacy—but they didn’t. In D.C., since election the GOP has had ample opportunity to send Santos packing--but they haven’t. With rare exception, his Republican colleagues have had nothing to say about him.

There is no law that requires lawmakers to talk to the media; no law that requires them to interact with their constituents. In fact, for Republicans, there is no punishment anymore—as long as you pledge full allegiance solely to the GOP.

Republican party officials and elected officials are craven cowards. They are the enablers. They are the last people you’d want alongside you on the battlefield. They would push you from behind out of the foxhole and into the line of fire…and then run for their lives. Later, they’d have no comment on what happened. 
 
This is no longer only about Trump…or even bad actors like Santos and Pena. It is about the frightened souls who allow them. They believe they can have jobs without responsibilities.

When you call 9-1-1, you expect someone to answer. When you rush into an emergency room with an injured child, you don’t expect the nurses and doctors to just sit in a back room drinking coffee. People need to do their jobs. 

Unless you’re a Republican. In which case you can just hide--even if the 9-1-1 call is for America…and the injured kid is democracy.
 

# # #

Election Lesson: The 42%

By Don Varyu

Nov. 9, 2022

Democrats, no matter what the eventual outcome of the Congressional races, are high fiving in the wake of the midterms. Their showing was much better than anyone expected—Democratic or Republican. But the primary reason for the result was not something wise or good that the Democrats devised; it was something stupid and cynical done for them by the Supreme Court—overturning abortion rights. A national exit poll showed that two in five voters said their “anger” about the abortion ruling most motivated their vote...and among that subset, Democratic voters prevailed more than four-to-one.

There’s a lesson to be learned here.
---
What did the Supreme Court ruling do? Yes, it overturned a right that had been on the books for half a century. And yes, it further disrobed an ideological high court willing to do legal backflips to further an extreme right-wing agenda.

But one step beneath the obvious lies a more important truth. If you try to consider which one group the ruling most affects, you stop short, because the answer is, it affected ALL groups. All geographies, all races, every income group (except the very rich, who can always afford what they need.) For example, imagine a 63-year- old grandmom, a loyal Republican, who listens to Fox News all day. She may have a left-wing daughter with whom she will never talk politics. But any political differences dissolve once they face the idea of a teen granddaughter, someday raped, with no voice whatsoever on whether or not she can be legally forced to have that baby. To repeat, overturning Roe impacted everyone.

Ever since the political arrival of Donald Trump, Democratic-leaning media have reflexively jumped to defend everyone who Trump gleefully offended—racial minorities, liberals, “elites”, the gender-tormented, war heroes who crossed him, the physically disabled—I know you could add more. These people deserve defense. But separately, they share one trait--they are distinct voting minorities. To repeat, abortion rights concern everyone. Identity grievances tend to concern just those aggrieved.

So, is there another “big umbrella” thrust that could capture a much wider swath of voters?

Yep. And there’s one man who proved it.
___

When John Fetterman announced his Senate run in Pennsylvania, he adopted the slogan, “Every county, every vote.” It sounds like political pablum, but he actually followed that path. In doing so, he refused to bypass the farms and small towns which are home to Trump’s MAGA base in his state. He didn’t have to win all of their votes; he just asked them to listen. Enough believed that they carried him to the Senate. After victory, Fetterman proclaimed, “this race is for the future of every community, all across Pennsylvania. Every town or person that ever felt left behind.” There is grievance all around us.

Fetterman also recognized an essential numbers game at work. No matter the level of discrimination they’ve suffered, just 11% of voters are black. Similarly, 11% are Latino. Each of their votes counts, but by focusing so intently on their support, are Democrats making the mistake of writing off a voting block four times the size of either of those racial minorities?

Such a block exists: white non-college educated voters. These are the people that Fetterman bothered to talk to. They are 42% of the electorate—middle class, working class, union-employed people who once were overwhelmingly loyal to Democrats…but whom Democrats simply took for granted. It wasn’t that the 42% stopped listening. Democrats just stopped talking to them. So those voters wound up supporting Trump. Even if they didn’t believe every word he said, or appreciate how he said it, at least he was talking to them. He cared enough to recognize them.

If Democrats want to win in 2024, they need to do two things. First, heed Fetterman’s lead and talk to the 42%. And second, find another issue like the abortion ruling that will galvanize all demographics.

But does such an issue exist? You bet.

More on that in a future post…


# # #

A Progressive Pratfall

By Don Varyu

Oct. 25, 2022

Oct. 25, 2022

The far left “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party wants you to not even know about it. And if you do, don’t think about it anymore. Nothing to see here…just move on.

The “it” is a letter sent to President Biden on Monday instructing him on how to proceed with America’s involvement in the Russian-Ukraine war. While beginning with general support for Biden’s efforts, and stipulating full support for the Ukrainians, it contradicted itself by spelling out a specific remedy:
“…we believe such involvement in this war also creates a responsibility for the United States to seriously explore all possible avenues, including direct engagement with Russia…,” (emphasis added)

and later, to make sure the point wasn’t missed,
” …we urge you to make vigorous diplomatic efforts in support of a negotiated settlement and ceasefire, engage in direct talks with Russia….” (emphasis added).

This would be outrageous if it came from Republicans, but would at least be in keeping with their perverse intent to torpedo all things Biden. But from 30 members of his own party? Biden could not be faulted for thinking, “who, exactly, am I fighting here?”

This proposal is both misguided and infantile on multiple levels. To name just a few:

• It undercuts Ukraine from a say in its own future, an option which Biden has ruled out entirely, right from the start.

• Vladimir Putin did (and still does) reject any proposal for negotiations.

• It would reward Putin with an equal seat at a table where he could win in negotiations while he seems destined to lose on the battlefield.

• It undercuts the entire psychological underpinning of NATO (all for one and one for all, etc.).

Pramila Jayapal, head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), had a deer-in-the-headlights moment almost the instant the letter was made public.

• First, she tried the “oops” defense, citing some unnamed staffer who mistakenly released the letter. Then, signatories on the letter said they weren’t informed it was going out. In both cases, what does that say about the Caucus itself?

• Then there was diversion—"the letter was actually drafted back in June or July.” Really? That makes it better? So, barely 100 days in, with Putin advancing in some areas and getting punished in others, these progressives were already willing to just forget about the Ukraine lives that had been lost? And reward Putin with the chance to win some of Ukraine’s sovereign land?

• For a time, it was implied that the letter was really the product of an outside think tank called The Quincy Institute, whose self-described mission is to foster, “…a foreign policy that emphasizes military restraint and diplomatic engagement….” So, who’s in charge here? That line of defense evaporated quickly. Either the CPC realized it should be seen thinking for itself… or the Institute called up and said, “get us the hell out of this!”

With all that’s going on in the world, the Caucus will probably get its wish and have this story disappear quickly.

But it simply adds to the image of the far left in Congress as a little eight-year-old girl…sneaking into Mommy’s room…putting on one of her dresses and some jewelry…adding a swipe of lipstick—looking in the mirror and seeing itself heading off to the prince’s ball.

But sometimes, you’re just not ready yet for your dreamy closeup.
# # #