MISSION ONE
-->
On July 4, 1776, the Second
Continental Congress officially declared that henceforth the 13 colonies would
be "free and independent States."
The document consists of
three basic sections: it starts out with lofty phrases about the god-given unalienable
rights of man, and concludes with a firm declaration of absolute political independence.
The longest section of the Declaration
is the middle, where the author listed 27 transgressions by the King. Jefferson
wrote: "[W]hen this long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce [the people] under
absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government ... ." Historians reveal that Jefferson's original draft of the
Declaration set out scores of additional transgressions, but the document was
sharply edited for fear it would tax the attention-span of its audience.
For the same reason, I omit a
list Mr. Trump's transgressions. (How's that for a segue, huh?) Besides, any
list of Trump transgressions would be incomplete on the date of publication
because the list grows by the hour.)
So our primary goal today is
to unseat this faux king. Unlike the colonials, I do not advocate armed
rebellion. They did not yet have resort to the Constitutional remedies we now
take for granted. So now our House of Representatives will impeach this would-be
Monarch, and for almost sure Trump's disgracefully slavish acolytes in the
Senate will acquit.
Okay, after this wordy introduction,
I come to the meat of this piece: thanks to the Founders, we now have the right
to dethrone this Royal via an election.
And to do that, friends, we must choose a candidate who is most likely to beat Mr.
Trump on November 3, 2020.
From this summer's crew of
twenty, I suggest that we are left with four candidates who have a realistic
shot at the Democratic nomination: On the left we have Sanders and Warren, and
to their right we have Biden and Buttigieg. Yeah, I know there are others, some
of whom I admire, but they didn't catch fire, and now they are but smoldering
logs cluttering the debate stage.
Let's take a closer look at
the leaders:
Bernie is a 78-year-old man
who survived a recent heart attack. Enough said.
Elizabeth Warren is a
70-yr.-old former college professor who does not lack for plans. Her problem is
a significant chunk of Democrats and independents don't like those plans.
Medicare for all is a bust; it is enormously expensive and an offense to millions
of people, especially union members, who have won hard fought battles to secure
their current health insurance and don't want a nanny bureaucrat telling them
they can no longer have it. Additionally her views on decriminalizing illegal
immigration, throttling much of U,S. oil and gas production, breaking up tech
companies that much of the populace admires, such as Google, Amazon etc., are a
step too far. As was bound to happen, the media and political tide has turned
against her: Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and the sages at the NYTimes have
all expressed serious doubts about her electability. She ain't gonna win over
the independent voters she needs. Warren
is, or should be, toast.
Three months ago, I would
have said that Biden was the clear choice. Centrist, likable, link to Obama,
strong connection to unions and African-American voters. But Joe has not done
well in this campaign. What we have seen is a fumbling, inarticulate,
unenthusiastic, ill-prepared 76-year-old who is way past his prime. And his lawyer-son's
un-earned but nevertheless remunerative position on the Board of Directors of a
Ukrainian gas company in uber-corrupt Ukraine, while his father was Vice
President of the United States, didn't help Joe much either. Can you see Joe on
the debate stage with Trump? I cannot without wincing.
That leaves Pete Buttigieg: Intelligent,
center-liberal, articulate, served in Afghanistan, born and raised in Indiana, rising
in polls and campaign contributions while Biden's numbers in both categories
are falling. Mayor Pete would be slam dunk winner but for two factors: he is 37
yrs.-old, and a gay man married to another man.
The age factor I dismiss. Another
combat veteran, JFK, was 43 when he was inaugurated; Mayor Pete would be 39. Hardly
a disqualifier.
The biggie: Mayor Pete is
openly gay, and his detractors are convinced that a segment of the voting
population will reject him for that reason alone, and therefore he is not
electable. Once upon a time, I was in that group of pessimists, but on
reflection and observation, I now reject that appraisal.
Every single exposure, every
debate, every interview, moves me further down the path of believing that a
year of campaigning, a year of exposure, debate, communication, will persuade people that Pete
Buttigieg has the makings of a great president. I have always believed that his
gender identification is irrelevant to his ability to solve our problems and to
pilot the ship of state, and I believe, bit by bit, the nay-sayers will come around.
One bit of evidence: After Pete "came out," he won 80% of the votes
for Mayor of his midwestern city.
"No gay man can be
elected president of the United States?" How many time did you hear
"No black man can be elected President of the United States?"
I recognize the distinction:
There a lot more black voters than there are gay voters. But Barack won over
the white voters too.
So here is my not-so-far-out
suggestion: Another look at history. In
1960, JFK, only the second Catholic in history to run for President, faced an
avalanche of religious opposition. The press was full of stories about fears
"the Pope would be running the country", and there was the risk the
otherwise solidly Democratic south -- a
church-going, god-fearing lot, whose churches were Presbyterian, Methodist, and
a whole range of non-Catholic religions, would sink his candidacy. Southern church
leadership, (along with the KKK) was decidedly anti-Catholic.
The solution: an historic
speech that belled the cat. The candidate wangled an invitation to address the
greater Houston Ministerial Association -- a large group of skeptical Protestant
ministers. The subject: the candidate's Catholicism.
The speech was one of the
most powerful and effective orations of modern American history.
Briefly, Kennedy started out
noting the country faced more critical issues than his religion: Communist
influence, the hungry children in West Virginia, the lack of medical care for
the elderly, a declining economy, too few schools, and more.
He then addressed the
religious issue directly. He spoke about his belief in an America with an
absolute separation of church and state, where no religious group imposed its
will on the populace, and where, he believed, religious intolerance will someday
end. He aspired to an America where the
populace one day "will refrain from attitudes of disdain and division
which have so often marked works in the past, and promote instead American
ideals.'' He said he wanted to be a chief executive "whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated
to none: who can attend any ceremony, ... his office may appropriately require
of him; and who's fulfillment of his presidential
oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation."
It is impossible to convey the
awesome power of this speech by my reference to these bits and pieces, so I
have added a link to the entire address below. When you read it, substitute in your mind gender identity for references to religion.
So here is what I propose: At
some propitious time in the campaign for the nomination, Buttigieg makes a
similar speech. Perhaps to a group of black ministers, I dunno. Live. National TV. I can't wait.
Pete's the guy. He's our best
hope. Think debate stage: Mayor Pete v The Donald. Combat Vet vs. Heel Spur Golfer.
It will be the final blow to the blowhard.
I am persuaded this is our
best, perhaps only, route to success in 2020.
Finally, I gotta comment about yesterday's announcement
of the Bloomberg candidacy. I love Mike Bloomberg. I think he was the greatest
mayor of New York City in my lifetime. And I am sure he has made an
excruciatingly careful analysis of his likelihood of success. But I respectfully
suggest that his appraisal is warped by the bias of egocentricity. In recognizing the decline of Biden, Mike arrogantly
concluded he was the only one who could save the Dems. He overvalued his
electability, and undervalued Mayor Pete's.
Putting aside the timing of Bloomberg's
announcement, I cannot see what he adds to this contest beyond chaos. Surely he
can expect zero support from the left wing of the party, the 40% who now
support Sanders or Warren. Yes, he seeks to replace the ailing Biden as the
leader of the center. Yes, he will strip some support from Biden, but a
significant part of Joe's support is the black community, and stop-and-frisk Mayor
Mike has no claim to loyalty there. This 77-year-old white Republican-turned-Democrat from New York City ain't
going nowhere.
Timing is everything. Today's
76 yr.-old Joe Biden blew his chances by passing up the 2016 election, and today's
77 yr.-old Mike Bloomberg blew his chances by staying away then and up to now.
Mike, darling, we love you,
but do some good here: drop a couple hundred mil into a PAC for Mayor Pete,
keep up your good work on gun control and abortion rights, and repair to your
manse on Bermuda. You have earned your retirement.
To read and listen to the
full JFK speech, click here. If you tear up while listening to it, you are not
alone.
A bientot.
.....................................
As my regular readers know, there is no fixed schedule
for these posts. If you want a notice of each new posting, send me an email and
I will add you to the notice list. mlondon34@gmail.com
posted by marty at 5:16 PM
<< Home