Barry Moore says Democrats “have been out to get Trump since he came down the escalator”
On Monday night, former President Donald Trump was indicted by a Fulton County, Georgia grand jury for charges dating back to 2020, accusing the former President and 18 of his attorneys, advisors, and affiliates of conspiring to unlawfully overturn the results of the 2020 election. Congressman Barry Moore (R-AL02) – who has endorsed Trump for President – took to Twitter on Tuesday to denounce the prosecution of Trump and his team. “The United States had never before indicted a former president, and now Biden’s Department of Justice and weaponized blue state prosecutors have indicted President Trump four times in a matter of months,” Moore said on Twitter. As they continue their quest to throw their chief political opponent in jail, Democrats have joined the likes of Maduro and Noriega,” Rep. Moore wrote on Twitter. “They have been out to get President Trump since he came down the escalator, and Americans can see through this desperate sham.” Moore, a member of the House Judiciary Committee that is investigating alleged influence peddling by the President’s son, Hunter Biden, and allegations that Biden himself may have received payoffs from foreign sources while he was Vice President – has suggested that the indictments of Trump are part of a plan by Democrats to distract attention from those hearings. “JUST IN: The Biden family received more than $20 million from oligarchs in Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan while he was VP,” said Moore on Twitter. “Biden dined with these oligarchs and spoke with them on the phone 20 separate times. The indictments are just a distraction from the real story.” Most Republicans dismiss the Trump indictments as partisan politics. U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-Alabama) called them a “sham” and a “witch hunt” in a statement on Tuesday. Some Trump opponents, on the other hand, claim that he should not be allowed on the ballot due to the legal controversy. William Baude and Michael Stokes Paulsen claim that by challenging the results of the 2020 election, Trump is guilty of participating in an insurrection between the election and the certification of the Electoral College votes on January 9, 2021, and is thus barred from holding public office under the post-Civil War Fourteenth Amendment. Trump has already made history as only the third President in the country’s history to be impeached by the House of Representatives and the only President to be impeached twice. Like Bill Clinton and Andrew Johson before him, Trump was not convicted by the Senate. Trump is the sixth one-term President since 1900 to lose reelection. The others are William Howard Taft in 1912, Herbert Hoover in 1932, Gerald Ford in 1976, Jimmy Carter in 1980, and George H. Bush in 1992. If Trump wins the Republican nomination for President and then is elected to a nonconsecutive term in 2024, he would be the first to accomplish that since Grover Cleveland. Moore is serving in his second term representing Alabama’s Second Congressional District. To connect with the author of this story or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com.
Will Sellers: Nothing to lose?
To coincide with Independence Day, many foreign nationals will publicly renounce all loyalties to their country of origin, pledge their allegiance to the United States, and officially become U.S. citizens. Witnessing people from all walks of life and from every continent become citizens creates an infectious patriotism and offers a rare glimpse into the sacrifice others make to become Americans. In evaluating other countries, Ronald Reagan said that the acid test of a nation’s liberty and system of government is determined by the gate test. This test was a simple observation of a nation’s borders to see which side of the gate had a lock and armed guards. The test is pass-fail. If the country had guards to keep its citizens from getting out, then it fails the gate test, but a country that must guard to prevent people from getting in, passes. This test examines perceptions of future opportunity to determine which country would gain population if people were allowed to accept or reject citizenship based on a vote of their feet. There are some countries that people yearn to inhabit, and others they would leave immediately if they could. Almost since inception, the United States has received high marks on the gate test. But, the journey to citizenship is not easy. Without experiencing or observing the process, it is difficult to fully appreciate the sacrifices legal immigrants make for the privilege of being called Americans. In fact, 70 years ago this month, Lt. Franciszek Jarecki became a United States citizen. His path to citizenship required a literal act of Congress. Because he had defected from Poland and was a former member of the Polish Communist Party, he had to have a congressional dispensation. Unlike today, the Poland of Jercki’s era failed the gate test. Its people wanted to leave, but guards kept them in. Jarecki, though, was a pilot and had been trained to fly the state-of-the-art MiG-15. This high-performance aircraft was by all accounts the best jet fighter in the world. Allied pilots fighting in Korea took notice when this new aircraft was introduced into the conflict. The MiG’s advanced technology had aeronautical engineers scratching their heads. It was critical to acquire one of these planes to fully check out its design and determine its vulnerabilities. To this end, the CIA instigated Operation Moolah, which promised any MiG-15 pilot $50,000 upon defection and political asylum in America. And, to prove the genuineness of the proposal, the testimony of Lt. Jarecki appeared on leaflets that were dropped over North Korea, touting his warm welcome and acceptance. At the time of his defection, Jarecki was only 22 years old. He was an exceptional student, as only elite pilots were allowed to operate the MiG-15. But, in Poland at the time, the Soviet fist dominated everything, and the centuries-long antagonism between Russia and Poland was inescapable. Fences and guards held the people in, and any sense of freedom was extinguished by the Soviet puppet government in Warsaw. Keeping his own counsel, Jarecki shared his desire for freedom with no one. When his unit was moved closer to the Baltic Sea, a military briefing inadvertently revealed that the Danish island of Bornholm was a short distance from his base and contained a small landing strip. One morning while leading his patrol, he decided without much-advanced planning to make a run for freedom. Wanting it to appear that his plane was having mechanical issues while also getting under Soviet radar, he dropped his excess fuel tanks and made a severe dive without any communication with the other pilots on his patrol. Realizing that time was critical, Jarecki flew very low above the water but was noticed by another pilot and began to hear chatter on his radio that Soviet planes were being scrambled to stop him. He was able to avoid further detection and, in a matter of minutes, had landed his plane undamaged on Danish soil. His defection was risky as the consequences were severe. In fact, a few months before his flight to freedom, another Polish pilot had tried to defect but didn’t have an allied airfield as close. That pilot was caught, tried for treason, and without any due process or legal niceties, summarily executed. Jarecki knew the price was high. What he didn’t know was that his mother would be arrested and imprisoned because of her son’s defection—another gate test failure. Nevertheless, he succeeded and provided the West with the first completely intact MiG-15. Engineers from the United States were immediately dispatched to conduct a detailed examination of the plane, and Jarecki was on hand to explain the maneuverability from his pilot’s perspective. Once the aircraft was completely reviewed, photographed, and documented, it was returned to Poland by ship. Even though Denmark was a NATO member, its proximity to Russia and the Warsaw Pact countries was such a cause of worry that Danish officials felt returning the plane, even without the pilot, would serve as a goodwill gesture. Jarecki was treated as a hero, and the Free Polish government in London recognized his service with a medal. From London, he went to the United States, where he confirmed his status as a defector and supplied information about Soviet air capabilities, tactics, and his experience as a MiG pilot. While the United States compensated him and gave him asylum, he could not become a citizen. U.S. policy required anyone seeking citizenship to have been in the country for several years and precluded former communists from an easy path to naturalization. But there was an exception, and that was for Congress to pass an act specific to Jarecki, which effectively waived these requirements. Given the large Polish American population of his district, then-Congressman Gerald Ford sponsored the legislation to allow Jarecki to become an American. Seventy years ago, this act was passed, providing yet another example of how the United States passed the gate test with flying colors! Will Sellers is a graduate of Hillsdale College and an Associate Justice
Senate leader, presidential candidate Bob Dole dies at 98
Bob Dole, who overcame disabling war wounds to become a sharp-tongued Senate leader from Kansas, a Republican presidential candidate and then a symbol and celebrant of his dwindling generation of World War II veterans, died Sunday. He was 98. His wife, Elizabeth Dole, said in an announcement posted on social media that he died in his sleep. Dole announced in February 2021 that he’d been diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer. During his 36-year career on Capitol Hill, Dole became one of the most influential legislators and party leaders in the Senate, combining a talent for compromise with a caustic wit, which he often turned on himself but didn’t hesitate to turn on others, too. He shaped tax policy, foreign policy, farm and nutrition programs, and rights for the disabled, enshrining protections against discrimination in employment, education, and public services in the Americans with Disabilities Act. Today’s accessible government offices and national parks, sidewalk ramps, and the sign-language interpreters at official local events are just some of the more visible hallmarks of his legacy and that of the fellow lawmakers he rounded up for that sweeping civil rights legislation 30 years ago. Dole devoted his later years to the cause of wounded veterans, their fallen comrades at Arlington National Cemetery, and remembrance of the fading generation of World War II vets. Thousands of old soldiers massed on the National Mall in 2004 for what Dole, speaking at the dedication of the World War II Memorial there, called “our final reunion.” He’d been a driving force in its creation. “Our ranks have dwindled,” he said then. “Yet if we gather in the twilight, it is brightened by the knowledge that we have kept faith with our comrades.” Long gone from Kansas, Dole made his life in the capital, at the center of power and then in its shadow upon his retirement, living all the while at the storied Watergate complex. When he left politics and joined a law firm staffed by prominent Democrats, he joked that he brought his dog to work so he would have another Republican to talk to. He tried three times to become president. The last was in 1996 when he won the Republican nomination only to see President Bill Clinton reelected. He sought his party’s presidential nomination in 1980 and 1988 and was the 1976 GOP vice presidential candidate on the losing ticket with President Gerald Ford. Through all of that, he carried the mark of war. Charging a German position in northern Italy in 1945, Dole was hit by a shell fragment that crushed two vertebrae and paralyzed his arms and legs. The young Army platoon leader spent three years recovering in a hospital and never regained use of his right hand. To avoid embarrassing those trying to shake his right hand, Dole always clutched a pen in it and reached out with his left. Dole could be merciless with his rivals, whether Democrat or Republican. When George H.W. Bush defeated him in the 1988 New Hampshire Republican primary, Dole snapped: “Stop lying about my record.” If that pales next to the scorching insults in today’s political arena, it was shocking at the time. But when Bush died in December 2018, old rivalries were forgotten as Dole appeared before Bush’s casket in the Capitol Rotunda. As an aide lifted him from his wheelchair, Dole slowly steadied himself and saluted his one-time nemesis with his left hand, his chin quivering. In a vice presidential debate two decades earlier with Walter Mondale, Dole had famously and audaciously branded all of America’s wars that century “Democrat wars.” Mondale shot back that Dole had just “richly earned his reputation as a hatchet man.” Dole at first denied saying what he had just said on that very public stage, then backed down and eventually acknowledged he’d gone too far. “I was supposed to go for the jugular,” he said, “and I did — my own.” For all of his bare-knuckle ways, he was a deep believer in the Senate as an institution and commanded respect and even affection from many Democrats. Just days after Dole announced his dire cancer diagnosis, President Joe Biden visited him at his home to wish him well. The White House said the two were close friends from their days in the Senate. Biden recalled in a statement Sunday that one of his first meetings outside the White House after being sworn-in as president was with the Doles at their Washington home. “Like all true friendships, regardless of how much time has passed, we picked up right where we left off, as though it were only yesterday that we were sharing a laugh in the Senate dining room or debating the great issues of the day, often against each other, on the Senate floor,” Biden said. “I saw in his eyes the same light, bravery, and determination I’ve seen so many times before.” Biden ordered that U.S. flags be flown at half-staff at the White House and all public buildings and grounds until sunset Thursday. Dole won a seat in Congress in 1960, representing a western Kansas House district. He moved up to the Senate eight years later when Republican incumbent Frank Carlson retired. There, he antagonized his Senate colleagues with fiercely partisan and sarcastic rhetoric, delivered at the behest of President Richard Nixon. The Kansan was rewarded for his loyalty with the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee in 1971 before Nixon’s presidency collapsed in the Watergate scandal. He served as a committee chairman, majority leader, and minority leader in the Senate during the 1980s and ’90s. Altogether, he was the Republicans’ leader in the Senate for nearly 11½ years, a record until Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell broke it in 2018. It was during this period that he earned a reputation as a shrewd, pragmatic legislator, tireless in fashioning compromises. After Republicans won Senate control, Dole became chairman of the tax-writing Finance Committee and won acclaim from deficit hawks and others for his handling of a 1982 tax
Dems look to Michigan primary as testing ground for November
Both Democratic candidates have a lot riding on Michigan, especially Bernie Sanders.
What to watch as Donald Trump impeachment moved to House floor
American history is happening in the U.S. House of Representatives. Democrats are driving President Donald Trump to the brink of impeachment Wednesday as the House takes up charges Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress in pressuring Ukraine to investigate political rivals and refusing to cooperate with the ensuing congressional probe. The nation’s 45th president is on track to become only the third commander in chief to be impeached. But first, watch for a daylong showdown that’s been boiling for years between Republicans loyal to Trump and Democrats who say his conduct toward Ukraine makes him unfit for office. Look, too, for legacy moments for Washington’s political veterans on the eve of the 2020 election year. What to watch during a historic day on Capitol Hill that begins at 9 a.m. EST and is expected to end with a final vote between 6:30 and 7:30 p.m.: SPOILER ALERT Trump is heading for impeachment. When the House opens debate, the outcome will have been known for some time. A tally compiled by The Associated Press found that a majority of House members have said they will vote to approve the charges and send them to the Senate for a trial next month. The GOP-led Senate is not expected to convict and remove Trump from office. PARTISANS, MOSTLY Expect most Democrats to vote for impeachment and all Republicans to vote against it. But there are exceptions. One freshman Democrat, Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, has indicated he will oppose impeachment, then switch parties to become a Republican. Earlier this year, Michigan conservative Rep. Justin Amash left the GOP when he favored impeachment. He is expected to vote yes to impeach. One new Democratic congressman, Jared Golden of Maine, said he would vote to impeach on abuse of power but not obstruction. AMERICANS Expect the House to take the nation’s us-vs-them political culture out for a spin before a global audience. But it’s not clear the proceedings are changing many minds. Trump’s approval ratings have held steady since a whistle-blower report and a partial transcript revealed he had pressured Ukraine’s president to investigate Democrats. Wide shares of Democrats both disapprove of the president and support impeachment, while wide shares of Republicans approve of Trump and want him to remain in office. New polls from The Washington Post/ABC News and CNN find support for impeachment and removal remains at about half of Americans. ‘PROFOUND DISGRACE’ Impeachment will subject Trump to what former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter called a “profound disgrace” that stains a president’s legacy forever. Only two presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson in 1868 and Bill Clinton in 1998. Richard Nixon chose to resign instead. Trump has mocked the articles of impeachment as weak. TRUMP’S DAY He’s heading to Michigan, the Democratic state he flipped in 2016. Vice President Mike Pence is on a bus tour across the state and expected to join Trump at the rally in Battle Creek. On the eve of the floor action, Trump gave a nearly six-page preview of his approach in a rambling letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. in which he cast himself as a victim and accused the Democrats of smarting over their election losses. “You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish, personal political and partisan gain.” PELOSI It’s legacy time for her, too. In her second turn as speaker, the House veteran of more than three decades says relentlessly that impeachment is a somber time, not one for celebration. She says the Clinton impeachment proceedings were too divisive for the county and resisted opening impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush after the Iraq War. She refused to launch impeachment proceedings against Trump over his obstruction of the Russia investigation, saying she’d be against doing so unless there was bipartisan sentiment for it. That still doesn’t exist for the impeachment articles now headed for passage. But Pelosi has said Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine, while holding up military aid to that country, left her no choice. “Very sadly, the facts have made clear that the President abused his power for his own personal, political benefit and that he obstructed Congress,” Pelosi wrote to colleagues. “In America, no one is above the law.” NEXT STOP: SENATE After votes on each of the two amendments, the House is expected to authorize Pelosi to name a team of prosecutors for the Senate trial. Lobbying for the jobs is well underway. The wagering begins with the two lead House impeachment chairmen, Adam Schiff of Intelligence and Jerrold Nadler of Judiciary, playing roles. The trial is expected to begin in January, with Chief Justice John Roberts presiding. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have begun negotiating, and sniping, over how the trial will be conducted. McConnell set the partisan tone by declaring that he’s “not an impartial juror.” By Laurie Kellman Associated Press Follow Kellman on Twitter at: http://www.twitter.com/APLaurieKellman Republished with the Permission of the Associated Press.
Darryl Paulson: Will Donald Trump be dumped? – The 25th Amendment
Each day seems to bring more trouble for President Donald Trump. He fired his National Security Adviser Michael Flynn after just three weeks in his position. Then came the firing of FBI Director James Comey. Numerous other individuals in his administration are supposedly on the chopping block, ranging from Press Secretary Sean Spicer to Chief-of-Staff Reince Priebus to Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The FBI investigation of Russian influence in the 2016 election discovered that at least five members of the Trump administration or campaign team had met with Russian officials. Many had failed to disclose these meetings as was required. Before firing Comey, Trump asked the FBI Director on several occasions to pledge his loyalty to the president. Comey promised his “honesty,” but failed to pledge his loyalty. Trump also asked Comey to drop his investigation of Flynn because he is a “good guy.” When Trump fired Comey, he called him a “nut job,” and threatened Comey that he better “hope that there are no ‘tapes’ of our conversation.” Trump also stated that Comey was a bad administrator of the FBI and had lost the support of his colleagues. Finally, Trump said the firing of Comey was done to relieve pressure on the Russian investigation which Trump called “a made-up story.” There is a growing national discussion of removing Trump as president either through the provisions of the 25th Amendment or through impeachment. Neither approach would be easy. Both the 25th Amendment and impeachment raise the specter of a “constitutional coup.” After only six months in office, how will the American public react to what looks like an attempt to nullify the results of the recent presidential election? The 25th Amendment was added to the Constitution in February 1967 and was the result of the assassination of President Kennedy. The Constitution did not provide a means to replace the vice president when he assumed office on the death of the president. There was also no mechanism to remove the president due to disability temporarily or permanently. The vice president and a majority of the cabinet could remove the president if they found him “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” It could also occur if a congressionally appointed body of experts concluded the president was no longer capable of performing his duties. If the president opposes his removal, Congress has three weeks to debate and decide the issue. It requires a two-thirds vote of both houses to remove the president and there is no appeal. The 25th Amendment has been invoked six times since its ratification. On Oct. 12, 1973, Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned and was replaced by Gerald Ford. Ford was confirmed 92-3 by the Senate and 387-35 by the House. The following year, President Richard Nixon resigned the office of president due to Watergate. Ford assumed the presidency on the same day that Nixon resigned, Aug. 9, 1974. Ford became the only person to be both vice president and president without being elected to the positions. On Sept. 20, 1974, President Ford selected Nelson Rockefeller as his vice president. Rockefeller was confirmed 90-7 by the Senate and 287-128 by the House. Three incidents involve the 25th Amendment and presidential disability. On July 12, 1985, President Reagan underwent a colonoscopy and transferred power to Vice President George H.W. Bush for several hours. In 2002 and 2007, President George W. Bush transferred power to Vice President Dick Cheney during two colonoscopies. The presidential disability provisions were considered twice during the Reagan administration but were rejected. On March 30, 1981, President Ronald Reagan was shot by a deranged assassin. Reagan was incapable of turning over powers to his vice president, and vice president Bush decided not to invoke the powers even though Reagan was not capable of governing for several days. In 1987, outgoing Chief Donald Regan warned incoming Chief-of-Staff Howard Baker to be ready to invoke the 25th Amendment. Regan and other staff members were concerned that the president was disengaged from his duties and spent much of his time watching movies. Baker summoned close aides to the president and they all agreed to carefully monitor the president at a luncheon meeting the following day. The president was alert and funny and Baker considered the debate over. “This president is fully capable of doing his job.” One of the concerns over the 25th Amendment is its potential for misuse. In 1964, three years prior to the adoption of the 25th Amendment, 1,000 psychologists said Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater was not psychologically fit to be president. Goldwater sued and won. In 1973, the American Psychological Association adopted the “Goldwater Rule,” barring members from making a diagnosis without doing an in-person exam. The Goldwater Rule did not stop 50,000 mental health professionals from signing a petition stating that Trump is “too seriously mentally ill to perform the duties of president and should be removed under the 25th Amendment.” I suspect these “liberals” let their politics get in the way of science, much like Republicans do with climate change. Responding to a letter to The New York Times from a retired Duke psychology professor that Trump was a “malignant narcissist,” an Emeritus professor at Duke Medical School responded that Trump “may be a world-class narcissist, but that doesn’t make him mentally ill. … The antidote is political, not psychological.” Finally, Jeff Greenfield of CNN, commented that attempts to remove Trump under the 25th Amendment for mental health reasons are a “liberal fantasy.” Part II: Will Trump be dumped? Impeachment. ___ Darryl Paulson is Emeritus Professor of Government at USF St. Petersburg specializing in Florida politics and elections.
Darryl Paulson: Candidate’s running mate rarely affects outcome of presidential election
The national conventions are less than three months away and, as the nomination phase comes to a close, attention will gravitate toward potential vice presidential candidates. Let’s focus on the factors that have been used in selecting vice presidents. Most conventional wisdom is wrong. To begin with, most people and many presidential candidates select a vice president who they believe will help them win the election. Few vice presidents have had any effect on the election results. Jack Kemp did not help carry his home state for Bob Dole and Paul Ryan did not win Wisconsin for Mitt Romney. On the Democratic side, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen was not able to carry Texas for Michael Dukakis, nor did John Edwards help the Democrats win South Carolina or other southern states. One of the few times a vice president actually helped a president carry a state was in 1960 when John F. Kennedy picked Sen. Lyndon Johnson as his running mate. If Kennedy had not won Texas, Richard Nixon would have won the presidency. In like fashion, vice presidents are sometimes selected to provide regional balance, although there is no evidence that this helps. When Bill Clinton of Arkansas picked fellow southerner Al Gore as his vice president, many thought this unbalanced regional ticket was crazy. When the Clinton-Gore team captured the electoral vote of four southern states, something that Democrats had been unable to do in recent presidential elections, Clinton’s choice looked like genius. In addition to regional balance, vice presidents are sometimes selected to provide ideological balance. With increased polarization in recent years, this is becoming a less important factor. In 1976, Ronald Reagan announced Sen. Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania as his vice presidential choice prior to the convention. Reagan hoped to alleviate the fears of some that he was too conservative and needed a moderate to balance the ticket. More importantly, Reagan hoped that picking Schweiker would convince some Pennsylvania delegates to support his candidacy over incumbent Gerald Ford. The pick of Schweiker did not help Reagan and Ford went on to win the nomination. Many Democrats in 2016 see Hillary Clinton as too conservative and too establishment and have urged her to choose a progressive as vice president. In addition to Bernie Sanders, other progressive names being floated are Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. A vice president is sometimes selected to stimulate participation by a particular group. Walter Mondale selected Geraldine Ferraro to get more women to vote. That pick didn’t provide much help. Mondale won only his home state of Minnesota and the District of Columbia against Reagan. Vice presidents have been picked to add gravitas to the ticket. Concerns about Reagan’s limited government experience led him to pick George Herbert Walker Bush as his vice president. Bush had been a member of Congress, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and to China, head of the Republican National Committee and head of the CIA prior to his selection. Bush’s son, George W., picked Dick Cheney as his vice president to add heft to his ticket. Cheney had served as Chief-of-Staff to Ford, been a member of the House, and served as Secretary of Defense for George W’s father. In fact, Cheney headed George W’s vice presidential selection team and concluded he was the best candidate. Do any of these factors help a presidential candidate win? The answer is no. A study by two political scientists, Bernard Grofman and Reuben Kline, analyzed 11 presidential elections between 1968 and 2008 and found the net effect of a vice president was 1 percent at most. If Clinton is the Democratic nominee, she may pick a progressive or choose someone like Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro. Although not well known, Castro’s youth and Hispanic background might help stimulate Hispanic turnout. If Trump is the GOP nominee, it is easier to put together a list of people he would not select than those he would. There is little chance that “lying Ted,” “little Marco,” or “low energy Bush” would want to join forces with Trump. Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin is one possibility since he dropped out of the nomination race early before Trump had the opportunity to insult him. Chris Christie is another option because he was the first major candidate to endorse Trump after Christie withdrew. Another option is Florida Gov. Rick Scott. Florida is a “must win” state and Scott endorsed Trump as a “businessman outsider who will shake up the status quo in Washington.” Although most of the factors in the vice presidential selection process have been shown to have little impact, there are two general rules that no president should ignore. First, pick someone you feel comfortable working with. Second, and most important, pick someone who is ready to be president. Nothing else matters. *** Darryl Paulson is Professor Emeritus of Government at USF St. Petersburg.
Ed Moore: The presidential campaigns make me worry about America’s future
I often lament how little we learn from that which has come before in our political and governmental processes. It seems like each decade we drop time off the front end of our experiences, as if there is only so much room in our memories for what we have experienced. What else could explain our repeated willingness to follow a new “Pied Piper” every four years, promising the world but offering few solutions. We allow our frustrations to overcome our reasoning and many voters become drawn to the rhetoric of negativity. I cannot help but think of the “Wizard of Oz” and the vision Dorothy had of a better place than Kansas. We fall in love with a false promise, marketed to us as if we are planning a dream vacation rather than deciding who is going to lead the free world. Eight years ago we heard about hope and change, then four years later we just had to give more time for change to occur. Now hope and change have morphed into visions of making America great again, absent any concrete blueprints for how to get it done. In my head, I hear Larry the Cable Guy hollering “Get er done!”, while I keep wondering just exactly what it is that needs “gettin’.” The leading candidate on one side is filled with empty vision and false promise and, when pressed, seems to take every side of complex issues, sometimes even creating positions no one has espoused. The leading candidate on the other side, although losing a string of primaries while somehow extending her lead in delegates, always seems to be looking back over her shoulder for something creeping up on her. With that campaign, I keep thinking of Butch and Sundance riding as fast as they can while asking “Who are those guys?”. Will we ever see those guys engaged in pursuit of possible crimes or will they issue their findings only when it’s too late to change that party’s direction? It seems as if every conversation I have trends toward two points. One is dismay as to how we got to where we stand today. The second is questioning if there is any way out of this mess that we the voters created. I gave a lecture to a student group recently and one gentleman posed this question, after a lengthy discussion about the lack of real policy discussions from all sides. “Would it be OK if we just asked for a re-deal?” Unfortunately, in elections, there is no reshuffling of the deck and we are forced to play with the hands that get dealt. In this election, we even helped to pick the cards being dealt. No one seems to be excited about the potential face-off this fall of two flawed candidates, each with near record negatives in all polls. Each is distrusted by many voters. With almost one-third of the electorate now registered as “no party’ or ‘independent,” the pathway to the Yellow Brick Road is not as clearly marked as it was in the movie. We have had tough choices to make before. Think back to 1972 when George McGovern ran an energized campaign focused on ending a very unpopular war. He seized the nomination of his party but lost in record fashion. Think back to Ronald Reagan challenging Gerald Ford in 1976, falling short and then running again in 1980 against an incumbent who chastised the American electorate as being in a period of ‘malaise.” How inspiring that was! Then only four years later, Reagan appealed to our positive spirit and desire to be better as a people. He appealed to the better angels within us, something lacking in this 2016 election. We look to leaders to lead, to inspire. Instead, we get charlatans who truly are self-serving and view the world through very limited and cloudy lenses. They appeal to small groups that subscribe to the false promises of Oz. I want to scream, “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,” but our reality is the man behind the curtain. We are better than all of this as a nation and we need to awaken, just like Dorothy. Today we stand at a crossroads that will determine who we are as a nation. Will we be beguiled by traveling road show medicine men? Will we be captured by the swirling maelstrom and dropped into a land of make-believe? Or will we embrace the harsh reality that our society is complex and the problems facing government are vexing, requiring people of character, high moral values, and a deep understanding of building better pathways to success? Who we select as our leaders require us to be informed and educated on issues and to not fall prey to hyperbole and falsehoods. When Reagan ran in 1984, he had a series of commercials that have become famous for how clearly they defined where we stood and what threatened our standing in the world. One had these words: “It’s morning again in America, and under the leadership of President Reagan, our country is prouder and stronger and better. Why would we ever want to return to where we were less than four short years ago?” I would ask now, is where we are now headed where we truly wish to be as a country? Do we seek the promise of the new day or will we stay stumbling in the darkness? *** Ed H. Moore resides in Tallahassee, Florida, where he is perpetually awaiting a rebirth of wonder.
