Comment: Twisted Logic

As we approach the presidential inauguration of a convicted felon, I find it absolutely mind-boggling that some politicians and potential candidates who have criminal histories are, in some cases, held to higher standards and are forbidden from holding office.

For instance, in 2022, Columbia Borough Council in Pennsylvania’s Lancaster County voted to appoint a resident to fill a vacant seat. He was never sworn in because council discovered that he was a convicted felon who had served time in prison for mail fraud. The conviction rendered him ineligible to hold public office for 10 years. 

Another recent example, Mayor Sal Bonaccorso of Clark, New Jersey, resigned over charges of criminal activity. Bonaccorso is permanently barred from holding any future public office or public employment.

Rightly so, we don't trust those with felony convictions to run our local governments, but we're okay with allowing one to run the entire country? Twisted logic.

--Sharon Lintner

_______________________________________________

Washington Post editorial cartoonist Ann Telnaes left the newspaper when an editor refused to run her cartoon calling out WaPo owner and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and other tech billionaires for visiting incoming President Donald J. Trump at Mar-a-Lago, on bended knee. 

In the left column below, guest pundit Chris Bidlack argues that Telnaes was standing up for freedom of speech and freedom of the press in leaving the Post when it would not publish her cartoon.

Scroll down the page using the trackbar on the far-right to read Bidlack’s commentary in this column.

Detail on Telnaes’ cartoon and departure is in the center column news/analysis. 

While you’re there, please be sure to read Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay’s counterpoint to Bidlack’s commentary, in which he argues that Bezos has the right not to be made fun of in his own newspaper. 

As always, you are encouraged to submit your own comments on this, and other issues covered in The Hustings. For that matter, we are happy to hear from you about issues we haven’t been covering that you believe we should. 

Email your COMMENTS to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line so that we post your comments in the appropriate column.

And don’t miss Substack on The Hustings.   

_____
MONDAY 1/13/25

Comment: Let’s Start With a Clean Slate

For those raising alarm about alleged threats to "democracy" while ignoring the blatant overreach of unelected bureaucrats and activist judges against President-Elect Donald J. Trump, it’s clear you’ve succumbed to a narrative driven by Democrats and the biased media. The weaponization of government institutions by partisan actors has exposed just how fragile our republic has become under the influence of radical leftist ideology.

For years, Democrats have leveraged every tool in their arsenal — be it impeachment attempts, endless investigations, or politically motivated indictments — to undermine those who challenge their grip on power. This lawfare isn’t about justice; it’s about silencing dissent and punishing anyone who dares stand in their way.

The Constitution and rule of law are meant to serve as safeguards against tyranny, yet they are being bent and twisted to suit the whims of a political elite that cannot abide opposition. Conservatives and independent thinkers should take heed: today’s targeted leader could be tomorrow’s silenced citizen.

As Americans, we must demand accountability, transparency, and an end to the misuse of power for partisan ends. Without these, the freedoms that define this nation risk becoming relics of a bygone era, sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Let's start with a clean slate next week and give President Trump an opportunity to prove his competence and ability to lead America and all our citizens towards a brighter tomorrow. 

--Rich Corbett

_______________________________________________

Our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. It does not guarantee the right to criticize a newspaper owner via editorial cartoon by a staffer for that newspaper, Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay argues in his right-column commentary below. 

Scroll down the page using the trackbar on the far-right to read Macaulay’s commentary on Ann Telnaes’ editorial cartoon for The Washington Post criticizing the newspaper’s owner and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos (along with other tech billionaires) for taking an “obsequious position” toward incoming President Donald J. Trump.

 Detail on Telnaes’ cartoon and departure is in the center column news/analysis. 

While you’ve scrolled down, do not miss guest pundit Chris Bidlack’s defense of Telnaes’ cartoon and her resignation from the WaPo after an editor rejected the cartoon.

As always, you are encouraged to submit your own comments on this, and other issues covered in The Hustings. For that matter, we are happy to hear from you about issues we haven’t been covering that you believe we should. 

Email your COMMENTS to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate your political leanings in the subject line so that we post your comments in the appropriate column.

And don’t miss Substack on The Hustings.   

_____
MONDAY 1/13/25

Ann Telnaes’ resignation and the role of political satire in democracy

Guest Commentary by Chris Bidlack

On January 3^rd, Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Ann Telnaes resigned from The Washington Post after the newspaper refused to publish her satirical cartoon depicting billionaires like Jeff Bezos offering money to Donald Trump. This was the first time in her 17-year career at the Post that a cartoon was rejected due to its subject matter. The newspaper claimed the decision was not politically motivated, but Telnaes saw it as censorship.
 
While editorial decisions vary across different journalistic domains, political cartooning occupies a unique and crucial position in the media landscape. Unlike reporters covering sports, automotive, or lifestyle news for example, political journalists and cartoonists serve as chroniclers and visual commentators on pressing societal issues. Their work often challenges power structures and provokes critical thinking among readers, listeners, and viewers. 

Political news reporting and commentary stand in a category of their own, carrying far greater significance due to their impact on public discourse and democratic processes, compared to other types of publications. 

While specialized publications serve important roles in their respective fields, the core mission of our nation's newspapers and news media extends beyond mere reporting. Their ultimate charge is to safeguard democracy through coverage and analysis of our elected representatives' actions, court decisions, and the functioning of our government. As Thomas Jefferson put it, "Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press."

Of course editors and owners of news publications always have the final say. And while some may not see the Telnaes resignation as the hill worth dying on, a strong argument can and should be made that her decision is exactly the hill on which to resign. 

The editorial autonomy of news publications is undeniable. However, a crucial distinction exists between journalists covering non-political domains and those reporting on national news and politics. The latter field holds such importance to our democracy that it's the only non-governmental entity explicitly protected in the Constitution. This underscores the weighty responsibility borne by political journalists and commentators in safeguarding press freedom and public discourse.

Those who argue that Ann Telnaes was foolish to give up her job when she always knew that her bosses had every right to quash any of her creations as they saw fit, are short-sighted. There are times when some journalists and commentators have an obligation to speak out when censorship precludes a significant idea from reaching the people. 

If I created cartoons for, say, an astronomy magazine, and my editor rejected my illustration of two scientists at a chalkboard where one is saying, "85% of the universe: no clue, but it's big," because it wasn't gettable, should I resign? No. No one would be deprived of an important idea if that cartoon didn’t appear. But conversely, if my editor demanded I create a cartoon mocking science and seriously portraying the Earth as only 6,000 years old, there’d be a strong case for me to quit. Similarly, Telnaes' cartoon addressed a critical issue of political influence and corruption, making its suppression a matter of significant public interest and a justifiable reason for her resignation.

Ann Telnaes saw the suppressing of her editorial idea for what it was: Abridging her Freedom of Speech, and with some irony, Abridging the Freedom of the Press, as the Constitution puts it. She knew that this was one of those moments. We should all applaud her courageous decision. 

_____
FRIDAY 1/10/25

Anyone in business knows the old saw: “The customer is always right.”

Commentary by Stephen Macaulay

The customer, of course, may not be right, but given that any business depends on customers, it is a good rule to keep the customers at the very least satisfied.

There is another rule that isn’t often stated but is arguably truer.

This is for the employees who work at a business: “Don’t piss off the boss.”

That can be job ending.

There is no one who has ever worked for someone else (i.e., most of us) who hasn’t come to the conclusion, perhaps on a regular basis, the that boss is a jackass.

This leads to two choices: (1) Suck it up and continue. (2) Quit.

(Some might suggest there is a third: Get fired. But that isn’t a choice; that’s a consequence.)

Which brings us to Ann Telanes, who had worked at The Washington Post until last Friday, when she quit.

Telanes quit because she submitted an editorial cartoon that showed, among other people, Jeff Bezos, the Washington Post’s owner, in an obsequious position vis-à-vis Donald Trump.

Telnaes told NPR, “I’ve never ever, since I’ve worked for the Post in 2008, been not allowed to comment on certain topics by having cartoons being killed.”

Washington Post opinions editor David Shipley, presumably her boss, told The New York Times that the reason the cartoon was rejected was because “we had just published a column on the same topic as the cartoon and had already scheduled another column — this one a satire — for publication. The only bias was against repetition.”

Reporting about the incident often includes “Pulitzer Prize-winning” to modify Telanes’s name, as though this elevates the contretemps to Major National Issue status.

The Pulitzer Prizes were established through an endowment in Joseph Pulitzer’s will; they are meant to honor excellence in journalism.

Which is somewhat — no, fully — ironic inasmuch as Pulitzer made his fortune through yellow journalism. Yellow journalism opts for the “wow!” at the expense of the true.

Truth, justice and the American way? Phooey! 

Clearly Telanes has skills.

But there are a couple things about this that need to be considered.

1. While she may be a highly talented cartoonist, anyone who is in the creative space knows that getting things killed by someone who has responsibility for it — either a boss or a client — is a fairly common thing. That she hasn’t had anything killed for 17 years is astonishing.
2. That she has been honored with a Pulitzer and that her award is called out by some outlets makes this seem all the more extreme. It isn’t. A friend of mine has a Pulitzer. While he is an immensely talented writer and reporter, not everything he does is worthy of being chiseled in granite.

Let’s posit that Shipley is not being entirely forthcoming about the reason why he killed the cartoon. (I actually think that his explanation is the case, but that’s not so titillating.)

Let’s say that he killed it because it makes Bezos look bad.

While there are levels upon levels between the two, Bezos is ultimately Shipley’s boss. Shipley doesn’t want to piss off the boss. Period.

Is this an attack on the First Amendment?

Well, this gets to the point that Bezos owns it. This isn’t some sort of public-interest operation that is independent from all considerations other than abiding by the law. 

He bought it for purposes of ROI.

Simply consider this: Why would Bezos want something he owns to make fun of him?

I’ve never had a boss that paid me to publicly humiliate him or her.

Is it a bad thing that Bezos owns The Washington Post?

Some might argue that it is, if the newspaper is going to “cave” to the Trump administration. But is it better that he does and that it exists than if he didn’t and it ceased to exist?

While Bezos is the owner, in a sense he is also the customer for what Shipley and (formerly) Telanes produce: he buys work from them.

Even if Bezos had no idea of the cartoon and subsequent controversy, Shipley probably knows what lines can or cannot be crossed before the customer becomes concerned.

Meta’s (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) Mark Zuckerburg, Apple’s Tim Cook, and other executives have all ponied up cash for the Trump inauguration. This is a business decision they are making. Bezos contributed, too. Again, probably because it is a business decision. Will they all have better chances of making more money with Trump at least not feeling completely negative toward them (although this is undoubtedly a fool’s errand as his feelings about people lack any consistency: just think of all of the people who were in his first administration who went from being the best people to being losers)? Maybe.

The cartoon was spiked.

While some would like to clutch their proverbial pearls and think this is tantamount to a constitutional crisis, it is really about business.

Whether it is what Shipley said about avoiding repetitiveness or as speculated here it is about not pissing off the boss, it is all the concern of a product in the capitalist market, which The Washington Post is, not more than that.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large.

_____
FRIDAY 1/10/25

Welcome to The Hustings, a post-social media political news/aggregate/analysis website free of echo chambers. We reject false equivalencies in favor of facts and context in the center column, with civil, respectful and thought-provoking opinions in the left and right columns.

If you’re new to the site, be sure to check out some of our recent debates. Go to Page 3  for discussions over the implications of Donald J. Trump’s November 5 win, with contributing pundits Ken Zino, Jim McCraw and Hugh Hansen in the left column, and Pundit-at-Large Stephen Macaulay in the right column.

Our coverage and commentary on last October’s debate among vice presidential candidates JD Vance and Tim Walz (remember him?) from Page 6 features commentary by contributing pundit Rich Corbett in the right column, whose pro-MAGA opinions push Pundit-at-Large Macaulay into the left column.  

Why not join our civil discourse? Email your COMMENTS to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate whether you lean right or left in the subject line, so we can post your opinions in the appropriate column.

Also be sure to read our free Substack page.

_____
MONDAY 1/6/25

By Stephen Macaulay

In the opening to his “2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary” Chief Justice John Roberts writes:

“In December 1761, a little more than one year into what would be a fifty-nine year reign, King George III decreed that from that date forward, colonial judges were to serve ‘at the pleasure of the Crown.’ This royal edict departed from the long-standing practice in England, enshrined by Parliament in the 1701 Act of Settlement, of allowing judges to retain their offices ‘during good behavior.’ The King’s order was not well received.”

Roberts goes on to point out:

“the ninth of twenty-seven grievances enumerated in the Declaration of Independence charged that George III ‘has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.’”

And here he brings it home:

“Before the American founding, no other country had found a way to ensure that the people and their government respect the law.”

Which is supplemented by this:

“At the end of the day, judges perform a critical function in our democracy. Since the beginning of the Republic, the rulings of judges have shaped the Nation’s development and checked the excesses of the other branches.”

Roberts spends much time wallowing in the past, citing people including his predecessor William Renquist and Alexander Hamilton, whose work was instrumental in the creation of the Federal judiciary.

And when he writes about the contemporary, it is to point out that the independence of judges is threatened by violence, intimidation, disinformation and “threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.”

Perhaps he is being somewhat coy. Doesn’t that reference to serving “at the pleasure of the Crown” sound suspiciously like the rhetoric we are hearing about the role of the Department of Justice in the forthcoming Trump administration?

Were Trump a younger man, would it surprise anyone if he did his damnedest to hold office for 59 years?

Isn’t there something of an analogue of “Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices” with Trump during his first administration repeatedly referring to the Supreme Court justices as “my judges”?

When Roberts emphasizes the word “and” in his line about ensuring “the people and their government respect the law” is he intimating that government officials — past, present and, yes, future — didn’t, aren’t or won’t respect the law?

Gallup research has found Americans’ confidence in the judicial system hit a new low in 2024, at 35%.

In another survey that specifically included Supreme Court Job Approval, 51% of Americans disapprove of the job it is doing and only 44% approve.

That is better than the 58% disapproval of September 2023. But when Gallup started tracking this metric in September 2000, the disapproval was 29% and approval 62%, a long way from where it has gotten to.

While much of this can be ascribed to the current hyper partisanship that exists in the country, isn’t a measure of it the result of the behaviors of some of the justices, whether it is those who have hung on too long or those who think that they are deserving of special benefits because their positions?

Roberts writes in his review of how the Federal judiciary came to be that Hamilton argued that because the judiciary would have “neither the sword nor the purse” — the powers of the Executive and Legislature — lifetime appointment would be the means  through which the judges could maintain impartiality.

Clearly that is no longer the case — assuming that it ever was.

Judges put on their robes one arm at a time like the rest of us would. But we would like to think that once they have those robes on they have measures of probity and honesty that transcends what the rest of us generally have.

In the next few years we are going to see how well the members of the Supreme Court perform to the standard of independence from the other branches of government that Hamilton set forth in Federalist No. 78.

What are the odds that the Court’s Gallup numbers will rise any time soon?

Not good, I think.

Macaulay is pundit-at-large for The Hustings.

_____
MONDAY 1/6/25

President Biden is expected to speak at the funeral for the 39^th president, Jimmy Carter, and President-elect Trump has said he will attend. Scroll down the center column for details on President Carter’s funeral procession in Plains, Georgia, and Washington, DC. 

We are two-and-a-half weeks before "Day One" of the second Trump administration, so there is a lot to discuss. We have big plans for growth in 2025, including a new, more streamlined web design. Become a part of our quest for no-echo chamber, no-false equivalency civil media by voicing your opinion on current political issues. Email your comments to editors@thehustings.news and please indicate whether you lean left or right with a note in the subject line.

Be sure to read, and subscribe to, our Substack newsletter.

President Biden is expected to speak at the funeral for the 39th president, Jimmy Carter, and President-elect Trump has […]

Ramaswamy reveals something many MAGAites don’t want to acknowledge

By Stephen Macaulay

First, let’s agree that no one wants illegal immigrants in the country. To be sure there may be all kinds of mitigating circumstances as to why they have broken the law to come to the U.S., but if we are a country of laws, not men, then upholding the laws is essential.

But there are illegal immigrants and there are immigrants.

In the last category there are people like, well, Elon Musk, who was born in Pretoria, South Africa, then moved to Canada before moving to the United States.

And let’s not forget that Melania Trump was born in Novo Mesto, Slovenia.

However, there are those in the Republican Party who paint all immigrants with a brush ladened with tar and are ready to run them on a rail out of town and out of the country.

This has become visible through the contretemps set off by Vivek Ramaswamy, who posted a message on somewhat social media about the need for an increase in the number of H-1B visas in order to have highly intelligent, high-skilled workers in the US.

Ramaswamy — who, incidentally, was born in Cincinnati, which is something that many of his sudden critics probably can’t imagine — went on to point out that too many Americans are not sufficiently interested in doing, well, the hard stuff.

He wrote that a society that “celebrates the prom queen over the math olympiad champ, or the jock over the valedictorian, will not produce the best engineers”.

And engineers are important.

He also wrote there needs to be “more tutoring, fewer sleepovers. More weekend science competitions, fewer Saturday morning cartoons. More books, less TV. More creating, less ‘chillin’. More extracurriculars, less hanging out at the mall”.

(Presumably Ramaswamy spends too little time in the real world if he thinks that “hanging out at the mall” is still, as the kids say, “a thing.”)

These observations, caused considerable consternation among the anti-immigrant portion of the Republican Party, a portion that seems Super-Sized. 

Elon Musk, who probably doesn’t hire a whole lot of people for SpaceX or even Tesla who were regular attendees at Trump MAGA rallies, waded into the controversy by calling critics of Ramaswamy’s remarks “contemptible fools” and “hateful, unrepentant racists” who “will absolutely be the downfall of the Republican Party if they are not removed.”

But really, who can blame these people, as they, too, probably, in Ramaswamy’s words, spent too much time watching “reruns of Friends” rather than a movie about relentless work and achievement like Whiplash?

One reason why there is this divide in perception between Ramaswamy, who has degrees from both Harvard and Yale Law, and those who eked out of high school is because the latter are often chanting, in effect, “We’re number one!” when it comes to anything from education to health care.

For example, according to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), when it comes to “tertiary education,” or simply graduating college, the U.S. isn’t number one, but number nine.

Perhaps Trump is interested in making Canada the 51^st state because it is number one.

The US follows not only Canada in the number of those who have finished tertiary education, but also Japan, Ireland, South Korea, United Kingdom, Australia, Israel, and Luxembourg.

And as health care is going to become another area of consternation, it is worth noting that the US doesn’t rank so high there, either.

According a 2024 study by The Commonwealth Fund, which describes itself as “a nonprofit private foundation supporting independent research on health policy reform and a high-performance health system,” when it comes to health care system performance measured among 10 countries, the US, despite spending considerably more than the others, ranks 10^th, behind Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, France, Sweden, Canada, Switzerland, and Germany.

Far from number one.

Yet populist chants and slogans don’t allow there to be discernment of what’s really going on.

All Americans can be proud of the accomplishments of Silicon Valley, which is certainly a number one.

Tesla, which is a global leading player in electric vehicles (the leading player until China’s BYD ascended), was established in California, as was SpaceX, another remarkable global player.

According to new data from the US Census Bureau, there are more foreign-born people living in California — 26.7% of its total population — than any other state.

Coincidence?

_____
THURSDAY 1/2/25

“The Political World Just Lost Its Bipartisan Meeting Space,” reads the title of columnist Jonathan Martin’s latest piece in Politico Magazine. Martin is referring to David Axelrod, chief strategist for Barack Obama’s presidential campaigns and a onetime political reporter for the Chicago Tribune.

Martin “came to praise Axe, not bury him in a shroud of bygone-day nostalgia for civil discourse” for The Axe Files. Axelrod has wrapped up his eight-year-old podcast, which contained “candid, deeply personal and extended interviews with the leading figures for both parties.”

The Axe Files, in other words, managed to achieve what we are attempting in earnest – create a space for civil discourse among people all along the left and right halves of the political “horseshoe.” (If you are not familiar with the Horseshoe Theory, check out this description by the Vanderbilt Political Review. Personally, we learned about the theory from ‘60s-era standup comic Mort Sahl.)

While Axe interviewed well-known politicians and political operatives on his podcast, we are here for professional politicians and engaged, interested voters alike – political animals of various levels of interest.

To participate, send us your thoughts and opinions on any political news/news aggregate and analysis from the center column, and/or other comments from the right or left in those columns. Email us at editors@thehustings.news and please let us know how you lean, politically, in the subject line so that we post your civil comments in the appropriate column.

_____
MONDAY 12/23/24

By Stephen Macaulay

After Mitt Romney’s loss to Barack Obama in the 2012 presidential election, the Republican Party performed what was described as an “autopsy.”

They wanted to figure out (1) why they lost the election (remember, Romney’s bona-fides were much more substantial than Obama’s were, and if nothing else, Romney looked (and looks) absolutely “presidential”) and (2) what they needed to do so that the next time they would be successful.

So there was the “Growth and Opportunity Project.”

And arguably Donald Trump, who is not known for being a big reader, didn’t bother with it and he went his own way, which proved to be rather successful as he completely upended the conventional thought about presidential politics.

While the conventional Republicans talked about the importance of a “big tent,” Trump manifests images of luxury Palm Beach living for people who would be more likely to vacation in a tent rather than in a beach-side condo.

What Trump was selling was making regular people’s — as opposed to the political class — lives better. He was going to “Make America Great Again,” and as those folks are “America,” that meant them.

(If we go back to one of the causes of Romney’s loss was because he seemed to plugged in to the financial class, something that regular folk have a hard time with as they only deal with banking institutions when trying to get a home equity loan to finish the basement. The whole notion of “capital” is completely foreign to them. While it might be thought that Trump’s wealth would have been a negative, given that he spent money on what the monied class would consider outré, he was someone the regular folk were fine with because they knew if they had a chance. . . . Which goes to explain why some $270 million in lottery tickets are bought each day in the U.S. — nearly one $1 ticket for every American over the age 18.)

After Kamala Harris’s loss the Democrats are undertaking their own version of the “Growth and Opportunity Project,” trying to determine why, given all of the apparent flaws and flubs of Donald Trump, he was able to trounce the Harris-Walz ticket.

Which will undoubtedly become a document that will be better ignored by the next set of Democratic candidates.

What appears to be incomprehensible to many of the people who are hand-wringing and excoriating Trump’s pre-inauguration picks, policies and positions is that with few exceptions, the regular people don’t care.

During the campaign the Democrats talked a lot about “saving democracy” and how “Trump represented an existential threat.” (1) Most people didn’t see Hamilton. (2) And even more people have no idea who Jean-Paul Sarte was/is.

Trump, on the other hand, talked about how he was going to turbocharge the economy and make it better for people. That is something people can not only understand but get behind.

Consider this: Harris, apparently, felt constrained about criticizing Biden’s policies. Bidenomics — vis-à-vis the regular folks, not those who have invested in the markets (yes, yes, people who have 401(k) plans from their employer makes them investors in the market, even though they might not be aware of it) — wasn’t showing up in the form of better prices at Kroger or Walmart. That is what people know and understand.

Would Trump, had he been in the same position as Harris, hesitated to make it clear that it was going to be his way, not his predecessors?

Damn right.

Trump consistently said he will make things better for people. While that may or may not be the case, what is the case is that people felt the odds would be better for them by electing someone who talked about that rather than someone who generally gave that a swerve.

Today Trump says he’s going to straighten out the media. Given the state of newspapers in the US, for most people the “media,” a word they’d be unlikely to use, is what they see on Fox News because if a newspaper still remains in their locale, it is become ridiculously expensive — and when is the last time you saw a kid on a bike flinging papers on porches? They simply don’t care. It is not them. It is not anyone they know. It doesn’t make a difference.

There is consternation about the flaunting of political norms. Given that those norms have been kicked to the curb since 2015, isn’t it fair to say that they are no longer norms?

Maybe instead of hiring high-priced consultants and analysts if the Democrats want to win the next time out, the party pooh-bahs need to spend more time with the regular people in ways that governors and mayors do in their states and cities. What matters are things like roads (and while the Biden administration has done a great job in this regard, what percentage of regular people know that today?), schools teaching math and science, and the ability to take the family out every now and then at a place somewhat fancier than the local McDonalds. Things like that.

When people are wearing ballcaps with a politician’s slogan on them long after the election you’ve got to realize that there is more there than is likely to be sussed out by a think tank.

-30-

_____
MONDAY 12/23/24