Defending ‘Defund the Police’

By Chase Wheaton

A few weeks ago, President Obama made headlines and bolstered Republicans’ political arsenal when he referred to “Defund the police” as a “snappy slogan” during a Snapchat interview. While this doesn’t come as a major surprise given Obama’s relatively moderate stance regarding police and criminal justice reform, it serves as a massive disappointment to the Progressive wing of the Democratic party, and more importantly, to the communities that have been ravaged by police violence for many years, as the fight for meaningful criminal justice reform carries on. Not only do these comments by President Obama do irreparable damage to the movement for defunding the police, but they also show how much establishment politicians are disconnected from the community members whom they’re elected to serve and represent.

With all due respect to President Obama, “Defund the police” is not a “snappy slogan”. It is a policy proposal. It is a demand for structural and systemic change. It is a cry for help. The phrase, “Defund the police” arose during the George Floyd protests this summer from those most disproportionately affected by police violence – the Black community and other people of color – and during a state of crisis. 

The world had just witnessed the video-recorded murder of a nonviolent Black man by a white police officer, a tragic reality that the Black community was unfortunately already too familiar with. From this devastation came months and months of protests against police violence, marches for the Black Lives Matter movement, and demands for criminal justice and police reform. These demands, which included “Defund the police”, were created by everyday community members and organizers in the face of constantly overlooked police violence – not by PR companies and career politicians who operate in the realm of campaigns and public perception. In fact, I’d argue that it is the job of President Obama and other politicians to do the work of grappling with public perception and of worrying about how palatable a phrase may be to the general public, not those who are making these cries for help. After all, as Stephen Macaulay wrote in the center column, “When someone [in this case, an armed police officer] is pointing a gun at you [in this case, someone from the Black community], you’re not worried about nuanced phrasing”, you’re worried about doing anything you can “to keep [yourself] from being permanently perforated”. 

The purpose of protesting is to disrupt the culture of our society, challenge the status quo, and make people uncomfortable. As such, the movement to defund police has succeeded. The phrase “Defund the police” has received unparalleled attention from the mainstream media, has led to countless conversations about police violence and criminal justice reform in households across the country, and has already led to several significant changes in funding for police departments around the country. That’s a lot more than can be said of the criminal justice reform (or lack thereof) that was achieved during President Obama’s administration. Ultimately, President Obama’s remarks delegitimize and invalidate these movements, and I hope that he and other politicians remember that their role is to help facilitate and create meaningful and positive change for the most marginalized members of our society, not to stand in the way of progress and act as the gatekeeper to a more just and equitable world.

—–

Words & Power

First Person Essay by Stephen Macaulay

Several years ago there was a massive ice storm in Cincinnati. I was with a colleague and we were going into a restaurant. As we walked across the parking lot my feet slipped out from under me and the next thing I knew I was flat on my back in massive pain, and so 911 was called.

And at some point—of course it seemed far too long to me, as I was prostrate on the ice-covered asphalt—a full-size fire truck showed up. Yes, one of those vehicles with ladders on the side.

The fire crew came out, surrounded me, and fairly quickly concluded that there wasn’t much they could do for me.

What eventually happened was that a good Samaritan said that he could take me to the hospital. So the fire crew lifted me up and put me in the back seat of a Honda Accord. And I was taken to the hospital.

The situation at the time was that there had been such a great number of emergency calls throughout Cincinnati that what was available had to be sent.

So here’s the thing: Would anyone take a look at that situation and say, “Defund the fire department!” or “Fund EMS!”? In my case, more EMS people and gear would have been appropriate. If the restaurant had been on fire, it would have been the former.

As the old British legal saw has it, “horses for courses.”

///

In early December Barrack Obama was interviewed on Snapchat and said, “If you believe, as I do, that we should be able to reform the criminal justice system so that it's not biased and treats everybody fairly, I guess you can use a snappy slogan like 'Defund the police,' but, you know, you lost a big audience the minute you say it, which makes it a lot less likely that you're actually going to get the changes you want done.”

Which caused a number of audible and visible members of the Democratic Party to be completely agitated by what is clearly a pragmatic remark, politically, socially and, dare I say, realistically.

If someone is robbing your restaurant, you surely hope that cops are coming sooner rather than later. When someone is pointing a gun at you, you’re not worried about nuanced phrasing if it means that there isn’t going to be a police officer there to keep you from being permanently perforated.

///

Linguistics is the scientific study of language. It is one of those things that you can readily imagine being the purview of professors at Ivy League schools, where they debate how many liberals can dance on the head of a pin.

You would imagine that Democrats would be good at it.

But when it comes to messaging, Trump has, yes, trumped them.

Think of the two slogans that resonated in the election that Trump won, not the one he lost in a landslide.

  • “Build the Wall!”
  • “Lock Her Up!”

Although the Wall still remains to be built and Hillary Clinton is free without bond, those chants still echo.

Why? Because they are positive, proactive statements.

They are commands to do something. “Performative acts,” in the words of linguists.

“Defund the police”?

As “snappy” as that might be, it simply doesn’t do the job because it is saying something that people shouldn’t do. If you want to get people on your side, you get them to buy into what they should be doing.

Proof? Well, the 10 Commandments are chock full of “Thou shalt nots.” How’s that working out?

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

The Turbulent Winds of Joe’s Presidency Have Just Begun to Blow

By Andrew Boyd

President-elect Biden (there, I said it) was speaking recently to a group of Black Lives Matter activists and mistakenly, I imagine, said the quiet part out loud, in essence imploring the group to drop the “Defund the police” sloganeering, just until after the Georgia Senate runoffs, mind you. Joe isn’t great on the nuance. He’s also the guy who keeps saying stupid crap like police should just shoot perpetrators in the legs.

Barack Obama, by contrast, is an exceptionally talented messenger, and respected as such, I believe. The party would be wise to listen, but its radical left is young, avaricious and impatient for change, and when the old guard says “shhh,” well, they're likely to do what young whippersnappers do, which is to double down. Where things go from here is anyone’s guess. 

The AOC wing (God save us all) has made it plain that when they say defund the police, that’s precisely what they mean. Credit for the honesty on at least this one point, I suppose. Indeed, the prevailing rhetorical winds of the D part blow straight from the mouths of the social justice squad, and it’s going to be an incredibly hard gale against which to tack, particularly for the likes of Joe, who is less the accomplished sailor than the well-oiled old weathervane. Also, he’s got Kamala with a strainer full of Chai Cyanide Evening Brew hanging from a chain about her neck, just waiting to strike. Poor old goat.

Oh, and for the record, while it might surprise some, I too believe that we need police reform, though my prescription runs afoul of the ‘defund’ bit. I think what we really need is more policing, a hell of a lot more, including aggressive stop and frisk, and broken windows policies of the kind a somewhat saner Rudy Giuliani used to astonishing effect during his tenure as America’s mayor. 

Moreover, I think police are overworked, underpaid and asked to do the hardest job there is this side of soldier or Biden’s food taster: to be in near-constant contact with the worst elements of our human nature, and still behave rationally and with infallible precision. Among the roughly 800,000 men and women in blue, there are undoubtedly more than a handful of really bad apples, and they should be sorted appropriately. 

More training, education, rest, and emotional and psychological support is needed; and with that, unquestionably, an absolute maximum of transparency and full accountability within the bounds of the law.

—–

Dangerous Fiction

By Stephen Macaulay

“We’re going to win this election in a landslide.”

Yes, you know who said that. But you probably don’t know when he said it: Not before November 3. Not November 3. Not the following several days.

No, Donald Trump said that December 10, 2020, at a Hanukkah event at the White House. 

A landslide.

If that doesn’t scare the hell out of all of the people who continue to carry his water, then there is something wrong with them. Doesn’t reason matter?

This absurdity really needs to stop.

This is dangerous. Dangerous to our democracy. Although House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wrote in a letter to her Democratic peers that the 126 House Republicans who signed on to the Texas attorney general-led effort to have the Supreme Court reverse the results of the election—which the Court rejected--an action that is tantamount to “subverting the Constitution,” this isn’t something that just Democrats need to take to heart: Anyone who has an American flag flying from their porches need to understand that these efforts to undermine what has been part of the fabric of this country since 1789, when the first presidential election was completed (the election was held from December 15, 1788 to January 10, 1789: were those House Republicans around back then, one wonders how apoplectic they would have been about that) are unacceptable.

Meanwhile, Trump is purportedly working harder than ever on what I would call a Quixotic quest except that it would besmirch Cervantes.

But there are other things going on. For example, on December 10 unemployment numbers for the previous week came in: new claims of 853,000.

And as for the big picture, there were some 19-million unemployment claims (week ending November 21, the most recent figures).

What’s more, what’s worse, is that on December 10 the CDC Tweeted: “As of December 7, national forecasts predict that 12,600 to 23,400 new #COVID19 deaths will be reported during the week ending January 2. These forecasts predict 332,000 to 362,000 total COVID-19 deaths in the United States by January 2.”

So what is the current occupant of the White House doing? Is he talking about the economy? Is he laying out a plan to help reduce the massive unemployment that has been a consequence of COVID-19, the virus that was supposed to have “just disappear[ed]” months ago?

Is he providing the sort of spiritual leadership that has been the role of presidents, to provide solace for the loss of life? Know that on December 10, there were 290,000 Americans who were lost to COVID-19. By December 14, the count had topped 300,000.

And he treats himself like a victim.

There is a lot of talk about the 74-million people who voted for Trump. There is less discussion of the 290,000+ who have died and their families. What has he done, or is he doing, for them?

What seems to be forgotten in all this is that he is operating on our dime. He is working for us. If you were working and spent all of your time pissing and moaning about how you were being overlooked and underappreciated, you’d probably find yourself in the category of the aforementioned unemployed statistics.

You are paid to do your job. If you don’t do it, well, in the words of you know who: “You’re fired!”

He’s not doing his job. He might as well leave right now. Pence hasn’t exactly been overworked the last four years, unless one counts trying to come up with tortured excuses for his boss. And this would provide the opportunity to give Trump a presidential pardon.

Funny thing about all of the talk of pardons. According to "Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary," the definition of pardon is: “To use the executive power of a governor or president to forgive a person charged with a crime or convicted of a crime, thus preventing any prosecution and removing any remaining penalties or punishments.”

Seems like he’s not just doing his job, but perhaps there is more to it. Or maybe that’s less.

—–

It’s Official, Again, for Now, as Electoral College Votes

By Todd Lassa

California’s 55 electors formally cast their votes for longtime U.S. senator and former Vice President Joe Biden Monday, putting him over the 271 he needed to become president, and on to a 306-232 victory over incumbent President Trump.

Now, finally Trump will end his challenges against the presidential election outcome, based on unfounded claims of ballot fraud primarily in Democratic-majority urban areas, right? 

Not so fast. While electors met in 50 states plus the District of Columbia Monday, a joint session of Congress meets January 6 to count those votes, and hardcore Trump Republicans are still threatening to overturn Electoral College votes, NPR reports.

The latest of Trump’s more than 50 failed court cases came in Wisconsin Monday just one hour before the state’s 10 electors were escorted by police into a statehouse chamber to cast their votes for Biden. The state Supreme Court rejected the incumbent president’s bid challenging four types of ballots in Milwaukee and Dane counties after the first recount there added about 130 votes to Biden’s 0.6% margin.

Monday’s Wisconsin Supreme Court decision was close; 4-3, with one conservative justice joining the court’s three liberals. 

Michigan’s presidential electors met in the Lansing statehouse at 2 p.m. Eastern time Monday, in chambers closed because of safety precautions. Prior to the vote, Michigan Republican leaders stripped state Rep. Gary Eisen, R-St. Clair Township, of his committee assignments after he made comments on a local radio station that hinted he was part of a group that planned to undermine or overturn Biden’s 16 Electoral College votes from the state, the Detroit Free Press reports. 

And this all comes after the U.S. Supreme Court late last Friday rejected Texas’ Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton’s suit demanding that 20 million ballots from Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin be thrown out. The court’s unsigned ruling prompted sometimes violent demonstrations in several U.S. cities Saturday, including Washington, D.C., where attendees included former national security advisor Michael Flynn, conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and members of the right-wing Proud Boys, who have ties to white nationalism. 

A group of 126 Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives backed Paxton’s suit to reverse the vote of the four “swing” states Biden won November 3, which left 74 House Republicans who declined to back President Trump’s effort. Or, 73 if you count out retiring Rep. Paul Mitchell, R-Mich., who announced Monday he would leave his party.

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Texas AG’s Case was Legitimate

By Bryan Williams

I have always found the selective amnesia of people a curious thing. My wife will be the first to tell you I have selective amnesia (though I swear I don't recall she said this or that!), but I do remember big things. My high school band teacher was one of my favorites. He was fond of saying, “A short pencil is better than a long memory."  The news is not written in pencil, but it is written online.

I still find it curious that Nancy Pelosi is outraged by the GOP signing on to the Texas Attorney General's (very creative) suit as subverting the Constitution. I hate to break it to the Speaker, but the whole purpose of sending lawsuits to the Supreme Court is to determine if they stand constitutional muster. Everyone has a right to her or his day in court no matter how specious or far-fetched the lawsuit may be. You gotta give Texas AG Paxton some points for creativity though. He had a point, whether or not voting in each state and the District of Columbia was conducted November 3 in a clean, legal manner. The Supreme Court said, "Nice try, but nope." What would have subverted the Constitution is not giving Paxton and 126 GOP members of Congress their day in court.

And here comes the "short pencil" part: Remember about four years ago when people within Barack Obama's government were spying on Trump and his incoming team using dubious legal means? Was that not a subversion of the Constitution? What about all the executive orders President Obama signed? Is that not a subversion of the Constitution, and even of the very power Pelosi wields in the House? 

I don’t think the most die-hard liberal, or Joe Biden supporter would assume there could be absolutely no election fraud in 2020, considering the unprecedented number of mail-in ballots in such an atypical year. Rules for signature verification on ballots varies widely from county to county, and the United States has over 3,000 counties. 

Do I wish Mr. Paxton had tried a different tactic? Yes. I’m not a lawyer, but I think he should have asked the Supremes to rule on signature verification consistency, and how the lack of such consistency affected his state’s voters’ rights. 

Was he trying to subvert the Constitution? I don't think he believes he was, nor do I think the GOP House members who signed on believe they were. I wish people would be more careful with their language. Pelosi's subversion comment was hyperbole. But what else would we expect in a year like this? Keep those pencils sharp, and short.

—–

A New Hat For America

By Jim McCraw

While it is maddening to know that President-elect Biden couldn’t get a really good start on 2021 between President Trump’s recalcitrance and COVID-19, there will eventually be a Biden administration, and it will be in trouble up to its hips from Day One.

Herewith, a suggestion for Biden/Harris I believe is important, and eminently doable. As Congress fights over both short- and long-term follow-up bills to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES), which ends the day after Christmas, I think it might be time for something as ambitious (though relatively easy, considering the big funding levels already proposed) and quick to do as President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), circa 1933. Let’s call the new one the American Reconstruction Corps (ARC).

Lord knows there are plenty of skilled and unskilled people out of work.  And there are plenty of American infrastructure projects, largely ignored by the previous administration, that need doing.

Biden is not FDR, and we do not have a modern Robert Moses, the mid-20th Century “master builder” of New York, Long Island, Rochester and Westchester counties (it’s certainly not Donald J. Trump).

We are not Frank Lloyd Wright, the Ford Motor Company Whiz Kids, nor the first seven astronauts. We are just Americans who recognize a need to get a lot of things done by a mass of people willing to work. There has got to be a way to do this.

With widespread distribution of COVID-19 vaccines likely coming with warmer weather next summer, why couldn’t we dispatch squadrons of out-of-work Americans to do road, tunnel and bridge repairs that have been waiting years for funding and final approvals?  And not just men, which is how the original CCC operated. Skilled and unskilled women need work, too. At, say, $20 per hour.

Why not send platoons of the willing into every one of the national parks to do repairs and cleaning?

While the original CCC troops had uniforms, meals and housing, I humbly suggest self-provided work clothing, bring-your-own meals, work near home, and ARC baseball caps in red, white and blue.

There will be periodic need for FEMA supplies and equipment after summer storms, so why not divert some FEMA funding, vehicles and materiel to help Americans fix the things that are already broken?

Yes, men and women working and sweating in close quarters for eight-hour days may be problematic from a health standpoint, but with masks, distancing and frequent washing and spraying, I think it could work. Let’s get some guys from Amazon, Apple, AT&T, Ford, Google and Tesla to volunteer, put them in a room and see if they can figure this out while Biden and Harris get on with the rest of the recovery.

—–

House, Senate Stumble Toward Interim Relief

By Todd Lassa

House and Senate Republicans and Democrats are hard at work negotiating an interim, $908-billion relief package that would extend the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act past its December 26 expiration, through March 2021. Holding back Capitol Hill passage, which both chambers want as quickly as possible so everyone can go home for the Holidays, are issues of employee liability and aid to state and local governments. 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., seeks a moratorium on covid-related lawsuits through 2024 and wants to drop local and state aid for governments suffering severe shortages of tax revenues, while Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, has proposed a liability shield for the current year, and Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., has countered with a six-month liability moratorium for employers, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday. 

As it currently stands, the bill as originated by the bi-partisan, bi-cameral Capitol Hill Problem Solvers caucus, would send $600 in relief checks to certain Americans and would supplement unemployment checks with an additional $300 per week, according to the Journal. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., is fighting to double the relief checks to $1,200. 

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has proposed a $916-billion bill that would include $320 billion for small businesses and $160 billion for state and local governments. No matter what happens, combined with the CARES Act from earlier this year, the federal government has suspended, if not reversed, nearly 40 years of supply-side economics with demand-side economics.

The Problem Solvers caucus, whose leaders include Sens. Romney, Joe Manchin III, D-WVa., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, developed the short-term package after the Nov. 3 election. Reps. Tom Reed, R-N.Y., and Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., are co-chairs. Their bill includes $300 billion for small businesses, $180 billion for the additional unemployment benefits, $82 billion for schools, $16 billion for vaccine development, $10 billion for child care providers, a 15-percent boost in food stamp benefits, and $25 billion for rent assistance, with a moratorium on evictions through January 2021, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Leave it to the Free Market Instead

By Andrew Boyd

I have a B.A, in economics from the University of Maryland, whose only real value is in providing me with the pretext to imagine that I know more about how an economy functions than anyone else. Reagan not-so-famously said that an economist is someone who sees a thing working in practice and wonders if it can be made to work in theory. Food for thought.

Let’s cut the crap here. Government spending and fiscal policy is a really, really, really poor substitute for the allocation of resources by free markets made up of millions of individuals pursuing their own self interests. There are circumstances, be they few, where externalities to free-market mechanics, constrained by constitutionally founded legal principles, provide some rationale for big government intervention and management of resource, such as national security and environmental protection, where the benefits do not accrue to the individual in such a manner that markets can effectively account for the opportunity cost. 

There’s a concept worth ruminating on, opportunity cost, which you might otherwise think of simply as tradeoffs. Everything is thus, and every dollar the government collects and attempts to redistribute wisely, while lacking any real wisdom, is economic drag being traded against some espoused social or political priority that tends toward political cronyism, politicians at large being the most wretched and craven among us. Devils stomping about where angels fear to tread.

All that said, is COVID-19 an externality? Yes. Does it require government intervention? I'd say yes there as well. Now, who gets the money? Everyone in accordance with what they put in, IMHO. Enough of this picking winners and losers, capital vs. labor, essential vs. non-essential. It’s a damned dumpster fire and, oh by the way, immoral. It wasn’t their labor, their ingenuity, their value to society to begin with! Pick a number, they’re equally arbitrary, ratio it according to individuals' or households' federal income tax rate and cut the checks. And then someone grow a pair and own up to the fact that modern monetary policy is a train wreck whose destructive energy just hasn’t made it back to our particular car yet (car being a stand-in for time, here).

None of this is really economic policy, by the way. It’s triage. What we're calling stimulus is more like an economic inertial damper, spreading impact over time to presumably slowing the spread of fear that left unchecked will overwhelm our economic immune system. If we want to talk Supply vs. Demand fiscal policy, we need to decouple the conversation from COVID. They’re apples and oranges. But if I must, I’ll argue it this way: Government, you have no good goddamn idea what you’re doing. Get out of the business of managing the economy. You suck at it, completely. Get off people’s necks and let them pursue what ends seem best to them, with one and only one real caveat -- your rights end at the top of my nose and visa versa.  That’s a little thing called freedom, and it’s so much more delicate a thing than we can possibly fathom.

And, oh yeah, flat tax.

—–

I am Just Over It

By Michelle Naranjo

I have two different friends of different generations: one millennial and one boomer, and both are consistently two to three days behind the news cycle. The former has a penchant for sending texts with screenshots of the circus that has become the Trump campaign post-election, have typically been passed around Twitter for at least 24 hours, and have already expired like a dad joke. The latter takes to Facebook to announce political news that is often so dated, the accompanying commentary/rant is out of touch with current events.

It shouldn’t bother me as much as it does, but it’s so annoying. They get outraged and amused at stuff I’m way over. And that is because the stream of idiocy feels endless one month after election day.

This brand of annoyance also has become the general reaction to the seemingly never-ending string of failed lawsuits, hearings, and press conferences led by Trump lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. 

President Trump’s Twitter account has become a string of outrage about a rigged election (a false claim, as Twitter is quick to annotate). Followers are leaving the spectacle in droves since the sole focus appears to be on overturning an election that was conducted legally and not on the exploding pandemic. 

In an attempt to get more airtime, Trump traveled to Georgia Saturday night to lead a rally under the auspices of supporting the Republican senate candidates Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue. What actually happened was an appearance by the two candidates drowned out to chants of “four more years” and Trump delivering his usual level of speech that is wearing out the fact-checkers. 

And we learned that he likes cucumbers.

After four years of this presidency and an especially difficult 2020, a general air of exhaustion fills the atmosphere. The people complicit in this, from the Republican politicians refusing to acknowledge Biden won, to the rabid supporters who don’t appear to understand math, let alone how a democratic election works, only reveal deeper and deeper levels of racism, ignorance, and greed. 

And it is annoying. I am way over it all. Trump doesn’t need to concede. He needs to get out of the way and let us all get on with healing and recovery. 

—–
Get out of the way, President Trump.

When Will the Whining Stop?

By Stephen Macaulay

In 1997 Frank Costanza brought his holiday to the attention of the world: Festivus. The airing of grievances. And a demonstration of feats of strength.

Festivus occurs on December 23, thereby getting a jump on Christmas.

On December 2, Donald Trump held his own Festivus. But there was no un-decorated pole. Rather, there were the trappings of the Office of the President of the United States.

To be sure, Trump is still the president. But the clock is running on his occupancy at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

And he doesn’t like it.

Trump’s airing of grievances took the form of a 46-minute video shot in the Diplomatic Reception Room. Diplomats are supposed to be deft handlers of situations. There was nothing particular deft about his Facebook rant about the “rigged election”

Christopher Krebs was the director of the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency until Trump fired him by tweet (the new diplomatic channel?), because Krebs said that the election was not at all rigged or otherwise unduly influenced by dead Venezuelan politicians or whatever the conspiracy of the day might be.

Right now, William Barr, the attorney general whose actions over the past several months show that he would probably be more than glad to pick up Trump’s dry cleaning and shave his back, is reportedly on the edge of losing his job because he said the Department of Justice has uncovered nothing that would be voter fraud of the magnitude to change the outcome of the election.

The “Seinfeld” show broadcast on December 18, 1997, was and remains funny.

There is nothing amusing about the man who should be representative of all that is good and noble in this great country making it sound as though the United States is some third-world dictatorship.

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–
An airing of grievances before Festivus.

Georgia and the GOP Need Trump’s Support

By Bryan Williams

During our four years with President Trump, I had a rule of thumb: Pay attention to what he does, not what he says (or tweets).

I would check his twitter feed every once in a while for a laugh, but I would pay close attention to his official actions from the (supposedly) unbiased media reports, or from news broadcasts of his impromptu Q&A time with the media on his way to Marine One.

Since the election last month things have gotten weird. During my time in politics, we knew there was some shenanigans going on, but it was always so difficult to prove, and the local district attorney could not prove any fraud. So, I believe there may have been some election fraud last month in all the battleground states, but even I don’t buy the Trump campaign argument that it’s on the scale of thousands of votes, or part of some strange international conspiracy.

Now the Trump camp is telling Republicans in Georgia to not vote because of the rigged nature of the election as a way to boycott the "corrupt" system down there. 

Say what? I'm sorry but if I was registered to vote in Georgia, no one would tell me not to return to the polls. Corrupt or not, fraud or not, you need to show up and vote. Elections are a numbers game. If you don't vote, you will only hurt your candidates, ideals, and party. It's not like a business that will lose profits from a well-organized boycott.

If any Republican in Georgia is reading this, please vote. Do you really want the Democratic Party to control both houses of Congress and the White House? And to President Trump: Use your popularity to rally folks to vote. People love you, and the GOP needs your energy one more time.

—–
Georgia Republican Party needs you to vote.

The Decline in Standards

By Stephen Macaulay

Marco Rubio did not attend an Ivy League school. After graduating from South Miami Senior High School, he went northwest, to Missouri, where he spent a year at Tarkio College, as he received a football scholarship. Then it was back to Florida, Gainesville, where he attended what was then Santa Fe Community College. That was followed by attendance at the University of Florida, where he received a BA in political science in 1993. Then he attended the University of Miami School of Law in 1996.

Using what seems to be the communication tool of choice for Trump wannabes, Twitter, Rubio tweeted out that Joe Biden’s cabinet nominees “went to Ivy League schools, have strong resumes, attend all the right conferences & will be polite & orderly caretakers of America’s decline.”

There’s a lot to break down there. And we’ll give Rubio the benefit of the doubt that he’s not simply annoyed that he didn’t make that league.

But let’s start with the conclusion. That America is in decline. And who has been the president for the past four years? Who has failed to rally the American public to do the right things to stop the coronavirus in the way that a leader who has lost more than a quarter million of his people would? Whose lack of response has led to not only high rates of unemployment right now, but what is likely to get worse as the fall turns to winter. . .and the funding and restrictions against evictions run out?

Oh, and who had control of the Senate?

If America is declining, we can see where it started. And would it have been better to reinforce that decline by re-electing the person who has gotten the proverbial ball rolling?

Are manners now a thing of the past, politeness something that is to be demeaned?

If you are a parent and have a high school student, odds are it would be your fondest dream for them to attend an Ivy League school. You would be so very proud if they can achieve a strong resume. It would be something to brag about if they were able to attend the right conferences. And regardless of all of that, you want them to be polite and orderly.

When people start calling out other people for being smart and good mannered, there is evidently decline.

A decline in standards.

And we can clearly identify when that started: June 16, 2015.

—–

Culture Wars Go to College

By Todd Lassa

A bit like an NCAA football rivalry, the Culture Wars have stumbled onto the battlefield of the college and university alumni of presidential candidates’ staff and cabinet. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., fired an early shot as the former vice president began announcing his choices to staff the White House. Rubio expressed concern about people who received degrees from Ivy League schools, presumably in an effort to appeal to the Trump wing, as one of Trump’s biggest demographic constituencies consisted of non-college educated white males.*

Then the Biden transition team launched a trial balloon, or canary in the Senate coalmine if you will with Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, nominated to become director of the Office of Management and Budget. Tanden was a longtime confidant of Hillary Clinton tipped to potentially be her chief of staff, background that has drawn some opposition from supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who believe she helped torpedo his 2016 Democratic nomination bid. When Trump won instead, she took to Twitter with the “#Resistance” hashtag. Since Biden announced his intention to nominate her, she has deleted more than 1,000 tweets from over the last four years, according to the New York Post.

Her tweets’ alleged nastiness has drawn the ire of Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham and Texas Sen. John Cornyn, both Republicans, though one might presume that as far as Rubio is concerned, she won’t be among the “polite & orderly caretakers” of the nation’s decline. 

What’s more, Tanden has a law degree from Yale.

The other intended cabinet are mostly ivy leaguers. They include Ron Klain (chief of staff; Georgetown University and Harvard Law), Janet Yellen (Treasury; Pembroke College of Brown University and Yale), Antony Blinken (State; Harvard and Columbia), John Kerry (special envoy for climate; Yale, though he had “low grades”), Alejandro Mayorkas (Homeland Security; University of California-Berkeley and Loyola Law), Linda Thomas-Greenfield (United Nations ambassador; Louisiana State and University of Wisconsin-Madison, a “public ivy”) and Jake Sullivan (national security advisor; Yale). [Hat tip to Wikipedia and New York magazine’s Intelligencer.]

Biden will be the first non-Ivy grad to take the White House since Ronald Reagan in 1980 and ’84. He attended the University of Delaware and Syracuse University for law. Trump is an Ivy League grad with an economics degree from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

Reagan? Eureka College. According to Lou Cannon writing in a piece for the UVA Miller Center (https://millercenter.org/president/reagan/life-before-the-presidency) “He majored in economics but was an indifferent student, graduating with a "C" average in 1932.”

Sounds like Rubio’s kind of guy.

*It should be noted that Rubio (along with Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Fox News pundit Tucker Carlson) is considered a lead Republican candidate for president in 2024, assuming the party remains centered on its Trump populist wing and that no members of the outgoing president’s family—Don Jr., Eric, Ivanka, and son-in-law Jared Kushner—announce they’re running (which could explain the rumored pre-emptive pardons). To say nothing of Trump himself announcing another run in ’24 (which could also explain the rumored self-pardon).

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Biden Gets Hilary Clinton’s Cabinet

By Bryan Williams

One of my favorite pastimes is watching a leader assemble his or her team. I know that sounds super-nerdy, but I wear the nerd badge proudly. Whether it is a starship captain like my hero Jean-Luc Picard assembling his senior staff for the USS Enterprise, or the President of the United States choosing the men and women who will help carry out his vision, this is sport to me. I was once part of a politician’s staff myself, so I know how important and gratifying this can be. While the president, like the captain, always has the final word, those who serve under the leader make it happen and bring unique qualifications and baggage with them.

Our outgoing President chose some controversial figures that I didn't always like or trust. He also chose some great people that I felt did a good job, most of them not from "the swamp."  Contrast that to Joe Biden's picks for his cabinet and other "czar" positions and well...we see a bunch of establishment figures and reruns from the Clinton and Obama years. The National Review says Biden's early picks look a whole lot like Hillary Clinton’s intended team for 2017.

A few observations:

  1. Lots of women. Which isn't a problem for me at all. My mother was the breadwinner in my family growing up, and I campaigned for a female elected official and then joined her staff as my first foray into politics. Women should be at the table and a part of any team. It just feels like a bit of overcompensation, and let's hope the version of Uncle Joe who rubs shoulders and violates physical bubbles doesn’t show up during cabinet meetings.
  • Most people expect that Biden, at his age, will be a one term President. It is difficult to see him running again at age 81 for a term that will end when he is 86. This was his chance to name some interesting figures to his cabinet and really fulfill the dreams of the Left. But perhaps after four years of the Left/media hyperventilating over the Trump Administration, these boring picks may be a salve.
  • John Kerry. Really? John Kerry? His political career should have ended with his failed 2004 presidential bid, but like a whack-a-mole, Kerry just keeps popping up. Now he is going to be the climate czar. Oh good. I can see the CO2 clearing already. What authority does he have on climate? What has he done, ever? Why does he deserve to be on the government payroll yet again? If I were a young liberal who voted for Biden I would be severely let down and darn near close to writing off Biden's presidency before it has even started. With all the calls to name women and people of color to high profile jobs within the government, why not some people in their 30s and 40s?

At least Biden adopted a dog and we'll have a First Pet again. I like dogs. The future looks bright.

—–