Of Time, Bells & Meaning

By Stephen Macaulay

In 1787 Paul Revere opened a bell foundry in Boston. In addition to things like copper spikes and bolts that were used for shipbuilding, Revere cast his first bell in 1792. One of them was produced for the USS Constitution. During the War of 1812, the bell was put out of commission by a British ship, HMS Guerriere.

(For those of you who have forgotten their American history classes, the War of 1812 pitted the U.S. against the United Kingdom, which would seem unthinkable today as the U.K. is now one of our closest allies—well, given the way the current administration has treated our closest allies, maybe it isn’t so unthinkable. Anyway, during this war the U.K. and Native Americans were on the same side; the U.S. tried to get chunks of Canada; the Brits burned the White House. Again, much of this seems bizarre, but things were different 208 years ago. Hang on to that thought.)

While Revere’s bell foundry is somewhat obscure, it is worth noting that in 1787 the U.S. Constitution was signed.

According to the official White House website, “The founders also specified a process by which the Constitution may be amended, and since its ratification, the Constitution has been amended 27 times.”

Which is germane because it is clear from this that the founders didn’t think that what they had created was carved in stone tablets.

Even the White House understands that. Things change. Even words.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett has described herself as a “constitutional originalist” and that she takes a textualist approach to the law.

During the hearings for her appointment to the Supreme Court, Lindsay Graham, a former JAG lawyer (there is no evidence that he, like Harmon Rabb, suffers from night blindness, although he seems to be vexed by a tendency to behave as a presidential lickspittle), asked Judge Barrett what all that means in a way that could be understood.

She replied, "So in English, that means that I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it."

She added, "So that meaning doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it."

“The meaning doesn’t change over time.”

Really? 

So the words as written in 1787 have the same meaning as they do today? Back when Paul Revere was casting bells?

Let’s look at Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, which is important vis-à-vis the recent decision regarding the U.S. census as this is where taking the census every 10 years came from:

“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.”

Note how there seems to be a randomized capitalization of words. Presumably were one to write that way on one a paper submitted to Judge Barrett when she was teaching they would have been in a World of Hurt because We don’t capitalize Nouns Nowadays. 

What’s more, there is the word “Persons” not “citizens” (or Citizens). There are Persons counted as fractions (or Fractions).

And meaning doesn’t change over time? 

Macaulay is a cultural commentator based in Detroit.

—–

Barrett is on Her Way to Senate Confirmation before the Election

By Todd Lassa 

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., has scheduled the panel’s vote on the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the U.S. Supreme Court for 1 p.m. Thursday, Oct. 22. The committee, comprising 13 Republicans and 10 Democrats, is considered a sure bet for approving Barrett, whose hearings with the panel concluded Wednesday.

The full Senate will vote to approve Barrett before the presidential election Nov. 3, Graham said. With just two Republican senators, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, having earlier opposed seating a replacement for the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg before the election, the GOP still maintains a majority to approve President Trump’s nominee before the month is over. 

In her appearances before the Judiciary Committee Tuesday and Wednesday, Barrett carefully demurred on questions from Democratic members over concerns the nominee would rule with the court’s fortified conservative majority on potential disputes over the Nov. 3 election, as well as a case the Trump administration brought to the courts over the Affordable Care Act. For the longer term, Democrats interrogated the conservative Catholic mother of seven on her views regarding the 1973 Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court case that made abortion legal nationally. 

But on these and other matters, Barrett repeatedly declined to answer on potential future cases. 

In her opening remarks, Barrett described herself as an “originalist” in the mold of her mentor, Justice Antonin Scalia, whose replacement after his death early in 2016 resulted in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocking President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.

“That means that I interpret the constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it,” she said.

Jeffrey Toobin, legal analyst for CNN and The New Yorker , told NPR Thursday morning that while several Supreme Court nominees have called themselves “originalists” since Scalia in 1982, “she may be the first one to actually mean it… .” 

Barrett told the committee, however, that she is not a carbon-copy of her mentor.

“If I were confirmed, you’d be getting Justice Barrett, not Justice Scalia …,” she said. “I share Justice Scalia’s philosophy, but I never said I agree with him on every issue.”

She did give Democrats some hope in not ruling out the question of recusal from votes on next month’s election and on the ACA ruling, but again declined to answer Sen. Kamala Harris’, D-Calif., question on whether she believes in climate change, because of the potential for a case coming up before the court. [Republicans had singled out Harris, the Democratic vice presidential candidate,  for what they considered aggressive questioning in Justice Brett Kavenaugh’s Judiciary committee hearing in 2018.]

Committee Republicans praised Barrett as a justice who will inspire young conservative women and girls the way Justice Ginsberg inspired young liberal women and girls.

“This is the first time we’ve nominated a woman who is unabashedly pro-life,” Graham said.

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Barrett Acquits Herself Well — Will Voters Care?

By Bryan Williams

Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation hasn’t turned into the sort of disgusting hack job that afflicted Brett Kavanaugh’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. ACB’s qualifications are unquestionable in my opinion, and she acquitted herself well in the hearing.

The headlines that have grabbed my attention are not about ACB, but regard my state’s senator, Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Many on the left were reportedly worried that the senior senator is not up to the task of grilling the nominee due to her advanced age (she’s 87) and diminished stamina. I was shocked when Feinstein ran for re-election in 2018 -- hasn’t she done her part for King and Country?

Democrats seem to have a thing for senior states-people hanging on to their office. News reports following her question time suggested that Feinstein, like the nine other Democrats on the committee failed to land a punch on the nominee. NPR ran a recording of the hearing for ACB’s nomination to the circuit court, in which Feinstein called her “dogmatic” in her devotion to her Catholic faith. 

Really? Have we returned to the late 1950s, when opponents questioned John F. Kennedy’s Catholicism and devotion to the Pope? The “dogma” that put fear into Feinstein and the media is another way to build up the left’s fear that with Barrett on the court, Roe vs. Wade soon will be overturned.

But what effect will her inevitable confirmation have on the presidential election? I’d like to think that President Trump will get a nice bump from nominating such a qualified jurist whose experience, intellect, and opinions will shape our culture for up to 40 years. Let’s not forget, ACB is taking over for RBG and liberals are hopping mad that Trump and the Republicans are shoving through this confirmation with heaps of Merrick Garland-flavored hypocrisy. 

This will only serve to please the Trump base and inflame the Left. How will the small slice of independents feel about this, and will it affect their vote? I can’t say for sure, but I really don’t think the average American voter has the Supreme Court on his or her mind in this weird year.

Williams is a mental health professional in California and a former Republican party official.

—–

Trump, China, COVID and the Absence of Leadership

By Stephen Macaulay

Let’s say for the sake of argument that Donald Trump is right, that COVID-19 is the “China virus,” that it was a deliberate release into the world. It seems as though all the Administration has going for it as a reaction was that they “banned” travel from China into the U.S. Which isn’t entirely true. That is, according to the Associated Press, because there was no restriction from the more than 8,000 Chinese and foreign nationals came in to the U.S. during the first three months of the “ban” from the administrative zones of Macau and Hong Kong. In addition to which, more than 27,000 Americans who were in mainland China returned during the first month. So let’s not put too much stock in that claim’s effectiveness.

And it wasn’t until March 11 that Trump banned travel to the U.S. from Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland—a.k.a., the Schengen Area. In making that proclamation, Trump wrote, “The Schengen Area currently has the largest number of confirmed COVID-19 cases outside of the People’s Republic of China.” That’s right—more than a month after the alleged China travel “ban” there were still people coming in from an area where there was apparently the second-largest number of confirmed cases. In addition to which, you’ll note that the U.K. wasn’t on the list. Oops. It made the list on March 14. Diligence.

“[I]t's China's fault, it should have never happened,” Trump said during the presidential debate (and several other times).

But it did happen. And what is he doing about it? Making fanciful claims and maintaining it will go away. As recently as Oct. 10 Trump said from the balcony of the White House in an Evita-like moment, “but it’s going to disappear, it is disappearing.” There are 7.7-million confirmed cases in the U.S. Disappear.

According to the Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center, there have been 4,739 COVID-19 deaths in China. There are 1.393-billion people in China. Let’s say they’re lying. Let’s say there are 10 times as many deaths. 100 times as many deaths. What are we doing? Pretending.

There is the continuing myth of what a great business man Trump is. A myth that is beginning to dissolve as The New York Times reports on his massive losses and looming loans becoming due. According to the Congressional Budget Office, FY 2020 will have a U.S. deficit of $3.13 trillion. That means the U.S. debt is greater than the GDP. The last time this was the case was in 1946. The year after World War II ended.

Most Americans will lose a year of freedom in their lives. Freedom to do what they want. Sure, people cando it. But has been shown that unless people do things like distance and wear masks and practice good hygiene, they can die. But no one thinks they will die. It is someone else. Old people. Obese people. People with an underlying condition. Even though there are people of those characteristics in other countries, the U.S. level of death is dwarfing them. Why? Because the leaders of those countries are leaders.

Trump? 

Macaulay is a cultural commentator based in Detroit.

Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

To Lead or Not to Lead: Do We Need a Mask Mandate to Fight the Pandemic?

By Todd Lassa

Until either Donald J. Trump or Joe Biden pulls a political rabbit with bigger teeth out of his hat, this election season’s October Surprise, so far, has been news that the president contracted the virus that causes COVID-19 around the time of the first, and probably only, debate between the incumbent and his Democratic challenger. 

Yes, it’s always about the economy, stupid, but as the Trump administration shifts on efforts to enact another federal aid package for corporations, individuals, and state and local governments in time for the Nov. 3 election, the future of our economy, especially over the next year or two, remains closely tied to the global health crisis.

A second economic relief package appears to be in limbo, for now, as Senate Judiciary Committee hearings over the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court takes political precedent over whatever the status of negotiations between Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Amid it all, wearing masks in public and the question of how and when to re-open the economy to save what’s left of the restaurant, tavern, airline, and shopping mall industries remain the two related, underlying issues behind next month’s elections. These issues drill to the core of our nation’s much-discussed widened political gulf. Each side sees the other’s position on these issues as evidence of ruthless authoritarianism. 

But while our pundits to left and right appear irresolvably far apart, and while this center column strives to be as objective on such matters as possible, it is a relief that Stephen Macaulay and Bryan Williams see eye-to-eye on one important fact – wearing masks in public should not be a political issue. They agree that It is good citizenship and an important weapon in fighting the pandemic.

Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

It’s Not the Masks We Reject; It’s the Mandate

By Bryan Williams

Joe Biden is running on a promise to America that he would protect us better from COVID-19 than Trump and his team. He has even gone so far as to say he would implement a national mask mandate. If the past 7 months has shown us anything it’s that Americans really don’t like being told what to do. But we’ve known that forever anyway - I mean a bunch of dudes threw perfectly good tea into Boston Harbor in the 1700s because they didn’t like King George telling them what to do.

We can go back and forth all day, split hairs over when a travel ban from China was put in place until we’re blue in the face, or whether or not President Trump wearing a mask would have made a big difference in the number of deaths related to COVID-19. I have never really given much credence to any of the above, and just go with what I know from my little corner of the world, and yes, I know this is anecdotal.

At the height of the pandemic, I worked in a mental health crisis clinic. We had no employer-provided masks for weeks and the layout of our building made it so social distancing was simply not possible. We also had no limit to the number of people we could admit. Patients we admitted were anyone from anywhere, most of them users of substances that inhaled, ingested, or intravenously injected those illicit substances with other people most assuredly in distances less than 6 feet, and many of them homeless. No one at my clinic in March through May 2020 contracted COVID-19 (my last day there was in May).

Then, in June, my family and I visited my parents (in their 60s) and grandparents (83 and 82) in Northern Nevada. All of us have used our common sense during the pandemic: we’ve worn masks everywhere we go, we socially distance ourselves as much as possible, and we limit our contact with others. Not a single one of us has contracted the coronavirus, and I think it’s because of my family’s common sense, prudence, and overall good health (we don’t smoke, vape or drink alcohol in excess, and we’re not morbidly obese).

What’s my point? I don’t think political leadership has a lot to do with whether or not people begin wearing masks or socially distance themselves more. Now I now work in a hospital, and I am around doctors all day. I cannot begin to tell you how many of them “wear” their mask with their nose still protruding in naked glory. These are men and women that should know better! Joe Biden mandating mask wearing won’t make these doctors pull their mask up over their nose. That old American chestnut -- personal responsibility -- still holds. Please wear a mask, and don’t party, okay? I just don’t want Joe Biden to tell me what to do. Donald J. Trump gets that.

Williams is a mental health professional in California and a former Republican party official.

Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Pundits on the Left Are Split on the Need for Another Debate

Liberal pundits’ comments …

Record numbers of early voters have already placed ballots. Minds are not being changed. Heels are dug. Further debate evenings are fodder for more reality TV: people have had enough of supporting the networks in the last four years. Advertising stands to lose the most by canceling all debates going forward. Late-to-work election teams are all focused on ballot education, and bracing voters for a probable drawn out result season -- an entirely new version of reality TV. 

--Michelle Naranjo

If the Commission on Presidential Debates cancelled the remaining two presidential debates, the majority of Americans would not be phased out and it would do nothing to change the Nov. 3 result. America is a country in crisis right now and most voters are focused on one thing: surviving the crisis. Not just the public health crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, but also the crisis surrounding racial justice that is facing the millions of members of the Black community, the climate change crisis that’s facing the planet and is currently causing disaster-level weather events around the nation, and the economic crisis facing the millions of unemployed Americans that are struggling to pay rent and are facing eviction. Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence showed us everything we needed to see in the first two debates. They offered no substantive or meaningful answers to any of the questions, no specific plans or proposals for addressing these crises, constant lies and misinformation, a refusal to condemn white supremacy, and a refusal to show any serious remorse, or take any personal accountability or ownership, for the administration’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Unless Donald Trump intends to correct these blunders and outright failures in a future debate, they aren’t worth being had.

--Chase Wheaton

Do we need another debate? That very question presupposes that we had one. We didn’t. What we did was have an embarrassing spectacle of the President of the United States behaving like a petulant, churlish, loud individual and his opponent, a former Vice President of the United States trying to talk over the President and calling him a “clown.” Neither individual would make it out of a high school debate without being removed. Biden was ready to do it again, virtually. Trump wanted no part of it. A claim is that Biden would be “fed” the answers. If you look at the transcripts of the last “debate” you’d see that Trump needed an answer. Or many. His answers were logorrheic covfefe. Trump said he believes that the moderator would cut him off. And that would be bad, why? Forget the side show. It can do nothing but further make people—the world over—shake their head in sad disbelief that this is what the presidency has come to.

--Stephen Macaulay

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

——

Our Pundits Debate Whether There Should be Another Presidential Debate

The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) has officially called off the Oct. 15 debate between Donald J. Trump and Democratic candidate Joe Biden, originally set to take place in Miami. After Trump was diagnosed with the coronavirus, spent last weekend at Walter Reed Medical Center and then declared his victory over COVID-19 from the Truman Balcony of the White House, the CPD said it would hold a virtual debate in place of the live event. The president declined, claiming the former vice president and U.S. senator would take answer prompts off-camera, from where such action could not be detected. 

The Biden campaign accepted the CPD’s change, but Trump announced he instead would hold one of his famous public rallies in Miami. 

With the CPD’s full cancelation of the Oct. 15 debate, that leaves the possibility Trump and Biden will meet for only a second time, after their Sept. 30 debate, on Oct. 22 in Nashville, Tennessee – if at all. Meanwhile, the president spoke to a crowd of supporters Saturday from a stand on the South Lawn of the White House. 

The supporters wore masks, by and large, NPR reports, but generally were not socially distancing. “I know you were praying,” Trump said of his weekend at Walter Reed, “and I was watching down on all those people.”

Before the CPD’s cancelation of the Oct. 15 debate, The Hustings asked editors and contributing pundits for their opinions on whether two more debates were necessary, considering public reaction to the presidential shout-fest already in the books, and the vice-presidential debate Oct. 7 that appears to have not advanced understanding of either the Trump/Pence or the Biden/Harris platforms.

From the center, The Hustings Deputy Editor Nic Woods says “I wish they’d do one more just so we can gauge an average of the two performances.” She doesn’t expect the president’s performance would be any different than in the first debate, she says, and “a performance improvement would involve intense preparation that’s literally dangerous at the moment he should be in quarantine.”

Contributing Editor Charles Dervarics agrees. “Call me old school, but I think debates are still useful. To the general public that may tune in and out of a presidential campaign, they offer a rare chance to see (relatively) unfiltered candidates responding to questions they did not see in advance.

“The main problem right now is the format, specifically the single moderator. Having questioners outnumber the two candidates might be a start. Then allow follow-ups so reporters can press their case to those who deliberately ignore a question. Shutting off the mic once candidates go 10 seconds too long might be good, too.”

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Pundits on the Right Favor One More Presidential Debate

Conservative pundits’ comments:

Should there be more presidential debates? Yes, indeed. Should they be in-person affairs? Without question. An informed electorate needs these opportunities to evaluate the candidates in full measure, absent the usual campaign props. The best idea I’ve heard of late is employing two moderators, each representing their political POV, like a Hannity and a Maddow, asking questions of the opposing side. That sounds to me like a great way to get past the talking points and to test the candidates' mettle, and it would net a huge audience on both sides of the aisle! 

--Andrew Boyd

Conventional wisdom insists there are virtually no undecided voters remaining, accounting for 3 percent to 6 percent of the electorate, if even that much. Considering the close 2016 election was, even a small smattering of votes can change the election results if they are from battleground states. The debates should go on, even if electronically, so voters have all the information they need to make a good choice. Even if the media feed Biden questions or mute Trump, this will allow those voters who watch to learn a little bit more about the candidates. Debate on, Don! Not showing up will only hurt Trump, and he needs to try and do better than in his first, er, debate. As for Biden, the more he obfuscates or ignores questions the more the undecideds will break for Trump.

--Bryan Williams

The Commission of Presidential Debates has done a disservice to the country by politicizing the presidential face-offs. The Veep debate stage was a farce with plexiglass between two healthy, socially-distanced candidates. The Commission further spread unnecessary fear by canceling Thursday’s Trump-Biden Town Hall which should have been a feel-good moment for the president’s recovery from COVID. Outside the CPD/media bubble, Americans have adapted. I am in Georgia this weekend, which is a planet away from the panic being spread by political elites. Cases are way down, schools open, and the state’s 5.6-percent unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the country.

That said, President Trump has also done the American people a disservice by backing out of the debate. As president, he should take every opportunity to communicate how to combat the virus. He could simply have used the Zoom debate to read from the Great Barrington Declaration – a petition written by top Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford epidemiologists (and signed by nearly 20,000 medical experts). It details how to protect the vulnerable while opening society as Sweden has done – to date one of the most successful countries in combatting the virus.

--Henry Payne

Terri Walker of Meyersdale, Pennsylvania [“View from the Right: Talk with a Trump Supporter in Rural Pennsylvania,” Oct. 5] says via email: “I personally would rather see a live debate. It's important to observe body language. You can tell if someone is being untruthful. I'd much rather see the debates held with a clear barrier of some sort only used while President Trump is potentially still infectious. I do however, think it best that President Trump wear a face mask as precaution for himself and others. I do believe another debate is crucial for those still on the fence.”

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Pence Attempts to Overtake Debate Rules, but Harris Drives Home the Democratic Message

By Michelle Naranjo

The debate between Vice President Pence and Senator Harris in Salt Lake City was distinctive for many reasons. Both are the running mates to the oldest presidential candidates in history. Separated by protective plastic panels designed to provide a COVID-safe distance, Harris, and Pence remained seated, instead of standing per the usual.

But these contrasts were the least notable aspects of Utah. 

What became clear is that the traditional debate format voters have long expected has dissolved into a spectacle and proved itself outdated. Sure, this disruptive format has been coming for several election cycles now, but the structure in which candidates respect the debate rules while making their political distinctions clear has dissolved into a chaotic rumble.

A friend wondered pre-debate if we would see the politician-side of Harris or the fighter version. 

What we got was a well-prepared, self-assured candidate who wasn’t about to allow her opponent to walk over her words, dismiss her professional record, or steal her appointed speaking times. And, while she brought her politician side to the dais, she also began with a statement that was an apparent slight to Pence, the czar of COVID-19, without being a direct, personal attack.

Harris set the fighting words tone in her response to moderator Susan Page’s opening question about the Trump administration’s handling of the coronavirus pandemic. She declared it ”the greatest failure of any presidential administration in the history of our country.” 

What followed was Pence never directly answering any of Page’s remaining questions. Instead, he repeatedly spoke over both Harris and the moderator. Would this have been Candidate Pence speaking for any other election and not one led by Trump, he might have been perceived as extremely inconsiderate and even dishonest. But Pence’s slights failed to faze the former prosecutor, who drove home the Biden/Harris platform of raising up all Americans. She confidently topped off her arguments with the expert voice of a woman acclimated to facing male authority that talks over and steals her air time. 

It is 2020. Racism, women’s rights, the economy, and the ever-present pandemic are at the forefront of this presidential election. Harris showed what led Biden to choose her as a running mate who can speak with confidence to all of these issues -- and even have a plan to address them.

Pence brought a fly. 

Naranjo is a freelance writer based in rural Pennsylvania.

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Veep Debate Marks Brief Return to 2020-Style Normalcy

By Charles Dervarics

After a chaotic face-off last week between President Trump and Democrat Joe Biden, Wednesday night’s debate between the vice presidential nominees offered a brief return to normalcy – at least as normal as it gets in 2020.

Despite major disagreements, Vice President Mike Pence and Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., debated civilly (for the most part) and delivered effective talking points on everything from COVID-19 to China and the Supreme Court. Not that it was exactly like debates of old: Plexiglas separated the candidates due to health concerns after positive COVID tests for the president and others at the White House. The night also was historic with the participation of Harris, the first woman of color on a major party presidential ticket.

But as the nation prepares to choose between the oldest presidential nominees in history, both Pence and Harris offered some depth on issues in what could be a preview of the 2024 campaign.

The debate began with a focus on COVID-19, as Pence claimed the administration had undertaken the “greatest national mobilization since World War II” while Harris charged that the White House was not truthful with the American people. On a vaccine, she added, “If Donald Trump tells us to take it, I’m not taking it.”

But the issue didn’t crowd out other topics, and both clearly had messages for swing state voters. Pence criticized the Green New Deal and accused Democrats of wanting to halt fracking. Harris talked up Biden’s plans for jobs and economic revival, including more support for education and manufacturing.

Pence sidestepped some questions – including the future of the Affordable Care Act – and Harris would not answer if Democrats plan to expand the Supreme Court if the Senate approves the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. Look for more intensive media queries on those topics this month.

Both also routinely pushed the boundaries of time limits set by moderator Susan Page of USA Today – Pence seemed to be the worst offender there – although Page kept the debate from going off the rails. 

As someone who covered the first debate with a woman running for vice president – George H.W. Bush vs. Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 – the differences between that night and last night were stark. In 1984, the first question to Ferraro was how she could compare herself to Bush, a congressman, ambassador, and CIA Director before becoming Ronald Reagan’s VP. Ferraro later chided Bush for taking a condescending tone and near the end, the male moderator joked with Bush about the World Series. All of that was very 1984, and a far cry from what transpired last night. 

Trump and Biden are up next on the debate calendar, scheduled for a Town Hall-style meeting Oct. 15, but it’s not clear at press time if the event will take place. The Commission on Presidential Debates has announced plans to make it a virtual event, and President Trump said Oct. 8 he does not plan to participate under that format.

Charles Dervarics is a writer and policy analyst in Alexandria, Va.

—–

Coastal Elitist Harris Brings Democratic Party’s Radical Shift to the Veep Debate

By Henry Payne

In these strange times, the 2020 Vice Presidential Debate was fittingly strange theater.

There were ridiculous, plexiglass stage props. No questions from the moderator about riots that have toppled statues of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. There was a fly. 

But study the script of Sen. Kamala Harris, and history will record a Democratic ticket representing the most radical Party shift in 50 years. Life-long government apparatchiks, Biden/Harris represent the Elite vs. Main Street divide at the heart of today’s politics.

Harris checks the demographic boxes for the Democratic coalition but, most importantly, she hails from California. The Democratic Party’s biggest electoral treasure, California is the epicenter of Democratic ideology and Hollywood fundraising. It betrays – with Biden’s Northeastern roots – a coastal Party with a continent of red states in between.

It was not always so. At the end of the 20th century, Democratic leadership was geographically diverse – Gephardt of Missouri, Michigan’s Dingell, Clinton from Arkansas, Bradley of New Jersey, Nebraska’s Bob Kerrey – and rooted in the working class. 

The coastal Party of Sanders-Pelosi-Schumer-Harris-Biden is very different. It takes its policy prescriptions from Democratic-Socialist Europe – Paris Climate Accords, Medicare for All, Green New Deal.

Trump/Pence was a direct reaction to this elitist takeover. 

For all of carnival barker Trump’s lack of decorum, he is a businessman who fundamentally gets Main Street – thus his populist base in working-class neighborhoods of Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. He chose Pence, a heartland governor, as his running mate. 

Harris’ (which GovTrack.us rates “the most liberal member of the Senate”) debate talking points, by contrast, put her a long drive from Main Street.

She echoed Black Lives Matter, a radical group that wants societal change as unpopular as the forced busing policies that tore America apart 50 years ago – policies Harris still cheers.

I covered the Black Lives Matter riots in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, which did enormous harm to black lives. Protestors burned businesses and jobs to the ground. Six years later, Ferguson still hasn’t recovered. 

Now Chicago, New York, Kenosha, Wisconsin and other cities have seen crime and violence skyrocket. Victims of homicide in Chicago, for example – mostly Black – are up 50 percent due to diminished policing and COVID shutdowns that Biden/Harris threaten to reinstate.

Solutions for vulnerable communities (including in my Detroit backyard) – charter schools, police protection – are under assault by Harris’s Party.

As are manufacturing jobs. Harris claimed global warming an “existential threat” despite all evidence to the contrary – most obviously healthy Great Lakes levels that Democrats just a decade ago were scared would dry up due to melting snow pack. 

Shouldn’t she have been preparing for the existential threat of global viruses?

Harris supports a California-inspired national mandate forcing U.S. automakers to make only climate-fighting electric cars. Similar European mandates pushed Volkswagen to cut 7,000 jobs last year as it faced high EV costs.

That is tragic theater.

Henry Payne is The Detroit News auto columnist, radio host, nationally syndicated editorial cartoonist with Andrews McMeel, and National Review contributor. He was inside The Beltway for 13 years before escaping to Motown.

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

On Attack Ads

By Stephen Macaulay

  1. Talk to any producer of a local morning TV news program and you’ll learn that fires get significant attention because people watch. It doesn’t matter if it is an abandoned warehouse the ownership of which is unknown that is in the middle of nothing so that there isn’t any potential for collateral damage: People watch.

2. Attack ads are like warehouse fires. Or in this election cycle, dumpster fires.

People watch.

3. A political attack ad is like a caricature. In creating a caricature, the artist exaggerates a salient feature. It is something that stands out but taken to the nth degree.

Arguably, if the exaggeration is a foundational element of an attack ad, then most of what could be considered “attack ads” (or “negative ads”) by the Lincoln Project or any other organization targeting the Trump administration aren’t.

That’s simply because what would seem to be a grotesquerie is a reality.

There are 210,195 Americans dead from COVID-19. That we know of.

There are 7,459,101 infected with the disease.

There are millions of Americans unemployed. According to the latest from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:

“In September, the number of unemployed persons who were jobless less than 5 weeks increased by 271,000 to 2.6 million. The number of persons jobless 5 to 14 weeks decreased by 402,000 to 2.7 million, and the number of persons jobless 15 to 26 weeks fell by 1.6 million to 4.9 million. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) increased by 781,000 to 2.4 million.”

It is now thought that a large percentage of them are going to be permanently unemployed.

No caricature. No exaggeration. That’s how it is.

4. Let’s be clear.

Trump didn’t cause the virus. 

Let’s also be clear on this: He didn’t do everything he could to protect and preserve the people of the United States of America.

If wearing masks could, so scientists and doctors and public health experts the world over insist, save lives (according to Vin Gupta, MD, MPA, MSc, is an Affiliate Assistant Professor of Health Metrics Sciences at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington, on MTP Daily September 18, if people in the U.S. started wearing masks that day, as many as 200,000 lives could be saved by December 1; he also said that there is “convincing evidence” that had there been a two-week earlier shutdown of the economy and mask country-wide mask wearing there could have been an estimated 70% of lives saved), then shouldn’t Team Trump have been wearing masks 24-7 and making sure the American people saw them doing so?

5. When Trump returned from Walter Reed National Military Center to the White House and did the dramatic mask removal that was an attack ad on the health and wellbeing of all Americans.

Hugely grotesque.

People watch. People die.

Macaulay is a cultural commentator based in Detroit.

—–

Negative Ads Remain Off-Limits for the Biden Campaign Since Trump’s Coronavirus Diagnosis

By Todd Lassa

It was less than a week--believe it or don’t--before Wednesday night’s debate in Salt Lake City between vice presidential candidates Kamala Harris and Mike Pence when the following happened:

President Trump revealed he had tested positive for the coronavirus, was flown to Walter Reed Medical Center for treatment, took an unannounced ride on Sunday to wave to a crowd of his followers outside the Bethesda, Md. hospital, and flew back to the White House Monday to dramatically remove his mask and tell America, “don’t be afraid of it – you’re gonna beat it.”

For that extended weekend, at least, the Biden campaign announced it would pull all negative advertising against the incumbent president while Trump was suffering from Covid-19. The Lincoln Project, a group of “never-Trumper” conservative Republicans who have been campaigning against the president’s re-election, issued a statement that said the group will not pull its advertising, including a widely played television commercial called “Mourning in America” and more recently released the commercial, "Covita," a parody of "Don't Cry for Me Argentina" from the Broadway hit musical, "Evita."

As of this writing, the Biden campaign has not announced when, or if, it will re-instate any commercials or ads attacking or criticizing President Trump. 

After a shoutfest of a first presidential debate Sept. 30, heavily criticized by both Democrats and Republicans, Donald J. Trump and Joe Biden are scheduled to reunite for a town hall-style debate that will take questions from voters in the audience, next week in Ann Arbor, Mich. The town hall debate remains on the Commission for Presidential Debates’ schedule. It is to be held just 10 days after Trump’s release from Walter Reed. 

While some Biden supporters will argue that pulling negative ads is something no one would ever expect from the Trump re-election campaign, some Trump supporters will argue that the Biden campaign’s pledge was a political stunt, that “liberal media” will make up for the Democratic presidential candidate’s graciousness anyway. What do our liberal and conservative pundits think? The answers are on this page, in the column to the left and the column to the right.

Please address your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

On Discretion and Negative Political Advertising

By Bryan Williams

“Discretion is the better part of valor.”  We’ve all heard this line from Shakespeare, and it would appear that Joe Biden put this into practice last week when he pledged to halt all negative campaign ads because of President Trump and the first lady’s COVID-19 infections. I’m sure many people thought, “Oh wow, how nice. This is what we need in today’s coarsened politicking.”  But Falstaff, the Shakespearean character who uttered the famous idiom, was himself a man totally without honor and valor. The definition of valor is, “Great courage in the face of danger, especially in battle.” 

Is Biden’s move courageous or self-serving? Easy answer there. This is politics. This is the race to be the most powerful person on the planet. His move is as self-serving as the soft serve machine at a Sizzler steakhouse. He was hoping this move would get him the slim slice of voters who are still undecided in this race.

While Biden’s campaign may have stopped its negative ads, other Super PACs and organizations did not. Especially the Lincoln Project, a group of “Never Trumpers,” that pledged to double-down on their hatred of Trump and keep the fire of negative ads burning. When I looked up background on the Lincoln Project, I recognized only two people on its long list of founders and “senior advisors”; George Conway (recently departed White House counselor 

Kellyanne’s husband), and Michael Steele. In other words, a cadre of Falstaffs. Negative political ads are not a show of courage or valor.

Then there is President Trump, a man who doesn’t seem to know what discretion is. Upon returning to the White House, he said to the camera, “Don’t let it (COVID-19) dominate you, don’t be afraid of it! You’re going to beat it!”  That says courage to me.

Williams is a mental health professional in California and was a Republican party official working in local, state and federal politics from 2005-19.

—–