By Andrew Boyd

I struggle to talk about these debates in the fashion of the day, as if we were watching something as superficial as a UFC bout; but as political heavyweight contests go, there were no big surprises. Adopting as non-partisan perspective as I can manage, I thought both men got in their shots, but the roundhouses were few and far between, and neither combatant went face-to-canvas. 

Trump’s best line of attack was the right hook to Joe’s legacy as a careerist pol, and the watery, flavorless stone soup of ‘accomplishments’ over 47 long years that should do little to satiate anyone’s desire for a candidate possessed of the capacity, desire or will to affect meaningful change in any direction. 

If fate elects Joe, I’ll take what solace I can in the fact that he’s no ideologue and mostly just a guy looking to fill out his political butterfly collection with the rare Potus-excremus.  Nothing new, certainly nothing better, but probably no worse than business as usual.

I’m in the species of conservative who thinks Washington is rotten down to its core, whose vote for Trump was a message to the D.C. establishment, left, right and center, that the game is up.  And it’s that same disgust for Washington’s three-card monte that will pull the lever for DJT once again.  

I think Donald, for all his many foibles, has a genuine love of country and a desire to do the right thing by his countrymen and women. That, for me, is the trump card in a deck full of one-eye jacks.  Establishment Washington wouldn’t know a straight deal if they saw one; and worse yet, if they did, they’d form a posse to hang that dealer, which is more or less what played out as the Mueller probe over the past three years.  

Get in there Donald and break some shit!

Please email your comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

By Stephen Macaulay

On February 7, 2020, Donald Trump told Bob Woodward of COVID-19, “It goes through the air. That’s always tougher than the touch. You don’t have to touch things. Right? But the air, you just breathe the air and that’s how it’s passed. And so that’s a very tricky one. That’s a very delicate one. It’s also more deadly than even your strenuous flus.”

On March 19 Trump told Woodward, “I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.”

According to reporting by The New York Times, on Feb. 24, hours before Trump tweeted, that COVID-19 was “very much under control,” and that “Stock market starting to look very good to me!”, “senior members of the president’s economic team, privately addressing board members of the conservative Hoover Institution, were less confident.” It seems that Tomas J. Philipson, a senior White House economic advisor, told the group that he couldn’t estimate the economic effects of the COVID.

The Times reporters write, “To some in the group, the implication was that an outbreak could prove worse than Mr. Philipson and other Trump administration advisers were signaling in public at the time.” [Philipson in late June quit his new post as acting chief of the White House Council of Economic Advisors to return to the University of Chicago, two days after Kevin Hassett announced his departure as the council’s chief.]

Apparently this was a three-day affair of getting inside insights into COVID from White House officials.

A hedge fund consultant attended the event of the Hoover board and created a document about it. The Times reporters write, “’What struck me,’ the consultant wrote, was that nearly every official he heard from raised the virus ‘as a point of concern, totally unprovoked.’”

Here’s the thing: the information that the rest of us got from Trump and his minions was “Nothing to see here, move along.”

The information that was given to the Hoover people, which then went to a hedge fund, Appaloosa Management, was far less sanguine.

According to the Times, “legal experts say. . .it is not apparent that any of the communications about the Hoover briefings violated securities laws.”

So let’s see: Trump and his people tell you and me that there is no problem; people in the business of using information to buy and sell—and they sold in this case—were given insights that the rest of us would—what?—panic if we knew?

It would be the old case of the rich getting richer if it were also not the case that the sick were getting sicker and the dead, well, dead.

It is somewhat incomprehensible how people who are in the middle class and below think that Trump has any concern for their well-being.

Wall Street is doing great. Main Street has a whole lot of “For Rent” signs—and many more to come.

—–

By the Editors

Four years ago, Donald Trump appealed to many disaffected voters by promising to “drain the swamp.” He built a loyal support base who believe a successful businessman in the White House is far more trustworthy than a career Capitol Hill politician. 

The phrase was used in a speech in Colorado Springs on October 18, 2016 and is prominent on Trump-2020 banners and lawn signs in red-leaning neighborhoods today. According to reporting in USA Today, the swamp metaphor was to get rid of the “rigged system that rewards the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of the common man.”

In recent weeks The New York Times has published several in-depth articles that question the president’s business acumen, including news that he faces $421-million in debt that may come due in the next four years.

Trump initially called the Times story “fake news.” When Savannah Guthrie of NBC News asked the president about the debt in a Q&A on her network that replaced what was to be the second presidential debate (competing for ratings with Democratic candidate Joe Biden’s ABC News town hall), Trump called the money owed a “peanut.” Not a big deal.

“It’s a very small amount of money,” he said on the home network of his TV show, “The Apprentice,” although it should be pointed out that he rounded down the number to $400 million.

Trump called The New York Times’ collection and scrutiny of his tax returns “illegal,” then added…

“And just so you understand, when you have a lot of real estate, I have real estate, you know a lot of it. Okay? Right down the road, Doral, big stuff, great stuff. When I decided to run, I’m very underlevered (sic), fortunately, but I’m very underlevered (sic).” I have a very, very small percentage of debt compared … $400 million compared to the assets that I have, all of these great properties all over the world, and frankly, The Bank of America building in San Francisco. I don’t love what’s happening to San Francisco. 1290 Avenue of the Americas, one of the biggest office buildings.”

The Trump organization doesn’t own outright either the Bank of America building in San Francisco or the Avenue of the Americas building in New York City. According to Forbes, it owns 30-percent of each. In a story about the Trump organization’s building holdings published March 31, 2020, before the near-total evacuation of Manhattan, it was estimated that Trump’s 30-percent of 1290 Avenue of the Americas was $446 million, or enough to pay off that loan with some left over. . .though one wonders whether there hasn’t been a significant drop in value.

Trump resisted selling any such assets ahead of his January 2017 inauguration, and in fact the Trump Organization has turned his hotel in the Old Post Office building in Washington into a meeting place for foreign potentates and Republican power brokers. In mid-October, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up congressional Democrats’ Emoluments Clause claims against Trump for profiting off of foreign governments through such properties, thus handing the president a victory in the lawsuit.

—–

By Stephen Macaulay

In 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump was barnstorming with a message about coal. 

“Clean coal,” he called it. Which, as is sometimes said, “isn’t a thing,” but we will let that go.

Trump would proclaim: “We’re going to get those miners back to work . . . the miners of West Virginia and Pennsylvania . . . Ohio and all over are going to start to work again, believe me.”

“We’re going to have an amazing mining business.”

They believed him. Trump won West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. And how did those miners do? According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, in November 2016 there were 50,400 people employed in the U.S. coal industry.

How did he do? How many of those people did he get back to “an amazing mining business?”

In September 2020, the number of people involved in the coal-mining industry is 44,500. 

Note that this is not a COVID-19 phenomenon. Coal jobs have been on a decline throughout the Trump presidency. What’s more, in October 2019, Murray Energy, the “country’s largest privately held coal miner” filed for Chapter 11 in October 2019, according to NS Energy, which covers the coal industry among other energy-related subjects. It became “the eighth U.S. coal producer to file for bankruptcy in the past year.”

NS Energy noted that company owner Bob Murray “has long advocated for government support for his industry and was a strong critic of the country’s former president Barack Obama, whose time in office he described as ‘eight years of pure hell.’”

“The coal tycoon has long been a supporter of President Donald Trump, and is believed to have played a major role in the reshaping of environmental policies over the past three years… .”

One might change the verb in that statement to “dismantling.” 

Still, that did not seem to work out so well. According to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, renewables, which it defines as “utility-scale solar, wind and hydropower,” is increasingly important. “Renewables have now generated more electricity than coal on 131 days in 2020 — more than three times the 2019 results and with some 80 days left in the year.”

IEEFA concludes, “the data show coal power’s economic viability continuing to shrink … .”

Working people need to take his claims about coal into account when he talks about the jobs he has created and will create. Trump undoubtedly created more wealth for his cronies than for the stalwart men and women who once worked the mines can ever imagine. 

—–

By Bryan Williams

How many years have we been hearing about “green jobs” that will employ blue-collar workers in obsolete smokestack industries, and how they will transform the American economy while curing the climate “emergency”? 

Every election cycle, politicians say they will help foster more green jobs, which usually involves spending billions. This time, it’s $2 trillion if Democratic candidate Joe Biden gets to implement his plan. Four years ago, Hillary Clinton even went so far as to promise she would “destroy” the coal industry and then help the miners find training or new employment.

How did she expect this to play out in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and other blue-collar job states, such as Michigan and Wisconsin? She practically handed that to Donald J. Trump, who shrewdly swooped in to rescue the coal miners.

There were about 90,000 coal miners in the US, according to The Guardian (U.K.), and about half that – about 45,000 – currently. 

Why all the hubbub over so few workers? I think it comes down to this – coal miners are superdelegates for all blue-collar workers. 

Since I started paying attention to politics in the early 2000s, I have heard politicians of all stripes make claims that we must transition our economy and provide training for workers in obsolete blue-collar jobs. Twenty years later, what have we got? 

I’m sure there are success stories of coal miners who have transitioned to green jobs. But for nearly a generation, politicians have told these workers, “I have a plan for you. It will take away your job. There might be some money to retrain you and then you might get a new job after.” That rings pretty hollow and is disingenuous.

Along comes populist Trump in the 2016 presidential race, promising to save blue-collar jobs and revitalize American manufacturing. Since his inauguration he has done quite a few things that many other presidents and elected officials have not. 

Has he been successful? Not in the case of the coal industry. The market has helped kill coal, but so have government policies. I have a cousin who used to work at a coal plant here in California. The company had invested millions in clean coal technology to burn the fuel with minimal pollutants. The plant’s officials tried for years to get Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and then Gov. Jerry Brown to take a tour and see how their stringent environmental policies weren’t necessary. Neither governor would even send a representative, and my cousin finally moved to Texas to find work. How many coal miner families can relocate? The political abandonment was felt – my cousin felt it deeply as well, I’m sure, by coal miners and their families in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Trump may not have been successful in bringing back those obsolete jobs, but what’s more important, I think, to those coal miners is they finally feel like someone powerful has their back.

They will vote for him again.

—–

By Bryan Williams

Predictions can be a wily business. Some tout that they have never been wrong since Dewey vs. Truman (and go on to be right), and some make grandiose claims and flame out. Others stick to a version of, “It’s the economy, stupid,” and base their prediction off what Wall Street investors think/say/invest in. Here is my first ever presidential prediction: Donald Trump will eke out a slim win (again) and get four more years. Here’s why:

Since 1952, political “outsiders” or candidates who are younger than their opponent have had advantage in key races. World War II general and war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower had far less political experience than Democrat Adlai Stevenson, yet beat him by a landslide, twice. Reagan had less political experience than Mondale, Clinton had less experience and was younger than Bush 41 while Bush 43 had less experience than either Gore or Kerry, and Obama had way less experience than McCain and is younger than Romney. Trump had no formal political experience and beat Clinton, and often compares his 45 or so months in the Oval Office to Biden’s 47 years Inside the Beltway.

 Advantage, Trump.

Enthusiasm level: Who’s excited about Joe Biden? His supporters’ excitement appears to be, he’s “not Trump.” Will this equate to black and Latino voters turning out in big numbers for Biden? I am dubious. Trump voter’s enthusiasm level is also higher than Biden’s, according to David Sirota in the left-leaning online magazine Jacobin, citing a September Fox News poll that gives the president an 11-point margin in this category. Advantage: Trump.

Vote shaming: This is the common occurrence of people feeling their support of a candidate is shamed by popular opinion, as fueled by news and social media platforms. It’s safe to say that there are a lot of people afraid to admit they plan to vote for Trump. Many of those who like Trump will let their voices be heard at the ballot box. These are the voters Richard Nixon called “the silent majority.” Advantage: Trump.

While Trump had an obvious and clear electoral college victory by midnight Eastern time – 9 p.m. my time four years ago – pundits this year are predicting there will be no clear winner before Nov. 4, and perhaps not until much later. This is where the “Two Vs,” Valencia County, New Mexico, and Vigo County, Indiana, will come in handy. As small-population rural counties, their numbers should be counted not long after the polls close on Nov. 3. Vigo County has chosen the president all but twice since 1888, and Valencia County has been perfect since 1952. Keep your eye on Valencia and Vigo. I predict they will lead the nation to four more years for Trump.

But it’s gonna be close, folks.

—–

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.

—–

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

—–

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

—–

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

—–