Tag: Republican Party

Sanders Stumps

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has hit the hustings “to make his closing midterm pitch,” Rolling Stone reports. He plans to visit key battlegrounds “where we think we could have the most impact,” Sanders says, including Pennsylvania, Nevada and Wisconsin where Democratic candidates for the Senate are in tight races with MAGA-hatted Republicans. Sanders also will visit Congressional districts where the Democratic Party has given up hope, such as South Texas.

“He’ll campaign on behalf of Senate candidates who aren’t planning on appearing alongside him,” Rolling Stone says. 

Upshot: In other words, the self-described democratic-socialist will try to boost Democratic Senate candidates who are fighting off Republican challengers’ attacking them as too far left, a gambit that appears to be working for the MAGA candidates. 

_____
COMMENTS: editors@thehustings.news

GOP faces Faustian bargain with Trump supporters

By Todd Lassa

Before the presidential inauguration of Joseph R. Biden, the party structure and big business supporters of the Republican candidate who earned the most votes in U.S. election history are rather suddenly fleeing their erstwhile party leader, President Donald J. Trump. The answer to the question of whether Trump and his family maintain at least some control over the GOP through 2024, when the president has indicated he may run for a second term, appears to have shifted quickly in the days following the pro-Trump insurrection on Capitol Hill. 

It has affected the future of the Trump family’s businesses. On Tuesday, The Trump Organization’s biggest lender, Deutsche Bank, announced it was cutting ties with both the outgoing president and his business interests, Politico reports, quoting “a person familiar with the matter.” Trump owes the bank more than $300 million, Politico says.

In addition, the political news website reports that New York Signature Bank is closing Trump’s personal accounts and has called for his resignation ahead of January 20. The bank plans to “no longer do business” with members who voted against Congress’ certification of President-elect Biden’s Electoral College victory of 306 to 232.

Meanwhile, at least 10 big businesses say they will withhold contributions to those same Republican senators and members of the House of Representatives, including health insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield, which has contributed more to Republicans than Democrats in every election since 1996, according to reports. Others withholding GOP contributions include American Express, MasterCard, Dow Chemical Company and Hallmark. 

BlackHawk, Goldman Sachs, Facebook and Google all will pause political contributions to both parties. 

On Monday, John R. Bolton, Trump’s national security advisor from April 2018 to September 2019, in an interview with MSNBC’s Katy Tur called on the GOP to “purge the taint of Trumpism.” 

Also Monday, Trump’s approval rating fell to a record low for presidential approval ratings, of 33% in the Quinnipiac poll, with 56% of respondents holding him responsible for the Capitol insurrection. This raises the question of what portion of the 74.3 million Americans who voted for Trump last November 3 still support the president after the Capitol Hill riots – and what portion are the type of supporters who would participate in such riots. 

Before the House’s vote on Trump's second impeachment Wednesday, a report in The New York Times and from other outlets said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky, would leave it up to his fellow Senate Republicans whether or not to vote for Trump’s conviction. McConnell’s wife, Elaine Chao, resigned her cabinet post as Trump’s Transportation secretary early in the month.

This slippage in support counters conventional wisdom that Trump-style populism will continue to dominate the Republican Party, which, after Mitt Romney’s loss to incumbent President Obama in 2012, conducted an election “autopsy” to figure out how to adapt a big-tent constituency as the white majority continued to shrink below 50% of the nation’s voting population. 

Even if Trump and his family, especially son Donald Jr. and daughter Ivanka, fade from GOP favor between now and the 2022 midterm elections, several pro-Trump Republicans are poised to make a run for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination. Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri face potential discipline for their votes against the Electoral College certification, but Senator Marco Rubio of Florida is still in the running. Moderate Republicans considered 2024 candidates include Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Maryland Governor Larry Hogan. 

No matter what happens, the traditional Republican issues of tax cuts, small government and minimal regulation will thrive, just as they did under President Trump.

So … what’s next for the GOP? Can it, and should it, purge the Trump family and undermine the power of Trump’s acolytes on Capitol Hill, or should the Republican Party embrace his hard-boiled populism to build on his loyal base?

—–
Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

Trump Still Leads the Movement, if Not the Party

By Andrew Boyd

Efforts at predicting the future, particular in things as non-mechanistic as politics, is a fool’s errand, but here we go!

First, we must ask ourselves what is Trumpism?  Your guess is probably as good as mine.  Well, no, I necessarily believe my guess is better, and my guess is that Trump gives voice to a deeply seated distrust of our political institutions on the part of something approaching half or more of the voting public, and the belief of same that the whole game, top to bottom, is rigged.

These same people witnessed the hollowing out of our manufacturing economy in service to free and fair trade that was neither.  They watched as same elites, under the pretext of environmental conservation, sought to enable both the destruction and transfer of wealth on a global scale.  Same game, different rationale.  And most critically, they saw in their own party leaders a cowardice and cynicism that left them feeling altogether betrayed. 

Onto that fertile ground stepped an extraordinarily charismatic man. I won’t pretend to know his motives. Such things are very hard to discern.  Given Trump’s history, one might be forgiven for thinking he is, first and foremost, an opportunist and a narcissist in the same league with most of the men who’ve held our nation’s highest office.  Politics on a national scale is the domain of such people, which is among the main reasons I appreciate the checks on power provided by our constitutional system.

The momentum of Trumpism is Trump himself, and I suspect he will find ways to take the movement with him, and the harder the left pushes back by censorship or other bullish, un-American means, the stronger he will become, like Obi Wan Kenobi. That is not a comparison of character, but of the dynamics of ideological movements, and it carries a warning to those who would seek to make Trump a martyr for the cause.  Bad move.  Really, really bad move. 

I despise the cult of personality that surrounds Trump, as I do all charismatic movements, theological, political or social.  Bad things grow in that ground, such as all reasonable people witnessed with horror in the halls of the Capitol last week.  

I hope, naively, that whomever next reaches for the brass ring is more principled in character and measured in tone, for all our sakes. But the gravitational pull of Trump is not soon to be diminished, I’m afraid, and I don’t see anyone on the national political stage today with the power to achieve escape velocity.

For now, the movement, if not the party, is the fiefdom of Donald. God help us all. 

—–
Please email comments to editors@thehustings.news

Now is the Time for Trump to Go

By Chase Wheaton

Everybody watching the news Wednesday, or was following along with events on social media, were quite literally watching history unfold before their eyes. For the first time in our nation’s history, a sitting United States President incited a mob of his supporters to rioting and insurrection at the United States Capitol, as an attempt to overthrow our democracy and the will of the voters, because he is a privileged and egotistical narcissist that refuses to accept the reality that he lost his bid for reelection. Sound dramatic? It’s meant to. There can absolutely be no underplaying what occurred yesterday. These events were the result of years and years of Trump’s hateful, dangerous, and violent rhetoric, dating all the way back to 2011 (when Trump began perpetuating the racist ‘Birther Movement’ conspiracy theories about President Obama), as well as the byproduct of the tens of millions of people that have continued to support him as he has degraded and demeaned the humanity of millions of others, and of our American democracy.

Unfortunately, this exact incident is what many of us have been trying to warn Trump supporters and Republicans about since he first ran for office in 2016. While the specific details of the tragedy that unfolded yesterday, and the general realization that our democracy could have been overthrown, should certainly come as a shock to many, the simple fact that Trump incited his supporters to insurrection, and the fact that they listened to their leader and did what they were told, should not come as a surprise at all. Maya Angelou said, “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.” Sadly, Trump showed the nation who he truly is back on October 19th, 2016 when he refused to commit to accepting the results of his presidential election against Hillary Clinton, who accurately described his response as “horrifying.” Since that night, and because his cult-like following of supporters have made it clear that they approve of such behavior, Trump has continued to spout his trademark hateful language and has blatantly given his own self-serving interests priority over the needs of the American people and our democratic government. Words have power, especially when those words are deluded conspiracy theories from the depths of the Internet that are, in turn, repeated by the President and a number of U.S. Senators and Representatives, and we unfortunately saw the effects of those lies come to fruition yesterday on the steps of the United States Capitol. Make no mistake: Donald Trump and his supporters are as much to blame for the domestic terrorism that occurred yesterday as are the insurrectionists themselves.

Now that we’ve all witnessed one of the darkest days in American history (again, not an exaggeration), it’s time for Trump’s supporters and the Republican Party to accept what Democrats, progressives, people of color, LGBTQ folks, and so many others have said all along – that Donald Trump is a dangerous man who inspires hatred and violence in all who listen to him, who is unfit to serve as President of the United States, and who cannot be allowed to finish his term. Trump’s behaviors, actions, and statements make it crystal clear that he poses a threat to our democracy and that, per his own statement, yesterday’s events are “only the beginning of our fight to Make America Great Again”. With that mindset, Mr. Trump doesn’t deserve to spend another 13 minutes in the Oval Office, much less another 13 days, and so, while several Democratic officials and a few Republican ones have begun calling for Trump’s removal from office, it’s high time that all Republicans put the sanctity of their oath to the United States Constitution above their loyalty to this demagogue and use any legal means possible to remove Trump from office. I mean, if he cannot be trusted to post on social media sites without spreading blatant and violent misinformation, how can he be trusted to oversee our executive branch of government?

—–

Can Biden Work with The Squad and Centrist Republicans?

By Todd Lassa

As moderates and traditionalists continue to wrestle the Republican Party from the hands of President Trump and his most faithful populist followers, the Democratic Party is mirroring its cross-aisle rivals with a similar struggle. President-elect Joe Biden and his transition team, though hobbled by Trump’s aversion to conceding the election, are working hard to take the middle road and avoid concessions to The Squad led by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., as well as voters who would rather have voted for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., as the Democratic Party’s nominee. 

Democrats this election season have been uncharacteristically low-key compared with the GOP about infighting between centrists and their respective hardline wings. Biden’s record 79-million-plus votes Nov. 3 certainly includes both an unknown number of centrist Republicans who never would have voted for Sanders, or for Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), for that matter, as well as young Democrats who would have preferred Sanders.

But the 2020 “Blue Wave” never happened. Biden must govern from the White House with Republicans increasing their minority in the House of Representatives by at least six seats and with Senate leadership depending on Georgia’s special January runoff elections for both of its seats. Democratic candidates must win both runoffs for a 50-50 count in the Senate, with Vice President-elect Kamala Harris to serve as the tie-breaker. Even if that long-shot happens, Biden will face a recalcitrant Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who infamously vowed 12 years ago to make Barack Obama a one-term president and will undoubtedly lead his fellow Republican senators in key filibusters. 

Already, Capitol Hills pundits are talking about how Biden will have to rule by executive order, where he can, to reverse some of the policies that Trump is rushing to implement in his waning time as president, including efforts to begin the final process of leasing parts of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil companies. 

The future of the fossil fuel industry and potential for alternatives to gain prominence is central to both sides, of course, including traditional pro-business Republicans and Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez, who with Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., unveiled the Green New Deal shortly after she took office in early 2019. 

At presstime, President-elect Biden’s cabinet picks were beginning to emerge and they are largely considered centrists. Anthony Blinken will be nominated for secretary of state according to Bloomberg, Linda Greenfield-Thomas will be tapped for United Nations ambassador and Jake Sullivan, former aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will be national security advisor. The Biden transition team already has confirmed that longtime advisor Ron Klain will be the 46th president’s chief of staff.

Please address comments to editors@thehustings.news

—–

Whither the Democrats? The Answer Doesn’t Matter

By Stephen Macaulay

The question of what does the Democratic Party do now is a rather premature one, I think, as Trump has yet (as of this writing) to admit that he didn’t win another landslide.

But let’s face it: Pundits have to write about something political because we like to think that nature abhors a vacuum of pithy observations.

The question is one that breaks down this way: Who runs the show? It would seem that the obvious answer to that is Joe Biden, based on his proclamation during the first debate with Trump: “I am the Democratic Party right now.” A centrist. An institutionalist. A regular Joe.

But then there is the counter to that, one that has it that the more progressive wing of the Party ought to take flight and lead efforts to create what they presume is a more equitable society, not one that gives, as the slogan has it with surprising accuracy, “tax breaks to the rich.”

This would include the likes of Bernie Sanders, an avowed socialist, and the members of The Squad—Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (Minn.), Ayanna Pressley (Mass.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) —who aren’t going to take any guff from anyone. Biden, presumably, included.

That there was no “Blue Wave” is generally attributed to the idea that “Defund the Police” and the word socialism played so broadly in the campaign runup.

What I find to be rather remarkable is that for presumably being the party of smart, pointy-headed people (or so it is widely presumed in many places across the country, both rural and otherwise), a party where there are top-notch marketers and professorial linguists, the Democrats surely do a—dare I say?—crappy job when it comes to language. (Trump has used more extreme language, so I am hopeful this passes muster at The Hustings.)

Consider “Defund the Police.” That is a scary thought for many urbanites and suburbanites, especially the latter, who are afraid that there are going to be marauders coming into their cul de sacs. 

The term is the audible version of “bad optics.”

Why isn’t there some clever Democrat who comes up with an explanation that people might be able to understand? Like the Nathan Fillion TV show “Castle”, where a mystery writer partners with an NYPD detective and manages to solve cases. In the case of “Defund the Police,” it could be on calls where there are undoubtedly mental health issues, joining the police might be a mental health professional. The funding is shifted.

Seem like a stupid example? Maybe. But it is something that regular people can understand. Regardless of party affiliation. (“Hey, Dot, did you hear they’re pulling a ‘Castle’ at the police department? Now they’re getting somewhere.”)

As for the socialist* charge: Let’s face it, there are a whole lot of Boomers who might fondly remember their days in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s when they knew of people in the SDS but who have now 401Ks that they’re concerned with and the notion of wealth distribution is something that is now anathema to them. Given that there are Democrats who openly self-define as socialist, this is going to be a tough one to shift.

But here’s the thing: none of this may matter. If McConnell maintains control of the Senate, there is going to be very little happening that isn’t caused by executive order.

After all, as Biden might say (though in English): l'état c'est moi.

*One of the missed opportunities that the Democrats had was to brand Trump a “Stalinist.” Seriously. Stalin created a cult of personality. Check. Stalin wanted to concentrate power within the state, including the separation from other countries. Check.Stalin called those who weren’t with him “enemies of the people.” Check. Stalin purged high-ranking officials who didn’t hew to his line. Check. And there are several more examples. This is not to say that the real Donald Trump is a murderous thug who was responsible for the deaths of millions as Stalin was (although when history is written, there are going to be numbers of deaths from COVID-19 that will be ascribed to Trump’s behavior). It is to say that in a world that seems to be defined by unreality (“The election was rigged!”), simple labels can have consequences.

—–

End of the Republican Party?

By Stephen Macaulay

In the early 1980s I worked at a conservative think tank. I spoke at Hillsdale College. I got published in The Wall Street Journal. I attended an Adam Smith meeting. So I have some bona fides in that space.

And I am mystified as to why anyone thinks that Donald Trump is in any way, shape or form a conservative.

Among the things that conservatives believe in are family values. The comments he made to Howard Stern about his older daughter or the “Access Hollywood” tape invalidate that one. As does his administration’s treatment of children who were taken from their parents as part of his immigration program. While borders and national identity are important to conservatives, does anyone think that if the sanctity of the family is an essential aspect of Judeo-Christian existence there couldn’t have been a better way of dealing with those families?

Another aspect of conservatism is a belief in free markets. Given the tariffs that Trump seemingly willy-nilly applied on our allies (e.g., does anyone think that Canada’s aluminum capacity is in some way a threat to our national security: Were we to go to war with a country in Europe or Asia, what is the likelihood that our strong ally to the north would say, “Naw, you can’t have our aluminum?”), the aforementioned Smith would have been rolling in his grave were he an American. Yes, there is general consensus among conservatives and liberals that something must be done with regard to Chinese trade policies, yet Trump’s alleged deal-making prowess isn’t working out so well. While during phase one of a trade deal China was supposed to buy more than $200 billion in goods and services, it is way behind; during the first eight months of 2020 China purchased $69.5-billion of farm and manufactured goods, or $10.7-billion less than the same period in 2017.

Of course, fiscal restraint, or responsibility, is certainly a bulwark of conservatism. So how is that working out? According to the Treasury department, on September 30, 2017 (the first year of his presidency) the debt was $20.2 trillion. The same date in 2018, $21.5-trillion. 2019, $22.7-trillion. And September 30, 2020: $26.9-trillion. Seems like that one doesn’t fly, either.

There is the question of “what does the Republican Party do?” post-Trump.

I have a question as to “what is” the Republican Party.

To quote from its 2020 platform:

“RESOLVED, That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda;

RESOLVED, That the 2020 Republican National Convention will adjourn without adopting a new platform until the 2024 Republican National Convention. . . . 

RESOLVED, That any motion to amend the 2016 Platform or to adopt a new platform, including any motion to suspend the procedures that will allow doing so, will be ruled out of order.”

It is the party of Trump, not a party of conservativism. What it once was and what it has devolved into are two different things. It once had principles. It now seems to have nothing more than blind obedience.

—–

Campaign Finance Reform, Then Third-Party Success

By Chase Wheaton

Sentiment that the current political system in the United States is extremely flawed and broken is not new to true progressives. Progressive Democrats have been advocating for serious campaign reform for many years, saying our current political system does not benefit the majority of people in our country in the way that it was meant to, but instead favors wealthy elites and upper-class folks who can use their wealth to influence the platforms and positions of the candidates that run for office and get elected. 

Often, political candidates who lose elections can’t blame their party affiliation or their policy positions, but instead lost because they lack the finances and fundraising required to run a legitimately successful campaign in this country’s political system. Perfect examples are the third-party candidates who run for president every four years. Millions of Americans probably identify more closely with such candidates than with either of the two major party candidates, but sadly these third parties do not have the cross-country fundraising efforts necessary to promote their platforms, positions, and ideas, and therefore they struggle to recruit voters to support their candidacy.

I believe that a multi-party system could improve voter turnout and overall engagement within our democratic process and create much more significant and tangible change in our country than we’ve seen from any previous major party candidate. However, I also believe we need to reform our political process before we can have a successful multi-party system that doesn’t simply reward the wealthiest candidates who outspend their opponents on the way to victory. Unfortunately, the Democratic and Republican party establishments are powerful entities that benefit from this current system, which is why it should be no surprise that the only major candidate in the last two presidential primaries who has fought for serious campaign finance reform is Bernie Sanders, a registered independent.

Serious political reform will only happen when a substantial number of our officials are elected after spending grassroots donations, and not massive donations from millionaires and billionaires, as these are the only politicians that will be willing to push and vote for campaign finance reform. Once campaign finance laws are changed, I don’t think it’ll be long before we see other major changes to our political process, including allowing for a multi-party system. Sadly, until that happens, some of the fiercest advocates for a multi-party system that I personally know are in the greatest peril of having their human rights stripped away under another Trump or GOP presidency. 

While some voted for third party candidates in 2016 when they were more confident Trump would lose, this year, the need to vote for a viable presidential candidate who doesn’t disregard basic human rights was more important than the desire to make their vote a statement about the country’s political process.

Wheaton is a higher education professional working in university housing, based in Greenville, N.C.

-30-

Why Just Two?

By Stephen Macaulay

A friend of mine said to me yesterday that he’d cast his ballot some weeks earlier. He said, “I didn’t vote for either of those two. As the father of a daughter I couldn’t vote for Trump. As the owner of a small business I couldn’t vote for Biden.”

He voted for Jo Jorgensen, Libertarian candidate for president. Not that he had any illusion that she would win. He just wanted to participate in our democracy.

He told me that this is the second presidential cycle he’s done that.

Mind you he is a well-educated owner of a profitable, family-owned business. Twenty years ago he might have been a Democrat. Now that he is in his 50s, I would have guessed Republican.

His position isn’t exactly “a pox on both of your houses.”

It is more of “I can’t see how either of these people is going to help me.”

As we wait for the results, there is undoubted feeling of rancor among both sides.

Many Trump supporters undoubtedly think that Biden supporters are a bunch of latte-sipping snowflakes who don’t understand the meaning of the word freedom.

And on the Biden side they’re seeing a gang of overweight patrons of outlet malls.

Neither is correct.

Both sides are Americans. Both sides are participating in the electoral process. Both sides think their guy is the right one for the country.

One side is going to be pissed when the last ballot has been counted. Or the last lawsuit settled.

If one wins with the majority of the popular vote but loses the Electoral College, there will be an outcry to abolish that mechanism. Undoubtedly there will be some action.

But is that enough?

Why is it that people like Jo Jorgensen don’t have a snowball’s chance?

Why is it that there are just two parties that seem to matter?

Maybe instead of just going for direct voting there should be more adjustments made to the system as it exists.

Perhaps we should take a page from the British system, which has campaigns running for four weeks. People and parties that are less well-funded than the Republicans and Democrats would not be at the huge disadvantage that they are now. While some would say that the wealthy candidate would just pour it on for those 30 or so days, let’s look at it this way: If you have a glass that you fill with water, at some point it is full and no matter how much more you put in it there won’t be more. Arguably the same could be said for political ads.

You won’t be happy today.

I won’t be happy today.

But do you know who won’t be unhappy?

My friend who voted Libertarian.

Macaulay is The Hustings’ pundit-at-large.

—–

Watching for Republican Upsets in House Races

By Andrew Boyd

Today’s the day, and all eyes including my own will be on top of the ticket, but I will also be watching numerous congressional contests. Democrats have a 233 to 196 majority in the 116th Congress, with five empty seats to be filled and one held by a Libertarian, Justin Amash of Michigan.

So Republicans must flip 22 seats to regain the House majority they lost in the 2018 mid-terms in order to grab the majority for the 117th Congress. 

I have my eye on four House races, specifically. In Minnesota’s 7th District, Michelle Fischbach is challenging career politician Collin Peterson, who has held the seat covering most of the state’s west, bordering North Dakota and South Dakota. Peterson is one of 30 House Democrats whose districts voted overwhelmingly for Donald Trump in 2016, and in the 2018 mid-terms, he defeated Republican candidate Dave Hughes by a relatively slim 52 percent to 48 percent margin. 

Fischbach, his challenger this year, was lieutenant governor of Minnesota from 2018-19. There’s also a potential spoiler in a third candidate, Slater Johnson of the Legal Marijuana Now Party. Politico lists this race as a tossup between Fischbach and Peterson.

Next is Utah’s 4th District, where Burgess Owens is challenging freshman Democratic Rep. Ben McAdams. Owens is a former NFL player who won a Super Bowl ring with the Oakland Raiders in 1980, and he joined The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints toward the end of his pro-ball career. Democrats have held Utah’s 4th, which covers the area around Salt Lake City since it was added to the overwhelmingly red state’s House delegation in 2010.

Republican Ashley Hinson is challenging Democrat freshman Abby Finkenauer in Iowa’s 4th, a district covering Dubuque, Cedar Rapids and Waterloo and identified by the GOP as “vulnerable.” Hinson was elected to the Iowa House of Representatives in 2017. Politico also lists this race as a “toss up.”

Last, but not least, is Jim Bognet, challenging freshman Democrat Matt Cartwright for Pennsylvania’s 8th District in the state’s Northeastern corner, including Hazelton. Though the race is leaning Democratic, the 8th was one of the districts to put Trump over the top in Pennsylvania four years ago, for the incumbent president’s upset win. 

I’m not optimistic for the GOP taking back the House, but I’m hoping Trump’s momentum can carry the GOP to something more than 200 seats.

Boyd is a public relations and communications professional with 30-years experience. He lives with his wife and three daughters in Charlotte, N.C.

—–

ACB on the Court Means the End of Gay Rights, Roe vs. Wade

By Chase Wheaton

Before Monday evening’s confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, Mitch McConnell spoke to the Senate and painted a vivid picture of the GOP’s mindset regarding its role in the current political landscape, saying “A lot of what we've done over the last four years will be undone sooner or later by the next election. They won't be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”

It seems to me that Senator McConnell has seen the proverbial writing on the wall, and that he knows that the American electorate is turning out in record numbers to demand change, which is why he capitalized on the Supreme Court vacancy before his power as Senate majority leader comes to a close. Whether McConnell believes that Biden will win, that Democrats will regain control of the Senate, or that both will occur, he knows that he will never again be able to influence the country in the name of conservative politics like he can now, and so, similar to a child flipping over a board game just before he or she loses, Donald Trump and the entire GOP knowingly went against the will of the majority of Americans to shape the legal and political landscape of this country in their image for decades to come.

This means that McConnell and Trump have successfully created a Supreme Court that’s more conservative than it has been in almost 70 years, and that represents their own interests, ideals, and beliefs rather than those of the American people. 

Given President Trump’s legislative record, and compared with the number of Supreme Court appointments by previous presidents, this is by far Trump’s greatest accomplishment. For perspective, President Trump, in his one term, has appointed more Supreme Court justices than any other one-term Republican president since Herbert Hoover in 1929. In fact, in recent history, while the Republican party has lost six of the last seven popular votes, they have appointed five of the last nine Supreme Court justices. 

If the Democratic Party has any hope of passing meaningful legislation or creating significant change in the next 10 to 20 years, they must seriously consider expanding the court and adding justices that reflect the values of the American people, and not those of a one-term, impeached president and a power-hungry white man from Kentucky. Otherwise, in a few years, as a gay man, I will be waving goodbye to my right to get married, and millions of women will be waving goodbye to their right to an abortion.

Wheaton is a higher education professional working in university housing, based in Greenville, N.C.

—–

ACB on SCOTUS is Not the End of the World

By Bryan Williams

It is done. Amy Coney Barrett has been confirmed to the Supreme Court by the Republican Party (minus Susan Collins of Maine) in the United States Senate. The sun is still hanging in the sky, birds are still chirping, and bills are still being sent to me. Life goes on. This is how millions in America feel right now I imagine.

How about our political leaders? Those with a “D” after their name are furious and are promising all kinds of retribution should they win next Tuesday. The most notable option for the Democrats to get back at the Republicans for confirming ACB is to pack the court with upwards of six new justices.

Joe Biden has been coy for weeks as to whether he supports this court packing idea. He finally said at last week’s debate that if he becomes president, he will name a commission to study the matter and bring it back to him in six months or so. Ho hum, and I’m not surprised. This is what politicians do when they don’t want to tell you how they really feel and shield themselves from having to make a decision that may jeopardize some votes. Ask yourself this: would Donald Trump name a commission to study packing the court? Would Kamala? I think we all know the answer is “no.”

Do I think Joe Biden will eventually try to pack the court? Yes, but not because he wants to. While he proclaims that he is the Democratic Party, I don’t think he fooled anyone by saying that. Joe is the guy the left-wing needed to look electable while the liberal wing of the party waits in the, er, wing to swoop in and pull his strings come next Jan. 20th. Will packing the court matter if the Democrats own the other two branches of government? Will the new conservative majority on the court alter “Life as we Roe It?”  As President Trump says quite often, “We’ll see.”

One thing I do know: the sun will rise tomorrow. Birds will chirp. My bills will still be coming in. Life will go on whether there are nine justices on the Supreme Court or fifteen. Let’s let ACB do her (new) job.

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

—–

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

——

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

—–