Heather Cox Richardson's Blog, page 70
October 22, 2024
October 22, 2024
Former president Trump’s closing economic argument for the American people is that putting a high tariff wall around the country will bring in so much foreign money that it will fund domestic programs and bring down the deficit, enabling massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations.
Vice President Kamala Harris’s closing economic argument is that the government should invest in the middle class by permitting Medicare to pay for in-home health aides for the elderly, cutting taxes for small businesses and families, and passing a federal law against price gouging for groceries during emergencies.
The two candidates are presenting quite stark differences in the futures they propose for the American people.
Trump has indicated his determination to take the nation’s economy back to that of the 1890s, back to a time when capital was concentrated among a few industrialists and financiers. This world fits the idea of modern Republicans that the government should work to protect the economic power of those on the “supply side” of the economy with the expectation that they will be able to invest more efficiently in the market than if they were regulated by business or their money taken by taxation.
Trump has said he thinks the word “tariff” is as beautiful as “love” or “faith” and has frequently praised President William McKinley, who held office from 1897 to 1901, for leading the U.S. to become, he says, the wealthiest it ever was. Trump attributes that wealth to tariffs, but unlike leaders in the 1890s, Trump refuses to acknowledge that tariffs do not bring in money from other countries. The cost of tariffs is borne by American consumers.
The industrialists and Republican lawmakers who pushed high tariffs in the 1890s were quite open that tariffs are a tax on ordinary Americans. In 1890, Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World complained about the McKinley Tariff that raised average tariffs to 49.5%. “Under the McKinley Act the people are paying taxes of nearly $20,000,000 and a much larger sum in bounties to Carnetic, Phipps & Co., and their fellows, for the alleged purpose of benefiting the wage-earners,” it wrote, even as the powerful companies slashed wages.
Today, on CNBC’s Squawk Box, senior economics reporter Steve Liesman noted that the conservative American Enterprise Institute has called out Trump’s proposed tariffs as a tax hike on American consumers of as much as $3.9 trillion.
Together with Trump’s promise to make deep cuts or even to end income taxes on the wealthy and corporations, his economic plan will dramatically shift the burden of supporting the country from the very wealthy to average Americans, precisely the way the U.S. economy worked until 1913, when the revenue act of that year lowered tariffs and replaced the lost income with an income tax.
That shifting of the economic burden of the country downward showed in another way yesterday, as well, when the Committee for a Responsible Budget noted that Trump’s economic plans would hasten the insolvency of Social Security trust funds by three years, from 2034 to 2031, and would lead to dramatic cuts.
Harris’s plan explicitly rejects the supply-side economics of the past and moves forward the policies of the Biden administration that work to make sure the “demand side” of the economy, or consumers, has access to money and opportunity. Those policies, discredited by the ideologues of the Reagan revolution, had proven their success between 1933 and 1981 and have again delivered, achieving the nation’s extraordinary post-pandemic economic growth.
The International Monetary Fund underlined that growth again today when it outlined that the nation’s surge of investment under the Biden administration has attracted private investment, all of which is paying off in higher productivity, higher wages, and higher stock prices, enabling the U.S. to pull ahead of the world’s other advanced economies.
And it is continuing to deliver. Yesterday the Federal Trade Commission’s final rule banning fake online reviews and testimonials that mislead consumers and hurt real businesses went into effect. Today the Department of Health and Human Services reported that in the first half of 2024, nearly 1.5 million people with Medicare Part D saved almost $1 billion in out-of-pocket costs for prescription drugs thanks to the drug negotiations authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act.
Harris has expanded that plan to focus on small businesses and families. In addition to her plan to permit start-ups to deduct $50,000 in costs rather than the current $5,000 and to cut taxes for families by extending the Child Tax Credit, she has called for raising the corporate tax rate to 28%, lower than it was before the Trump tax cuts and lower than the rate President Joe Biden proposed in his 2024 budget. She has proposed $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers and promised to work with the private sector to build 3 million new housing units by the end of her first term.
Her recent proposal to enable Medicare to pay for home health aides has flown largely under the radar, although it would be a major benefit to many Americans. She proposes to pay for that benefit with additional savings from drug price negotiations. By keeping seniors in their homes longer, it would save families from having to meet the high cost of residential care.
Yesterday the White House proposed an expansion of the Affordable Care Act to make over-the-counter contraceptives free under health plans. Currently, only prescription contraceptives are covered. If the rule is finalized, it would expand contraceptive coverage to the 52 million women of reproductive age covered by private health plans.
As the campaigns enter the last two weeks before the election, the difference between their economic vision is stark.
So, it seems, is the difference between the candidates.
Today, Trump canceled another event, this one a roundtable with Robert Kennedy Jr. and former Democratic representative Tulsi Gabbard, both members of Trump’s transition team, that was supposed to highlight Kennedy’s vision for America’s health and their contributions to the campaign. He later held a rally in North Carolina.
Harris, meanwhile, sat down with Hallie Jackson of NBC News and participated in an interview with Telemundo’s Julio Vaqueiro. Tonight, rapper Eminem introduced former president Barack Obama at a rally for Harris and her running mate, Minnesota governor Tim Walz. Harris’s campaign announced today that on Friday she will campaign in Houston, Texas, where she will emphasize the dangers of abortion bans in the heart of Trump country.
The biggest news about the candidates today, though, appears to be an article by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic exploring Trump’s disparagement of the U.S. military. Noting that it is an odd thing for a president to remain popular when he is openly dismissive of soldiers and their decorated officers, Goldberg explores Trump’s inability to understand any relationship that is not transactional. He noted Trump’s dismissal of soldiers as “losers,“ his astonishment at how little pay they make, and his dislike of wounded personnel who, he thinks, made him look bad.
Unable to understand the principles of honor or patriotism, Trump could not comprehend that Army generals were loyal to the U.S. Constitution rather than him. He yearned for generals, he said, like those of autocratic rulers. He said he wanted generals like Hitler’s, a leader he sometimes praised. “Do you really believe you’re not loyal to me?” Trump asked then–chief of staff General John Kelly. Kelly was clear: “I’m certainly part of the administration, but my ultimate loyalty is to the rule of law.”
That was not an answer Trump liked. When the generals refused to shoot protesters or deploy U.S. troops against American citizens, Trump screamed: “You are all f*cking losers!”
Finally, General Kelly spoke up himself. In an interview with Michael S. Schmidt of the New York Times published tonight, Kelly noted that he had decided not to speak out about Trump unless Trump said something deeply troubling or something that involved Kelly and was wildly inaccurate. For Kelly, Trump’s recent talk about the “enemy within” was dangerous enough that he felt obliged to make a public comment.
The retired U.S. Marine Corps general confirmed that Trump is “certainly the only president that has all but rejected what America is all about, and what makes America America, in terms of our Constitution, in terms of our values, the way we look at everything, to include family and government—he’s certainly the only president that I know of, certainly in my lifetime, that was like that.”
Kelly added that “in his opinion, Mr. Trump met the definition of a fascist, would govern like a dictator if allowed, and had no understanding of the Constitution or the concept of rule of law.”
—
Notes:
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/what-would-trump-campaign-plans-mean-social-security
https://www.wsj.com/economy/iglobal/u-s-economy-again-leads-the-world-imf-says-39578275?page=1
New York World, July 1, 1892, in John L. Heaton, The Story of a Page: Thirty Years of Public Service and Public Discussion in the Editorial Columns of the New York World (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1908), pp. 83, 88.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-social-security-plan-crfb-benefits-cut-insolvency/
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/politics/harris-home-health-care-medicare-proposal/index.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2024/10/21/free-birth-control-pills/
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2024/10/trump-military-generals-hitler/680327/
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/22/us/politics/john-kelly-trump-fitness-character.html
X:
linakhanFTC/status/1848423333702078550
kylegriffin1/status/1848773866539106333
mattyglesias/status/1848813290341781529
MarcGoldwein/status/1848346633689280726
atrupar/status/1848354315490009145
History Extra for October 21, 2021
It was President Andrew Jackson in the 1830s who first defended the so-called spoils system for political appointments. He argued that a man needed to feel that his vote mattered to him personally, so that turning out of office members of the opposition and installing your own supporters would actually strengthen, rather than weaken, democracy.
By that …
History Extra for October 20, 2024
October 20, 1973 was the “Saturday Night Massacre.”
Sixteen months before, on June 17, 1972, police arrested five men ransacking the DNC’s files in Washington, D.C.’s Watergate complex. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, two young Washington Post reporters, followed the sloppy money trail back to the White House.
In April 1973, three of Nixon’s top adviso…
October 21, 2024
October 21, 2024
On Saturday, September 7, Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump predicted that his plan to deport 15 to 20 million people currently living in the United States would be “bloody.” He also promised to prosecute his political opponents, including, he wrote, lawyers, political operatives, donors, illegal voters, and election officials. Retired chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley told journalist Bob Woodward that Trump is “a fascist to the core…the most dangerous person to this country.”
On October 14, Trump told Fox News Channel host Maria Bartiromo that he thought enemies within the United States were more dangerous than foreign adversaries and that he thought the military should stop those “radical left lunatics” on Election Day. Since then, he has been talking a lot about “the enemy from within,” specifically naming Representative Adam Schiff and former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, both Democrats from California, as “bad people.” Schiff was the chair of the House Intelligence Committee that broke the 2019 story of Trump’s attempt to extort Volodymyr Zelensky that led to Trump’s first impeachment.
Trump’s references to the “enemy from within” have become so frequent that former White House press secretary turned political analyst Jen Psaki has called them his closing argument for the 2024 election, and she warned that his construction of those who oppose him as “enemies” might sweep in virtually anyone he feels is a threat.
In a searing article today, political scientist Rachel Bitecofer of The Cycle explored exactly what that means in a piece titled “What (Really) Happens If Trump Wins?” Bitecofer outlined Adolf Hitler’s January 30, 1933, oath of office, in which he promised Germans he would uphold the constitution, and the three months he took to dismantle that constitution.
By March, she notes, the concentration camp Dachau was open. Its first prisoners were not Jews, but rather Hitler’s prominent political opponents. By April, Jews had been purged from the civil service, and opposition political parties were illegal. By May, labor unions were banned and students were burning banned books. Within the year, public criticism of Hitler and the Nazis was illegal, and denouncing violators paid well for those who did it.
Bitecofer writes that Trump has promised mass deportations “that he cannot deliver unless he violates both the Constitution and federal law.” To enable that policy, Trump will need to dismantle the merit-based civil service and put into office those loyal to him rather than the Constitution. And then he will purge his political opponents, for once those who would stand against him are purged, Trump can act as he wishes against immigrants, for example, and others.
Ninety years ago, as American reporter Dorothy Thompson ate breakfast at her hotel in Berlin on August 25, 1934, a young man from Hitler’s secret police, the Gestapo, “politely handed me a letter and requested a signed receipt.” She thought nothing of it, she said, “But what a surprise was in store for me!” The letter informed her that, “in light of your numerous anti-German publications,” she was being expelled from Germany.
She was the first American journalist expelled from Nazi Germany, and that expulsion was no small thing. Thompson had moved to London in 1920 to become a foreign correspondent and began to spend time in Berlin. In 1924 she moved to the city to head the Central European Bureau for the New York Evening Post and the Philadelphia Public Ledger. From there, she reported on the rise of Adolf Hitler. She left her Berlin post in 1928 to marry novelist Sinclair Lewis, and the two settled in Vermont.
When the couple traveled to Sweden in 1930 for Lewis to accept the Nobel Prize in Literature, Thompson visited Germany, where she saw the growing strength of the fascists and the apparent inability of the Nazi’s opponents to come together to stand against them. She continued to visit the country in the following years, reporting on the rise of fascism there, and elsewhere.
In 1931, Thompson interviewed Hitler and declared that, rather than “the future dictator of Germany” she had expected to meet, he was a man of “startling insignificance.” She asked him if he would “abolish the constitution of the German Republic.” He answered: “I will get into power legally” and, once in power, abolish the parliament and the constitution and “found an authority-state, from the lowest cell to the highest instance; everywhere there will be responsibility and authority above, discipline and obedience below.” She did not believe he could succeed: “Imagine a would-be dictator setting out to persuade a sovereign people to vote away their rights,” she wrote in apparent astonishment.
Thompson was back in Berlin in summer 1934 as a representative of the Saturday Evening Post when she received the news that she had 24 hours to leave the country. The other foreign correspondents in Berlin saw her off at the railway station with “great sheaves of American Beauty roses.”
Safely in Paris, Thompson mused that in her first years in Germany she had gotten to know many of the officials of the German republic, and that when she had left to marry Lewis, they offered “many expressions of friendship and gratitude.” But times had changed. “I thought of them sadly as my train pulled out,” she said, “carrying me away from Berlin. Some of those officials still are in the service of the German Government, some of them are émigrés and some of them are dead.”
Thompson came home to a nation where many of the same dark impulses were simmering, her fame after her expulsion from Germany following her. She lectured against fascism across the country in 1935, then began a radio program that reached tens of millions of listeners. Hired in 1936 to write a regular column three days a week for the New York Herald Tribune, she became a leading voice in print, too, warning that what was happening in Germany could also happen in America.
In an echo of Lewis’s bestselling 1935 novel It Can’t Happen Here, she wrote in a 1937 column: “No people ever recognize their dictator in advance…. He always represents himself as the instrument for expressing the Incorporated National Will. When Americans think of dictators they always think of some foreign model. If anyone turned up here in a fur hat, boots and a grim look he would be recognized and shunned…. But when our dictator turns up, you can depend on it that he will be one of the boys, and he will stand for everything traditionally American.”
In less than two years, the circulation of her column had grown to reach between seven and eight million people. In 1939 a reporter wrote: “She is read, believed and quoted by millions of women who used to get their political opinions from their husbands, who got them from [political commentator] Walter Lippmann.” The reporter likened Thompson to First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt, saying they were the two “most influential women in the U.S.”
When 22,000 American Nazis held a rally at New York City’s Madison Square Garden in honor of President George Washington’s birthday on February 20, 1939, Thompson sat in the front row of the press box, where she laughed loudly during the speeches and yelled “Bunk!” at the stage, illustrating that she would not be muzzled by Nazis. After being escorted out, she returned to her seat, where stormtroopers surrounded her. She later told a reporter: “I was amazed to see a duplicate of what I saw seven years ago in Germany. Tonight I listened to words taken out of the mouth of Adolf Hitler.”
Two years later, In 1941, Thompson returned to the issue she had raised when she mused about those government officials who had gone from thanking her to expelling her. In a piece for Harper’s Magazine titled “Who Goes Nazi?” she wrote: “It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi,” she wrote. “By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis.”
Examining a number of types of Americans, she wrote that the line between democracy and fascism was not wealth, or education, or race, or age, or nationality. “Kind, good, happy, gentlemanly, secure people never go Nazi,” she wrote. They were secure enough to be good natured and open to new ideas, and they believed so completely in the promise of American democracy that they would defend it with their lives, even if they seemed too easygoing to join a struggle. “But the frustrated and humiliated intellectual, the rich and scared speculator, the spoiled son, the labor tyrant, the fellow who has achieved success by smelling out the wind of success—they would all go Nazi in a crisis,” she wrote. “Those who haven’t anything in them to tell them what they like and what they don’t—whether it is breeding, or happiness, or wisdom, or a code, however old-fashioned or however modern, go Nazi.”
In Paris following her expulsion from Berlin, Thompson told a reporter for the Associated Press that the reason she had been attacked was the same reason that Hitler’s power was growing. “Chancellor Hitler is no longer a man, he is a religion,” she said.
Suggesting her expulsion was because of her old article disparaging Hitler, in her own article about her expulsion she noted: “My offense was to think that Hitler is just an ordinary man, after all. That is a crime against the reigning cult in Germany, which says Mr. Hitler is a Messiah sent by God to save the German people…. To question this mystic mission is so heinous that, if you are a German, you can be sent to jail. I, fortunately, am an American, so I merely was sent to Paris. Worse things can happen….”
—
Notes:
https://www.axios.com/2024/10/11/mark-milley-trump-fascist-bob-woodward-book
The Cycle- On SubstackWhat (Really) Happens If Trump Wins?January 30th 1933 dawned cold and clear in Berlin as Adolph Hitler took his oath of office and promised Germans he would uphold the constitution. It would ultimately take him less than 30 days to dismantle it…Read more19 hours ago · 68 likes · 7 comments · Rachel "The Doc" Bitecofer 📈🔭https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/20/politics/trump-enemy-from-within-schiff-pelosi/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/13/politics/trump-military-enemy-from-within-election-day/index.html
https://www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-am-cbf2afd0-6dc1-11ef-b9a6-4f5491137b64.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/10/trump-gop-support-jd-vance-2024/679564/
https://www.historynet.com/encounter-dorothy-thompson-underestimates-hitler/
https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2011/07/woman/
https://time.com/archive/6895071/germany-little-man/
https://time.com/archive/6761718/the-press-cartwheel-girl/
https://harpers.org/archive/1941/08/who-goes-nazi/
https://lithub.com/a-good-journalist-understands-that-fascism-can-happen-anywhere-anytime/
“Ousting Mystifies Dorothy Thompson,” New York Times, August 27, 1934, p. 8, at https://www.nytimes.com/1934/08/27/archives/ousting-mystifies-dorothy-thompson-american-writer-says-in-paris.html
Dorothy Thompson, “Dorothy Thompson Tells of Nazi Ban,” New York Times, August 27, 1934, p. 8, at https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1934/08/27/93763926.html
X:
InsideWithPsaki/status/1848516948994257271
GarrettHaake/status/1832567567934018026
October 20, 2024
I had hoped to write tonight about the farm bill, which Eric Hovde, running for the Senate from Wisconsin although it’s not clear he lives there, could not talk about in the debate between him and incumbent senator Tammy Baldwin on Friday. “I’m not an expert on the farm bill because I'm not in the U.S. Senate at this point in time,” Hovde said. “So I can’t opine specifically on all aspects of the farm bill.”
The farm bill is one of our most important pieces of legislation. It establishes the main agricultural and food policies of the government, covering price supports for farm products, especially corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, rice, peanuts, dairy, and sugar; crop insurance; conservation programs; and nutritional programs for 41 million low-income Americans, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) formerly known as food stamps. It must pass every five years but has been held up by Republican extremists in the House and is now in limbo. One would think that anyone running for Senate should know it pretty well, especially in Wisconsin, where in 2022 farms produced $16.7 billion in agricultural products.
Perhaps this is why the Wisconsin Farm Bureau Federation has endorsed Baldwin, the first Democrat in nearly twenty years to receive their support.
But I cannot take tonight to explain the really quite interesting history of the farm bill (and why it contains our nutrition programs) because the real story of today is that the Republican candidate for president is not mentally able to handle the job of the presidency, and Republican leaders are trying to cover up that reality.
These two stories are related.
That same quest for power that appears to be driving Hovde to seek a Senate seat without knowing anything about a bill that is hugely important to the people he would be representing appears to be preventing Republican leaders from admitting that their 78-year-old candidate has lost the mental capacity necessary for managing the most powerful nation in the world, including its vast stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
The United States has guardrails to prevent an incapacitated president from exercising power.
The question of what to do when a president was unable to do his job was not really a major question until the post–World War II years. While presidents before then had been weakened—notably, Woodrow Wilson had had a stroke—medical care was poor enough that those presidents who sustained life-threatening injuries tended to die from them fairly quickly. At the same time, the difficulties of the travel necessary for a national political career made politics a young man’s game, so there really weren’t rumblings of mental incapacity from age.
But Republican president Dwight Eisenhower had seen the grave damage military leaders could do when they were incapacitated and unaware of their inability to evaluate situations accurately, and knew that the commander-in-chief must have a system in place to be replaced if he were unable to fulfill the mental requirements of his position.
Eisenhower took office in 1953, and two years later, he suffered a heart attack. Vice President Richard Nixon and members of the Cabinet agreed to a working plan to conduct business while the president recovered, but presidential assistant Sherman Adams noted that the crisis left everyone “uncomfortably aware of the Constitution's failure to provide for the direction of the government by an acting President when the President is temporarily disabled and unable to perform his functions.”
When Eisenhower went on to need an abdominal operation and then to have a minor stroke, concerns mounted. As Congress discussed a solution, Eisenhower took matters into his own hands. He drafted an informal agreement that he presented to Nixon. If the president became temporarily unable to do the duties of the office, the document gave to the vice president the power of “Acting President.”
The need to figure out what would happen if modern medicine could keep alive an incapacitated president became apparent after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Not only did the question of a president’s incapacity have to be addressed; so did the problem of succession. Vice President Lyndon Baines Johnson was falsely rumored to have had a heart attack, and both the speaker of the House and the president pro tempore of the Senate were old and doubted that they could adequately fulfill the duties of the presidency themselves.
Congress’s solution was the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the Constitution, providing a system by which either the president or, if they were unable to realize their incapacity, members of the executive branch would transfer the powers of the president to the vice president. Eisenhower enthusiastically backed the idea that the nation should have coverage for a disabled president.
To anyone paying attention, it is clear that Trump is not in any shape to manage the government of the United States of America. He is canceling interviews and botching the ones he does sit for, while falling asleep at events where he is not actually speaking. He lies incessantly even when hosts point out that his claims have been debunked, and cannot answer a question or follow a train of thought. And his comments of the weekend—calling the vice president a “sh*t vice president,” telling a woman to get “your fat husband off the couch” to vote for him, and musing about a famous golfer’s penis—indicate that he has no mental guardrails left.
Today, in what apparently was designed to show Trump as relatable and to compete with the story that Vice President Harris worked at a McDonalds when she was in college, Trump did a photo op at a McDonalds in the swing state of Pennsylvania, where he took prepared fries out of the fryolator. It was an odd moment, for Trump has never portrayed himself as a man of the people so much as a man to lead the people, and the picture of him in a McDonald’s apron undercuts his image as a dominant leader.
But in any case, it was all staged: the restaurant was closed, the five “customers” were loyalists who had practiced their roles, and when Trump handed food through the drive-through window, he did not take money or make change.
"Now I have worked at McDonald's," he said afterward. "I've now worked for 15 minutes more than Kamala."
The fact that someone on Trump’s campaign leaked to Politico that he is “exhausted” is almost certainly a sign that people down the ranks are deeply concerned about his ability to finish the campaign, let alone run the country. But party leaders continue to stand behind him, raising echoes of their staunch support during Trump’s two impeachment trials.
In 2019 the House of Representatives impeached Trump for his attempt to coerce Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky and pervert the security of the United States to steal an election. The evidence was so overwhelming that Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) noted: “Out of one hundred senators, you have zero who believe you that there was no quid pro quo. None. There’s not a single one.” But Republican senators—except Mitt Romney (R-UT), who voted to convict on one count—nonetheless acquitted Trump. “This is not about this president. It’s not about anything he’s been accused of doing,” Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told his colleagues. “It has always been about November 3, 2020. It’s about flipping the Senate.”
Trump’s second impeachment by the House in January 2021 for incitement of insurrection ended similarly. In the Senate, McConnell refused to change the schedule to enable the Senate to vote before a new president was inaugurated, thus giving himself, as well as other Republican senators, an out to vote against conviction on the grounds that Trump was no longer the president. Seven Republican senators joined the Democrats to convict, but forty-three continued to back Trump. In a speech after the vote, McConnell said he believed Trump was responsible for the January 6, 2021, attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election but that he would have to answer for that behavior in court.
But nearly four years later, Trump has not had to answer in court because the Supreme Court, stacked with his appointees thanks to Republican senators, has said that he cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed as part of his official duties. While the courts sort out what counts as official duties, he is, once again, the Republican nominee for president. Leaders are standing behind him despite the fact he is demonstrating deeply concerning behavior.
When President Joe Biden decided not to accept the Democratic presidential nomination after his poor performance in his June debate with Trump, Republicans demanded that Vice President Harris and the Cabinet invoke the Twenty-fifth Amendment, despite the fact that Biden’s job performance continued to be exemplary. We learned later that during the time of the debate, he was negotiating a historic prisoner swap involving multiple countries to free twenty-four prisoners, including Americans Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan.
Nonetheless, that one poor debate performance was enough for Republicans to condemn Biden’s ability to govern the nation. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) told the Fox News Channel that “Joe Biden has decided he isn’t capable of being a candidate; in so doing his admission also means he cannot serve as President.”
But Trump has been lying that immigrants are eating pets; calling voters fat pigs; basing his economic policy on a backward idea of how tariffs work; calling for prosecuting his enemies and making the civil service, military, and judiciary loyal to him; and praising a famous golfer’s “manhood”—hardly indications of a man able to take on the presidency of the United States.
And yet with regard to his mental acuity, Republican leaders offer only crickets.
—
Notes:
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4942438-baldwin-hovde-wisconsin-senate-debate/
https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2024/05/21/wisconsin-2022-census-agriculture-highlights
https://www.farmaid.org/issues/farm-policy/the-latest-updates-on-the-2023-farm-bill/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-town-hall-lancaster-kamala-harris-pennsylvania/
“’We Are F**CKED’: New Book Reveals How GOP Senators Bailed Out Trump During 1st Impeachment Trial, HuffPost, October 7, 2022; https://www.yahoo.com/news/f-ked-book-reveals-gop-110011623.html
Rachael Bade and Karoun Demirjian, Unchecked: The Untold Story Behind Congress’s Botched Impeachments of Donald Trump (New York: William Morrow, 2022).
John D. Feerick, “Presidential Succession and Inability: Before and After the Twenty-Fifth Amendment,” Fordham Law Review 79 (2010): 907–949, at https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4695&context=flr
https://apnews.com/article/russia-gershkovich-whelan-prisoner-swap-354df585ad321ecdbea4c0f2c557f0aa
October 19, 2024
October 19, 2024
A number of people telling me we all need a night off had almost convinced me not to write tonight.
But then Trump spoke at a rally in Latrobe, Pennsylvania, where he told a long, meandering story about golfing legend Arnold Palmer that ended with praise for Palmer’s… anatomy.
He went on to call Vice President Kamala Harris—whose name he deliberately mispronounced—“a sh*t vice president. The worst. You’re the worst vice president. Kamala, you’re fired. Get the hell out of here, you’re fired. Get out of here. Get the hell out of here, Kamala.”
As Trump’s remarks got weirder and weirder, the Fox News Channel cut away and instead showed Harris being cheered at a packed, exuberant, super-charged rally in Georgia.
Trump’s speech comes on top of his repeated backing out of interviews and his bizarre appearances. Last night, his advice to an audience in Detroit to vote took its own wild turn: “Jill, get your fat husband off the couch,” he said. “Get that fat pig off the couch. Tell him to go and vote for Trump, he’s going to save our country. Get that guy the hell off our— get him up, Jill, slap him around. Get him up. Get him up, Jill. We want him off the couch to get out and vote.”
Trump’s performances over the past few days seem to confirm that the 2024 October surprise is the increasingly obvious mental incapacity of the Republican candidate for president.
It seems clear that a vote for Trump is really a vote for his running mate, Ohio senator J.D. Vance, who if he becomes president will be the youngest American president in our history. At 40 years old, he is two years younger than Theodore Roosevelt was when he took office in 1901 at 42. Vance would also be one of the least experienced presidents ever. His 18 months in the Senate has given him only slightly more experience in office than Chester Alan Arthur, who succeeded James Garfield in 1881. Arthur was a political operative who had never held elected office at all before becoming vice president.
I’m going to leave you tonight with my friend Peter Ralston’s image of Maine’s Atlantic puffins, in whose expressions I am reading the consternation that speaks for me right now.
I’ll be back at the wheel tomorrow.
[Image by Peter Ralston, “Four Razorbills with Puffins.”]
Notes:
You can find Peter and his wife Terri at the studio in Rockport, Maine, or at www.ralstongallery.com
https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-arnold-palmer-comments-ibaffle-1971769
X:
harris_wins/status/1847778189374063089
Acyn/status/1847446208094028251
October 18, 2024
October 18, 2024
The events of January 6, 2021, overshadowed those of January 5, 2021, but that day was crucially important in a different way: Georgia voters elected two Democrats, Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff, to the U.S. Senate. Warnock and Ossoff brought the total of Democrats in the Senate to 48, and since two Independents—Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont—caucus with the Democrats and because in an evenly split Senate the majority goes to the party in the White House, their election gave Democrats control of the Senate.
Without that majority, the Biden-Harris agenda that built the U.S. economy into what The Economist this week called “the envy of the world” would never have passed. There would have been no American Rescue Plan, no Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, no CHIPS and Science Act, no Safer Communities Act, no PACT Act, no Inflation Reduction Act.
In an era when Republicans refuse to vote for any Democratic measures no matter how popular they are, control of the Senate is vital. The Senate majority leader decides what measures can come to the floor for consideration, so a leader can shut out anything his party doesn’t like. The Senate also controls the confirmation of federal judges, including members of the Supreme Court.
During the Trump years, then–Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) stacked the courts with MAGA judges, some of whom are now so reliably handing down right-wing decisions that plaintiffs routinely “shop” for them to get the decisions they want. And with Trump’s three hand-picked extremists at the Supreme Court, challenging those decisions simply writes that extremism more fully into law.
As Trump continues to crumble—he canceled another appearance today, and in a statement almost certainly designed to leak, an advisor said he was “exhausted”—and as Democrats are favored to take the House, Republicans are waging a fierce battle to take control of the Senate.
They are starting with an advantage. There are 34 Senate seats on the ballot this year, and Democrats are defending 23 of them while Republicans are defending just 11. Republicans need to pick up one seat to control the Senate if Trump wins the White House, and two if Harris wins.
The McConnell-aligned Senate Leadership Fund PAC has, so far, spent more than $140 million in this year’s Senate races, with more than $136 million going to attack ads. In the four races that are most vulnerable for Democrats—Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—the Senate Leadership Fund has spent $17.85 million (MT), $55.5 million (OH), $38.1 million (PA), and $23.6 million (WI).
In each of those four races, that money is bolstering extremely wealthy Republican challengers. In Montana, Republican Tim Sheehy, running against Senator Jon Tester, would be among the ten wealthiest senators if elected: his financial disclosures put his net worth at between $74 million and $260 million. Republican Bernie Moreno, who is challenging Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio, has a net worth between $38 million and $172.7 million. In the Pennsylvania race, David McCormick (who actually appears to live in Connecticut) reported assets of $116 million to $290 million in 2022. In Wisconsin’s race, Republican Eric Hovde (who lived in an ocean-view mansion in Laguna Beach, California, until he decided to run for the Senate from Wisconsin) would also be one of the Senate’s richest members. His financial disclosures say his net worth is between $195.5 million and $564.4 million.
This is not a coincidence. Knowing that fundraising would be difficult this year with Trump steering funds from the Republican National Committee primarily to himself, Republican Party leaders actively recruited candidates who could pour their own money into their campaigns. By the end of June, Sheehy had put $10.7 million into his own race; Moreno had put in $4.5 million by mid-October. McCormick had loaned his campaign more than $4 million by the end of June; Hovde put in $8 million by the end of March.
This moment echoes the late nineteenth century, when wealthy businessmen sought a Senate seat as a capstone to their success, a perch from which they could protect the interests of other men like themselves. In that era it was relatively easy for a man like Nevada’s William Sharon to buy himself a Senate seat because the Constitution had established that state legislatures would elect their state’s senators. Determined to win a Senate seat to protect his railroad interests “regardless of expense,” Sharon bought a newspaper to flood the state capital with his own praise. The legislature gave him the seat in 1874.
By the 1880s, even the staunchly pro-business Chicago Tribune complained: “Behind every one of half of the portly and well dressed members of the Senate can be seen the outlines of some corporation interested in getting or preventing legislation.” In 1892 the newly formed Populist Party met in Omaha, Nebraska, “to restore the government of the Republic to the hands of ‘the plain people,’ with which class it originated.” They called for the people to bypass the corrupt legislatures and elect senators directly.
In 1900, William A. Clark of Montana provided the kick their proposal needed.
Clark had arrived at the newly opened gold fields in Montana Territory in 1863 and transferred the money he made as a mule trader into banking. He made a fortune repossessing mining properties when owners defaulted on their loans. He invested that fortune in smelters, railroads, a newspaper, and copper mining, becoming one of the state’s famous Copper Kings. In 1889 he was the president of the Montana constitutional convention, where he made sure that mine owners could run the state as they wished.
By 1890, Clark had his eyes on a Senate seat. He failed to get the support of the legislature in that year, and for the next decade he and his rival copper magnate Marcus Daly of the Anaconda Company poured vast sums of money into influencing the economy of the state, the location of the capital, and the state’s politics.
Clark finally won his election in 1899, but on the same day he presented his credentials to the Senate, his opponents filed a petition charging him with bribery. An extensive investigation revealed that Clark had bought his seat with bribes ranging from $240 to $100,000, equivalent to almost $4 million today. His representatives had paid debts, bought ranches, and even handed envelopes of cash to legislators. The investigation also showed that Daly had spent a fortune trying to block Clark’s election.
Montana politics, it seemed, had become a rich man’s game.
Aware that the Senate would vote to remove him from his seat, Clark resigned in May 1900. In January 1901 a new Montana legislature containing many of the same men Clark had paid off in 1899 elected him again to the same term from which he had been forced to resign. After an undistinguished term, he retired from the Senate in 1907.
Clark’s blatant purchase of a Senate seat added momentum to the demand for the direct election of senators, and in 1913 the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution established that the power to elect senators must rest in the hands of voters. That measure was supposed to make sure that wealth could not buy a Senate seat.
That the ability to self-fund a campaign is once again a key factor in winning a Senate seat from Montana—and Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—seems to be history repeating.
—
Notes:
https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/senate-leadership-fund/summary?id=D000068516
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-republicans-could-take-the-senate
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/us/politics/republican-gop-senate-wealth.html
https://mtprof.msun.edu/Spr2014/edger.html#T2
https://news.yahoo.com/news/sen-bob-casey-david-mccormick-040513591.html
https://spectrumnews1.com/wi/milwaukee/news/2024/04/16/baldwin-hovde-campaign-filings
Chicago Tribune quoted in Harper’s Weekly, February 9, 1884, p. 86.
Heather Cox Richardson's Blog
- Heather Cox Richardson's profile
- 1300 followers
