On the evening of August 8, 1974, President Nixon addressed the nation and announced his intention to resign. The next morning, White House Chief of Staff Alexander Haig presented this letter to President Nixon to sign. The President’s resignation letter is addressed to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who initialed it at 11:35 a.m.
On September 8, 1974, the new President, Gerald Ford, issued a full pardon to the former President for any offenses he “has committed or may have committed.” Even before President Nixon’s resignation, speculation had swirled around the possibility that the new President might pardon him, but at the time and later in his memoirs, President Ford strongly denied that there was any “deal” to trade a pardon for a Presidential resignation. In his televised address announcing the pardon, President Ford said that trying President Nixon would only further inflame political passions and prevent the country from moving forward. He also said that Nixon and his family had suffered enough, that he might not be able to receive a fair trial, and that a trial might prove inconclusive.
The resignation and pardon mark the conclusion of the events we know as Watergate. . . .
From Richard Nixon’s Resignation Letter and Gerald Ford’s Pardon, National Archives Foundation, <https://www.archivesfoundation.org/documents/richard-nixon-resignation-letter-gerald-ford-pardon/>
I was home from college working that summer. Neighbors where I grew up threw a block party. I was sent out to get more six-packs of Pabst Blue Ribbon when I got home from my shift at 11 p.m. Nobody was in any shape to drive. They'd all hated Nixon since the 1950s as a Red baiter, sore loser, and power monger.
ReplyDeleteA friend's dad died a few years ago in his 90s. He was having occasional hallucinations due to kidney and heart failure, and became convinced "an operative from Nixon's administration" was spying on him. Friend told him, "Dad, Nixon resigned. You don't have to worry about that." Poor old guy got to celebrate Nixon's resignation twice in a lifetime.
We're still grappling with fallout from his and Kissinger's claims about presidential immunity. But there's the EPA, which Nixon supposedly set up as a means for siphoning energy away from the Earth Day hippies. But it ended up being his best domestic legacy.
I regret to say that I voted for Nixon in 1972, the first year I was eligible to vote. Even my Democrat grandma couldn't bring herself to vote for McGovern. What was different then from now, was that Nixon's own party told him they wouldn't support him. I think Goldwater was the one to have the "talk". Watergate was bad, but Trump has done so much worse.
ReplyDeleteI actually did kind of like Ford.
McGovern was a centrist pro-life Democrat. I get that many people thought Nixon, as the incumbent, had the best chance to bring "peace with honor" in Vietnam. But long ago, different time. Nixon had character flaws. Trump is a whole different case.
DeleteKatherine, I also voted for Nixon in 72. By today’s anything goes standards of American voters, his crimes were trivial. Not even close to being in the same realm as trump’s. The more indictments brought against trump, the more his cult followers admired him and supported him.
DeleteTricky Dick or his operatives interfered with the Paris negotiations, promising the south Vietnamese a better deal than they'd get with Johnson. Johnson knew of it but never made it public. Under Nixon, the war continued for several more years and expanded into Cambodia. I had been working for the Empire since 1968 and none of this was yet public knowledge. Watergate was just the tip of the iceberg. In 1972, I voted in my first presidential election. I looked at all the carnage being wrought on a bunch of poor rice farmers who didn't know Karl Marx from a hole in the ground. I always thought the real front was in Eastern Europe where a lot of people were chafing under Soviet domination. I wasn't a pacifist, but I didn't get why SE Asia and not Europe. I voted for McGovern in 1972. I thought he'd be smarter or at least more flexible. I also wanted to steer away from nuclear war. I disliked the self-indulgence of the hippies and many of the war protestors, but I realized that the war was a fiasco to be ended. Looking back now, with my present jaundiced view of American history, if I had known then what it was all about, I might have been radical. I think McGovern was sandbagged by the Democratic Party powers that were. They never wanted him or anybody like him. Just like they got rid of VP Wallace in the 40's. Bernie more recently suffered their wrath.
ReplyDeleteI was at summer camp when Nixon resigned. One of the counselors told us it was a historic day. I don't remember any of my fellow middle schoolers considering it a topic worthy of conversation. Here is what I don't understand: why did he tape every Oval Office meeting?
ReplyDeleteI do remember he tried to enact wage and price controls. We were really dumb in some ways back then!
As I recall, a lot of people at the time wondered why he taped everything. LBJ taped a lot of stuff, too, as well as Kennedy. Most of the recording do not make these guys look too good.
DeleteI don't know, maybe it is egoism? They think that their every utterance is making history. Which some utterances may, just not in a good way.
DeleteI’m guessing it’s because they are planning to hire someone to write their memoirs someday, or an “ authorized” biography.
DeleteI would have recorded conversations if I were president. After all, it IS history in the making, no matter who is occupying the oval office, even the Orange Mutant. I'm glad they did it. Interesting to hear LBJ on the phone with Everett Dirksen and complaining about Nixon making side deals at the Paris Peace Talks. Was it LBJ's dedication to maintaining faith in the American political system that made him not make the revelations public? Or complex political calculations beyond my ken?
DeleteThe two personal things I remember - my eldest sister had moved to the DC area from San Diego in January 1972 and got a job working for the Committee to Re-elect the President. The DC acronym was CREEP (very appropriate in hindsight) . It really was referred to that way. The second memory was learning that James McCord, who led the team of burglars that broke into the DNC HQ at the Watergate, spent a couple of months living across the street from us with a neighbor in order to hide from the press. We had no idea until we met him at the neighbor’s daughter’s wedding.
ReplyDeleteAnother memory. A college friend who was close to members of the Nixon clan in California stayed with me in my first apartment after Nixon’s first election. She came for the Inauguration. She had tickets for everything. We sat directly across the street (Pennsylvania Ave) from the Presidential box during the Inaugural parade, attended several posh parties, and the Inaugural Ball. I was 21 then and had a great time in my youthful naïveté .
DeleteThose are great memories! I hope you will write them down for your grandchildren!
DeleteThe local union bused us all out to see Hubert Humphrey on the stump for LBJ in 1964. Big disappointment. Freezing cold, plane late, speech lasted about 2 minutes. However, congressional candidates were on hand, and they made a big deal of us kids.
Also saw Spiro Agnew in 1970, when he was campaigning for Lenore Romney's bid for Congress or governor. It was in a big airplane hangar, and a lot of us went with anti-war signs. We kept quiet and were herded into the back. Now we would have been relegated to an area behind a mesh fence. Some kids (not me) climbed up into the rafters (again, something that would not be allowed now) and started an anti-war chant. Amazing how close you could get to politicians back then.
Anne, we need you to dish: who asked you to dance at the presidential balls? Did you tango with G Gordon Liddy? Fox trot with HR Haldeman? (As these were Republican affairs, I am assuming rock music was banned.)
DeleteLol, actually I didn’t dance. My date for the second ball was my husband. We had been married for just a bit more than a month then. But both balls that I attended were for the Californians. There are multiple balls around the city. The Pres and First Lady make the rounds, showing up at every ball for a short time. Say a few words and then go to the next one. I’m sure they can hardly wait to finish the rounds after a long, long day and go home to the WH!
DeleteNixon was from California and there were a whole lot of Congress related people - including high level staff - who get invitations for friends and family. The two balls I attended were both California State Society events. Every state has a “ state society”. They often throw parties on the Hill, which the young staffers all go to, even those that aren’t sponsored by the state that the congressperson who employs them is from. It might be better at the balls of some of the smaller states, but it was so crowded at the California balls that dancing wasn’t actually possible! A few brave couples out there jostling but most just stood around talking, pointing out “ celebrities” in the crowd, discussing the ball gowns, eating the hors d “oeuvres, and drinking from the open bar. Champagne once the Pres arrived. Since California not only had one of the largest - maybe The largest - congressional delegations AND was the Presidents home state, it was mobbed. I think some of the small states might join forces, but I don’t know. There are only a certain number of ball sized venues in the city! We were at the Kennedy Center, one of the biggest. I didn’t save the invitation for my grandchildren though. I should have. The music, by the way, was definitely rock!
Too many ! And missing ‘ s. Sorry, Jean. ;)
DeleteDavid French, life- long conservative, pro- life lawyer and advocate, has a good article today about saving conservatism by voting for Harris- Walz. It’s in the NYT today. I believe the NYT does have a few free articles for non- subscribers. Douthat is still beating a dead horse.
ReplyDeleteI have read both articles. I thought David French's was good. Douthat's, not so much. As you said, he's beating a dead horse. It's unclear what he really wants. And he's not giving Biden his just dues.
DeleteOnly saw some of French's story before the paywall slammed shut. I gather, based on Jim's like for him, that French is one of those conservatives who hates progressivism, but wants to make his case against it with rational arguments rather than claims that Harris slept her way to the top and that Walz is guilty of stolen valor.
DeleteDouthat is an Evangelo-Catholic and he's got nothing I want to buy.
Jean, if you look up David French on Facebook, today there is a “ gift article” link to the column. That should bring it up for you.
DeleteThanks. I don't need persuasion to vote for Dem for pres this year. Not a colossal fan of Harris, but Walz makes it fun. For me, anyway: cuddling piglets at the fair, explaining to youth how an 8 track works, introducing his uncooperative rescue cat, talking about labor issues, texting about how his dog locked itself in the bedroom, talking in positive terms about his son's disability that is the same as my kid's, etc.
DeleteI see French as a bit of a prissy pants who has way more faith in capitalism than I do, but a basically decent guy. He doesn't want a mean and lying president who only gets excited about mass deportations and rally crowd size.
Repubs should listen to him to along with those kids running The Bulwark, Christopher Buckley, Adam Kinzinger, and Mitt Romney. Or they should start their own party.
I don't really get the idea that French hates progressivism. But He does hate Trumpism . He is pro-life. But he's not focused on that as the single issue.
DeleteFrench used to write for National Review. When he wrote several articles in 2016 explaining why nobody should vote for Trump, his time there was abruptly ended. But not before he and his family became victims of hate mongers, including threats of. violence. He worked pro bono to help the small evangelical church he belonged to. He was forced out of that church after years of membership because of his public messages against trump. As an international economist I am not opposed to capitalism. It has lifted millions out of extreme poverty around the world during the last 40 or so years, including in China, once they freed their economy while maintains their grip as political dictators. BUT unfettered, unregulated capitalism is the problem in recent years, especially in the US. More regulation is needed, and the MAGA movement wants to get rid of all regulation to maximize profits. Our healthcare system is a disaster because it’s run by big business with a goal of minimizing costs to maximize profit. So it’s by far the costliest healthcare system in the OECD, with millions left without affordable access to insurance even though that number was cut in half by Obamacare, , too “ rich” for Medicaid, with many ending up in bankruptcy court. We fall to 20 something place for the quality of our care and outcomes in spite of spending two to eight times more of our GDP on health care. A perfect example of capitalist greed allowed to run amuck.
DeleteMaintaining their grip … not maintains.
DeleteObama care was a good temp fix, but as long as insurance companies are in the mix it's going to be expensive and exclude a lot of people. Part of the problem is people and their unhealthy diet and exercise. Part of it is the system.
DeleteI decided a couple years ago to let nature take its course on most of my ailments. I'm too tired and broke to want this to go on for another five years.
Interesting that this time around trump isn’t promising to get rid of Obamacare he’s saying he will improve it. Yup.Right.
DeleteLast time Trump said he would have a plan that was so much better than Obamacare. But crickets. As far as I know he never got as far as a single policy item for his plan
DeleteAnd speaking of policies, since Project 2025 became radioactive for him, and he said he repudiated it, he still hasn't explained how his actual policies would differ from it.
Yes, French is rational, and he strikes me as having a top-notch brain.
DeleteHere is one way to understand his political thinking, which I think is deserving of respect. I'll explain it by drawing a parallel with Catholic social thought. Ideally, we Catholics would be formed in Catholic social teaching, and then bring that deep formation to questions of society, public policy and politics. When Bernie Sanders' policies are aligned with Catholic social teaching, we would support those policies. When Donald Trump's policies are aligned, we would support those, too. And the same with Joe Biden's and Kamala Harris's policies.
That is essentially what David French's approach is - except that he is an Evangelical Christian, rather than a Catholic. So for him, the Bible is his 'social teaching'. He could support progressive policies for which there is a biblical basis - not in the sense of biblical proof-texting, but in the sense that there is a "golden thread" of biblical texts and teaching which would align with a particular policy.
So, for example, I think it's possible, perhaps even likely, that French would share progressive concerns about climate change. After all, God is creator of our world, and our responsibility as stewards is very biblical, and not only in Genesis Chapter 1. Now - that doesn't mean that he's wholeheartedly in favor of the Paris Climate Accords (I don't know where he stands on that question). But he'll use the bible as his starting point and his prism to examine the Paris Accords.
At the same time: he's wholeheartedly against the progressive tendency toward "cancel culture" and shutting down speech which is deemed hurtful or harmful. Much of his legal career was spent advocating for the free speech rights of college students and college groups who were discriminated against by college administrators who had embraced progressive orthodoxies. That advocacy doesn't simply flow from his innate sense of fairness; he finds a biblical basis for it.
Btw, I just read French's article referred to above - I believe it is this one: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/11/opinion/harris-trump-conservatives-abortion.html
DeleteI agree strongly with French. I'd already reached (or at least have been moving toward) the same conclusion as he has: vote for Harris to save American democracy. And then vote for conservatives down-ballot, to protect America from Harris's worst progressive instincts and policies. (Such as blowing up the Senate filibuster to pass a federal pro-choice bill.)
I should add: Harris still needs to articulate where she stands on virtually every important issue (except abortion; she has been unceasingly forthcoming on that issue, even while Biden was the nominee). In his column, I think French is making the assumption that Harris will continue Biden's policies regarding Ukraine. I hope that is the case (in fact, I'd wish she'd be even more supportive than Biden has been), but it's important that we hear her articulate that resolve. This is one practical reason that Republicans and conservatives are not wrong to criticize her for not making herself more available to journalists. In many ways, she is still a blank slate. Her 2020 candidacy ended before most Americans ever really got a chance to get to know her in any depth; and she has spent the last couple of years as Vice President keeping a low profile, after a spate of bad press at the beginning of Biden's term.
But we DO know trump in depth. So I see no rational alternative other than to vote for Harris. She’s not my ideal, but she’s smart, she’s experienced, she’s knowledgeable, and she won’t be surrounded by the fanatics that will be in the Executive Office Building and West Wing if trump is elected. Trump doesn’t talk policy either. From what I’m reading, he sounds worse than ever - often totally unhinged rants - praising Putin and rounding up immigrants are his go to policies. . His right wing extremist minions from the Heritage Foundation will rejoin his administration and will be manipulating him I suspect. This time around, none of them will be remotely as rational as those in the first year of his administration - the group he fired, one by one.
DeleteAnne, every point you make about Trump is right. FWIW, my own theory is that he is very little interest in being president again per se; his primary motivations in running again were (1) to beat Biden; (2) to kill off, and/or pardon himself from, any federal criminal convictions, and delay any state-level jail time; (3) raise campaign funds to pay his legal bills; (4) take vengeance on his perceived enemies in the "deep state" (DoJ, FBI); and (5) set up Donald Jr. and other family members for future success in business and/or politics. I think he doesn't actually have much appetite for dealing with Congress, Xi, Putin et al.
DeleteAnne, I'm more skeptical about Harris. I need to see her deal with presidential-level adversity without wilting. She has never been at the top of a ticket before. She seems to have a terrific team running her presidential campaign (seeing a lot of Obama-esque touches). But at some point she needs to leave the wading pool of union speeches and Black sorority appearances, and venture into the deep end to face the media - and Donald Trump. In presidential debates, Trump proved himself a match, or more, for both Hillary and Biden. If he manages to climb out of his funk, she better be ready next month.
DeleteShe knows a whole lot more about how Washington works and policy than trump. Even after he spent 4 years in the WH. She wouldn’t have been my first choice (Joe Lieberman was a favorite Dem of ours, even while still officially Republican) but he was old also and died - of a fall at his home, shortly after my husband, the same age, fell off the ladder at our home). I’m not terribly familiar with some of the mid-west Dems who might have been good. But I would have voted for them! Anybody but trump who really does pose an existential danger. Believe what he says. In 2016 our GOP extended family, and GOP friends said not to worry - once he’s in he’ll drop the campaign garbage and be a normal president. He called his troops together to violently attempt to overthrow the election. I wasn’t a bit surprised that he didn’t facilitate an orderly transition nor than he would never admit to losing the election so that there could be a normal, civilized change of administration. His campaign is already issuing not so veiled threats that he will do it again if he loses. In the meantime, they’re doing everything they can to subvert the election I. The swing states. Do the American people never learn? Or do they just not care? According to numerous studies ‘ conservatives” in the US prefer an authoritarian government so they don’t feel threatened at the likely loss of freedoms, and civil rights that we have taken for granted. But he knew so little about economic policy, trade policy, foreign policy that his policy ignorance alone should have kept him from ever being nominated, much less elected, with a minority of the popular vote. Our electoral college system really hurt the country in 2016. I had done too much background research to believe that he would ever be a “ normal” president for even a minute.
DeleteCont. Trump’s obvious clinical narcissism was a huge red flag - “ danger, danger”. A friend, a very high level, national security expert, Conservative Catholic, conservative Republican used to say that. We had known each other for years and at one point he referred me to his company which hired me as a consultant. After he retired from his govt national security job,, he became a high level executive in a private sector, national security consulting company he had gone to work for (so I was a small- time consultant to the big consulting company). He used to say that (danger, danger) at meetings sometimes when discussing national security issues. I don’t know who he ended up voting for. I had moved on by then and he had retired again (part of the DC revolving door - high level govt officials get hired by big companies) and moved south. His wife ( a somewhat overbearing woman) was extremely pro- life, always went to the big march in January, so if he didn’t vote for trump I’m guessing he didn’t tell her. ;). But he knew that Flynn was a disaster along with a few others in the trump administration so he might have held his nose and voted for Hilary. I will never know. I haven’t heard from them years, not since they moved to South Carolina. But the biggest thing Harris has going for her is that she’s not trump. She won’t try to destroy our country. Her advisors will probably be mostly Biden people during her first year or more. trump’s advisors will be the fanatics from the later years of his first administration ( when the adults in the room had all been fired) and the crowd at Heritage with their blueprint to set up trump as an authoritarian quasi- dictator and try to implement as much of Project 2025 as they can. If something happens to him they will be ready with someone as bad or worse - possible replacements are smarter than trump and know a whole lot more about how to get their extreme policies adopted, which is pretty scary. I see no alternative.Third party or write- in voting is just a protest vote. This election is too important to waste a vote. My husband and I may not be around for 2028 so I intend to vote for her because she’s far less dangerous for the country than trump. I don’t want our children and grandchildren to grow up in a right wing, Orban style country. Or a country bought and paid for by billionaires like Koch and Thiel (Vance is Thiel’s man) And Busch of the Napa institute, who got a building at Catholic University named after him after donating more than 23 $ millions. Koch has donated more than $13 million to CU, including to the program that is housed in the Busch building (basically “ business” with a libertarian outlook) Busch is a threat to both the country and American Catholicism. And I’m sure he’s a big fan of Orban, as are most of the politicos in CPAC.
Delete"I need to see her deal with presidential-level adversity without wilting."
DeleteSeriously? Did anybody ever see GWB, Clinton, Carter, or Obama deal with presidential adversity without wilting before they were elected?
What's diff about Harris? Oh, right ... woman. Keep the fainting couch handy!
"Seriously? Did anybody ever see GWB, Clinton, Carter, or Obama deal with presidential adversity without wilting before they were elected?"
DeleteYes - they all won their nominations via a lengthy and contentious series of primary elections, and then defeated their opponent in a months-long general election campaign.
That argument is persuasive only if you think a months long national primary system is any kind of prep for effective governing. Other free countries have much smaller windows for vetting candidates. Harris has had 4 yrs as VP to learn the job.
DeleteSince rightwingers hope to try to hobble her with a Republican Congress, and Trump has appointed a conservative court, seems to me there will be sufficient checks and balances to keep a wilty li'l lady in line.
According to the NY Times:
ReplyDeleteVice President Kamala Harris leads former President Donald J. Trump in three crucial battleground states, according to new surveys by The New York Times and Siena College, the latest indication of a dramatic reversal in standing for Democrats after President Biden’s departure from the presidential race remade it.
Ms. Harris is ahead of Mr. Trump by four percentage points in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan, 50 percent to 46 percent among likely voters in each state. The surveys were conducted from Aug. 5 to 9.
The polls, some of the first high-quality surveys in those states since Mr. Biden announced he would no longer run for re-election, come after nearly a year of surveys that showed either a tied contest or a slight lead for Mr. Trump over Mr. Biden.
Nate Cohen, the NYT researcher interprets this as follows:
Views of Mr. Trump haven’t diminished. In fact, his favorability rating ticked up slightly, to 46 percent across the three states — just enough to represent his highest rating in the history of Times/Siena polling.
One way to think about (Harris's) position is that she has become something like a “generic” Democrat. This might sound like an insult, but it’s really not. In fact, nothing is more coveted. An unnamed generic candidate — whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican — almost always fares better in the polls than named candidates, who are inevitably burdened by all the imperfections voters learn about in the process of a campaign.
When we polled these three states last October, an unnamed Democrat led Mr. Trump by around 10 points, even as Mr. Trump led Mr. Biden and Ms. Harris by about one point each.
But today, Ms. Harris polls a lot more like that generic, unnamed Democratic presidential nominee. On question after question, the poll finds that voters don’t seem to have any major reservations about her. A majority say that she’s honest and intelligent; that she brings the right kind of change and has the temperament to be president; and that she has a clear vision for the country. A majority doesn’t think she’s too far to the left, either: Only 44 percent of likely voters say she’s too liberal or progressive, compared with 44 percent who say she’s not too far either way and another 6 percent who say she isn’t progressive enough.
Personally, I no longer trust polls. But Nate Cohen interpretation of them sounds reasonable. A lot of Democratics and Republicans did not want a rematch; they wanted new candidates. The Democratic party has at least eliminated the age problem of Biden.
My handman is a strong Trump supported but he knows a lot of Republicans who are dissatisfied with his personality and are saying "can't we do better." I suspect they may throw Trump under the bus in the hope that by voting for Republicans in the House and Senate the nation may get through four years of Harris presidency to a better Republican Presidential candidate.
However, I strongly suspect that if Trump loses, he will run again and get the nomination again.
Ever since he began running Trump has a solid third of the people who like him. Unfortunately, that is a majority of the Republican party. So, he has a strangle-hold on the Republican party. Democrats can probably easily defeat him if they stop nominating very vulnerable people like Clinton and Biden.
Delete538 has Harris ahead nationally by 2.7 percent. She has to take Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, which she already has, plus Michigan, which is a tie, to win the electoral votes needed.
DeleteThere was a big pro UAW push in Detroit, but given how unions have suffered in Michigan, a broader appeal to aspiring union members in other market sectors is needed.
Squad member Rashida Tlaib should be politicking with Harris on Gaza. Her reliably Democratic bloc of Arab Americans will not vote as long as the the admin policy does not change in Israel, West Bank, and Gaza.
And, meantime, Brian BeGole, former sheriff and all around moron, is galvanizing the Disaffected White Guy vote in his bid for state rep around the important issue of making the AR-15 our state gun. Ted Nugent is on board!
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI don’t trust polls either. And in 2016, Nate Cohen got it totally wrong in his analyses of the major polls.
DeleteCohen supposedly improved his methods after 2016. I go more by gut. I think Harris has a chance of winning Michigan. If she can keep Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, that would give her the electoral votes she needs. However, she needs urban Michigan counties to offset the deep red Up North. She's weak with the large bloc of Arab American voters in those areas who are threatening to sit out the vote.
DeleteJean, I will keep an eye on your Michigan Palestinian-American voters. I have distilled my 2024 voting rationale to this. I will vote the way Palestinian-Americans vote. If they determine that a vote for Harris is morally acceptable, I will vote for her. Otherwise, it's a third party or write-in vote. I realize that those people might be biased by having their relatives exterminated with American ordnance and can't see the Big Picture. But they are only human and sometimes I have to be only human as well.
Deletedearborn.org has done a pretty good job tracking the Arab community's concerns. You can also follow Dearborn mayor Abdullah Hammoud on social media. He has become an unofficial spokesperson for the community. And congressional rep Rashida Tlaib is from there, tlaib.house.gov
DeleteThanks, Jean. Much appreciated.
DeleteKamala Harris, even a "wilted" Kamala Harris (whatever that means), is the only rational choice when the alternative is Donald Trump.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI don't know what Jim is driving at with his concerns that Harris hasn't shown that she won't "wilt" under presidential pressures and where he thinks she's vulnerable. Imo, "wilt" isn't usually a word people use about a man unless they want to cast aspersions on his manliness. So his comment reads like coded misogynism to me. I don't pretend to know what's in his heart.
DeleteHarris's critics want her to articulate policy positions and to give more interviews and pressers. I think that's valid. Biden's aims for a second term were pretty clear on aid to Israel and Ukraine, border closing, infrastructure, and climate change. Harris seems cooler on Israel and hotter on abortion.
Her performance in the Sept 10 debate will be critical. If she can stand up to the relentless stream of verbal diarrhea and personal attacks in that faceoff, I'd say she's not likely to wilt.
I have absolutely no problem in voting for a woman if her policies and motivations mostly align with mine. Woman and black candidates can be great or wrong, just like the rest.
DeleteFor an example of someone wilting/melting in the crucible of national politics, cf Donald Trump right now. Also Joe Biden up until about 3 weeks ago. Also John McCain in 2008. And there are a number of examples from primary seasons - possibly including Kamala in 2020.
ReplyDeleteStanding up - really standing up - to Donald Trump is a useful precursor for standing up to Xi, post-swearing-in.
Yeah, sorry, what you mean just isn't gelling for me. Tell me when McCain wilted.
DeleteAnyway, there are other choices besides Harris or Trump. If you're feeling nervous that she'll wilt, melt, have hysterics, there's always Kennedy's Roadkill Party or the Libertarians or just leave the pres box blank when you vote.
Right - I haven't actually voted for a president in a general election since Mitt Romney. I live in Illinois so it doesn't matter who I vote for, but I'd like to vote for someone I feel good about. In Illinois, you can't even just write someone in - you can only write in pre-approved names.
DeleteHere's where I think McCain wilted.
Deletehttps://www.usnews.com/news/campaign-2008/articles/2008/09/24/mccain-suspends-campaign-shocks-republicans
Unfortunately (or maybe not? I don't know!) Biden surely wilted for the debate with Trump. I do think it is fortuitous that he is not the candidate now. And his days of isolation with Covid certainly gave him alone time to think things through.
DeleteI am not worried about Harris wilting. I am concerned that she has some weak points which Trump is sure to attack. His style isn't wilting. It is just to go on a bat-excrement-crazy rant in full view, sometimes on national television. People will have to decide if they want him in charge of the nuclear codes.
I give up trying to figure out Jim's concerns about wilting. Harris dropped out of the race early in 2020, but that might have been because Joe wanted her for VP. Americans only see about 50 percent of what's really going on in politics.
DeleteThe WaPo has reported that Harris has moved from the left to the center on fracking, single-payer health care, and immigration. She wants to go after price "gouging" on drugs, housing, and groceries, which may just amount to a giving lower income people more gummint money without addressing income inequality and supply problems. Typical Limo Liberal thow-money-at-it solutions.
However, she is preparing position papers now, so still to be seen exactly where she ends up.
I think she's in that camp of real smart political women like Pelosi and Hillary who are obsessed with "women's issues," aren't very innovative and tend to be a bit arrogant, but know how to color in the lines.
Trump is nuts.
Yes, Trump in the White House again is unthinkable.
DeleteI said I'm skeptical about Harris. She can prove me wrong. I want to see how she fares in the face of some adversity. Trump is facing adversity right now and not handling it well at all.
Like getting death threats from TrumperGoons and trying to attract voters in in three months instead of 11 isn't enough adversity? Maybe you could arrange a cage match between her and MTG or Boebert ...
DeleteAP has an interesting article about Harris and immigration.
ReplyDelete“ A review of Harris’ work on immigration reveals a record that is more nuanced than the one presented by her critics or allies. It also provides insights into how Harris — who took over as the Democratic standard-bearer when Biden dropped out of the presidential race last month — might tackle one of the nation’s most vexing concerns.
Harris was never the “border czar,” or put in charge of border security or halting illegal border crossings, as former President Donald Trump, Republicans and even the occasional media outlet have claimed. Instead, she was tasked in March 2021 with tackling the “root causes” of migration from the Northern Triangle and pushing its leaders — along with Mexico’s — to enforce immigration laws, administration officials said.
Harris’ backers say she demonstrated leadership by leveraging her stature to win investments that might curb migration years down the road.”
https://apnews.com/article/harris-migration-border-central-america-46d23ad3b0e8a1780ac0a6a306120b3c
We also heard this report on NPR last Saturday re: Harris's border record when she was California AG. Much of this is very much in line with Catholic social teaching.
Deletehttps://www.npr.org/2024/08/10/nx-s1-5061760/kamala-harris-immigration-record-california
Unfortunately MAGA supporters, including Catholics, don’t seem to have much use for Catholic Social Justice teachings.
DeleteIt seemed like a good idea to me to try and address the "root causes" of migration. Most people don't decide to leave their homes and everything that's familiar for no reason. If the reasons are grinding poverty, then investment in jobs makes sense. Unfortunately if the reasons people leave home are that they are in fear for their lives because of crime and drugs, there isn't a lot that can be done from the outside. Though if there were not any demand for illegal drugs in the US, that would surely help. We can rail against drug cartels all day, but there is a touch of hypocrisy when US citizens are among their biggest customers.
DeleteKatherine, I think the whole drug enforcement apparatus has become an industry. Nowadays, if you are travelling with cash, cops can confiscate it and you have to hire lawyers to get it back. In addition, we have become a surveillance state with a militarized police . I am for letting Americans get what they want since they always do anyway. I would apply all the money that's spent on interdiction to rehabilitation for those that want it.
DeleteI think the root cause of migration from the south is economic problems and the never-ending interference of the US in their politics. When we get off our high horse and treat these peoples and their countries with some respect, maybe things will get better.
Why does immigration stymie Americans? Lookit why our own families ended up here, for pity's sake: Crop failures in Ireland and Holland, draconian conscription laws in Germany, English ownership of Welsh mines leading to exploitation of labor and unsafe working conditions, limited land and wealth for younger sons to inherit in England, tradesmen who could get more money making stuff in the colonies, and a few black sheep who couldn't settle down or had debt problems. And that's just my people.
DeleteBiden had the idea that improving conditions for people elsewhere would lower immigration. For instance, American botanists were sent to Central America to see what could be done about dwindling coffee crops due to climate change.
But Trump and the America Firsters think that's stoopid and want to blow money on walls and razor wire in the Rio Grande instead.
Yes, Stanley, let people have whatever dope they want. A study in Liverpool when AIDS was blowing up, showed comparatively low rates of infection among the city's large number of heroin users, thanks to community run dope houses, needle exchanges, free testing, etc. Fewer overdoses from tainted drugs and less crime because people didn't have to steal or mug anybody for dope money.
The drug houses were scary eyesores, but people were off the streets and everybody was safer.
My grandfather fled Poland to avoid conscription, but not in the Polish army. Poland at that time was divided between Germany and Russia, both of whom were conscripting Poles to fight in their armies.
DeleteCoca is a big cash crop in some Central American countries and a big employer. The drug cartels also go into the villages of their workers and provide “ social safety nets” . They build schools, health clinics and infrastructure and the people can afford to eat more than a subsistence diet.
DeleteKatherine has nailed the reason we have a problem. Supply rises to meet demand. And since drugs are illegal here, there is danger in supplying the drugs Americans want so the profits are huge. The drug cartels will ALWAYS be able to go under, around or through walls. They also have thousands of miles of American coastlines accessible to their boats for smuggling.
Legalizing drugs and establishing an extensive network of centers for addicts - perhaps even controlling the supplying of their drugs - would remove most of the profit possibly and maybe reduce crime. I think that’s the Libertarian party approach. I don't know what would work. It’s not my expertise, but obviously the War on Drugs has been a huge failure. Most of the weapons used by the drug cartels in Latin America and Mexico are bought in the American border states. There are hundreds of gun stores within 100 miles of our southern border. Mexico has asked the US to crack down on those stores who supply guns to the cartel buyers without following the requirements to do background checks. But we don’t .
Many of those who risk their lives to try to get asylum in the US aren’t just economic refugees, but are fleeing the dangerous cartels to try to save their kids. But migration for economic reasons is, as Jean points out, the reason that most of our own ancestors came to America - in an era when there were no quotas. Even now, our country could accept far more immigrants than we have.
Regarding Harris as "immigration czar":
DeleteOn the one hand, the attempt by her campaign to claim that she never was given the job of "immigration czar" is risible. That term was widely used across media at the time Biden bequeathed the 'responsibility' on her.
On the other hand, I don't think anyone believed at the time that Harris was actually being asked to fix what was broken at the border. Biden had no plan, and at that time didn't have much of a political incentive to change, especially if "change" would have meant embracing Trump-era policies like Remain in Mexico. I think it was pretty well understood that "giving" Harris the immigration issue was just a way for Biden to deflect something that was causing him some headaches. Being the catch-all for that sort of thing comes with the job of being vice president.
If Harris as VP did much on immigration, I'm not aware of it. At some point, a few months after her appointment as "czar", conservatives started criticizing her for not even having made an inspection trip to the border. It got to the point that even mainstream media started asking her about it. She tried to laugh off the question as ridiculous. Eventually, she did go to the border - possibly, several times.
I don't know how visible immigration is as an issue to folks here. It's in the news here semi-regularly, as Chicago is one of the destinations where, for a time, Southern GOP governors were sending busloads of immigrants. Whether or not that is cruel to the immigrants, it has been effective political theatre. It's really strained the municipal budget in Chicago (and other places; Mayor Adams in New York was complaining about it again recently - apparently NYC is spending multiple billions of $$ on housing, health care et al). And in Chicago, it's become clear that no local neighborhoods want to have large numbers of immigrants housed in their midst. That probably includes residents whom Kamala would like to think of as parts of her political base (including Black residents).
My expectation regarding Kamala and the immigration issue is: she doesn't have a great story to tell about immigration during her vice presidency, so she'll look to avoid/deflect/blame. But maybe she will prove me wrong and exceed my expectations. She is herself the children of immigrants. If she believes our country should be kinder to immigrants, she surely has the pulpit now to proclaim it. But I think the conventional wisdom is that that would be politically foolish. But personally, I think politicians can pick their spots to take politically risky positions without it hurting them. And if she was to become an advocate for a kinder immigration policy, she might even be able to move the needle herself in that direction.
Interesting analysis in NYT by Doug Sosnik who was a senior adviser to President Bill Clinton from 1994 to 2000 and has advised more than 50 governors and U.S. senators, giving the various electoral college ways of winning the election. Looks like Pennsylvania is the big state to win, Stanley!
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/16/opinion/harris-trump-electoral-college-map.html
As unruly as this election year has been, there are still certain rules of politics that apply to the presidential race. History has repeatedly shown that the winning candidates are usually the ones best able to define who they are, whom they are running against and what the election is about.
Mr. Trump had made the election a referendum of his presidency compared to Mr. Biden’s – that he was a strong leader and Mr. Biden was weak.
In the past three weeks, Ms. Harris has set the terms of the campaign as a choice between change versus going backward – a positive view of the future compared to a dystopian view of the present with a desire to go back to the past.
But even though Ms. Harris’s favorability has gone up significantly since she announced her candidacy, the increase in support is soft. That is the reason that the Democratic convention is such an important opportunity for her to close the deal with key swing voters.
Mr. Trump, on the other hand, is fully defined in the minds of most voters, and has elected to double down on catering to his MAGA base despite alienating the key swing voter blocs that will determine the outcome of the election. During the last hour of his convention speech, and every day since then, Mr. Trump has offered words and actions that remind Americans why they voted him out of office in 2020.
Mr. Trump has increasingly looked like a washed-up rock star who can play only his greatest hits for his dwindling group of fans. If he loses in November, he will have been a one-hit wonder who led the Republican Party to four presidential and midterm election-cycle losses in a row.
Harris has released some specific domestic measures she aspires to. Alas more Limousine Liberal giveaways that do nothing to address the wage inequality that has led to everybody being squeezed in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWashington Post:
"The most striking proposals were for the elimination of medical debt for millions of Americans; the 'first-ever' ban on price gouging for groceries and food; a cap on prescription drug costs; a $25,000 subsidy for first-time home buyers; and a child tax credit that would provide $6,000 per child to families for the first year of a baby’s life.
"The last item followed a suggestion earlier this month from JD Vance, the GOP vice-presidential nominee, that the credit be raised from $2,000 per child to $5,000. Harris is also calling for restoring the Biden administration’s child tax credit that expired at the end of 2021, which raised the benefit for most families from $2,000 per child to $3,000."
If all Americans earned a living wage, we would not need these piecemeal programs. Institute a higher minimum wage and a truly progressive income tax that closes loopholes for the wealthy, and a single payer health care system. Get rid of property taxes in favor of income taxes. Except on banks that foreclose on mortgages and then let properties sit and rot and drag down values for everyone else.
Yes, she's promising treats for the commoners while having no desire to change the system. Ten drugs are now negotiable in price. Big Pharma can raise the rates on their thousands of other drugs to compensate. Harris will be as corporate-friendly as Obama was, cracking down on dissent when it becomes something gaining momentum, like Occupy Wall Street. Harris' version of peasant control will be more velvet-gloved than Trump. Demonstrating against the Gaza genocide under a Harris presidency would probably have less probability of sustaining massive head injuries than under Trump. Under Trump, the plebes will want to see some blood. Since I'm considering joining these demonstrations whoever wins, it may impact me personally.
ReplyDeleteIs the Limousine Liberal shorthand really very useful? If Harris and Walz win they're not going to solve all the problems. Because there's other pieces of government, such as two houses of Congress. And other stuff, like the judicial system. Power is diffused. Trump would like to change that. But do we want to? If Harris and Walz chip away at some of the problems, we're still better off than with Trump and JD, because all they're going to do is add to the list of problems.
ReplyDeleteApparently not useful to you or anybody else sick of my irate jabbering about rich Democrats.
DeleteI would argue that Harris's proposed policies are not chipping away at anything. Will they help some folks? The baby credit might. Great. Maybe incentivizing contractors to build more starter homes will, too. Cautiously optimistic.
But the rest of it sounds like the old party machines doling out walking around money: Here's some student debt forgiveness, $25K for a home down payment, and some cheap drugs. Don't forget to vote Harris early and often.
If Harris wants to give something away, she should go for a Harris free COVID shots. And tell everybody to agitate for a union.
And preventing price gouging? I don' t even know what she means by that. Most grocery stores operate on a razor thin profit margin. A lot of the problem seems to stem from the market recovering from supply chain delays during COVID. I worry she'll put grocery stores out of biz, and then people like me will live in food desserts and have to live on gas station donuts and pizza.
The cost of all her giveaways will come out of taxpayer pockets (disproportionately the middle class) because employers are paying CEOs obscene wages and keeping workers on table scraps.
Taxpayers CANNOT continue to shore up social programs because employers don't wanna pay people decently. Squeeze the bastards! Oh, wait, they just handed the Dems a million dollars for my campaign fund. Never mind.
I'll vote for Harris because she is not a lunatic. But her domestic plan is disappointing.
About price gouging on food, it isn't the grocery stores who are doing it. It's farther back in the supply chain. For instance, four big meat packers control the meat market in the US. One of them is owned in China. Another is owned in Brazil. Which is ironic because Brazil is a direct competitor to domestic farmers and ranchers. And environmentally they are cutting down rain forests to do it. With other food there is a similar problem with consolidation of processors. Enforcing anti-trust laws might help food prices. But neither party wants to touch that wire.
DeleteI agree with you that taxpayers can't bear the full burden of making up for people not being paid a living wage.
In 1964, when LBJ passed the Great Society programs, the wealthiest Americans were paying 70 percent on their taxable income. Now they pay 37 percent. And that's not counting all the loopholes that are applied before they arrive at "taxable income."
Deletehttps://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/whole-ball-of-tax-historical-income-tax-rates
Honestly, I adjust my grocery list to what I can afford, and it's not that hard to make nutritious substitutions to keep costs steady. We buy eggs and produce on the cheap from locals, use our Kroger food and gas discounts, and use our $23 monthly EBT card from the dole on Senior Discount Day at the local IGA, when everybody over 65 gets a 10 percent off deal. I grow my own herbs and peppers so I don't have to buy expensive spices. So I think the people griping about food prices are largely those who eat a lot of processed food, beef, and snacks.
A big incentive to scrimp is the fact that one of our Church Ladies works at the food bank, and I will starve to death before I go in there and let her tell everybody in town about how my fancy degree didn't do much to keep me from having to beg food off my neighbors.
We manage to keep our food costs in line, too. What's eating us up are insurance costs, especially car insurance and homeowners. Not to mention a long-term care policy that wasn't supposed to go up, but it did, like 37% this year. Car and homeowners' has gone up in part because of all the weather events our area has had; hail, tornadoes, and blizzards
DeleteYeah, tree fell on our house and took out mast and electrical lines. Homeowners jumped 22 percent.
DeleteI was looking at info about the worker v executive pay gap. It’s even worse than I thought. This group proposes using the tax mechanism to address the issue, but I don’t know that it would work even if it got passed. Which I doubt would happen given that the congress is literally
ReplyDeleteOwned by the folks who would be taxed.
https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/ceo-and-worker-pay-gap
More for them means less for you.
DeleteThat was the warning from both admin and union at one university where adjunct tried to join the faculty association.
It works great when fatcats can get workers squabbling amongst themselves over crumbs because they are less likely to notice the top guys walking away with the whole loaf.
And, yes, the fat cats have defanged pretty much all branches of government with promises of largesse.