Tag Archives: MAGA

Worst Case Scenarios & Warning to MAGAs

Leave a reply

Think of this as a kind of law school exam.

  • Assume Donald Trump is still alive as the 2028 presidential election process begins in 2027;
  • Assume further that Trump during his second presidency has subverted the military, civilian law enforcement and the courts. In short, he and Elon Musk are in complete charge of the federal government without meaningful legal restraint.

Assume further that either:

  • civil war broke out but was brutally and quickly suppressed by the combined forces mentioned in Assumption (2) above, OR
  •  the people of the United States succumbed without a meaningful fight to the fascist regime established by the Trump/Musk/Vance administration.

Assume further that either:

  •  Russia has decided to work through Trump & team rather than physically occupying the United States, OR
  • Russia has defeated the NATO alliance (or what remained of it after the US withdrew), and has occupied the US without meaningful resistance,

AND in any case, assume that

  • The United States, or whatever it is called by then, has no meaningful international relationships or allies.

Before addressing the questions below, state any additional assumptions necessary to explain the probable relationships between the federal government, state governments and other countries after the presidency of Donald Trump is substantially completed in 2027. Include in those additional assumptions any relevant information about the degree of freedom exercised by the people of the United States (referencing, in particular, women (females), Black people, non-citizen residents (if any), the condition of the economy, employment and any other facts you consider significant to what the United States will look like in late 2027.

Exam Questions:

  • Is it plausible to believe that Trump will simply step down voluntarily and allow someone else (Vance? Someone not Vance?) to seek the presidency — explain; OR
  • Is it more likely that Trump will declare the term limits in the Constitution invalid and seek a third term? — explain, AND
  • If Trump seeks a third term, is it plausible to believe that he will allow a free and fair election to occur or is it more plausible to believe that he will simply declare himself the popular choice and remain in office for a third term? Explain

Open your red books and discuss. Take your time but bear in mind that time is rapidly running out.

For extra credit for MAGAs only, Google this question: “how many jews were killed in the holocaust?” You will see estimates of 6 million plus another 5 million non-Jews, including prisoners of war) in the various reports there.

Then Google: “how many Russians were murdered by Stalin’s regime?” Mussolini?

Then, answer the question: WHO were the people killed by the Germans and by Stalin and by Mussolini?

Finally, for double extra credit, MAGAs only: how likely is it that a dictator Donald Trump will behave differently than Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini and all the other dictators through the vastness of time that have wantonly and randomly slaughtered “enemies” and “friends” and “supporters” who were merely suspected of becoming possible enemies or resisters even as they professed their undying loyalty to the regime? How many were murdered after being reported by neighbors? By friends? By family members?

Do you understand that a major part of the dictator’s view of the world is that everyone is a potential enemy, that spreading distrust throughout the population is essential to protecting the dictator, and that random killing ensures fear and compliance in advance from those still alive? How sure are you that an American dictator will not follow in the footsteps of all the other dictators through history?

You may leave when you turn in your red book. We assure you that your answers will be kept confidential ….

We assure you.

If Trump Is Elected in 2024

Leave a reply

I expect to have much to say about this as time goes on, especially if, as seems more likely each day, Trump remains on all the state ballots and is not tried and convicted of any of his multitude of felonies before the election. For now, I will just list some of what is being reported as the Trump plan for his second term as President. http://tinyurl.com/4bxpv8mf

Based on reporting by people in a position to know, Trump will:

  1. Create an “enemies list” of people he plans to punish for their opposition to him.
  2. Invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations.

This effort is being led by Jeffrey Clark, the lawyer who was working with Trump to use the Department of Justice to overturn the 2020 election by, among other things, pressing state officials to submit phony certificates to the electoral college. He is one of six unnamed co-conspirators in the federal election interference case and has been charged in Georgia with violating the state anti-racketeering law and attempting to create a false statement regarding the 2020 election. How Clark retains his license to practice law remains a mystery.

  1. Direct the Justice Department to investigate and punish former officials and allies who were critical of his time in office, including his former chief of staff, John F. Kelly, and former attorney general William P. Barr, ex-attorney Ty Cobb and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Mark A. Milley.
  2. Order the prosecution of officials at the FBI and Justice Department who resist him.
  3. Appoint a special prosecutor to “go after” President Biden and his family.
  4. “Trump has told advisers that he is looking for lawyers who are loyal to him to serve in a second term — complaining about his White House Counsel’s Office unwillingness to go along with some of his ideas in his first term or help him in his bid to overturn his 2020 election defeat.”
  5. “Trump’s core group of West Wing advisers for a second term is widely expected to include Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s hard-line immigration policies including family separation.”
  6. Alumni have also saved lists of … career officers they viewed as uncooperative and would seek to fire based on an executive order to weaken civil service protections.

“… a former Office of Personnel Management chief of staff said, “We don’t want careerists, we don’t want people here who are opportunists,” he said. “We want conservative warriors.”

  1. “Trump declared on Truth Social (on Veterans Day weekend, no less) that “the radical left thugs … live like vermin within the confines of our country.” He repeated the invective during an appearance in New Hampshire.” http://tinyurl.com/2brrsar8

As Forbes pointed out, “The former president’s incendiary rhetoric invokes a term frequently used by Nazis to dehumanize Jews, including a 1939 quote attributed to Hitler: ‘This vermin must be destroyed. The Jews are our sworn enemies.’”

  1. The New York Times reportedthat Trump “is planning an extreme expansion of his first-term crackdown on immigration if he returns to power in 2025 — including preparing to round up undocumented people already in the United States on a vast scale and detain them in sprawling camps while they wait to be expelled.” Likewise, The Post reported on “specific plans for using the federal government to punish critics and opponents should he win a second term, with the former president naming individuals he wants to investigate or prosecute and his associates drafting plans to potentially invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day in office to allow him to deploy the military against civil demonstrations.”
  2. The Post just days later  reported on Trump’s Univision appearance in which he uttered a bone-chilling threat: “If I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say, ‘Go down and indict them.’ They’d be out of business,” Trump said. “They’d be out of the election.”
  3. Axios reported that Trump allies “are pre-screening the ideologies of thousands of potentialfoot soldiers, as part of an unprecedented operation to centralize and expand his power at every level of the U.S. government if he wins in 2024.” The report added: “Hundreds of people are spending tens of millions of dollars to install a pre-vetted, pro-Trump army of up to 54,000 loyalists across government to rip off the restraints imposed on the previous 46 presidents.”
  4. Trump will terminate aid to Ukraine and try to force that country to yield to Russia’s imperialist demands to take over the country. Trump will likely also eviscerate NATO, leaving its constituent countries vulnerable to Russian attack.

Just this weekend, Trump said “if the threatened country was in arrears on its NATO dues, he and the United States would not provide protection. For emphasis, Trump said that — on the contrary — he would “encourage” the aggressor to do “whatever the hell they want.”http://tinyurl.com/yc6ysv3d

In practice, the MAGA gang’s plans will look to end the independence of the civil service, long a bedrock of the stability and coherence of federal policy across both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Equally problematic is the current challenge to the power/authority of independent federal agencies to interpret federal statutory ambiguities under the doctrine known as Chevron Deference. MAGA Republicans want to end Chevron Deference so that if Congress has been ambiguous in legislation or failed to explain every aspect of what the legislation requires, those ambiguities and failures cannot be cured by the responsible agencies, regardless of the consequences. Given the paralysis of the Congress arising from the MAGA Republicans demand that their views control every legislative outcome, the end of Chevron Deference would be catastrophic for the functioning of the federal government.

The bottom line: the return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2024 will lead directly and immediately to the end of democracy as the United States has known it since the Founding. The United States will become a dependency of Russia, a tool of Vladimir Putin whom Trump admires above all other world leaders.

The MAGA Republicans who have convinced themselves Trump cares about them will quickly, but too late, discover, that it was all a ruse.

 

A Group of Election Pundits Walked Into a Bar ….

Leave a reply

And they began to debate the Republican debate and, just like the real debate, they agreed on almost nothing of importance.

After reading several “expert” analyses of the debate, it’s clear the “experts” are as uncertain as the candidates. Not surprising, I suppose, given that this was the first debate and Trump, the most prominent criminal in American political history, decided to debate from another location where he could not be called to account for his endless lies, incompetence, and criminality.

Speaking of which, most of the Republican “contenders” did agree on one thing: if Trump wins the nomination, they’ll support him against Joe Biden. There is little doubt that if George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were to rise from their graves and run as a Democratic ticket, the Republican contenders would support Trump for president over them. Trump’s hold on these people tells you all you need to know about this collection of losers. They will say nothing to offend the MAGA crowd that, perfectly happy with a fascist criminal like Trump, will determine the Republican nomination. Even Mike Pence, who has “boldly” observed the obvious – that Trump had demanded he raise Trump’s ambition over the Constitution — raised his hand when asked if he would support Trump as the nominee.

Profiles in courage, these are not.

One of the more substantive treatments of the debate was produced by Vox.com, seen in full at https://tinyurl.com/2bw44t8y. The author noted that the early part of the debate was a simulacrum of a Republican-style debate from yesteryear in which issues like abortion bans (they all want to control women’s bodies and health decisions, the reality of climate change (they all agree with Trump that it’s a hoax), urban crime (we need more guns), K-12 education (education is for libtards – ban the books!), immigration (furriners, keep ‘em out), the Russia-Ukraine war (appease Putin with Ukraine’s territory – communism bad, Putin OK), and the rise of China (COVID, the gift that keeps on giving).

The Vox view was that an absent Donald Trump still won the debate. The moderators, despite their Fox “News” credentials, also came in as losers (they always lose control of “debates,” apparently even when Trump is absent–remarkable).

How any of these folks expect to win much support from the MAGA crowd, or indeed any remaining “Republicans,” if they’re not willing to say anything bad about the MAGA love child remains a complete mystery. Is this just some kind of “show” designed to fool people into thinking the Republican Party is legitimate and has real options in its ranks to the fascism promoted by Trump? It’s a mystery. Seriously, why bother going through the motions when anyone there with a plausible case to make (?) is terrified of speaking ill of the poll leader?

As noted in the USAToday report, https://tinyurl.com/34bt8suy, Vivek Ramaswamy, the other billionaire candidate (do we need another billionaire president??), called Trump “the best president of the 21st century.” One positive thought about Ramaswamy: if he became president, the aliens hanging out at Area 51 would break out and immediately head back into outer space, never to return to what will remain of Earth after its habitable phase ends at the hands of climate change (I know, I know, climate change is the Democrats new hoax – Trump said so and therefore it must be true, nothing to worry about, move along).

A clear example of what we could expect in the way of logical thinking from a President Ramaswamy may be found in this quote:

Your claim that Donald Trump is motivated by vengeance and grievance would be a lot more credible if your entire campaign were not based on vengeance and grievance against Donald Trump.

Think about that for a moment: Trump can’t be “motivated by vengeance and grievance” because their campaigns are based on “vengeance and grievance against him.”

But then, of course, the great moralist Mike Pence scolded the only woman on the stage regarding a national abortion ban by offering this beauty: “consensus is the opposite of leadership.” What he meant to say was “when I’m president, I won’t care what people think; I’ll tell you female hussies what to do and you’ll do it or else.”

All in all, it was a rough night for rationality. And history, as always in Republican circles, took a back seat to ideology. While there was minority support for continuing to help Ukraine resist Russian aggression, there was much sentiment for the old “America First” claptrap: appease Russia with a big piece of Ukraine and hope the Russian Bear’s appetite for conquest is sated. Isolationism in another wrapper. It has never worked but, hey, Republicans need to have something to say, so ….

What’s left of the Republican Party thus has only this to offer: a multiply-indicted criminal lunatic or one of a cast of confused, ignorant wannabes who haven’t got the courage of their, or anyone’s, convictions to challenge the lunatic. Elect one of these beauties and it’s game over.

The Hunter Biden Circus – Bring in the Clowns

Leave a reply

Disclaimer: Since my earliest days as a lawyer, when I was assigned a few times by judges in the District of Columbia to perform pro bono (free) defense services for indigent criminal defendants, I am not, and have never been, a criminal defense attorney. But I do know a few things. Believe. Or not.

The circus surrounding the charges against Hunter Biden has its roots in the fact that he is the President’s son and Republicans are desperate to undermine the President who appears, for the present, destined to obliterate the criminal traitor Donald Trump on whom the Republican Party has pinned its hopes for 2024. Otherwise, Hunter Biden’s alcohol and drug-fueled misbehavior would be just another relatively small and unimportant criminal case against a person who, sadly and despite having all the advantages of being the son of a prominent politician, could not control himself. Addiction will do that. A Nobel Prize awaits the person who figures out how addiction works and how its deadly work can be derailed. But until then, it’s clear that the interest in the Hunter Biden case stems from one source.

Hunter Biden has been under investigation for years when the Trump administration was in charge and Trump’s personal lackeys were in charge of the Department of Justice, the FBI and more. In the ordinary boring course of such investigations, absent the connection to Joe Biden, the charges brought would most likely resemble those in the present case and a plea bargain would have emerged. Something went terribly wrong in Hunter Biden’s case and there is plenty of blame and reason for suspicion to go around.

Reports indicate that “whistleblowers” who formerly worked at DOJ have claimed their attempts to tie Hunter to the President were stymied. Yet, the man in charge of the process at DOJ says otherwise. He, like the judge assigned to Hunter Biden’s case, was appointed by Donald Trump (odd how that keeps happening). US Attorney David Weiss led the entire investigation and has been clear that there were no restraints on him from any source.

Little clarity surrounds the “restraints” claimed by the “whistleblowers” who arguably are carrying water for Rep. Jim Jordan and other MAGA Republicans whose main goal is not “justice for Hunter Biden” but pinning a corruption charge on President Biden. David Weiss has offered to testify before Jordan’s House committee but only in public and not behind closed doors as, curiously, the Republicans desire. Jordan’s approach would, of course, enable Republicans to make irrefutable claims about Weiss’s testimony, a ploy that he, despite presumed loyalty to Trump, is wise to.

The other major and possibly unique circumstance surrounding the plea deal and sentencing hearing is that the MAGA Republicans filed their own brief on Hunter Biden’s sentencing, urging the judge to reject it. And she did. Not, ostensibly, because of the claims of political interference by Biden loyalists at DOJ, but because of a serious oddity: an asserted concern raised by the judge on her own initiative, ostensibly, about the constitutionality of the plea deal’s secondary issue: Hunter Biden’s purchase of a gun when, as an admitted drug addict, he was forbidden from doing so.

Then, under probing from the judge about possible other charges against Hunter for illegal foreign lobbying under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, it was revealed that the Biden defense team and the prosecutors had different understandings of Hunter’s future exposure to such charges. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the remarkable, astounding fact that is apparently at the root of the plea deal’s rejection, at least for now, by the judge.

If the judge’s questioning was motivated only by her appropriate interest is assuring that the parties had a complete meeting of the minds on the plea agreement, without regard to the political pressure brought to bear by the Republican Congressmen calling for rejection, the judge cannot be faulted. On the other hand, she is a Trump appointee and the issue of possible unconstitutionality of the plea deal as structured seems a bit of a stretch. We’ll likely never know.

I am personally very troubled, deeply, at the idea that a Congressional committee of partisan politicians injected itself into a criminal proceeding. I would be equally troubled if a committee of Democrats intervened in a criminal proceeding involving a Republican. We’ll never know what influenced the judge who reportedly said she had not digested the entire brief from the Congressional committee but signaled her intention to consider it.

One report characterized the judge’s concerns this way:

Noreika expressed frustration that the two sides structured the tax and gun plea deals in a way where she would need to approve the gun deal but had no powers to approve or reject the tax agreement.

The diversion agreement – which isn’t often submitted to a judge – has a provision that says if there is a dispute over whether Hunter Biden breached the terms of the deal, it would go to the judge for fact-finding. Noreika questioned why it would “plop” her in the middle of a deal she didn’t have a say in, and potentially block the Justice Department from bringing charges, a function of the executive branch.

[https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/26/politics/takeaways-hunter-biden-plea-hearing/index.html] I don’t understand the judge’s attributed remark that she had no say in the deal when the deal was before her for acceptance or rejection.

Beyond the judge, however, it is clear to me that one of counsel’s most important functions in a case like this is to suss out every possible issue that could come up, every possible thing that could do awry. This is as true of the prosecutor as it is of the defense counsel. Here, apparently, both failed in this critical responsibility. They made a deal that was incomplete, and the omitted factor was, I believe, obvious. A plea deal is a settlement and a central issue in every settlement is the question of its completeness. Does it resolve all issues? In civil settlements, it is typical to include the broadest possible language showing that all issues between the parties arising out of the dispute are resolved. No less is this to be expected in a criminal plea bargain.

Yet, in Hunter Biden’s case, the parties did not, apparently, consider the issue of future charges for other offenses even though the potential of such charges was known to and should have been obvious to both sides.

The end result is that there is no end result. Hunter Biden ended up pleading “not guilty” to the current charges while the judge considers her options. Presumably, the defense and prosecution will reconvene to negotiate further. Time will tell.

So, who was responsible for this mess? I don’t know and decline to speculate. As with the charges that appear to be imminent against Donald Trump and his many co-conspirators for the January 6 insurrection, the false electors gambit and the fully documented attempts to overturn the election in Georgia, we will have to remain patient for a while longer. Serious and expert observers of this case share your, and my, amazement that this issue was not resolved before the plea hearing. https://www.rawstory.com/hunter-biden-2662485694/

A final observation: one issue that has been raised in the press is whether the agreed charges against Hunter Biden are inappropriately “light” given the offenses involved. One’s views of this question are most heavily influenced by one’s political partisanship. I caution only this: plea deals are just that. Each side assesses the strengths and weaknesses of its case, and each side gives something to achieve settlement.

Sentencing is inherently difficult and often results in terms that seem sharply disparate. The most prominent examples lately are the various impositions on January 6 insurrectionists who were found guilty, by trial or plea in the face of overwhelming evidence. There are many reasons for this. If you are really interested in how this happens, read Noise, by behavioral economist Daniel Kahneman (Nobel Prize-winning author of Thinking, Fast and Slow), Olivier Sibony and Cass Sunstein where the variability of judgments by judges, doctors and others is analyzed in shocking detail.

Hubris and the Junk Heap of History – Part 1

Leave a reply

Watching the descent of Donald Trump from indecent, corrupt, selfish, ignorant, and foolish to deliberate gross criminality that put the national security of his country at risk raises yet again the question of how someone with his alleged wealth, claimed high level of education and all the opportunities for success imaginable falls to such a state. And it’s not just Trump and his constantly grifting family to whom the question fairly applies.

The elected leaders of one of the two major political parties continue to support a candidate for leader of the country and commander-in-chief of the armed forces who has been twice-impeached (the party refused to hear the overwhelming evidence of his guilt) and now twice-indicted for multiple felonies, including threats to national security and against whom the evidence is, yet again, overwhelming. And more felony indictments are virtually certain regarding Trump’s attempt to overthrow the government on January 6, 2021, and remain in power despite his defeat in the 2020 election. Such is the reality of the Republican Party today that has aided and abetted many of his most criminal and dangerous behaviors.

MAGA Republicans, it seems, can keep multiple inconsistent ideas in their “minds” simultaneously without experiencing disabling cognitive dissonance. They can, for example, treat as “equal” situations that are plainly not “equal.” Examples of this behavior abound. They are masters of deflection: whatever Trump may have done (“who cares anyway”), someone else did something worse and was not punished so Trump should not be held accountable either. And on and on.

Interestingly, none of Trump’s most ardent supporters claim, “he didn’t do it.” Rather, they argue that he should not be punished under the law for what he did because,

            It’s a witch hunt;

            Others are more guilty of something or other;

            The investigations are “politically motivated”;

            Trump did “nothing wrong”;

            It was all antifa and Black Lives Matter

            Or it was the “deep state” out to get Trump

            Trump was framed [my personal favorite].

All very familiar Trump tropes.

Recall that Donald Trump said this: “I have an Article II where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.” And Trump thinks he is still the president.

As I have ruminated on what is happening here and why, I have, tentatively, come to some new conclusions. While I have never known anyone wholly like Trump, I have over my long life and career encountered many “successful” Type A people, almost all men, who share many characteristics with Trump.

I now believe, tentatively, that most men like Trump began their lives with various advantages that made them “successful standouts” at an early age. This phenomenon may go all the way back to grammar school, when the first genuine socialization behaviors are displayed. These are the boys who, regardless of actual talents, are always deferred to when teams are picked at recess or after school for pick-up sports. They are selected by default to pick the players they want on their side. The selection process is merciless and is repeated over and over day after day.

These same boys tend to be socially popular with both boys and girls. They exude confidence that is reinforced constantly at home and everywhere else. They are molded into dominant figures, accustomed to having their way, to being favored, to being successful in virtually everything they do. Often, they are rewarded in areas in which they do not excel because of their perceived status in other areas.

This reinforcement continues through high school and beyond. These men are the anointed “leaders” whose merit and status are rarely if ever questioned. They are, to paraphrase a line from the movie, Barry Lyndon, not the smartest, the quickest, the bravest, the most talented. They are, simply, the “best people.” And because they are so regarded, they are beyond reproach even when their behavior would otherwise warrant and even require condemnation and sanction.

Emergent from this process is a sense of self-worth, of self-regard that distorts their understanding of reality. Other men, and many women, are impressed by their self-confidence, their “authority,” that is evident in how they present themselves, independent of any objective reality as to their actual talents or worth.

The end of this process is, however, at least in my experience, almost always the same. Donald Trump is the purest manifestation of it. The hubris that develops blinds these men to the truth of their situation. They see themselves as untouchable, not subject to the same rules that govern everyone else.

How could they not? U.S. Senators and Congressmen (and now women) are fawned over, treated as special in every way, sought after socially, given power unrelated to their intelligence or actual skills. They are, after all, the “best people.” It’s just who they are. Or so they believe. American culture tends to venerate and elevate these men (mostly men).

The same is true of many “successful” businessmen. They may be dolts. They may be corrupt. Doesn’t matter. They are who they are – the winners, the top dogs. Media fawn over their every word, adding to the illusion of their superiority. These men attract money, followers, devotees – passionate supporters who need to share the penumbra of their worthiness.

Until they aren’t worthy. Until the sheen of invincibility is shattered by revelations of the lack of merit that has been concealed for so long beneath the veneer.  Examples are everywhere. Take the Cuomo brothers, Andrew and Chris. The sons of Mario Cuomo, the three-term governor of New York. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mario_Cuomo Mario Cuomo came from the humblest of circumstances – the family ran a grocery store in Queens. But he was highly intelligent and very ambitious. A powerful, dominating figure.

So too his sons. Yet, both have fallen from their pedestals, for different but related reasons. Then there is Rudy Giuliani, once called America’s Mayor for his post-9/11 “leadership.” By all accounts, he was highly intelligent and ambitious but, he too, fell from grace when he embraced Donald Trump’s brand of “truth.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudy_Giuliani

Consider the actor Will Smith. Highly talented and successful until he decided, and make no mistake it was a decision, to attack the Oscars’ host on live television for making a tasteless joke about his wife. Smith may recover. The Cuomo brothers and Giuliani may not.

Let’s not forget this: Trump Will Not Apologize for Calling for Death Penalty Over Central Park Five. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/nyregion/central-park-five-trump.html Presaging his views on the Charlottesville Unite the Right rally in 2017, involving alt-right, neo-Confederates, neo-fascists, white nationalists, neo-Nazis, Klansmen, and far-right “militias:  “You have people on both sides of that,” the president said when asked about the wrongly convicted defendants.”

So it goes. Over and over again. A seemingly endless progression of “great men” brought down by their own hubris – defined in dictionaries as ‘excessive pride or self-confidence.’ They come to believe they are untouchable, beyond reproach regardless of what they do. And in some sense their perception is correct, demonstrated by Trump himself in the way he has managed to not only survive but prevail, despite multiple obvious crimes, despite business mismanagement and multiple bankruptcies, and despite multiple credible allegations of sexual abuse and assault.

[to be continued in Part 2]

Bloomberg – Where from Here?

8 Replies

Disclosure: I have watched very little of the Democratic shouting matches called “debates” by the media. I tried early on; I really did. It was too much. Watching the mob of aspirants to the highest office in the land yell at each other like school yard children was too much to bear. Now the crowd has thinned but the yelling continues.

I did watch for a while last night though, mainly to see how Michael Bloomberg fared in the face of entirely predictable attacks from the others. It was not pretty to watch. I was shocked, which is not easy, to see Bloomberg so unprepared to address with sharp, brief responses the foreseeable assaults related to stop-and-frisk, workplace and personal hostility toward women and all the rest.

I suspect that in what counts for “normal life” for a billionaire Bloomberg is never spoken too as he was during last night’s free-for-all. He seemed both surprised and unprepared. His reactions were weak and his substantive responses were astonishingly poor in light of the circumstances. He tried to suggest that the women who signed NDAs would not want to be freed to tell their stories and looked paralyzed when Elizabeth Warren demanded to know how many there were. He tried to suggest that the whole fuss was some kind of reaction to bad jokes on his part. Ugh.

My guess is that Bloomberg’s campaign is finished. I hope so. He should save all that money and prepare to support the eventual nominee in the forthcoming battle of titans with Donald Trump. If Bloomberg wants to be remembered well, he has the best chance by being the financial angel behind a winning Democratic campaign against the gangster president that now inhabits the people’s house in Washington. His staff has shown some chops in creating aggressive political ads and could be very helpful to the nominee who will have his/her hands full with the heavily financed, foreign-influenced/supported Trump machine. Bloomberg’s financial and other support for the Democratic nominee would be the highest and best use of his considerable resources.

As for the his/her question, it seems clear to me that Elizabeth Warren is the most qualified among the remaining Democratic contenders. Having said that, I am mystified almost to despair at why Ms. Warren feels it is necessary to raise her voice. I understand, of course, that being on a stage with Bernie Sanders, who apparently can’t speak without gesticulating wildly and shouting, is challenging. The format also does little to produce the kind of orderly disputation that I would like to see from those seeking the peoples’ approval to lead the nation. But Pete Buttigieg, who someday (but as a small-town mayor not now) will be ready for the presidency, managed to remain calm and steady at least while I was watching.

To be clear, I’m not talking about the obnoxious “she’s too angry to be likable” accusations directed at Warren. My concern is not about “women being too aggressive.”  I am asking for someone with her knowledge and experience to state, in an orderly but forceful and compelling way, why her intellect, ideas and experience make her more qualified to be president than the other aspirants and more likely to be able to defeat Trump. The best way to get past all that garbage about women being too pushy is to stop behaving like Bernie Sanders and become the steady intelligent rock we all, I hope, are looking for. Someone who can eat Trump’s lunch in debate, not by out shouting or name-calling him but by showing through reason why he must be removed from the presidency.

There is no doubt, in my view, that many of Warren’s substantive ideas are ahead of their time and will face resistance even in a majority-Democratic Congress. Warren is, I am convinced, far better able to deal with that reality than the other candidates with the exception of Joe Biden.

So, what about Biden? He has the greatest relevant experience. He was a loyal VP to Barack Obama. He is a known quantity to our allies abroad and, as far as can be known, is generally respected by them. He has “presidential temperament.” Joe Biden has a lot to commend him. To be sure, Biden has some flaws. They all do, but none of his flaws even registers against the flaws of the sitting president. I suspect that the worst substantive objection to Biden is his age, but that is a charge against multiple contenders and can be resolved with a good choice for VP. There are numerous respectable alternatives that would lend strength to the Democratic ticket.

So why not Joe? Perhaps the most compelling substantive reason is the argument that it’s time for new blood, bold ideas even if too advanced for immediate adoption and so on. I believe, as I have for decades, that for the most part the success or failure of a president turns on the people with whom he surrounds himself. The president is not the source of all the good ideas nor is he effectively able to control the execution of every project his/her administration attempts. I am assuming, of course, that, unlike Donald Trump, the president understands the responsibilities of the office, pays attention to the advice of his experts, listens carefully and so on. You know, the normal attributes of a fully functioning adult.

And, in the end, it is the president who decides. That is why it is so important to elect a leader who will listen, study, respect truth as best it can be determined, and act with full and unending devotion to the public, as opposed to one’s private, good. The presidency carries the gravest burdens, the heaviest responsibilities to make the most difficult choices a human being ever must make. That is why we need a leader with the attributes of maturity, selflessness and honesty that underpin the best chance of getting things right.

It is, I suggest, time to stop screaming and start speaking. Stop tearing each other down and start addressing the real problem that one of our two political parties has willingly made itself hostage to a right-wing cabal of dishonesty and incompetence. In my view, the red MAGA hats are the functional equivalent of the swastika. If re-elected, Donald Trump will conclude he is, in effect, a monarch and democracy in America will be dead. That is the challenge we face, so we had best choose wisely. And then, it all comes down to getting out the vote. Everyone who stays home on Election Day because their favorite Democrat wasn’t nominated will be, in effect, voting for Donald Trump’s re-election. If you know such people, it is time now to start explaining this to them. There are only two sides to this fight. Everyone must choose. It is time