“Democrats Destroy Democracy to Save It”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the headline of Doug Schoen’s op-ed in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal. However, the subheadline corrects the matter.

Party leaders protected Biden from voters, then dumped him for Harris. Is this any way to win?

The Progressive-Democratic Party leaders are moving to destroy democracy to save the Party. This campaign season has had only two goals for Party: beat Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump, and Party winning the election, which Party leaders define as retaining the White House and Senate and regaining the House. Schoen made this clear in his second paragraph:

They also undermined their promise to “save democracy” from the threat of Donald Trump. Mr Trump’s party nominated him in an open, competitive process. The Democrats cleared the field for Mr Biden, then forced him out of the race for a candidate who has received only a few hundred primary votes—in 2020, after withdrawing before the Iowa caucuses.

There is no Party goal of implementing its policies for the good of our nation, only of increasing Party power in our government—and over us average Americans.

Full stop.

Similar Poll Numbers

Posted on by
Reply

That’s core of the subheadline on Pollster Mark Penn’s and former Democratic New York City Council President Andrew Stein’s op-ed regarding the newly recast Presidential race. Their headline was this:

Harris Swap Leaves a Similar Presidential Race

Their complete subheadline was this:

Her poll numbers are close to Biden’s

They missed, though, the critical aspect of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s ejection of Joe Biden from Party’s campaign for President and Party capos’ replacement of him with Kamala Harris. Biden’s poll numbers would have continued to deteriorate. Harris’ poll numbers won’t.

It’s not at all a similar Presidential race, and if the Republican Party and the Donald Trump campaign apparatus fall for Penn’s and Stein’s gaslighting, they’ll deserve to lose. But our nation would lose far more and far more permanently.

Downsizing Government

Posted on by
Reply

Or, perhaps more accurately, an earlier buzz-term: right-sizing government. With our Federal government so bloated with employees, it may be that a partial solution is developing, particularly in DC, where the bulk of our Federal government sits.

The Biden administration has struggled to get more of the tens of thousands of members of the federal workforce in the District of Columbia back to the office on a more regular basis. That struggle is likely to continue if a Democrat wins the White House in November, especially Vice President Kamala Harris, whom Biden endorsed Sunday when he announced he was exiting the race.
If [former President and current Republican Presidential candidate Donald] Trump returns to the White House, the district’s office market could be hit even harder. He has already pledged to abolish the Education Department, which has more than 2,500 employees in the district.

Trump is on the right track in eliminating no longer necessary Executive Branch departments. However, the Federal workforce is proffering its own solution, one that would work well in parallel with the Trump path: those who don’t return to the office to do their work are self-selecting themselves for termination from government employment.

There’s this, too, regarding the commercial landlords who might be hurt by such moves:

The district’s office market is poised to get worse regardless of the outcome of the election. ….
Six agencies, including the Justice and Treasury departments, have lease expirations between 2024 and 2027 in which they are expected to give up close to 600,000 square feet, according to Cushman & Wakefield.

A solution suggests itself for this, a solution that even Progressive-Democrats should love: DC, in partnership with those landlords, could translate those 600,000 square feet of space into affordable housing. Such a solution even would be intersectionally beneficial.

Alternatively, under a Trump administration, with reduced regulatory interference with the chief business of the American people (that being business, as President Calvin Coolidge noted), more businesses likely will move to DC and occupy much, if not most, of those newly available vacancies.

Incomplete Hearings

Posted on by
Reply

Hearings this week intended to look into the security failure(s) that led to the assassination attempt against and wounding (fortunately minor) of Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump are getting testimony from the Secret Service’s Director Kimberly Cheatle and the FBI’s Director Christopher Wray.

That’s good as far as it goes (always assuming, naively, the committee members each ask probative questions and get straight answers). It’s insufficient, though, since there are two additional agencies with important perspectives on the security setup and failure(s) surrounding the assassination attempt.

Those two additional agencies are the Butler, PA, police department; they being the immediate agency of the hosting city, and the Pennsylvania State Police, to which the Secret Service had delegated the task of securing the inside perimeter of the campaign rally venue.

What’s the Focus?

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden, while he was campaigning for reelection, focused most of his argument—nearly all of it, in fact—on two things: beating Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump, and his Progressive-Democratic Party winning the election.

Certainly, winning an election is a prerequisite to passing legislation that furthers one’s own and one’s party’s policies and brings to fruition one’s own and one’s party’s goals. But that would be a fallout of a winning campaign focused on those policies and goals and why those policies and goals are better than the other candidate’s and party’s.

That’s the question being raised these days, post Biden campaign:

…whether Harris, or any other Democrat, will be similarly burdened by public unhappiness about the economy—or whether they can pivot to focusing on the future, where the candidate stands a better chance against Republican nominee Donald Trump.

Even here, though, the question as phrased is about beating a man rather than a successful argument of having a better plan for the future.

So far, the new Progressive-Democrat candidate for President, of whom today the sitting Progressive-Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris is the most likely, still is campaigning against the man and for her Party. There’s no move to argue her policies and goals. Party still is keeping it personal and not about its view of what’s better for our nation. Of course, given the damage those policies and achieved goals have done to our nation’s security and standing around the world and the damage done to our economy and to our safety domestically, she has little to campaign on other than being against her opponent.