Tag Archives: political parties

Race and Gender in our Presidential Election Campaign Season

Posted on by
Reply

Sadly, this is being thrust into the faces of us average Americans, riding on Progressive-Democrat Vice President and nominal Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris. As Joshua Jamerson, John McCormick, and Tarini Parti put it in their WSJ article,

Harris’s rapid ascension to the top of the Democratic ticket, expected to become official early next month, has thrust race and gender into the center of the contentious 2024 presidential election, in a country where scars of racial segregation and sex-based discrimination still linger.

It’s true enough that those scars still linger; it’s true enough that there remain instances of actual race and sex bigotry. However, the only ones thrust[ing] race and gender into the center of the current election season are Progressive-Democratic Party politicians and their frontmen of the press. It was, after all, then-Progressive-Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden who announced that his choice for his Vice President candidate would be, first and foremost, a woman who was black—qualification was a distant tertiary consideration. Then it was Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden who announced that his first pick for the Supreme Court would be a black woman; her qualification for the bench again was a distant tertiary consideration.

Now pressmen are (see above) making a big deal about Harris’ race and gender as somehow qualifying, in addition to making her merely popular; qualification for office, even her experience as VP, are distant tertiary and quaternary considerations. This is manufacturing racist and sexist bigotry where it does not exist—here, in candidates for office. It’s hard to get any more invidiously bigoted than that. Yet here is where Party is, along with their press communications arm.

This is despite the article’s authors contradicting themselves later in their piece:

A Wall Street Journal poll conducted July 23 to 25, after President Biden bowed out of the race and endorsed Harris, found 81% of respondents said Harris (who is also of South Asian descent) being a Black woman made no difference in whether they would support her for president.

Us average Americans—which is to say, us honest Americans—don’t give a rat’s patootie about Harris’, or any other candidate for office’s, race or gender. We only care that, beyond being old enough and a born-American citizen, the candidate actually is capable of handling the demands of being President. Even those constitutionally mandated minimal eligibility criteria (note: these are not qualification criteria) are background considerations; our primary concern is whether the candidate is qualified for the Presidency, what that candidate’s claimed policies and goals are, and what that candidate’s empirically demonstrated history of achieving those goals is.

For pressmen and Party politicians to give primary emphasis to race and gender in the present season is at once their confession that their candidate has no record worthy of campaigning on, and nakedly insulting to us Americans.

Trump’s Education Plan

Posted on by
Reply

Former President and current Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump has released a 12-point plan (actually, 8 points, the last of which has 4 sub-points) for revamping and improving our nation’s public education system. He deserves large credit for laying out a specific plan. No one in the Progressive-Democratic Party has been willing to do anything of this specificity, especially including Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris, other than tightly hewing to the teachers union line and denigrating voucher and charter schools.

For all that, much of Trump’s plan will be difficult to achieve. The dozen points, together with my august comments (in italics), are listed below.

  • Cut federal funding for any school or program pushing Critical Race Theory, gender ideology, or other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children. These, especially CRT, will be hard to enforce, beyond getting rid of public verbiage on Web sites. Florida provides a good example of how to do this. That’s at the State level, though. South Dakota v Dole will impact the extent to which this can be implemented at the Federal level. That ruling held that while Federal funds could be preferentially withheld, they could not be withheld to a coercive extent.
  • Direct the Departments of Justice and Education to open Civil Rights investigations into any school district that has engaged in race-based discrimination, including discrimination against Asian Americans. There need to be sanctions identified, also, though.
  • Because the Marxism being taught in schools is aggressively hostile to Judeo-Christian teachings, aggressively pursue potential violations of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. Better would be to enforce teaching Judeo-Christian material alongside.
  • Find and remove the radicals who have infiltrated the federal Department of Education, and get Congress to reaffirm the president’s ability to remove recalcitrant employees from the job. The former will be hard to define. The latter needs to be done wholly separately, and Executive Branch-wide, not just in DoEd.
  • Veto the sinister effort to weaponize civics education. And teach civics far more than in just a single 8th grade semester.
  • Keep men out of women’s sports. In parallel, make a Title IX case, or amend Title IX, to require separate athletic programs for transgender athletes in the same manner that Title IX mandates for men and women sports programs.
  • Create a new credentialing body to certify teachers who embrace patriotic values, and understand that their job is not to indoctrinate children, but to educate them. The new credentialing body also needs to emphasize subject matter expertise, not merely “teach how to teach.”
  • Implement massive funding preferences and favorable treatment for all states and school districts that make the following historic reforms in education: These are local control matters; see my remark above for how South Dakota v Dole will impact the extent to which “funding preferences” can be implemented. Reward funding, though, will be easier to implement than coercive defunding.
    • Abolish teacher tenure for grades K through 12 and adopt Merit Pay.
    • Drastically cut number of school administrators, including the “DEI” bureaucracy.
    • Adopt a Parental Bill of Rights that includes complete curriculum transparency, and a form of universal school choice.
    • Implement the direct election of school principals by the parents, as the ultimate form of local control.

On the whole, this is a plan worth pursuing with all speed.

Who Dat?

Posted on by
Reply

Ohio Progressive-Democrat Congresswoman Emilia Sykes was asked by a pressman, repeatedly, whether she thinks Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris had done a good job as the border czar. At first, Sykes pretended not to hear the question. When pressed, though, Sykes pretended not to know who Harris was, keying on a supposed mispronunciation of Harris’ name. She kept up the pretense even after the pressman identified Harris as our nation’s Vice President.

DCCC Spokesperson Aidan Johnson got into the act, emphasizing the mispronunciation:

If Republican trackers…are going to ask about the Vice President they should show respect and start pronouncing her name correctly.

Sykes and Johnson engaging in such a childish quibble of pronunciation is their confession that neither Sykes nor the DCCC can defend Party’s Presidential candidate regarding border security or immigration.

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.

Now that He’s Out

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden has ended his campaign for reelection. Some, notably Republican Vice Presidential candidate JD Vance, have said that if Biden quits his campaign, he also should resign from office.

I tend to agree with that sentiment, but not from the idea that, as Vance has suggested, if Biden is too unhealthy to run for reelection, then he’s too unhealthy to continue in office for the next six months.

My view is that if Biden resigns soon—this week, maybe—that would make his Progressive-Democrat Kamala Harris the new Progressive President. That, in turn, would give Harris a measure of the power and influence of incumbency for her own election campaign. It’s a question, though, whether the scant four months until election day (especially with early voting starting so early in many jurisdictions) would give her that much of a boost.

It’s a question, too, whether any such boost would be mitigated by her already quasi-incumbency as the sitting Vice President. Sitting Vice Presidents do get elected, vis., George Bush the Elder, but not always, see Hubert Humphrey. On the other hand, Presidents campaigning for the first time after “inheriting” the office due to the departure in one form or another of the prior incumbent, typically don’t get elected, from John Tyler forward. Gerald Ford, who had three years of incumbency not a mere three or four months, is the latest example of that difficulty.

But maybe Biden is too selfish and feeling too much betrayed by those syndicate family members he thought he could trust to make the move. Or maybe he’s stubborn enough to stay in office just to show them they can’t, either, run him out of office.