Underpinning Kamala Harris' Popularity Wave

Turns out I am part of the wave Kamala Harris is surfing towards the lead of Democratic Party presidential hopefuls. 

Right before dinner Monday evening I did something I normally resist: I answered a land line telephone call from a number I didn’t recognize because the screen indicated the caller emanated from New Haven where Gilda and I lived 42 years ago. 

An elderly gentleman—I could tell he was elderly by his slow, raspy voice, his cheerful colloquial demeanor and the way technology challenged him—said he was calling from the Quinnipiac University national poll. 

Having employed consumer researchers for my magazine for more than 30 years, I am a sucker for surveys if they don’t interfere with what I am doing. He caught me at a good time. 

I haven’t chosen a preferred candidate, though I have opined that Joe Biden should be given a chance to strut his stuff to determine if he is 2020 qualified and not stuck in a 20th century time warp. Sadly, last week’s initial debate revealed him to be slow-footed in word and thought. Donald Trump must have been salivating at the prospect of squaring off against him.

On the other hand, Harris followed up on her sharp questioning of Trump Supreme Court nominees with a piercing attack on Biden. For those who later complained that she bushwacked Biden with a well planned foray, I say it showed she would be adept at confronting and countering Trump during a debate (assuming the chicken-in-chief agrees to participate—mark my words, he will at first reject any debates and then, in what he, in his own mind, will consider a majestic concession, will agree to debate three times). I want a candidate who prepares, does homework. Biden’s people had prepped him, but he failed to rise to the occasion. 

So I gave Kamala Harris a vote of confidence, though not an unqualified endorsement as I yet don’t know enough about her.

“A new national Quinnipiac University poll, released Tuesday, July 2, shows Biden, who once led the field by around 20 points, now clinging to a two-point lead over California Sen. Kamala Harris, 22 percent to 20 percent,” The Daily Voice reported. (For you political nerds, follow the link to Quinnipiac's release: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2631)

Now, one debate does not a president, or a party nominee, make, or break. But the winds of change are blowing hard, fueled by Trump’s take-no-prisoners stands on immigration and the detention of asylum seekers, census citizenship questions, tariff wars, relations with allies and Russia/North Korea/Iran, climate change and a host of other issues.  

Biden’s early strength came from the Afro-American community and senior citizens. It is dissipating. Biden is a “Yeah, I’m comfortable with him” vote. Harris, on the other hand, will ignite passion among black and hispanic voters, and among old-time liberals. Unless he shows more vigor during subsequent debates Biden would be no match against Trump. Harris has shown herself to be a sharp inquisitor and someone who could hold her own against a man.  

Questions for Democrats From Me and The Times

To get an Op-Ed piece published in The New York Times you have to give the paper a three-business-day window to review your submission. The Times says it will contact you if they plan to use it. Otherwise, you’re free to publish it anywhere else it might be deemed worthy.

Last Friday night I emailed to The Times 10 questions that should be asked of each Democratic presidential hopeful during next week’s debates. Apparently, great minds think alike, because The Times had been working on a similarly themed idea which it unveiled Wednesday. The Times formulated 18 questions to which 21 candidates provided video responses (https://nyti.ms/2NbBe1Z). 

Having not heard back from The Times by Wednesday night, herewith are my questions (since expanded to a dozen): 

1. Will you support the eventual Democratic party nominee and not run a third party candidacy?

2. What will be your first five executive orders upon taking office?

3. Given what we now know about Donald Trump’s activities before and after the 2016 election, would you support a criminal prosecution of Donald Trump?

4. What action by the Trump administration has most enraged you and how would you counteract it?

5. If the Senate remains in Republican control, how would you counter Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s stranglehold on legislative affairs moving forward?

6. What steps would you take to improve our trade position vis-a-vis China?

7. How would you stem the flow of undocumented immigrants across our southern border?

8. Which country or entity or concept is America’s number one enemy today and in the future?

9. Should the Palestinians have their own state or should they become citizens of Israel and other Middle Eastern states where they reside?

10. What is your position on the impact and viability of technology companies, banks and investment houses that have grown “too big to fail.” Should they be broken up or more intensely regulated? 

11. Are some Afro-Americans entitled to reparations? How would you define reparations?

12. What steps would you take to improve health care?

For those who chose not to click on the link to The Times feature, here’s a list of its questions (added benefit: each question is linked to the candidate responses). You decide whose queries, mine or The Times, were more incisive. 

1. In an ideal world, would anyone own handguns?

2. Would your focus be improving the Affordable Care Act or replacing it with single payer?

3. Do you think it’s possible for the next president to stop climate change?

4. Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights?

5. Who is your hero, and why?

6. Would there be American troops in Afghanistan at the end of your first term?

7. How many hours of sleep do you get a night?

8. Do you think illegal immigration is a major problem in the United States?

9. Where would you go on your first international trip as president?

10. Describe the last time you were embarrassed. Why?

11. Do you think President Trump has committed crimes in office?

12. Do you support or oppose the death penalty?

13. Should tech giants like Facebook, Amazon and Google be broken up?

14. Are you open to expanding the size of the Supreme Court?

15. When did your family first arrive in the United States, and how?

16. What is your comfort food on the campaign trail?

17. What do you do to relax?

18. Does anyone deserve to have a billion dollars?

Hip, Hip, Hooray to the Queen's History Lesson

Let’s give a traditional British cheer to the Queen—Hip, Hip, Hooray; Hip, Hip, Hooray; Hip, Hip, Hooray—for her nuanced yet clearly distinguishable and distinguished public rebuke of Donald Trump’s disruptive attacks on global institutions that have safeguarded democracies since the end of World War II.

Speaking in what the Daily Mail called “code,” Queen Elizabeth II’s toast during the formal state dinner for her visitor included the following: “After the shared sacrifices of the Second World War, Britain and the United States worked with other allies to build an assembly of international institutions, to ensure that the horrors of conflict would never be repeated. While the world has changed, we are forever mindful of the original purpose of these structures: nations working together to safeguard a hard-won peace.” (https://mol.im/a/7100721)

It could hardly go unnoticed that Trump has questioned the value of NATO, has sharply criticized several of its members including the leaders of Germany, France and even Great Britain, has sided with NATO’s chief adversary, Russia, and has sought to undermine the European Union. 

The queen’s foray into tactful but forthright diplomacy was a deviation from her normal, at least in public, arms-length distance from politics. Contrast that long held behavior to that of Prince Charles who has been reliably reported to be eager to confront, or shall we say, educate, Trump about the realities of climate change. 

For his dinner toast, Trump  lavished praise on the 93-year-old monarch who has provided “seven decades of treasured friendship.” He called her “a great, great woman.” 

“On behalf of all Americans, I offer a toast to the eternal friendship of our people, the vitality of our nations, and to the long-cherished and truly remarkable reign of her majesty, the Queen,” he said. 

Trump also said he was toasting the “common values that will unite us long into the future—freedom, sovereignty, self-determination, the rule of law and reverence for the rights given to us by Almighty God.”

By including “self-determination” Trump may have been signaling his support for Brexit, a stance he has openly endorsed. 

How Trump will react to the gloved hand rebuke by the queen is unknown at this time. It is doubtful he will call her “nasty,” as he did her granddaughter-in-law, the Duchess of Sussex (Meghan Markle). Trump loves pageantry, even if it casts a shadow on him. All he will remember is the sumptuous surroundings of a state dinner in Buckingham Palace, with all eyes on him and the queen.

Fear Factor: A Partial List of Worries Inspired by A Mean-Spirited, Cruel, Vindictive President

Shortly after winning the presidency, after receiving an intelligence brief on threats facing America, Donald Trump cautioned the public there were “lots to fear.” Hardly a reassuring tone from the person whose word can launch a thousand nuclear-tipped missiles.

Well, are you feeling relief now that Russia has denied that the blabbermouth-in-chief revealed classified information to its foreign minister and ambassador to the United States during an unprecedented visit to the Oval Office last week? Do you feel safer, less anxious?

Give The Donald his due. He has elevated the art of instilling fear to an extreme.

Of course, the fear-monger-in-chief might have chosen to calm the public’s nerves since taking office. But that’s not his style. Instead, through his rhetoric and executive actions he has unleashed a Pandora’s box of fears: 

Fear of foreigners

Fear of immigrants

Fear of political retribution

Fear of Twitter shame

Fear of Twitter bullying

Fear of mass deportations

Fear of mass incarcerations

Fear of mass prosecutions

Fear of mass persecutions

Fear of a police state

Fear of the world coming to an end

Fear of nuclear conflagration

Fear of unchecked climate change

Fear of unsafe air and water

Fear of a religious state

Fear of censorship

Fear of loss of health care coverage 

Fear of insurmountable health care bills

Fear of widening racial divide

Fear of widening income disparity

Fear of loss of faith in government

Fear of loss of belief in media objectivity and veracity

Fear that elected officials will blindly follow rather than act on their conscience

Fear of politicization of the FBI

Fear of authoritarianism

Fear of flying (United or any U.S. airline)

Fear of government by Twitter

Fear we have an idiot as president and not just any idiot  Fear we have a mean-spirited, cruel, vindictive idiot as president

Fear the Constitution will be subordinated for political gain

Feel free to add your own fears to this list, if you’re not already cowed into the fetal position.

Trumped in a Time for Change

I was one of those political observers who opined Donald Trump’s campaign for the presidency would self-destruct in the aftershock of his crude, unpatriotic attack on John McCain and, by inference, on veterans and any prisoner of war.

Yet the bombastic, hair-raising candidate soldiers on, taking no prisoners in his assault on conventional politicking and politicos. His strategy seems to be to present a fog of war so thick that the public is bemused into thinking he really could command China, Iran and Russia to do his bidding. And that as president he could ignore the Constitution when it conflicted with his agenda to resolve the illegal alien crisis or any other imbroglio that doesn’t agree with his disposition on any given day.

The electorate, we are told, craves change. Meaningful change. That’s behind Republican fascination with Trump, plus the swooning over Bernie Sanders, the Don Quixote of Democrats who possess a death wish of giving up the White House.

Yet, the sad reality is the average Joe and Jill do not embrace change. They resist it. How else to explain congressional, state and local government election results? Despite gutter-scraping approval ratings for Congress, almost every representative seeking reelection will succeed. Only voluntary retirement and the involuntary kind—death or criminal conviction (indictment alone is insufficient cause)—assures the voters of a new rump in their district’s seat of power. On the state and local levels, term limitations can be change agents.

Failure to accept, even recognize, change is a human frailty bedeviling this year’s presidential primary season. Trump is the embodiment of an electorate that wants to return to mid-20th century conditions instead of understanding and working within 21st century sensibilities.

White America does not want to accept a reduced role. It does not accept that by 2050 white Christians will be a minority in the United States.

Our consumer-driven economy does not want to accept limitations, especially government-based limitations, on our use of energy and natural resources. We refuse to change our belief that Americans are entitled to all we want.

Though Vladimir Putin has reconstituted Russia as a conventional foe, the nature of war and threats to America and its allies have changed. All of our atomic power, sea power and air power are limited in a world where individual terrorists acting singularly or as part of a movement challenge the status quo and make every day excursions perhaps the last time you will embrace your family and friends.

If it is not a terrorist act in some distant land or within our borders the evening news more often than not begins with the latest climate-based disaster. Failure to accept climate change is speeding up repercussions of global warming.

Failure to accept our position in a global economy has too many believing we can resurrect wide-scale domestic manufacturing. It is political suicide not to drumbeat for growing the middle class but the truth is service economy jobs will not do the trick unless we radically increase the minimum wage. And that would bring a whole set of troubles.

Our country’s gross national product enjoyed tremendous growth when we invested in roads, bridges, dams, rail systems and other public works. But unless we change our aversion to investing in infrastructure we will lose much of our competitive edge.

Donald Trump, to my knowledge, hasn’t addressed any of these evolving trends and issues. He is riding high now because he appeals to a segment—an increasingly growing segment—of the electorate that does not accept change. That feels disenfranchised. That wants a leader who does not mince words and expresses their frustration.

I laughed when Jon Stewart and other comedians ridiculed Trump. But to be honest, The Daily Show et al are just as guilty in undermining confidence in our elected officials as politicians who yell out “liar” during a presidential address or who question a president’s legitimacy.

I’m not suggesting curtailing political humor or legitimate dissent. But let’s be cognizant of the cumulative damage daily, even hourly, merrymaking is to the dignity of our elected officials. We wind up with Donald Trump running for the highest office in the land and that, sadly, is no joke because our electorate has shown time and again it can be sold products that are not good for their health. Just ask cigarette companies. Or soda companies. Or fast food chains.

What I Heard Last Night

If one of the talking points Mitt Romney has about Barack Obama is that his presidency has disappointed us, I must say the Mittster’s nomination acceptance speech last night at the Republican National Convention did not differentiate him from the incumbent. I was not blown away by his rhetoric, his message or by his delivery. And, for sure, I was not provided an inkling as to how he would achieve his five point goals. Yes, they were lofty. But without specifics, it’s like my saying I would like a body as trim and buff as Paul Ryan’s. Unless I’m specifically willing to devote time to the exercise regimen Ryan endures each morning, it’s just not happening. 

You might already have read analyses about the speech, so I’ll try  to keep my take to a minimum of what I jotted down as Romney was smiling that awkward smile of his as he soaked up the love, if not the respect, of the conventioneers, who, honestly, seemed less enthusiastic than those I’ve seen at other party gatherings. 

First, I couldn’t believe Mitt said, “If you ask Ann and I...” I’m picky about grammar. The correct phrase is, “If you ask Ann and me ...”, “me” being the object of the verb “ask.” “I” cannot be the object of a verb. I suppose Romney might want to reconsider any suggestion to downgrade or eliminate the Department of Education.

Second, Romney said Republicans “united” behind Obama when he assumed office. What distant Bizarro world has he lived in since January 20, 2009? The only union Republicans made was with themselves in their effort to, in Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s words, make Obama a one-term president.

Third, Romney soft-pedaled the troubles Obama inherited from George Bush. He barely acknowledged Bush’s legacy—two wars, a failed economy, a rising deficit.

Fourth, he suggested the best feeling Americans had for Obama “was the day you voted for him,” ignoring the euphoria we all felt when we heard Osama bin Laden had been killed, on orders from a Democratic president.

Fifth, saying that Obama’s lack of business experience made him unqualified to be president, especially compared to his business background, Romney ignored the fact that some of our greatest or most important presidents were similarly inexperienced (FDR, JFK, Nixon, Reagan, Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt) or were failures in business (Truman, Lincoln, Jefferson).  

Sixth, Romney criticized Obama’s attacks on his record at Bain Capital, saying the president didn’t understand not every business succeeds. Fair enough. I would expect then, Romney would drop any future references to Solyndra, the solar energy company that received a $500 million federal investment but wound up filing for bankruptcy a year ago tomorrow. As Romney said, not every company succeeds.

Seventh, “As president, I’ll protect the sanctity of life,” Romney said to wild cheering. But what did he mean by that? Would he continue to defend a woman’s right to an abortion in cases of rape, incest or risk to her life? Would he work to outlaw contraception, as his running mate Ryan advocates? Would he support legislation to criminalize women and their doctors for abortions? Would he support legislation to extend rights to the unborn, from the moment of conception? Would he reject embryonic stem cell research? Would he reject federal funding for Planned Parenthood?  

Eighth, Mocking Obama’s promise “to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet,” Romney said, “My promise is to help you and your family.”  His promise is a good one, but in denigrating Obama’s, he projects his disdain for the realities of climate change and pollution. It is indisputable sea levels are rising, that the world’s air and water are getting dirtier. To ignore the long-term implications is evidence Romney is living in a dream world of the 1950s.

Ninth, Romney resurrected Reagan’s question as to whether we are better off today than four years ago. To someone currently unemployed or in danger of losing their home, the answer is obvious. But let’s look at the trends. Unemployment is slightly higher, 8.3% compared to 7.6% when Obama took the oath of office. But the trendline points down and would be lower if not for the massive layoffs of state and local government workers. Job creation is up. The Dow Jones Industrial Index was 8,281 the morning of January 20, 2009. NASDAQ was 1,529. The S&P 500 was 850. This morning they were, respectively, 13,000; 3,049; and 1,399. Gas prices are almost double what they were, despite the highest level of U.S. oil production. Housing prices seem to be creeping back up, but too many homes remain under water (and I’m not referring to Hurricane Isaac). 

To sum up, economic statistics and trends can support Obama or Romney, which is why so many pundits believe Romney must make himself more likable, and Obama less likable, for the GOP to retake the Oval Office. Which brings up a most interesting question NBC’s Brian Williams asked Tom Brokaw last night—why is it that after six years of running for the presidency, Mitt Romney remains an unknown to much of the electorate? Brokaw didn’t have an answer.

An example of how much of a blank slate Romney is could be observed in the weird Clint Eastwood segment of last night’s convention. Eastwood said he never thought it was a good idea for an attorney to be president, an obvious reference to Obama’s Harvard Law School degree. The crowd laughed and cheered. I guess Eastwood and his live audience didn’t read Romney’s resume—he, too, is a Harvard Law School graduate, class of 1975. 

Chinese Fortune: Jon Huntsman Jr., the former governor or Utah and ex-Ambassador to China, was asked by Stephen Colbert to say in Mandarin what he really thinks of Romney. Here’s a translation: "All right!  Let me put it this way.  I think that two months from now Governor Romney will have a lot of success."

But as Nathan pointed out on http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4158, “Unfortunately for Romney, the election's slightly more than two months away.”

Foreign Language: Finally, here’s another example of dumbness on the airwaves. Stephen A. Smith, an ESPN talk-radio host, said yesterday he would gladly learn Spanish if he knew he would be sent to Brazil to cover the 2016 Summer Olympics. His co-host, producer or anyone else listening in didn’t tell him Spanish would do him little good in Rio de Janeiro as Brazilians speak Portuguese.