Trump Needs Better Vetters

National Review: Trump Needs Better Vetters
Me: You think?
Trumpinista: No he doesn't! RINO! Swamp creature!

The New Republic: Trump Is Skipping Most Important Step in Cabinet Vetting Process
Me: It is pretty obvious.
Trumpinista: Fake News! USA! USA! USA!

Washington Times: Trump’s top Cabinet picks need vetting
Me: It would seem that way, wouldn't it?
Trumpinista: I trust Trump! Fake News! USA! USA! USA!

MSNBC: Matt Gaetz's withdrawal exposes Trump's vetting weaknesses
Me: Yeah, you're right.
Trumpinista: Drain the Swamp! Fake News! Woke Commie! USA! USA! USA!

Washington Post:  Democrats and some Republicans question Trump’s Vetting Process. 

Me: Duh.

Trumpinista:  He is entitled to get who he wants! Fake New! USA! USA! USA!

Top Stories

The Disgruntled Republican's End-of-Year Giving Guide and Thoughts on Giving.

by Rod Williams, Dec 3, 2023- I recently completed by end-of-year giving and was not near as generous this year.  I am not sure why, exactly. I just wasn't feeling it. 

With the reelection of Donald Trump and seeing the kind of people he is appointing to cabinet positions, I am convinced he will be as much of an authoritarian as I feared he would be. I think that helping thwart this march toward authoritarianism is the most important use I could make of my money, but I don't really know where it is best to spend it. 

I do not want any of the money I may contribute going to promote progressive wokeism. I want to support organizations, for example, that will oppose cruel mass deportation and care for left behind orphans, but not organizations that support refusing to turn over criminal aliens to ICE. I want to use my funds to oppose Trumpism and yet not help Wokeism. 

I want to support organizations that will help fund opposition to Justice Department persecution of the "enemies within."  If Trump's Justice Department goes after Mitt Romney or Liz Channey or other of his critics, I want to contribute to an organization that will defend them in court. I guess I am keeping my powder dry, so to speak, to have the money available to contribute when the crises arrive, and I am hoping organizations will spring up to meet the challenge.

In addition to wanting my money available to thwart Trumpism, I want to promote the ideas of liberty and free markets. I feel this is more important than ever. Several organizations that use to do this have abandoned traditional American conservatism and have become nationalist-populist and part of the Trump cult of personality. I think it is important to fund the organizations that continue to promote free market ideas, constitutionalism, and liberty. Liberty is now threatened from the Trumpian right and the progressive woke left. Those promoting liberty need to be supported. 

I don't make a distinction between supporting the cause of freedom and charitable giving. To my way of thinking, there is no better use of my money than in helping to conserve the American Founding.  I want to leave the world a better place than I found it and I want future generations to know the blessings of liberty, justice, a free-market economy, and a world not dominated by authoritarian and totalitarian tyrants.  I believe freedom is the greatest gift we can leave our descendants.  

Below I am listing the organizations I support but in addition to the list below, I have a couple individuals who I financially help. If you have a family member or an acquaintance who you could help, that may be where your charity should begin. If people helped other people directly there would be less demand for the welfare state. Personal giving like this creates a community bond and you know if the recipient is deserving. Often churches help fellow church members in this way. I am not a member of a faith community but think that supporting one's local church can be a good way to give.

Unfortunately, sometimes charity does more harm than it does good, both foreign and domestic charity. A good documentary that makes this point is Poverty Inc. Before giving, I ask myself if this organization just perpetuates dependency, or does it respond to a crisis, or support actions that really help people long-term. Sometimes it is hard to know.  

When I give, I want to make sure I am not being scammed and that the organization I support does more than just perpetuate the organization. A lot or organizations spend more money raising money than they do funding their goal. A good source for checking on an organization's efficiency is Charity Navigator and Charity Watch.

Another thing I consider when giving is that I don't want to support and encourage bad behaviors. I never give money to beggars holding signs on the side of the road. In addition to encouraging bad behavior, they may be trying to scam you. I don't want homeless people freezing on the streets, so I support organizations like The Salvation Army and The Nashville Rescue Mission but do not support panhandling. 

I also do not contribute money to organizations that insult my values. For several years, I gave money to an organization that saves places of natural beauty in Tennessee and preserves critical habitats.  I still think they do a worthwhile job doing what they do. However, in one of their email communications a couple years ago, they went off-topic and expressed their support for Black Lives Matter and pledged a commitment to equity and diversity, and social justice.  I support tolerance, equality, and non-discrimination but not modern woke concepts of social justice and equity. I marked them off of my giving list. There was also another organization I stopped supporting for the same reason. I am not going to support any organization whose values I do not share. 

In addition to supporting certain organizations, I think in this age of misinformation, and attacks on the press that it is important to support journalism, and I subscribe to much more than I can possibly read.  I subscribe to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. I also subscribe to The Tennessean, but it is not much of a newspaper, but I do not want our city not to have a daily newspaper.

I also subscribe to National Review and a couple other conservative journals that have not succumbed to Trumpism. In addition, I am a paid subscriber to The Bulwark and The Dispatch. I get more than enough of their free stuff on YouTube and newsletters, but I want to support them. Both of these could be described as never-Trumper Republican publications. Not all analysis can fit on in a meme or be expressed in 280 characters. Good analysis and opinion journalism needs to be supported. 

If we don't support journalism the truth will suffer, and corruption will flourish. While there are thousands of blogs and podcast and pundits, journalism needs boots on the ground. We need more than just opinions; we need facts. I think subscribing to newspapers is a contribution to a better world and preserving freedom.

If you are looking for a place to give, please consider the following.

Rod's End-of-Year Giving List

The Beacon Center is my favorite non-profit and gets the largest single chunk of my charitable giving.  It is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, and independent organization dedicated to providing expert empirical research and timely free-market solutions to public policy issues in Tennessee.  Time and time again, Tennessee is recognized for being one of the most fiscally responsible and economically free states in the union.  Much of the credit for these honors is due to the work of the Beacon Center.  The Beacon Center has worked to ensure the Right to Work by pushing to overturn professional licensure laws that serve no purpose but to keep out the competition. They have worked to prevent local government from banning work-from-home opportunities like recording studios in homes in Music City. They have stopped local government from forcing homeowners to build public sidewalks when they remodel their home. Beacon is responsible for enshrining the protection against being forced to join a union in the State constitution.  Beacon gets much of the credit for the advancement of educational choice in Tennessee.  Beacon produces the annual "Pork Report," highlighting the most egregious examples of government waste in Tennessee.

Republican Accountability PAC is an organization of Republicans who had voted for Trump previously but could not support his reelection after his attempted coup and were alarmed at his talk of suspending the Constitution. During the recent election the PAC created ads to expose Trump's authoritarian tendencies and will remain active in trying to stop Trump's march toward authoritarianism. 

Nashville Rescue Mission: A Christ-centered community committed to helping the hungry, homeless, and hurting by providing programs and services that focus on a person’s entire life-physical, mental, spiritual, emotional, and social. We are devoted to restoring the whole person through a Christian approach that helps the homeless and addicted learn how much God loves them and gain the biblical insight they need to lead a productive life in and for Christ.

Guests are cared for in a safe, supportive environment where they can find refuge and rest. Once their basic and immediate needs are addressed, case managers work one-on-one with each person to identify next steps, including healthcare and treatment options with a goal of helping them change unhealthy patterns of behavior.

Nashville Rescue Mission’s Emergency Services Include: FOOD, SHELTER, CLOTHING, HOT SHOWERS AND PERSONAL HYGIENE, COURTYARDS/DAY ROOMS, CASE MANAGEMENT TRANSFORMATIVE PROGRAMS, EDUCATION/TRAINING.

The Mercatus Center: A research center at George Mason University that advances knowledge about how markets solve problems and help us lead happier, healthier, and richer lives. For more than 40 years, Mercatus has supported leading talent and scholarship in the mainline economics tradition, applying rigorous research to real-world concerns. Through our continuing efforts to bridge the gap between theory and practice, we strive to realize a world where markets operate at their full potential to increase abundance, civility, and well-being. Your gift to the Mercatus Center ensures free-market ideas are championed in public policy, the academy, and the broader public discourse. 100% of your donation supports educating tomorrow's academic leaders as well as generating peer-reviewed research on today's most pressing issues.

Doctors without borders: Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) cares for people affected by conflict, disease outbreaks, natural and human-made disasters, and exclusion from health care in more than 70 countries.

Second Harvest Food Bank of Middle Tennessee opened its doors in 1978 with commitment from several community leaders. The purpose of the organization was to provide a central distribution center for companies, groups, and individuals who wished to help provide food for hungry people in Middle Tennessee. During my years of working for a non-profit agency, we were a Second Harvest outlet.  This organization provides food to needy people, mostly bread, that would otherwise be thrown away.

The Fund for American Studies: (TFAS) is a 501(c)3 educational nonprofit that is changing the world by developing leaders for a free society. Our transformational programs teach the principles of limited government, free-market economics and honorable leadership to students and young professionals in America and around the world.

By offering a portfolio of more than 20 different academic programs, fellowships and seminars, the TFAS Journey helps cultivate future leaders from high school, all the way through to their university studies and professional careers. 

Today, there are more than 42,000 TFAS alumni making the difference in their communities and throughout the world by championing the values essential to the preservation and success of a free society.

The Salvation Army has Been Serving Nashville For Over 125 Years Through Much Needed Social Services And Programs. A 90-bed Adult Alcohol and Rehabilitation Center for men was opened in 1900 and served the community for over 100 years. In 1940, The Salvation Army built and opened the “Red Shield” Community Center – rebuilt in 1984 as the Magness-Potter Community Center which offered Army-administered youth and adult leisure activity programs. Now, the community center houses the United Way-sponsored Family Resource Center, the Red Shield Kids Club after-school and summer day camp programs, the Life Skills Learning Center, the Second Harvest Food Pantry, and the Emergency Services Program.  In 1980, the Area Command facility was moved from Demonbreun to Dickerson Pike, receiving the name the “Center of Hope”, and opened a 75-person transient shelter, an emergency shelter for men, and a day and night child care center serving homeless and other families in urgent need. Today, the Center of Hope and the Magness-Potter Community Center, along with the three worship centers, serve Nashville by being strategically placed in the neediest areas of the community. Our services are provided to all of Davidson County, as well as Cheatham, Dickson, Hickman, Williamson, and Sumner Counties. Your donation will directly impact your community.

The Salvation Army has been many things over the years as communities’ needs have changed over the years, but today, the focus of the Nashville Salvation Army is to fight poverty and prevent homelessness in our community through a myriad of comprehensive programs designed to bring a holistic approach to the individual’s or family’s need.

The Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation (VOC) is an educational, research, and human rights nonprofit organization devoted to commemorating the more than 100 million victims of communism around the world and to pursuing the freedom of those still living under totalitarian regimes. 

Institute for Justice: IJ is a nonprofit, public interest law firm. Our mission is to end widespread abuses of government power and secure the constitutional rights that allow all Americans to pursue their dreams. Donations to the Institute for Justice enable us to represent our clients at no cost to them—and to stand with them no matter how long their cases take. And when we win for our clients, we secure precedent that protects the rights of all Americans. IJ’s work is powered by nearly 10,000 supporters from across the country who believe in the Constitution and its ideals. 70% of our funding comes from individuals like you. Please join our fight for freedom and justice today. 

IJ has been involved in several high-profile fights over the years in Nashville. IJ defended a small music studio owner from efforts of the city to take her property by condemnation for no other purpose than to provide room for expansion of a bigger neighbor.  In the pre-ride-share days of Uber and Lyft, IJ defended an innovative entrepreneur who wanted to provide cheaper limo rides. IJ has defended homeowners who wanted to work from home.

The American Enterprise Institute is a public policy think tank dedicated to defending human dignity, expanding human potential, and building a freer and safer world. The work of our scholars and staff advances ideas rooted in our belief in democracy, free enterprise, American strength and global leadership, solidarity with those at the periphery of our society, and a pluralistic, entrepreneurial culture.

The Center Square. The disappearance and decline of journalism concern me.  Nashville went from two daily papers to one newspaper that is only a shadow of its formal self.  While there are lots of people, like me, blogging and sharing opinions, without staff they can seldom break stories.  Journalism needs paid boots on the ground. News, especially local news, most often comes down to shootings, car wrecks, sports, and reposted press releases.  There are far too few outlets looking for scandals and corruption.  The watchdog of democracy has died.

The Center Square is conservative but without the rancor, sensationalism, and conspiratorial mindset of what defines many so-called conservative news sources today. 

"The Center Square was launched in May 2019 to fulfill the need for high-quality statehouse and statewide news across the United States. The focus of our work is state- and local-level government and economic reporting. A taxpayer sensibility distinguishes our work from other coverage of state and local issues. As a result of this approach, our readers are better informed about the focus of state and local government and its cost to the citizens whose tax dollars fund governmental decisions.

The Center Square is staffed by editors and reporters with extensive professional journalism experience. We engage readers with essential news, data and analysis – delivered with velocity, frequency and consistency. We distribute our journalism through three main channels at no cost to our partners or readers: a newswire service to legacy publishers and broadcasters. The Center Square is a project of the 501(c)(3) Franklin News Foundation, headquartered in Chicago."

Pre-Born! is an organizations that partner with life-affirming pregnancy clinics all across the nation. In the wake of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, several states where abortion is still legal have become key destinations for vulnerable women seeking abortions. Planned Parenthood is working to place mobile abortion units on the borders of states where abortion is illegal. 

Pre-Born provide ultrasound equipment to pro-life pregnancy crisis centers.  Data shows that when an expectant mother sees an ultrasound image of her baby and hears the heartbeat, she most often decides to keep the child. 

National Review Institute. Your support ensures that NRI will continue to preserve and promote the legacy of William F. Buckley Jr. and advance the conservative principles he championed: limited government, free markets, individual liberty, personal responsibility, a strong national defense, and the rule of law. As the Republican Party and other conservative organization abandon their core values, it is more important than ever that these ideas be promoted. 

Foundation of Economic Freedom. FEE's mission is to inspire, educate, and connect future leaders with the economic, ethical, and legal principles of a free society. These principles include: individual liberty, free-market economics, entrepreneurship, private property, high moral character, and limited government. Here are some highlights from 2021: We broke a world record for the largest online economics lecture. We made 95 mainstream media appearances. Our videos received 11 MILLION views and over 1.8 MILLION shares. On TikTok, we went from reaching 65,000 people to over 2 MILLION in just seven months! We reached over 83 MILLION Gen Z online.

Americans for Prosperity Tennessee: AFP’s grassroots, policy, government affairs, communications, political, and education and training capabilities make us the best organization to change the policy landscape in America.

The Pamphleteer: The Pamphleteer is an arts, culture, and politics publication based in Nashville, TN. Corporate and progressive media dominate the landscape in the state of Tennessee. The word "independent"—typically associated with legacy brands such as the Nashville Scene—means less and less as time goes on. Many of the perspectives from local media outlets you read come from an almost identical perspective, inseparable from the tone and tenor of politics at the federal level. The Pamphleteer seeks to reinvigorate local discourse by offering fresh, regional perspectives on local topics. It is our hope that through our work, we can challenge readers to engage more earnestly in local politics and motivate leaders to reach higher and farther in their efforts to make Nashville a world-class city.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is a nonpartisan, non-profit organization committed to educating the public on issues with significant fiscal policy impact. Our bipartisan leadership comprises some of the nation's leading budget experts, including many past heads of the House and Senate Budget Committees, the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Government Accountability Office. 

As an independent source of objective policy analysis, we regularly engage policymakers of both parties and help them develop and analyze proposals to improve the country’s fiscal and economic condition. These efforts have reinforced the Committee’s role as an authoritative voice for fiscal responsibility and an educational resource for policymakers and the general public. We are also a trusted budget watchdog that assists journalists across the country in understanding fiscal developments in Washington.

In 2023, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget sought to educate and engage the public, policymakers, and the media about the major fiscal issues facing our nation from the debt ceiling negotiations and passage of the Fiscal Responsibility Act to the looming insolvency of our nation’s trust funds. We also launched US Budget 2024, which seeks to bring transparency and accountability to the presidential campaign by analyzing the total cost and savings from each major candidate’s policy agenda.

American Interprise Institute: The American Enterprise Institute is a public policy think tank dedicated to defending human dignity, expanding human potential, and building a freer and safer world. The work of our scholars and staff advances ideas rooted in our belief in democracy, free enterprise, American strength and global leadership, solidarity with those at the periphery of our society, and a pluralistic, entrepreneurial culture.  

I am going to wrap this up but other organizations to which I contribute, and you may want to consider include these:

• The Hoover Institute
• Insititute for Humane Studies
• CATO Institute
• American Institute for Economic Research
• National Association of Scholars

Top Stories

Your Favorite Mexican Beer Could get More Expensive Under Trump Tariffs and American Barley Farmers Pay the Price

 The Washington Post, Dec. 3, 2024 - Your favorite Mexican beer may get more expensive, if President-
elect Donald Trump carries out his threat to impose tariffs on Mexico.

Trump said last week he would slap a 25 percent tariff on goods from Mexico and Canada if they didn’t stop the flow of migrants and the deadly opioid fentanyl over their borders.

... American consumers would be hurt, too, according to economists. Tariffs are basically a tax on foreign goods; importers probably would have to raise their prices to compensate.

Mexico makes all kinds of things the average American uses. It manufactures 88 percent of the pickups sold in America; a 25 percent tariff could add about $3,000 to the price tag of that new Ford or GM truck, ... Mexico supplies around half of America’s imported fruit and two-thirds of imported vegetables, in dollar terms — tomatoes, berries, bell peppers, cucumbers. ... Most of the imported beer that Americans swig is brewed in Mexico. 

About 18 percent of all the beer drunk in the United States is imported, according to the Beer Institute, which represents the American beer industry. Mexico supplies roughly 4 of every 5 gallons. Last year, a Mexican beer, Modelo Especial, became the top-selling brew in the United States, in dollar terms. ... 

Take that Mexican beer. It might be made with barley from Idaho, Montana or North Dakota. Mexico doesn’t produce enough of its own barley for its booming cerveza industry. American farmers have happily watched their total exports of malted barley (one of the main ingredients in beer) roughly triple since 2000, to 318,673 tons last year. A whopping 97 percent of that went to Mexico. If Mexican beer in the United States becomes pricier — and sells less — that could wind up hitting barley producers. (read it all)

Rod's Comment: Trumpinistas respond, "Real Americans don't drink Mexican beer."

Top Stories

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly School Districts in Tennessee.

by Rod Williams, Dec. 3, 2024- Last week the Tennessee Department of Education released its 2024 District Accountability report on the quality of the Tennessee's public schools. This is an annual report required by federal and state law that puts each of Tennessee's 147 School districts into one of several categories. The categories are Exemplary, Advancing, Satisfactory, Marginal, and In Need of Improvement.

Under Tennessee’s accountability system, districts are expected to increase achievement levels for all students and demonstrate student growth across all student groups. Districts are assessed on their performance across six critical performance indicators measured through multiple pathways. The indicators include Grade Band Success Rates, rates at which students are Chronically Out of School, performance on the English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA), and Graduation rates. District accountability scores are calculated using a weighted average of the district’s scores across all indicators and student groups to determine a district’s designation.

The "in need of improvement" schools are those districts in which their overall score falls in the bottom five percent of all districts. These school districts are Decatur County Schools, Hancock County Schools, Hardeman County Schools, Humboldt City Schools, Johnson County Schools, Lawrence County Schools, Lewis County Schools, Perry County Schools, Sequatchie County Schools, and Tennessee Schools for the Deaf.

Knox County Schools and Hamilton County Schools are in the satisfactory category. Memphis-Shelby County Schools, and Metro Nashville Public Schools are in the advancing category. For a complete list of all school systems and what designation they receive, follow this link. 

Top Stories

TN Dept of Ed Names the Best Tennessee School Districts

Press release, Nov. 21, 2024- Nashville, TN— Today, the Tennessee Department of Education announced school and district designations for the 2023-24 school year, including Reward Schools, Exemplary Districts, and In Need of Improvement districts. These designations are based on various performance indicators, including student achievement and growth. 

Across the state, 377 schools, spanning 97 districts, received the Reward School designation; 10 districts received the Exemplary District designation; and 10 districts received the In Need of Improvement designation. The complete list of district and school designations is available on the department‘s accountability webpage.

“I am thrilled to highlight the 2023-24 Reward Schools and Exemplary Districts for their dedication to fostering student learning and growth in their classrooms across the state,” said Lizzette Reynolds, Commissioner of Education. “This annual recognition is the result of our teachers, along with school and district leaders, who are committed to student success every day, and I commend each of you for your valiant efforts in supporting achievement for our Tennessee students.”

Each year, schools and districts are eligible for designations based on their overall performance across indicators that are essential to student success, including how they prepared students to be proficient (achievement), accelerated student learning (growth), encouraged students to attend school regularly (chronically out of school), prepared students for postsecondary success (graduation rate and Ready Graduate), and supported English learners acquiring language skills.

Schools are recognized as a Reward School when they demonstrate high levels of performance and/or improvement in performance by meeting objectives across performance indicators and student groups, and the Reward School distinction places significant emphasis on performance and improvement across all indicators from the prior school year. 

Districts are recognized as an Exemplary District when they receive an overall district performance score of 3.1 or higher on a 4.0-point scale across all performance indicators as referenced above. The following are the 10 designated Exemplary Districts:

Alcoa City Schools

Arlington Community Schools

Bells City Schools

Clinton City Schools

Collierville Schools

Dayton City School

Jackson County Schools

Lebanon Special School District

Milan Special School District

Van Buren County Schools

Reward Schools, Exemplary Districts, and In Need of Improvement districts were presented to the State Board of Education on November 22nd and approved. All designations can be found on the department’s accountability page.

For Tennessee Department of Education media inquiries, contact Edu.MediaInquiries@tn.gov. 

Top Stories

The Hunter Biden Pardon Is a Strategic Mistake

by Tom Nichols, The Atlantic, Dec. 2, 2024- President Joe Biden’s pardon of his son Hunter is a done deal. The president has not only obviated the existing cases against Hunter; the sweep of the pardon effectively immunizes his son against prosecution for all federal crimes he may have committed over the course of more than a decade. This pardon is a terrible idea—“both dishonorable and unwise,” in the words of the Bulwark editor Jonathan Last—and, as my colleague Jonathan Chait wrote yesterday, it reflected Biden’s choice “to prioritize his own feelings over the defense of his country.”

But it was also a tremendous strategic blunder, one that will haunt Democrats as they head into the first years of another Trump administration. 

... Joe Biden has now provided every Republican—and especially those running for Congress in 2026—with a ready-made heat shield against any criticism about Trump’s pardons, past or present. Biden has effectively neutralized pardons as a political issue, and even worse, he has inadvertently given power to Trump’s narrative about the unreliability of American institutions. (read more)

Top Stories

Joe Biden's Pardon of Hunter, Surrenders the Moral High Ground, Justifies Trump's Pardon Abuse.

by Rod Williams, Dec. 2, 2024 - Yesterday, President Joe Biden pardoned his son Hunter, after promising he wouldn't do so. This plays into the hands of the Trumpinistas who believe the Justice Department and the FBI targets conservatives and that it targeted Trump specifically. It justifies, in their mind, Trump using the Justice Department and the FBI to target Trump's critics. It obliterates the argument that the Justice Department is objective and impartial.

When Trump apologist would argue that the Justice Department unfairly targeted Trump, Trump critics would push back and say, well what about Hunter Biden? If the Justice Department was partial and just a tool of those in power, Trump critics would argue, then how do you explain the Justice Department pursuing charges against Hunter Biden? 

They had no good answer. Now, they do. They can argue that the prosecution of Hunter was all for show and that it was Biden's plan to pardon Hunter after the election all along. 

Also, when Trump pardons the J6 insurrectionist or other criminals and anyone criticizes Trump's use of the pardon, Trump supporters can respond with, what about Hunter? 

Biden has surrendered any moral high ground Trump critics may have held. This is another example of Biden putting his own interest above the interest of the country, just as he did when he refused to step down and he ran for a second term. 

Top Stories

Why Harris Lost and Trump Won

by Rod Williams, Nov. 26/2024 -It has been a little over three weeks since the election and Democrats have been engaging in a lot of Monday-morning-quarterbacking, soul-searching, second-guessing, and finger-pointing, trying to figure out how Kamala Harris lost the election. Other pundits and observers are also trying to explain the election outcome. 

Much of this analysis deals with strategic and tactical decisions of the campaign. I think little of it
matters. Democrats have always believed that the "ground game" and knocking on doors and making the phone calls and the personal postcards is how to win elections. Democrats were better than Republicans at doing that. l am not so sure people want a stranger knocking on their door or another phone call anymore. It appears that big rallies and dominating social media may be the way to win in the modern era. However, I am not convinced that that was a significant factor in the campaign.

If the outcome would have been close, then questions of whether or not Harris should have gone on the Joe Rogan show would matter. She lost by such a large margin, that I don't think it matters. Should Harris have chosen Josh Shapiro over Tim Walz as her VP pick? I don't think it really mattered. I think Shapiro would have been a better choice under normal circumstances. However, the Democratic electorate was not ready for a Jewish VP at a time when pro-Palestinian sentiment was running high in segments of the Democrati Party coalition. Facing down antisemitic Arab Americans and college students would not have been a distraction for the Harris campaign.

One of the opinions that I think does have merit is that Joe Biden should have announced he was not running for reelection much earlier and the Democratic Party should have had a primary. I still think Kamala Harris would have ending up being the nominee. The Democrat Party was not going to pass over a Black female who was the Vice President for someone else. However, a primary would have had the benefit of letting the public get to know Harris better. She would have had longer to come up with a decent answer as to why she flip-flopped on so many issues. She would have had a better chance to define herself and decide what she really believes. I am still not convinced that it would have made a big difference.

One of the most ludicrous conclusions I have heard some Democrats come up with is that President Biden should not have resigned, and the Party should have stuck with him. Granted few people have said that but some have. After the June debate it was clear that Biden was not up for the job.  I think Trumps victory would have been an unprecedented landslide, had Biden not stepped down. If Biden was not president, he would probably be in an assisted living facility. His cognitive decline could not have been hidden from the American people. I think it is almost criminal that his condition was hidden from the American people for as long as it was. His handler could not have kept it hidden throughout the campaign. 

Another conclusion that some Democrats have reached is that the campaign should have gone full-Bernie. Or some have expressed it as the party should have conducted a populist campaign. Maybe. The public does not understand economics, and everybody likes free stuff. As it was, the Trump campaign promises were estimated to add twice as much to the national debt as was Harris' campaign promises. Harris could have been more irresponsible than Trump and promised even more free stuff than Trump. 

Along with promising more free stuff, the campaign could have ginned up resentment of rich people. The campaign could have convinced the poor and the middle class the reason they were bad off is because someone else was better off.  Maybe that campaign would have worked better than Harris' more moderate campaign. I am not sure Americans are ready to have their private insurance taken away from them however, but I think "making the rich pay their fair share," could have resonated. The problem with this approach is that a populist campaign does not mesh well with a campaign of wokeness and identity politics and the more socialist of the Democrats are also the most woke. A populist appeal has to be framed as the people against the powerful. With identify politics there is no people but various slices of the people. I don't think the Democrats could have pulled off a populist appeal. 

One criticism of the Harris campaign is that it was unfocused and never found a theme.  The campaign started out as a campaign of joy and Republicans are just weird. For a while it seemed to be a campaign about abortion rights. It then switched to a campaign of Trump is a fascist and maybe America's next Hitler and this is a campaign to preserve American democracy. I agree the campaigned was unfocused, but I don't know that being focused on any one message would have worked. There are reasons much of the Harris campaign did not resonate. I am not sure improved messaging would have helped.

Another criticism of the campaign that I think has merit is that Harris lacked authenticity. While I think it may have merit. I think given who she is, it would have been hard to fix. If you are inauthentic, it is hard to switch to being authentic.  She never seemed at ease talking to people. There was the issue of her using a different accent depending on her audience. I understand why she did not go on Joe Rogan. Rogan is not a tough interviewer. He does not grill but simply has conversations. I am sure Rogan would have asked her about her about her flip flops on policy issues and she never developed a convincing answer. She could have said things like, “You know, in retrospect, maybe the taxpayers shouldn’t pay for gender-transition surgeries for detained immigrants and federal prisoners.”  She could have, but would not. She would not have been able to explain why she was wrong on so many issues then and what led her to change her mind. She seemed to me to be unable to be spontaneous and real. It seemed to me like she struggled to keep up a facade of a moderate.

From her 2016 campaign to her 2024 campaign, she went from favoring Medicare for all to a more centrist position. She went from opposing fracking to not opposing it. She was a strong supporter of the Green New Deal and then moved to the center. In 2016 she favored decriminalizing illegal border crossings. She went from that position to supporting the border deal that failed in the Senate, which is considered one of the toughest, bipartisan immigration measures in many years. As a senator, Harris was a co-sponsor of legislation that called for increasing zero-emissions vehicles and ultimately phasing out gas powered vehicles by 2040. 

In the campaign she said that none if those were currently her position. She never said why. She needed to explain what epiphany had occurred to cause her to see the light. She failed to do so. I think that was a factor in her campaign and why many did not like her, but even that, I don't believe was the deciding factor. I think most of the strategic and tactical analysis of why Harris lost is either just wrong or not significant or something that could not be corrected. 

A factor that I think may have been pivotal was Trump getting shot. When he rose from the ground with blood streaming down his face, raised his fist and screamed, "Fight! Fight! Fight!", that may have been the moment Trump won. The picture could have not been more dramatic. I suspect that is the moment some wavering Republicans were brought back into the fold and some young 'bros' became Trump voters. 

I think an important factor in Trump's win was policy and policy favored Trump. The two largest issues were immigration and the economy. On immigration, Biden should never have reopened the border and reversed Trump policies. Eventually he reimposed some of the Trump restrictions and brought down the rate of border crossings, but the country had already been flooded. It was too little, too late. I am not going to elaborate on the complexity of border policy hear and how Trump stopped Congress from passing a good bipartisan border bill. The important thing is that the people wanted illegal immigration brought under control and they believed Trump would do it.

On the economy, people believed the economy was much better under Trump than Biden and it was. Most people are pretty much ignorant of economics, but they care about the price of a gallon of gas and a dozen eggs. By the time of the election, we had a low unemployment rate, and inflation had been brought down to almost the 2% target. It didn't matter. There is a lag time between good news and people feeling it. There is also a lag time between economic policy and the effects of that policy. Often things like employment rates, and the size of the deficit, and inflation are the results of previous policy; not current policy. That is just the way it is, but in this case, it benefited Trump.

One policy issue that was supposed to benefit Democrats was the abortion issue. One would have thought it would have benefited Harris but it did not. In several states where a ballot initiative liberalizing abortion policy was on the ballot, abortion won but so did Trump. Most people are not single-issue voters, and they are not as ideological consistent as are politicians. 

An issue that one would have thought would have favored Harris and overwhelmed all other issues was the threat to democracy. For the first time in our history, we had a candidate who had attempted a coup, and who in his next term said he may suspend the constitution. That did not matter. Why? 

I think there was a foundational reason Trump won, more important than strategy or tactics or policy. I contend the reason Trump won is that Americans are sick and tired of wokeness. I think wokeness is much more than the dictionary definition of "a state of being aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality." Wokeness consist of DEI, political correctness, affirmative action, cancel culture, and an attitude of superiority and self-righteousness. 

Tennessee Democrat Party showcases its gender fluidity ideology in every
communication. This is from Jan. 14, 2022

Wokeness is divisive identity politics in which the population is divided into aggrieved groups based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, or other factors and each group is empower by being powerless and playing the victim.  Wokeness judges people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. I think identity politics only plays well to a small but vocal constituency. Many people in those groups do not embrace the identity. People of a Latin American background, as an example, were told they were "Latinx," and they didn't feel it. 

Wokeness is the deliberate conflation of legal immigration and illegal immigration and telling people that if they believe a country has a right to determine who may become a resident of their country that they are a bigot. 

Wokeness is approvingly watching BLM rioters topple statures, burn buildings, spray paint monuments and anything else within reach, burn police cars, and block interstates, and telling those who believe the lawless behavior should be prohibited and punished that they are racist, and we must understand the rage and be supportive of the behavior. 

Wokeness is saying that a child who decides he wants to be of the opposite sex is to be encouraged in his delusion and even advocating he has a right to transition. It is calling genital mutilation and chemical castration, "gender affirming health care."  And, if one disagrees, they are denounced as "transphobic" and a terrible person.

Wokeness is putting ones preferred pronoun following one's name in a communication. Wokeness is hectoring people for using the wrong pronoun. Wokeness is making it a crime or a disciplinary offence to "misgender."

Wokeness is silencing voices that are not attuned to the same insight as the liberal elite. It is labeling opinions with which one disagrees as "hate speech." It is shouting down conservative speakers on college compass. It is ostracizing and marginalizing and denying a platform to people with the "wrong" opinions. It is illiberal attitude toward free speech. 

Wokeness is an arrogance and moral superiority and demonizing those with a different point of view. It is viewing those who are critical of or question climate change as no better than holocaust deniers. It is saying of people you may even know well, that if they voted for Trump then they might as well be a Nazi. 

It is calling people who vote for Trump, “garbage.” It is condescension toward white rural voters and people of religious beliefs or certain moral beliefs.

I did not vote for Trump in this last election. I think he genuinely is a threat to democracy. However, the term "fascist" has been thrown around so much that it has been diluted of all meaning. It doesn't stick. There is a member of our Metro Council who routinely calls people fascist and there are a lot of people like her. I personally know people who called George W. Bush a fascist. They have stripped all power from the word. People do not like being told they are sexist, bigots, fascist and no better than a Nazi. In response, I think their attitude becomes, "I'll show you. I will vote for the guy you detest." 

Tell a people long enough they are "deplorables," "garbage," fascist, sexist, homophobes, xenophobes and bigots and inferior to your enlighten self and they will not take it anymore and strike back.  

I have had people with whom I am close say the reason Harris lost is simply because Americans are sexist and racist. It that is the extent of their analysis and their conclusion, I think Trumpism has a bright future. 

Top Stories

Comrade Tulsi Gabbard’s Nomination Is a National-Security Risk

by Rod Williams, Nov. 25, 2024- Of all of the bad nominees for cabinet post in the new administration, none concerns me more than Tulsi Gabbard. 

Matt Gaetz was simply a jerk and an immoral scum bag and possible a rapist and unqualified, and probably would have politized the Justice Department. That's could have been bad. Anyway, he is gone. 

Hegpath is unqualified and has limited administrative experience. He could screw up America's military readiness by firing a bunch of generals who do not put loyalty to Trump over loyalty to the country. However, it takes a long time to change the culture of the military, and his damage, assuming he is confirmed, may be limited.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an anti-vaxxer nutjob who could endanger the nation's health, especially should we have a national health emergency. Even if we do not have a new national health emergency, having him in charge of health could reduce the number of people who get vaccinated and we could see a resurgence of diseases that were virtually eradicated and people could die, especially young children.  Still yet, his tenure as Secretary of Health has less potential to damage the country than that of Tulsi Gabbard.

Tulsi Gabbard has been nominated for Director of National Intelligence, a position that oversees eighteen national security agencies. including the CIA. She could betray her country and there is reason to think she would. If she did not betray our country, she could harm our country. If she is the Director of National Intelligence, other countries may decide it is a risk to share intelligence information with the United States. This could advantage our adversaries. It is hard to estimate the damage she could do to our country and the world.

Below are links and excerpts from several articles explaining why Tulsi Gabbard is a national security risk.

Tulsi Gabbard’s Nomination Is a National-Security Risk

By Tom Nichols, The Atlantic, Nov. 13, 2024- Gabbard is stunningly unqualified for almost any Cabinet post ... She has no qualifications as an intelligence professional—literally none....  She has no significant experience directing or managing much of anything. ...

Gabbard ran for president as a Democrat in 2020, attempting to position herself as something like a peace candidate. But she’s no peacemaker: She’s been an apologist for both the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. Her politics, which are otherwise incoherent, tend to be sympathetic to these two strongmen, painting America as the problem and the dictators as misunderstood. ...  Her views can seem both extremely left and extremely right, which is probably why people such as Tucker Carlson—a conservative who has turned into … whatever pro-Russia right-wingers are called now—have taken a liking to the former Democrat ... 

In early 2017, while still a member of Congress, Gabbard met with Assad, saying that peace in Syria was only possible if the international community would have a conversation with him. “Let the Syrian people themselves determine their future, not the United States, not some foreign country,” Gabbard said, after chatting with a man who had stopped the Syrian people from determining their own future by using chemical weapons on them. Two years later, she added that Assad was “not the enemy of the United States, because Syria does not pose a direct threat to the United States,” and that her critics were merely “warmongers.”

... Gabbard has every right to her personal views, however inscrutable they may be. As a private citizen, she can apologize for Assad and Putin to her heart’s content. But as a security risk, Gabbard is a walking Christmas tree of warning lights. If she is nominated to be America’s top intelligence officer, that’s everyone’s business. (read more)

How Tulsi Gabbard Became a Favorite of Russia’s State Media

By Steven Lee Myers, Jim Rutenberg and Julian E. Barnes, The New York Times, Nov. 18, 2024- In 2017, when she was still a Democratic member of Congress, Tulsi Gabbard traveled to Syria and met the country’s authoritarian president, Bashar al-Assad. She also accused the United States of supporting terrorists there.

The day after Vladimir V. Putin began a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Ms. Gabbard blamed the United States and NATO for provoking the war by ignoring Russia’s security concerns.

She has since suggested that the United States covertly worked with Ukraine on dangerous biological pathogens and was culpable for the bombing of the Nord Stream gas pipeline from Russia to Germany in September 2022. European prosecutors and U.S. officials say that sabotage was carried out by Ukrainian operatives.

Ms. Gabbard’s comments have earned her sharp rebukes from officials across the political spectrum in Washington, who have accused her of parroting the anti-American propaganda of the country’s adversaries. Her remarks have also made her a darling of the Kremlin’s vast state media apparatus .... according to analysts and former officials, Ms. Gabbard seems to simply share the Kremlin’s geopolitical views, especially when it comes to the exercise of American military power.

In Russia, the reaction to her potential appointment has been gleeful, ... “The C.I.A. and the F.B.I. are trembling,” Komsomolskaya Pravda, a Russian newspaper, wrote on Friday in a glowing profile of Ms. Gabbard, noting, positively, that Ukrainians consider her “an agent of the Russian state.” Rossiya-1, a state television channel, called her a Russian “comrade” in Mr. Trump’s emerging cabinet.

... “This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden Admin/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia’s legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO, which would mean US/NATO forces right on Russia’s border,” she wrote on Twitter, now known as X, when the war began in February 2022.

A month later, she posted a video on the platform saying the United States was operating 25 to 30 biological research labs in Ukraine. She accused the Biden administration of covering them up and said they could release dangerous pathogens, though she stopped short of claiming the labs were making biological weapons, as Russia has falsely claimed.

... Vladimir Solovyov, a popular talk show host, called her “our girlfriend” in a segment in 2022. The program included an interview Ms. Gabbard did with Tucker Carlson in which she claimed that Mr. Biden’s goal was to end Mr. Putin’s control of the Russian government, according to Julia Davis, the creator of the Russian Media Monitor, which tracks Kremlin propaganda.

.. In some cases, she echoed story lines that Russia’s propagandists created, which the Russians then recycled on their own media as evidence that the conspiracy theories they had manufactured were true. (read more of this insightful article)

Wall Street Journal: Tulsi Gabbard vs. Trump’s First Term

Independent, Nov. 21, 2024: Nikki Haley issues scathing takedown of ‘Russian sympathizer’ Tulsi Gabbard and ‘liberal’ RFK Jr

The Economist, Nov. 24, 3024- Donald Trump and Tulsi Gabbard are coming for the spooks. ... Ms Gabbard’s Russophile tendencies are particularly jarring. “Democrats”, she complained in her book, “don’t want a peaceful relationship with Russia at all…How would their friends in the military-industrial complex make trillions of dollars from the fear they fomented in America and Europe by stoking the fires of the new cold war?” Some in the intelligence world believe that European agencies might start holding back human-intelligence reports or “sanitising” them of information that would previously have been shared.

Top Stories

Biden has a small window to make big fixes to U.S. trade policy

By Scott Lincicome, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 21, 2024 - 

The return of Donald Trump to the White House in 2025 will spark a significant shift in U.S. economic policy across numerous issue areas, but changes to U.S. trade and industrial policy might be more subtle than severe. We are still operating under many of the trade policies Trump set during his first term. After campaigning in 2020 against the broad-based and damaging tariffs Trump imposed, President Biden maintained and even expanded U.S. trade restrictions and other forms of economic nationalism.

The motivation for such consistency, however, was in large part political: It was an open secret in Washington that Biden’s advisors, needing “Rust Belt” votes to win reelection and facing a vocally protectionist opponent in Trump, viewed economic nationalism as the only viable approach. Now unburdened by such concerns and facing the reality of a failed political strategy, Biden has a short time to remedy past policy errors and improve the United States’ economic and geopolitical prospects before Trump takes office.

There are several significant moves he could make. The suggestions that follow are undoubtedly optimistic but are neither impossible nor futile. Some smart moves, such as nixing most U.S. tariffs, are off the table because they would require Congress. Other actions, such as initiating new free-trade-agreement talks, take time and could therefore be easily stopped by the incoming Trump administration before they got far. Biden could, on the other hand, take several other moves that would constitute a significant and more durable improvement in policy.

He should start with tariffs. Ideally, Biden would reembrace his 2020 campaign position on the economic and geopolitical harms of indiscriminate U.S. tariffs and terminate both the “national security” tariffs on global steel and aluminum imports and the “Section 301” tariffs on Chinese imports that began under Trump. Both measures were imposed on dubious grounds and have since inflicted serious pain for little gain. Because they were implemented unilaterally, moreover, Biden could nix them with the stroke of a pen.

Just as important, full termination would mean that reinstituting the tariffs next year — or adding even more on top of them as Trump has promised — would require the next administration to undertake lengthy bureaucratic investigations. In the meantime, freer trade would flow, and other tariffs and trade restrictions — such as the dozens of “trade remedy” measures on Chinese imports — would remain in force, mitigating claims that Biden was leaving the economy vulnerable to a flood of nefarious foreign goods.

Barring full termination of these tariff actions, Biden should eliminate those that have no plausible connection to our economic or national security. This includes tariffs on simple consumer goods from China — tiki torches, vacuum cleaners, baby blankets, etc. — as well as supposed national security tariffs on metals from close allies in Europe and Asia. Even on economic nationalists’ own terms, these measures make little sense, and quickly reimposing them next year, at a time when inflation still resonates with voters, might prove politically nettlesome. Tariffs imposed by the U.S. raise prices for American consumers — not usually a good look for politicians.

Beyond the tariffs, Biden might also consider terminating the global “safeguard” restrictions on imported solar panels, which are both costly and unnecessary. Thanks in part to these measures, solar panel prices are far higher here than abroad, thus harming U.S. solar installation companies and slowing the energy transition. Removing the safeguard would thus help advance Biden’s climate ambitions, while leaving Chinese solar cells and modules subject to several other, more targeted U.S. trade restrictions.

Next, Biden should encourage Congress to retake some of the constitutional authority over tariffs that the legislative branch delegated to the president during much of the 20th century, when everyone assumed that the president wouldn’t abuse such power — an assumption that the first Trump administration proved incorrect. Because it’s unclear whether federal courts would stop the global tariffs that Trump has promised this time around, the only sure way to eliminate this risk rests with Congress. Reform legislation has been offered in this regard, and encouraging and signing it would significantly lower the risk of damaging future Trump tariffs. It would also be a credit to Biden’s legacy, at little cost to him; he can make reforms now that would be binding on his successors, but his own presidency was not limited by them.

Finally, Biden should turn to investment and fast-track federal approval of a Japanese company’s proposed acquisition of U.S. Steel, which has been held up for months on obviously political grounds. As has been widely documented, U.S. Steel’s shareholders and management overwhelmingly approve of the offer from Nippon Steel, as do many American steelworkers. Industry experts also widely agree that Nippon’s acquisition — involving billions of dollars in new U.S. investments and creating a Western counterbalance to China’s steelmaking prowess — would benefit both the American steel industry and national security more broadly. Approving the deal, which Trump has vocally opposed but former Trump advisors have cheered, would also signal to the world that the U.S. government — or, at least, half of it — remains open for business and welcoming to beneficial foreign investment.

This wish list is, of course, idealistic. But it would represent a radical improvement in U.S. policy — one that Biden could achieve quickly, in some cases unilaterally. Such progress is all but guaranteed not to happen in 2025. And at this point, anyway, it’s not like the president has anything to lose.

Scott Lincicome is the vice president of general economics at the Cato Institute. 

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. No changes were made to the original by the editor of this blog. 

Top Stories

Social Security is just nine years away from insolvency. Congress should not vote to make the problem worse.

 

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, Nov. 12, 2024- The House of Representatives will soon vote on the Social Security Fairness Act, legislation which would repeal Social Security’s Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO). The unpaid-for bill would add $196 billion to deficits over the next decade and hasten Social Security’s insolvency by roughly six months while adding to the size of the benefit cuts that will automatically take place under current law.      The following is a statement from Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget:

How is speeding up the date of Social Security’s retirement fund’s insolvency, increasing the size of the automatic benefit cuts that will hit seniors, and adding $200 billion to the deficit a good plan for seniors or for the country? Yet that is exactly what the Social Security Fairness Act would do.     Social Security is just nine years away from insolvency, and our seniors need a fix fast. Congress should not vote to make the problem worse.     The WEP and GPO were created to prevent Social Security from overpaying certain beneficiaries who also collect state and local pensions, which they paid into instead of paying Social Security taxes during their employment for state and local governments. These provisions aren’t perfect, and there are lots of ideas to reform them. But repealing them altogether would move in exactly the wrong direction.    They should call this bill the Social Security UnFairness Act; it creates a Windfall Expansion Provision for a small number of beneficiaries who would get to double-dip their retirement benefits.    At a time when we’re already borrowing $2 trillion a year and retirees are already slated to see a 21 percent benefit cut – an average of $16,500 for a newly retiring couple in 2033 – in just nine years, why would we make it a 22 percent, $17,300 cut in eight and a half years instead?     There is broad consensus among experts and lawmakers that reform, not repeal, of WEP and GPO would ensure fairness and could actually improve the program’s solvency.     Every day we get closer and closer to Social Security insolvency, and we are no closer to solutions than we were years ago when we first knew we had a problem. For those who say they want to protect Social Security this bill goes in the absolute wrong direction.

Top Stories