What did you think about last night's second and last presidential, so-called, debate? Here is my reaction to what I saw on television last night. You should know that it comes from someone who has already voted for Joe Biden, but here's what I thought.
Who Won?
I don't think it made any difference as far as influencing the great majority of voters. I can't imagine anyone, who after all of this time, hasn't already long ago made up their mind. Anyone who is still waiting to decide who to vote for 12 days before the election is a rare and peculiar voter. In addition, the great majority of people have already voted either by absentee or at the polls. It comes too late in the election cycle to have made any difference. At most it will have only confirmed how people already feel about who they already voted for.
Unlike how my my wife viewed it and how most of the reports I see in the media, my view was that Donald Trump did a better job of communicating what he wanted to say. He maintained control this time. He effectively made focused attacks on Biden, he repeated his talking points, he used misrepresentations as well as outright lies about his claimed accomplishments. He brushed off his incompetence with the same dishonest devices. I think he dominated the event in spite of the moderator. I think that if the time were to be added up it would show that Trump had more time than Biden through aggressive tactics. My impression was that former VP Biden failed to effectively rebut the attacks made on him and his family. He failed to strongly make counterattacks on Trump. It seemed to me that Biden focused too much on his "plans" and "policies" rather than on Trump's failures, the pandemic and the state of the country. Biden demonstrated to me a lack of energy and strength, especially in light of Trump's demeanor. On an impression basis, irrespective of the true facts, Trump was more effective than Biden.
Moderator
Most media commentators have expressed the view that the debate moderator, NBC news commentator Kristin Welker, did a good job and largely succeeded in preventing Trump from speaking out of turn. That was not my impression. While Trump clearly was far more disciplined this time than on the previous location, he was able to take control from her after the microphone controlled two minute talk. While two minute talks were controlled by the ability to turn the microphone off, it was not used in the comments following it. Trump learned he could get away with ignoring the time limit she gave for comment and just keep talking. When she tried to interrupt him. he just ignored it and continued talking. Her reaction was to give up and let him go. He quickly learned that he could get away with it and he did. It was very revealing that after much criticism by Trump before the event about her biased connections to Biden, during the event Trump volunteered how pleased he was by the way she was conducting it. Which means he thought he was wining that time battle. He was able to continue to repeat false attacks as well as repeat his talking points in spite of the moderator. The solution easily could have been a microphone control throughout all of the debate including the comments where this abuse occurred. The solution also could involve a strong moderator who would refuse to be intimidated and would challenge Trump's failure to abide by the time allotment. A strong mediator could be critical of his abuse of time each time he did it. I think this moderator was greatly benefited by Trump's decision to moderate his conduct this time.
Donald Trump
I have already given you my impression of Trump's performance. He came across to me as a tough Street fighter who hits below the belt and has no rules for the fight except to win. He seemed to me to have successfully repeated his talking points. He continuously made personal attacks on Biden. With the skill of a experienced con artist he made exaggerated claims about his supposed successes as president as well as important issues like the pandemic. In fact, he began by falsely claiming a vaccine for COVID-19 was imminent, followed up by continuing to lie about his refusal to release his tax returns, then raised a series of already debunked nonsensical allegations about Biden and his son. On the other hand, he was largely restrained in his demeanor and conduct compared to the last event. He managed to control as well as dominate by aggressive conduct. His supporters will applaud his performance, but the Biden supporters will see his performance as an exhibit of all of his flaws.
Joe Biden
Joe Biden is 77 years old. People of that age and my age have what we call "good days and bad days." This was one of Biden's bad days in the sense of energy, mental alertness and appearance of physical strength. My impression was he was tired and low energy. He looked tired to me and seemed to have difficulty articulating what he was searching for to say. On occasion he looked befuddled. He looked like he was not up to the job of being president. There were flashes of significant exceptions to this however. They just did not occur as often as they should have in the face of the concerted attacks and falsehoods by Trump. There was in my view a notable failure to have short powerful talking points about Trump's failures and Biden's ability to fix what has been broken by Trump. I had the impression that he was a long time politician who is accustomed to more polite civil political exchanges.
My greatest criticism was his lack of skill in exposing the falsity of Trump's personal attacks on him as well as exposing the numerous misrepresentations and outright lies. Even more important, was his failure to repetitively concentrate on all of the serious failures and incompetence of Trump's administration. The more obvious involve his handling of the pandemic and his incompetence in managing his administration. They include Trump's attack on the Department of Justice, the FBI, the CDC and his methodical destruction of important regulatory bodies. I felt Biden did a poor job pointing this out and instead talking about his plans if elected. No one cares about political plans at this point. It's not a battle of political plans, but of impression of candidates. Given the magnitude of his exaggerations and misrepresentations this could have been done dramatically. A classic example was Trump's outrageous claim: “Nobody has done more for the black community than Donald Trump,” Trump claimed. “If you look, with the exception of Abraham Lincoln — possible exception, but the exception of Abraham Lincoln — no one has done what I’ve done.” Given this man's history of racism, suggesting only Abraham Lincoln "possibly" might be equal to Donald Trump on the issue is an invitation for sustained mockery by Biden which was missed.
How to Improve These Candidate Meetings
In my view, there has been a serious failure by the Commission on Presidential Debates to provide voters a meaningful discussion involving presidential candidates. Certainly they are not debates. A debate is generally where two people have a discussion back and forth about the pros and cons involving an issue. Why treat or call them a debate when they are a chance for voters to evaluate candidates. I think the timing of events like this is important. They should be scheduled early in the campaign before the time of the election. Holding one 11 days before the election provides entertainment value but is not helpful for voting decisions. The Commission has failed to institute available tools to control candidates who verbally agreed to the rules and then violate them at the time of event. The best example of this is the last so-called debate and Donald Trump's conduct which the moderator was totally unable to deal with. The time limits should be enforceable by microphone control and sanctions of loss of time at a minimum. The Commission should exercised more skill in selecting qualified moderators. They should not be subject to claims of bias. In the last debate the moderator was a fox news commentator, a network totally identified with Trump. This time it was a woman who has had close and financial connections to Biden. The commission should select people who have the skills to conduct and control the event. The moderators should not be given the discretion of deciding the questions or discussion subjects. That should be done by a group of qualified persons who will have the most informative subjects.
A lot more thought should go into these events in the future.
I think the political reality is that if the Democrats had been in control within a few weeks of a presidential election, they very likely would gone ahead and confirmed their selection of a Supreme Court justice before the election just like the GOP is doing now. My problem is the offensive hypocritical conduct of the GOP leadership this year in contrast to the last appointment. The GOP two leaders responsible this are the chairman of the judiciary committee overseeing the selection approval, Leslie Graham, and the leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell.
After blocking the Obama selection, Senator Graham said in 2018 that the Senate would apply the same rule that is, they would wait until after the presidential election to vote on a Supreme Court pick. "I'll tell you this – – if an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait until the next election." The promise the GOP would wait until after the election is now being completely ignored now that it has happened. For his part, McConnell, in blocking President Obama's pick for the U.S. Supreme Court eight months before the presidential election, said: "The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate someone very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice." But, McConnell, like Graham, has applied a completely different rule now that the situation is reversed. It is this blatant lack of integrity that is disgraceful and application of two conflicting rules that is dishonest and offensive.
As to Trump's selection Judge Barrett, is unquestionably going to be approved before the election. My personal view, from what I have read and the limited amount I have watched the confirmation hearings, is that judge Barrett appears to be a competent jurist. As a mother of multiple children including adopted minority race children, she and her husband are likely to be good compassionate people. From what little I have seen and heard, as well as her judicial writings, she clearly is bright and intelligent I also think it likely she is an honest person of integrity. I doubt that one could make an valid argument that she isn't qualified, from a legal or good character standpoint, to be on US Supreme Court. By all objective standards, based on what I have seen and heard, she meets and exceeds the qualifications to be on the court.
So, what's the problem? Aside from the dishonest and duplicitous application of fair rules by O'Connell and Graham, it lies with the basic requirements, under our balance of power constitution, for a judge, especially one on the US Supreme Court. The Constitution has no qualifications for a person to be on the U.S. Supreme Court. There is no age, education or experience requirement. It does not even require a law degree to be on the highest court. What then, do I mean about "qualifications"? The Constitution creates three branches of government: the executive, legislative and judicial. In its simplest terms the executive is charged with governing leadership. The legislative branch is charged with passing laws. Judicial is charged with ensuring that the laws form to the Constitution and our lawful and are lawful. It is not the role of the judicial to implement law or exercise religious, political or personal agendas. The unstated, but existing basic qualification for a judge is objective fairness. Almost all legal scholars would agree a judge should have these qualifications: (1) fair mindedness (2) well versed in the law (3) personal honesty and integrity (4) judicial temperament (5) intelligence to think and write logically and (6) the demeanor of handling judicial power sensibly.
Considering all of these factors, objective fairness and neutrality to the parties and issues in the case is the most important. If these two are lacking, if the judge has already decided issues or favors parties in advance of the hearing, there can be no fair trial or no fair final decision. With Judge Barrett considerable documentation exists she has very strong religious beliefs about subjects like abortion, same sex marriage and other decided opinions of the court. In fact, President Trump, the GOP and religious leaders have made it clear they are assured that her appointment will result in the reversal of Supreme Court cases they object to on religious grounds. In fact, they are loudly and publicly cheering the fact that her appointment will mean a change in laws through Supreme Court decisions that will enforce their religious beliefs on these and other important subjects. Donald Trump has taken all credit for her selection with religious leaders and conservatives. The GOP senators are all joining in seeking election approval from conservative and evangelical Christians on the basis of their assurance judge Barrett will reverse opinions they disagree with and join one's that promote their conservative and religious views. In other words, they believe they know what she will do before she hears any of the cases involving these issues. Her deep religious views and her writings as well as her legal decisions confirm her strong feelings on religious and legal subjects that are of significant consequence in this country. There is little dispute about her strong views and her religious commitment as well as her viewpoint on key legal issues.
However judge Barrett over the past few days of the hearings about her confirmation, has repeatedly and continuously assured all of the senators of her ability to not allow these views to influence her legal decisions as a Supreme Court judge. She has maintained that she will only decide cases on the basis of the law and with a open mind by setting aside these existing strong religious and legal views she holds dearly. From what I am able to see, I believe Judge Barrett sincerely and genuinely believes this and would attempt to carry out what she has assured committee members about. If judge Barrett is honest and sincere in her assurance that she will not allow these existing beliefs and viewpoints to influence her decisions in cases presented to the court, what's the problem?
There is abundant and uncontroverted research over a period of time that confirms certain truths about human nature. These truths include the fact that people simply cannot accurately evaluate whether they have biases with regard to issues. Even when they are aware of biases they are largely unable to accurately evaluate the extent to which those biases will drive decisions or influence opinions. Most importantly, research clearly shows that people are simply incapable of not having strong value beliefs, biases and significant past experiences influencing their thinking, opinions and decisions no matter what they do.
Whether it is a judge, even a US Supreme Court judge, they have the same inability to avoid the impact of existing beliefs. Many lawyers and judges were graded in law school by their grades and judged one another from the standpoint of intelligence. There law school experience and most often their teaching was that people make decisions rationally on the basis of the available facts and evidence applying logic. However, studies using MRI devices and other scientific research have completely debunked this idea. People make decisions largely at a subconscious level and only then apply a rational reason after the fact. We know that decisions are virtually impossible without an emotional component involved. In fact research shows that emotion drives most decisions and opinions and viewpoints. This concept has been illustrated by a person riding an elephant. The rider represents the conscious rational mind and elephant represents our subconscious bias, opinions and our deep values as well as our past experiences. They may believe they are in charge, but they go where the the elephant wants to go.
Judge Barrett may be sincere, but she's a human being. Her efforts to recognize bias or not allow it to influence her are fruitless no matter how sincerely she tries. She, like every other primate, lawyer or not, are controlled by the same decision-making process. My apprehension about judge Barrett is not about her integrity or her qualifications, but about her pre-existing strong values, opinions and religious views. No matter how hard and sincerely judge Barrett (or any other judge) may try and honestly attempt to not allow personal views to influence their decision they will not succeed. It is against human nature. It has been scientifically proven to be something that can't be done successfully.
My apprehension is that judge their will continue to follow her already existing religious and legal views in spite of all efforts and therefore is not qualified to serve on a court where objective, fair decisions are made. Our constitution does not allow the courts to impose religious views on citizens because of the personal religious views of a judge. People who already have made up their minds on issues should not be allowed to be a judge deciding those issues.
Should we be concerned about illegal rioting, looting and arson in America cities? Yes, of course. Has there been a failure at all levels of government to deal effectively with the situation? Obviously. Is this a problem that involves the president of the United States? Yes, both Donald Trump and Joe Biden agree it is a responsibility of the president. In considering which of the two candidates is most likely to remedy the situation as president, the past history is important.
Four years ago, Donald Trump said, as he accepted the nomination at the Republican National Convention, “When I take the oath of office next year, I will restore law and order to our country,”. “In this race for the White House, I am the law-and-order candidate.”
Now, four years later, Donald Trump again tells the nation they should elect him because: " I am your President of law and order" He promises:
“We will hire more police, increase penalties for assaults on law enforcement, and surge federal prosecutors into high-crime communities. We will ban deadly sanctuary cities and ensure that federal healthcare is protected for American citizens, not for illegal aliens. And on November 3rd, we will make America safe.”
A thoughtful voter should ask herself or himself: Who has been the president for the last four years? Who made these law and order assurances to Americans four years ago? Who is the person during the past four years responsible for bringing law and order? Why haven’t the promises Trump now makes four years later already been done? Why we would believe they will be done if re-elected when he hasn’t already done it during past the four years he has been in office?
Like the Wizard in the Wizard of Oz, who is exposed as a fake when the curtain is pulled back, Trump seems to hope voters will think someone else has been commander in chief these past four years. But the inescapable fact is that as the commander in chief, the buck stops with him and has for the past four years. It has been his responsibility over those years to fulfill his original campaign promises and to have already done the exact things he now promises to do if elected again. His responsibility has included the duty to “make America Safe” for the last four years. He already made the promises he is repeating again. Trump owns these problems because he already gave the identical assurances to the country and was elected to carry them out. He argued at that time and again now he, and only he, has the answers to these problems while having failed to carry out his promises during his term as president.
Trump’s pretending, he isn’t responsible for his campaign promises is consistent with his failure to take personal responsibility for any of his leadership failures. In fact, his presidency has been marked by blaming other people for his failures – the media, the so-called ”deep state”, the Democrats, the Republicans who do not agree with him and people in his own administration.
It’s laughable, really, that President Trump is presenting himself as the candidate of “law and order” in the 2020 presidential campaign given his failure to solve the problems all of which have happened on his watch. It is as if, in his mind, someone else has been president during these past four years. Worse, his record in office has not been one of a “law and order” president. It has been one of illegality and disorder. He has governed by Twitter and executive mandate — on immigration, foreign policy, health care, and environmental and economic policy. He defies Congress and the courts almost on a weekly basis.The people he has selected to be his advisors and in his administration, he originally has highly praised, but there has been an astonishing number of firings, departures, and even criminal convictions. But, even though he selected them, he acts as if he had no role in their selection and has been unwilling to accept any responsibility for it.
The president is clearly not bringing us law and order. He has failed to be anything resembling a law and order president. Why would any American voter now believe the same false campaign promises about law and order that he made four years ago?
Unless you have been living in a cave, everyone knows about what was called the "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" (CHAZ)" and is now known as the "Capitol Hill Occupied protest (CHOP)." The city area involved originally covered six city blocks and a park. Protesters of the George Floyd killing created it on June 8th.The Seattle Police Department blocked the protesters access to this area of the city who wanted access to the city police precinct building located there. The police continued to block the crowd from proceeding, but only until the building was secured with plywood and sealed up by the city. At which point the police abandoned the area to the crowd who swiftly took over the property surrounding the precinct building and created the zone. The protesters erected barricades to block street access, set up tents and began covering the area with graffiti and temporary structures. It wasn't until June 16th, with traffic blocked from entering the area, Mayor Jenny Durkan announced concrete barriers would be installed in the area occupied with one lane left open to allow access by emergency vehicles. She also announced that the police would not be allowed in except to respond to life-threatening crimes. The concrete barriers were even encased with plywood to allow occupiers to paint messages on it. This created an area with traffic blocked off with barricades as well as a zone without police, fire department or city government presence or law enforcement. Throughout the occupation of the area, the chief of police and the mayor have dealt with the situation by what is best described as an approach of "can't we all just get along?" The mayor explained her inaction by saying the city must balance demonstrators "first amendment activities" and "public safety and allowing access for residents and businesses who operate in the area" to explain why no action had been taken.
That was the situation until last Saturday when two shootings occurred on the edge of the zone. One person was killed and other seriously injured. Police investigators and Fire Department medics did not reach the shooting scene Saturday morning, citing unsafe conditions. Both victims were taken to Harborview Medical Center by private citizens, while Fire Department medics waited outside the protest zone, citing standard policy to wait for police to declare potentially dangerous areas secure before entering. The chief explained: “They were faced with a hostile crowd and made a tactical decision to leave the area for the officers’ safety and for the safety of the crowd" she said. In the meantime the wounded man remained in critical condition as of Monday morning in the intensive care unit at Harborview Medical Center. Less than 48 hours afterwards another man was fatally shot in the protest area. The Seattle Fire Department arrived at the scene but were told by the protesters the injured person has already been taken away, transported to the same hospital via private car. The person was in serious condition a Harborview Medical Center spokesperson said in a statement.
During all of this, rthe Mayor was silent and had no comment for the news media. Then on Sunday evening, in her first public statement on the shootings, Mayor Jenny Durkan responded to the shootings by saying “thousands of peaceful demonstrators gather almost daily” on Capitol Hill, but acknowledged there were “more dangerous conditions” at night. At the same time she was continued to be lambasted in the media for a CNN’s interview during which she suggested the occupied protest around the city’s east police precinct could simply be a “summer of love.” When asked, Police Chief Carmen Best was quoted as saying she wants to retake the police precinct in the self-declared "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone," or "CHAZ," “as soon as possible.” “Ideally, we just need to get back into the building,” she said. However, the head of Seattle's police union lamented the lack of "leadership" in the city. In the latest development, Mayor Durkan told the media the police department will return to its abandoned precinct building "peacefully and in the near future" but wouldn't give a time table. Instead, she said the city would attempt to phase downtown night activity in the protest area by "asking people to leave the area voluntarily at night." No other solution or plan has been suggested by the mayor or police chief In the meantime, the city council members are staying quietly in the background.
However, the store owners in the area are still unable to conduct business. People who live in the area still suffer noise and fear for their safety. The area has been covered with messages and graffiti. The "zone" remains an island of no police, no fire protection and no ambulance service. It still is an island of anarchy. Let it never even be whispered that I ever agree with Donald Trump and I don't, but I would never have thought a city the size of Seattle would tolerate it's police being driven out of their station by crowds of people and having to board it up to protect it from occupation and damage. It's hard to imagine police, ambulance and fire department crews unable to enter the area by the people occupying it who claim it is an "autonomous" zone. Nor would I have expected a Seattle mayor and police chief to respond with a solution of asking the occupiers to "voluntarily leave." It's to hard to believe this is happening in Seattle.
Should people be allowed to peacefully protest the wrong of racial discrimination and police abuse of power? Absolutely, it is a constitutional right. Should they be allowed to disrupt normal daily activities and city affairs? Yes, if done without violence and for reasonable periods as well in a reasonable manner. The question in Seattle however, is should the Chief of Police stand by while protesters take over a section of a business and residential area as well as having the police abandon their station on the demand of the crowd? Should the Mayor allow the situation to continue with no steps to restore civic order and laws? Is it a reasonable plan for a solution to ask the occupiers to voluntarily leave on their own choice? The answer is obvious to any rational person who doesn't allow political considerations to dominate the duty of leadership. A mayor's obligation is to lead and to reasonably enforce the laws which protect the citizens rights. The chief of police is charged with enforcing the law and maintaining order in a reasonable manner. Yes, that doesn't mean pepper spray, rubber bullets, tear gas and the acts of the Seattle police we've seen previously, but it doesn't involve the police standing around with their hands in their pockets while there is anarchy in the streets either. But, law enforcement crowd control and restoring order are obligations competent police chiefs in major cities are supposed to know. Mayor's are elected to lead and there are times they are called upon to do the difficult thing that will potentially hurt them politically. That goes with the job and with strong leadership.
Both leaders have abandoned their duties. We need to send a search party out to find the mayor and the chief until they decide to come out of hiding and do their job.
Catherine Rampell of the Washington Post wrote a column “Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding.” It dealt with the standing ovations for Joseph Stalin out of fear of stopping to applaud his speeches. She describes the consequences for being the first to stop applauding. She recounts this from Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “The Gulag Archipelago” an illustration of this truth:
"At the conclusion of the conference, a tribute to Comrade Stalin was called for. Of course, everyone stood up (just as everyone had leaped to his feet during the conference at every mention of his name). The small hall echoed with “stormy applause, rising to an ovation.” For three minutes, four minutes, five minutes, the “stormy applause, rising to an ovation,” continued. But palms were getting sore and raised arms were already aching. And the older people were panting from exhaustion. It was becoming insufferably silly even to those who really adored Stalin. However, who would dare be the first to stop? The secretary of the District Party Committee could have done it. He was standing on the platform, and it was he who had just called for the ovation. But he was a newcomer. He had taken the place of a man who’d been arrested. He was afraid! After all, NKVD men were standing in the hall applauding and watching to see who quit first! And in that obscure, small hall, unknown to the Leader, the applause went on – six, seven, eight minutes! They were done for! Their goose was cooked! They couldn’t stop now till they collapsed with heart attacks! At the rear of the hall, which was crowded, they could of course cheat a bit, clap less frequently, less vigorously, not so eagerly — but up there with the presidium where everyone could see them? The director of the local paper factory, an independent and strong-minded man, stood with the presidium. Aware of all the falsity and all the impossibility of the situation, he still kept on applauding! Nine minutes! Ten! In anguish he watched the secretary of the District Party Committee, but the latter dared not stop. Insanity! To the last man! With make-believe enthusiasm on their faces, looking at each other with faint hope, the district leaders were just going to go on and on applauding till they fell where they stood, till they were carried out of the hall on stretchers! And even then those who were left would not falter…Then after eleven minutes, the director of the paper factory assumed a businesslike expression and sat down in his seat. And, oh, a miracle took place! Where had the universal, uninhibited, indescribable enthusiasm gone? To a man, everyone else stopped dead and sat down. They had been saved! The squirrel had been smart enough to jump off his revolving wheel. That, however, was how they discovered who the independent people were. And that was how they went about eliminating them."
In fact, that same night, the director of the paper factory who stopped clapping was arrested. He was charged and sent to prison for ten years on some pretext. But after his interrogation and conviction, his interrogator reminded him: “Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding!”
Author Doug Peterson has published more than 60 books, including four historical novels and more than 40 books for the popular VeggieTales series. He published a commentary about this same event which he entitled "The Men Who Wouldn’t Stop Clapping." He explains that Stalin was a ruthless dictator who ruled the Soviet Union from 1922 to 1952. Although no one knows the precise number of political prisoners he executed, estimates usually reach well over a million. He writes that historian Roy Aleksandrovich Medvedev estimated that Stalin had about 1 million political prisoners executed during the Great Terror of 1937-38 alone. That doesn’t even count the 6 or 7 million who died in the famine that Stalin created through his policies, or the millions who had to do long, hard sentences in the Gulag labor camps. As Peterson observes in this commentary "The Men Who Wouldn't Stop Talking":
"It takes courage to be the person who doesn’t give up. It takes courage to be the person who is willing to stop applauding evil, when everyone else in the room just keeps on going. There is often a price to pay for this kind of courage, but there’s also a reward beyond measure."
There are the sincere followers of Donald Trump who are entitled to their position. This is America and everyone is entitled to their political beliefs even if others think it is completely misplaced. But, the shame is that there are also spineless senators, like Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham and so many other leaders who endorse everything Donald Trump does like the Russians who were standing applauding a ruthless dictator. These Russians for the most part were doing it because they were afraid for their lives. But, the ;political leaders and the others are offering insincere, phoney, blind endorsement for selfish self interest and because they have a cowardly fear of being attacked by the bully who is acting as the president of the United States. That's a lot less honorable reason to keep applauding. It's past time for them to stop clapping.
Just when I had made up my mind not to write about the coronavirus or President Trump, Mr. Trump has done it again. I can't sit silent when he once again attacks reporters for asking relevant questions with a childish tantrum and while so badly mistaken about his constitutional power. On Monday President Trump conducted a shouting exchange with reporters involving name calling and interrupting. He took the occasion to repeatedly claim he had the ultimate and final power to compel states to lift stay-at-home orders and businesses to open. Asked what provisions of the Constitution gave him such authority over the states, he replied, “Numerous provisions,” without naming any. “When somebody’s the president of the United States, the authority is total.” At his news briefing, Mr. Trump repeated his position a number of times. “The president of the United States calls the shots,” he said. “They can’t do anything without the approval of the president of the United States.”
This not the first time Trump has made totally false claims about his presidential power. For example, in a speech back in July 2019, he asserted, "I have an Article II, where I have to the right to do whatever I want as president."
Disgraced former president Nixon made similar presidential claims of power during a 1977 interview after his resignation. David Frost, citing his various unconstitutional actions during the Watergate crisis, asked: Would you say that there are certain situations,” Frost asked, “where the president can decide that it’s in the best interests of the nation, and do something illegal?” Nixon’s reply became infamous. “Well, when the president does it, that means it is not illegal,”
Trump’s reliance on Article II for his mistaken idea is misplaced. The Article and the Constitution do not give the president this kind of power. Article II provides:
“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law..”
Article II also requires that the president “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The Constitution and Article II do not give the president the powers he claims.
Not only that the Tenth Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." In other words, states have all powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Under our constitutional form of government all power not given government remains with the people and all power not given the federal government by the states remains with the state.
Furthermore, the federal government is divided into three branches: the executive power, invested in the President, the legislative power, given to Congress and the judicial power, vested in one Supreme Court and other federal courts created by Congress. The Constitution provides a system of checks and balances designed to avoid the tyranny of any one branch. Tyranny of a president under our constitution is only possible when the three branches lose their independence and their power to check the actions of another branch. That can happen under the constitution by loading the judiciary with people who are selected because of a political or religious agenda and electing legislatures who have similar goals. By abandoning their duty of holding the president accountable, he or she can quickly become despot.
It has been argued that it is way past time for Congress to rein in unconstitutional assertions of executive. Meanwhile, President Trump needs to adhere to his Article II oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I'm nor sure why I watched another Democratic debate last night. Having watched the previous debates, I didn't expect to learn anything helpful. Yet I decided to watch it anyway. It's sort of like not being able to not watch a replay video of a train wreck - morbid curiosity? Everyone who also watched will have their own viewpoint, but here's mine. To start with, in evaluating candidates, I think you have to keep in mind the distinction between those whose views you identify with or who strikes you as an authentic person and that of the different question: Can they beat Donald Trump for the office of president? As I've said before, it's like the country western singer Bobby Bare's song Numbers where the cowboy rates women on a scale of one to ten and concludes "There's flaws in all of them." Not one of them has all the features, abilities and viewpoint to be a perfect candidate to beat Donald Trump and, in addition, be a great president while dealing with an obstructionist senate. Let's also bear in mind, no matter how skillful and talented the person elected president might be, they cannot accomplish what needs to be done without the cooperation of the senate. Until that changes the politics of the country will largely be in a locked down state. Here are my observations.
JOE BIDEN No candidate has more political experience, both nationally and world wide. No other candidate had eight years of experience as vice president of the United States. No other candidate has as much legislative experience. But, Joe is too old for the job. He demonstrated several times confusion during the debate. He wouldn't be too old if politics today hadn't become total warfare between the political parties. But, things are never going to be civil again in this country for a very long time. Fighting Trump during the campaign will involve brutal hand-to-hand fighting. Joe isn't equipped for it. Joe's lifetime of political civility will make him totally vulnerable to the Donald Trump style of personal attacks, lies and cheating. In addition, no matter who is elected, they are likely going to have to deal with Moscow Mitch - the one man Senate dictator and his crew of robots. There will be no Senate negotiation with a Democratic president. It will be obstruction on every issue. Whoever is elected had better be equipped to use political strength, punishment and reward in dealing with an uncooperative obstinate Senate. Joe is not the kind of person who knows how to use political strong-arm tactics which will be required. Elect-ability: He is the most likely of all the candidates to be able to defeat Trump. Joe has a lifetime of political knowledge and experience. He is the only candidate on the Democratic side who has the advantage of offering someone who is a respectable and honest experienced politician and who has already been vice president. I rank him as the most likely candidate to be nominated.
CORY BOOKER Booker very bright, strong and articulate. Of all the candidates I thought he was the most presidential in the debate. He was always calm and showed knowledge about the big picture regarding issues. Booker was the only candidate during the debate who understood the difference between political speeches on the road and responses during a debate. Everyone else used every question, no matter how simple, as a reason to make political speeches,ignoring the question and rambling on past their allotted time. The people who refused to stop talking past their time only ended up to be seen as rude and self-centered. The other candidates failed to focus on the issues in plain, simple and short sentences. Instead, they talked about "their plan" and themselves. One of the primary reasons Donald Trump beat the other candidates during the last election debates was that while they made political speeches and did exactly the same thing, he used short, simple and understandable responses no matter how complex the issues. He understood the importance of not sounding like a typical Washington politician making another long winded political speech. Among all of the candidates in the debate last night only Booker correctly appreciated this fact by his responses. Furthermore he made sense, has a leadership demeanor and has the toughness to take on Trump and the Senate dictator Moacow Mitch. Elect-ability: Unfortunately Booker has been unable to generate the kind of political support necessary to be nominated. Unless that changes he is unlikely to be the candidate even though he would be my number one choice.
PETE BUTTIGIEG This bright young politician continues to be impressive with his calm presence and analytical mind. He has a good grasp of issues and is quick on his feet with responses. He is a very impressive candidate. I think he would be able to stand up to Trump's kind of dirty campaigning. But, I don't think he has enough political experience to deal with the political warfare he will face with the Senate if elected. His lack of political experience is also a drawback regarding both domestic and foreign issues. In my view he should be running for the Senate and after gaining political experience try for the office of president in the future. Elect-ability: I don't think he can be elected. I'm not sure America and the conservative religious are willing to vote for a man involved in a openly gay relationship either. His youth and inexperience together with his marital status and sexual orientation make it unlikely that he would be nominated.
JULIAN CASTRO I admit that I have a negative reaction to this man's physical appearance. My immediate impression of him is that of a an actor in a gangster movie. That may be unfair, but it's a liability when impressions are so important in politics. He seems bright and informed. I think he is also strong. But, he strikes me as being overly aggressive in his responses during the debate. In a previous debate I was offended by his inappropriate attack on Joe Biden. I think he would be capable of standing up to Donald Trump, but I question his ability, skill and experience to be the kind of president we need. Elect-ability: I don't see this candidate is having a real chance of being elected in a campaign against Donald Trump
TULSI GABBARD I think she does an impressive job during debates. I like her courage and her calmly taking on others at the debate she disagrees with. I like most of her views on the issues as well. Unfortunately she lacks the kind of political experience that is so badly needed in our next president. I would certainly vote for her remaining in the Senate and think that she has good political judgment.Elect-ability: I think there is little chance that she will be nominated.
KAMALA HARRIS She continues to offend me as she has in every debate. She exhibits a Hillary Clinton kind of attitude of entitlement and arrogance coupled with self centeredness. She inappropriately attacked Joe Biden in a previous debate. She has fallen back on citing her African American background and tries to enhance her importance by talking about her past public service in California. In fact, she was subject to extreme criticism over her ethical conduct there. She unquestionably is a bright woman and with her Donald Trump like narcissistic courage would stand toe to toe with him in the election. She has political experience, but I remain troubled about her narcissistic demeanor and lack of character, Elect-ability: I don't think she would be capable of defeating Donald Trump in election. In addition, both she and Booker have the issue of voter racial bias.
AMY KLOBUCHAR The problem Is that I don't have any particular reaction to her. She seems very vanilla to me. Her overall impression is that she is a strong intelligent woman but does not exhibit the characteristics and qualifications you expect for the office.Elect-ability: I don't see her as having any significant chance of being the candidate nominated.
BETO O’ROURKE He continues through this and all of the debates to appear to be a very bright young man who is genuine and of good character. He is well informed and would be a candidate for political office under normal circumstances. I think he is capable of handling Trumps underhanded style of campaigning. However, his lack of political experience required for the office of president makes him unqualified in my opinion. I remain convinced that he should be running for the Senate and gaining political experience before taking on a campaign to be president. Elect-ability: I think there's little chance that he will be nominated, but I anticipate both he and Buttigieg will be very successful politicians in the future.
BERNIE SANDERS Bernie's political positions remain totally consistent through all of the debates and his campaigning. His message never varies. He has targeted the issues that are the most significant in this country. He is a genuine and highly moral individual who has the country's best interest at heart. Unfortunately, his viewpoints are extreme in the view of the average voter who worry about taxes to fund his ideas. Worse, his recent heart attack and his age make him even more unsuitable to be elected president at this time. I think Bernie should retire from the race and deal with his health. Elect-ability: In spite of everything that has happened Bernie remains a highly electable candidate. If his health holds he can't be counted out. I rate him third behind Biden and Warren as likely to be nominated.
TOM STEYER This "mystery" billionaire candidate has articulate and well reasoned positions particularly on climate control. Originally a backer of Jay, he decided to enter the race himself. By using targeted mailings and advertising he was able to meet the requirement for participation in the debate. To my knowledge is totally lacking in political experience. While well-intentioned I cannot imagine him being qualified to be president. Elect-ability: I think there is virtually no chance he will be nominated.
ELIZABETH WARREN She has become the front runner in the race. She is very courageous. She is extremely bright and very knowledgeable about the issues as well. She certainly isn't intimidated by Donald Trump and of all the candidates she is the most qualified to deal with him and his obnoxious conduct. However, I have gone from being her early supporter to someone I would not want to see as president. I don't see her being able to achieve cooperation with the Senate and Republicans. Her extreme viewpoints are a liability for election. In debates she is the worst offender of making political speeches in a patronizing and long-winded manner. Instead of short simple responses she uses every question to make a political speech. She has become just like Hillary Clinton in that regard. That simply doesn't work against a candidate like Donald Trump who uses quick, short personal attacks or answers to complex issues. Worse, long winded answers don't work with most Americans who don't want politics as usual. Her viewpoints are almost identical to Bernie which makes her views as extreme as Bernie's which does not sell well to the moderate voter. While she is politically knowledgeable and capable of dealing with Trump, I don't see her style as having any benefit in dealing with with Moscow Mitch and the Senate should she be elected. Elect-ability: Irrespective of the polls, my personal view is that she is probably number two behind Joe Biden and in front of Bernie Sanders.
ANDREW YANG Yang is another "mystery" candidate. He has virtually no political experience. Before running for office no one outside of the tech field knew who he was. Yet, he continues to qualify for debates by the support he is able to gain. Frankly, he impresses me. He's very bright, totally unflappable and would be in sharp contrast as a calm professional against an arm waving out of control Donald Trump. For the most part he has solid ideas and is very well informed. However, his lack of experience makes me think that he should run for the Senate and get political experience before running for this office. Nevertheless I have a favorable impression. Elect-ability Barring some kind of miracle I don't see him as having any real chance of being the candidate.
We all know the extraordinary record regarding the crowd of people Donald Trump has selected for administration posts and praised as exceptionally qualified for the position only to fire them a short time later or have them resign.This never ending rotation of people first in his favor and shortly thereafter attacked by him as utterly unqualified and then totally contemptible reminds me of Shakespeare's play of Henry VIII. There is the famous speech of Wolsey about his downfall from favor which seems to me to capture the picture so accurately. Shakespeare writes the scene this way:
"So farewell to the little good you bear me. Farewell! a long farewell, to all my greatness! This is the state of man: to-day he puts forth The tender leaves of hopes; to-morrow blossoms, And bears his blushing honours thick upon him; The third day comes a frost, a killing frost, And, when he thinks, good easy man, full surely His greatness is a-ripening, nips his root, And then he falls, as I do
I have ventured, Like little wanton boys that swim on bladders, This many summers in a sea of glory, But far beyond my depth: my high-blown pride At length broke under me and now has left me, Weary and old with service, to the mercy Of a rude stream, that must for ever hide me. Vain pomp and glory of this world, I hate ye: I feel my heart new open'd. O, how wretched Is that poor man that hangs on princes' favours! There is, betwixt that smile we would aspire to, That sweet aspect of princes, and their ruin, More pangs and fears than wars or women have: And when he falls, he falls like Lucifer, Never to hope again."
When he tells blatant lies and makes totally false statements, which occurs virtually daily, I am reminded of a couple of well known movie scenes. One line about lies from a movie is still used by comedians today. It's from the 1933 movie “Duck Soup” starring the Marx brothers. Chico Marx was playing the character Chicolini. This exchange occurred between the actress Margaret Dumont playing Mrs. Gloria Teasdale and Chico Marx:
"Teasdale: Your Excellency, I thought you left.
Chicolini: Oh no. I no leave.
Teasdale: But I saw you with my own eyes.
Chicolini: Well, who ya gonna believe me or your own eyes?"
That's Donald Trump's classic position when caught in a flagrant lie or totally wrong claim. "Who you going to believe, me or your lying eyes and the fake news?"
There is a second movie with a scene that illustrates Trump's refusal to concede he has made a flat out false statement or claim. It's from the wonderful 1939 movie The Wizard of OZ produced by Metro-Golden-Mayer. Dorothy is swept away by a tornado to the magical land of OZ and works to get back home. Dorothy and her dog Toto, accompanied by the Tin Man, The Scarecrow and the Cowardly Lion, set out to OZ to get the help of the great and wonderful wizard, played by actor Frank Morgan. They make their way to the throne room and the Wizard refuses to help, ordering to leave. While there are lights flashing and the wizard loudly ordering to leave, the dog, Toto, goes to a curtain and pulls it back with his teeth exposing an ordinary man manipulating switches to appear like a wizard. When he realizes the dog has exposed him as a fake, he says to Dorothy and her friends "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. I am the great and powerful ..." Dorothy says "You are? I don't believe you." The scarecrow says "You humbug" and the wizard admits "Yes. Exactly so. I'm a humbug." What a powerful and accurate description of Donald Trump and his conduct as president.
My last observation is the "Narcissist's Prayer" cartoon which needs no discussion or explanation:
On Wednesday of this week President Donald Trump sat in the oval office holding up a map which he claimed confirmed his earlier assertion that Alabama was in the path of Hurricane Dorian even though the National Weather and Service had immediately denied his statement saying: "Alabama will NOT see any impacts from Dorian." Worse, the map he displayed had obviously been doctored by adding a felt tip line extending the official storm path so it now went into Alabama. Instead of admitting the obvious misstatement he had made, he instead dug in his heels and offered doctored evidence to justify it. Social media quickly labeled it "sharpiegate" after the Sharpie felt tip pen company product. On social media people mockingly suggested the president might use his Sharpie felt tip pen to add the wall on the Mexican border or use felt tip stick figures to prove his disputed claim about the number of people at his inaugural. Commentators generally characterized his use of the altered map as "just so obviously ridiculous."
Why are all of us reluctant to admit we made a mistake? In the book Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs Bad Decisions and Hurtful Acts the authors suggest that the psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance is to blame. This occurs when we hold certain opinions or values and are confronted with conflicting facts. Our reaction is to find reasons to reject the facts and continue with our present belief. There are other factors involved including issues as to how significant the mistake was and people not wanting to be wrong because it makes us appear less-than-perfect. We tend to view mistakes and apologies as a sign of weak character while in fact they require strength.
Certainly, we can understand that politicians have to be acutely aware of the significance of making mistakes and admitting them. Opponents will seize upon the acknowledged mistake and offered apology as a reason for the individual not to be elected to office. Presidential hopeful Joe Biden has had to deal with frequent gaffes on his part. However, an important aspect of evaluating the response to a mistake involves the significance of the issue and the mistake that was made. Acknowledging an mistake like this has minimal importance politically. This president is however unique regarding a lack of basic honesty and truthfulness which are defects of character. President Trumps lack of truthfulness stands apart from any other president in recent memory. No other president has had the media and other fact finding organizations maintaining ongoing tallies of the number of proven lies by a President of the United States and his refusal to admit he was wrong.
Against that backdrop however, is the fact that the most offensive aspect of the president's conduct was the enormous importance of people suffering from and in danger from this record storm while he instead was concentrated on trying to cover up his mistake rather than simply acknowledging it and moving on. That moral choice is a clear and significant reflection on the lack of his moral code, ethics and honesty. Many of his supporters have been quick to brush this aside as insignificant. Those supporters rationalization is consistent with the psychological concept of cognitive dissonance – the difficulty in abandoning one's previous views in the face of conflicting evidence. Here, however, the most glaring fact is his use of such a obviously altered document to avoid having to concede a somewhat insignificant misstatement. In my view his choice to have done so is a clear reflection on his narcissistic ego and his absence of a moral or ethical code about the importance of truth.
Perhaps my view is biased by what I like to claim was my mother's teaching on morals: "Son, never lie, never steal and never, never vote Republican."
I wouldn't call the two nights a "debate." A debate involves people in disagreement about the same subject who are given equal time to convince judges which side has the correct position on the matter measured by their logic and delivery. That's not close to what these TV shows are because, at best, they are a brief preview of the people running for president while trying to impress voters. As conducted, they do not provide equal time to each candidate, nor do they allow all participants the right to respond to the same issue or question. They give the moderators arbitrary power to decide the time allocation of answers as well select who participates in questions. The time limit is abused by the candidates because the moderators do not know how to effectively limit or sanction a candidate ignoring the rules. In that regard, the simplest solution would be a microphone shut off switch controlled by the moderator. Some moderator, just as some candidates, are better than others.
Here are is the mob that would like to have Donald Trump's job and think they can run the country:
How did they do? Well, it depends upon your bias and your viewpoint. How do you pick a candidate? I think it has three criteria: (1) someone who has the same general views as you do about important issues (2) someone who has the leadership experience and skills to implement them as a leader and (3) someone who can defeat Trump while dealing with his untruthful political personal attacks. My overall reaction to the candidates performance was disappointment. As a trial lawyer and one who has given literally hundreds of speeches to lawyers over the years, I was totally disappointed in all of the candidates communication skills. When you know you only have a limited time, in minutes. to speak, every word counts and you don't have time for speeches, discussion of your plans or political stump speeches. You need to speak in short sound bites giving simple and powerful responses. Responses should include analogies and metaphors. The best of the group in that regard was Buttigieg, Gabbard & Yang. Think back to the 2016 Trump - Clinton exchange over immigration. She gave a long outline of her plan for different groups of immigrants. Trump, on the other hand, had one response: "Build a wall and Mexico will pay for it." Intellectuals were repulsed by his solution. Voters tuned out Clinton's involved solution and connected with a simple understandable Trump solution. Candidates talked too much, too long and too often about themselves instead of what concerned voters. Using my three criteria for who to vote for here is my scoring:
Tuesday, July 30:
A very likeable man who was seen as a potential strong candidate but who came across as flat & uninspiring SCORE: C
South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg.
This is an extremely bright and intelligent man who has solid ideas as well as the knowledge for needed changes. Very impressive person with good ideas and demeanor. His lack of political experience, age and his same sex marriage raise serious questions about his ability to defeat Trump given the need for conservative voters. SCORE: A-
Former Maryland Rep. John Delaney
He was professionally poised and had good responses, but lacks any required charisma or leadership demeanor. SCORE: C+
Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper
This is a ethical and honorable person who served as governor well, but is past prime for taking on Trump or the presidency. SCORE: C+
Strong and bright person with solid ideas, but isn't up to the assault by Trump and is not electable SCORE: C+
Former Texas Rep. Beto O'Rourke
A sincere and bright young man who looks like a college student. Given his age and lack of political experience his time hasn't come yet. He needs to serve in the trenches for awhile longer before being up to being president. SCORE: C
Good looking man who is the size of a professional line backer. He had good responses, but his lack of political notoriety and his failure to demonstrate that he had the qualifications for the office hurt his chance of beating Trump. SCORE C
I think he is a very ethical and sincere person and I like much of what he advocates, but I don't see him as electable with the need for conservative and moderate voters given his progressive ideas which frighten taxpayers. Plus his age is a problem as is his angry delivery of his ideas. I think he would be an easier target for Trump to beat than Hillary. SCORE: C+
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren
I have always liked her courage and outspoken honesty. However, her views are essentially the same as Sanders and she is more strident in her delivery than he is. She needs to learn professional demeanor and calm leadership qualities instead of conveying a radical extremist attitude. Instead of calm leadership demeanor she projected shrill, excitable and impulsive behavior. She has the skill and courage to take Trump on in hand to hand political fighting or debate, but I don't think she can beat Trump. SCORE: C+
For me, this is a mystery woman. How did she get to this position and what were her qualifications? That's a big drawback for getting elected. She had some solid answers during the discussions and her demeanor was good as well, but her summation was ineffective. I don't think has any chance of beating Trump. SCORE: C-
Wednesday, July 31:
A well reasoned ideas and has professional poise. Solid thinking on issues and could deal with Trump in debate. However, he doesn't have demeanor or appearance of leader. Questionable ability to beat Trump. SCORE: C+
Former Vice President Joe Biden
I admire Joe for his ethical honesty and sincerity as well as his contribution to our country. He doesn't have the needed mental quickness and competitive skill to handle Trump. He is clearly showing his age; he is too connected to his past politics; he lacks the debate mentality needed for hand to hand political fighting and it is really questionable if he is up to the job of president while he would restore the office. SCORE: B-
I had regarded him as a show boat politician, but he demonstrated outstanding skill at being articulate, having a good grasp of issues and being a competitive debater. I like his professionalism and he is a big man with leadership demeanor. My sole concern is the electability of an African American after all the hate attacks on Obama and having to run against a racist like Trump. SCORE: A-
Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julian Castro
A very nice and decent man who had good answers and was articulate as well. His Cuban background could be a plus. I question his toughness to deal with Trump in debate. He lacks the appearance and demeanor of a leader as well as the charisma needed to be elected. SCORE: C
New York Mayor Bill de BlasioI
I admit starting out with a bias against him because of his political history as mayor of NY. He is a blow hard who hoped to get attention by making unprofessional attacks on Biden and came across as being someone without a plan or answers to our problems. The fact he is involved in an inner racial marriage is either a plus or a minus for election, I'm not sure which. SCORE: D-
I had real reservations about her as a light weight from Hawaii who was unqualified in leadership demeanor or experience. I must say I was very impressed with her answers, courage and general demeanor. She took on Kamala Harris for her bullying of Biden, showed independent courage on issues and was very articulate on issues. I think she is fully capable of debating Trump. My only reservation is whether her youth and the fact she is a woman running in a white, male dominated country can get the votes needed to beat him. SCORE: A-
New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
She is strong, bright and determined. I was offended by her attempts to get attention by her treatment of Biden, insisting he answer her questions as if she was cross examining him. Furthermore, I resent excessive assertiveness to refuse to stop talking when told to do so. She was too unprofessional and shrill, but I acknowledge she can be coached to correct these defects. SCORE: B-
I was truly offended by her performance. She projects a smug, conceited arrogance. Her bullying treatment of Biden was shameful and done solely because she had gotten attention from doing it in the previous debate. She has a record of unethical as well as unlawful conduct in role in law enforcement in California. She repeatedly tries to use race as a means of attracting votes. She repeatedly refused to stop talking when told to do so and simply ignored the moderator. She bragged about herself excessively. Her anger and conceit make her a poor candidate or president. SCORE: D-
My bias is that I have financially and politically backed Inslee since his days in Congress. After the first debate I questioned his ability to be a factor in this election, but last night was very impressive. He needs to stop talking about his accomplishments and instead refer to changes in Washington he supports. He looked, talked and acted like a president. His answers were solid. His demeanor professional and his performance very impressive. He has the competitive skill to take Trump on and is electable. SCORE: A
Like Williamson I couldn't figure out why this man would be considered presidental, but after listening to him I was very impressed. He is intelligent like Buttigieg and just as articulate. He has a good grasp of issues and very articulate. He stayed within his time, gave a great closing and otherwise projected knowledge and a grasp of issues. His idea of $1000 a month to Americans reminded me of the Townsend plan of 1933 that proposed paying every American over age 61 $200 a month (which inspired Roosevelt's Social Security program) It's financially not feasible and too progressive for the voters we need to reach. His lack of political experience is a drawback as well. He is very capable of taking on Trump, but I am concerned about his electibilty, SCORE B
it will be interesting to see what the fall out actually is from this second round and who survives as well as who doesn't survive. Let's also not forget how critical the election to the Senate is as well. We need to get rid of Moscow Mitch, the spineless Senate leader.