SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
presidential debate
The Trump-Harris Debate: Racist Lies Vs. Military Clichés
Much as “Who won?” seems to be the media focal point, my question is: Did anybody win? Did the whole country lose?
Sep 12, 2024
If nothing else, former U.S. President Donald Trump is forcing mainstream America out of its jail cell of clichés and political correctness—even though his apparent “vision” for America is primarily a dark comedy of lies.
Yeah, I watched the debate. Was the Trump character played by Rodney Dangerfield? Maybe Don Rickles? He could have been. The problem, however, is that there’s nothing funny about racism, which seemed to be the primary core of Trump’s blather.
Did Vice President Kamala Harris “win” the debate? Uh... this wasn’t a ping-pong game, much as “Who won?” seems to be the media focal point. My question is: Did anybody win? Did the whole country lose?
In her “victory,” what deeper truth did Harris advance?
One thing I must concede is that, in listening for 90 minutes to Trump’s arrogant irreverence toward the country’s centrist rituals and propriety, I must acknowledge at least this much: Our would-be dictator-in-chief is trying to push the country beyond the military-industrial status quo of the moment. His irreverence is so blatant he is driving neocon Republicans crazy, as exemplified by former veep Dick Cheney’s recent announcement that he plans to vote for Harris, declaring that Trump can “never be trusted with power again.”
Maybe, as the media notes, this was a big boost for Harris, but I find myself unable to separate Cheney from his legacy of hideous militarism: the Iraq war in particular, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians killed, the “weapons of mass destruction” lies, Gitmo and Abu Ghraib and the torture of prisoners. Suddenly, in the media, those are now simply historical abstractions, hardly worth mentioning in detail. The American past is sealed shut and mythologized as the good old days.
What matters is a unified America, right? As Time Magazine reported: “Harris was asked about the Cheneys’ endorsement while on the campaign trail, visiting a spice shop in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She said she was ‘honored’ to have their endorsement, and that it represented the opportunity to ‘turn the page’ on partisan divisiveness.’”
She added that Americans are “exhausted about the division”—seeming to imply that the country was once solid and unified, fully in agreement on the nature of American values and such matters as who are enemies are. This seems to be one of the media talking points of the moment, which is ironic almost beyond belief. A nation born in a state of legalized slavery has never been a unified nation. What unity that does currently exist isn’t the result of Americans simply deciding to get along—or all agreeing on a specific, external enemy—but rather the result of decades and decades and decades of intense struggle, a la the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, the workers’ movements, etc., etc., and the ongoing creation of the country as it exists today.
Fascinatingly, in the wake of Cheney’s endorsement of Harris, Trump wrote on Truth Social: “He’s the King of Endless, Nonsensical Wars, wasting Lives and Trillions of Dollars, just like Comrade Kamala Harris. I am the Peace President, and only I will stop World War III!”
I note this not because I believe anything whatsoever that Trump says, but only to writhe in the irony that the main guy talking about peace (i.e., “peace”) on the national stage is a darkly comedic liar and narcissist whose primary talking point is racism.
During the debate, most of what Trump blathered was screw-loose nonsense, mixed, of course, with his special brand of racism, that is to say: the invasion of illegal aliens. This was the issue Trump rambled on about regardless of what he was asked to address, be it the economy, abortion, the January 6 riot, or whatever. To wit:
“Millions of people are pouring into the country—from prisons, jails, mental institutions, insane asylums. These are people she and Biden let into our country.”
“She’s a Marxist!... Twenty-one million people are pouring in. Many of these people are criminals.”
In Springfield, Ohio, Haitian immigrants are “eating dogs and cats—the pets of people that live there.”
Regarding Venezuela and other countries: “They’ve taken their criminals off the streets and given them to her (Harris). Crime is down all over the world—except here.”
Enough, enough! Trump’s audacious charisma apparently has given him some sort of media immunity. His lies—racist and otherwise—are simply too numerous to be questioned. But as I listen to him, screaming to myself, I also sense the nature of his appeal. He’s such a brat—so shameless in his attack on conventional wisdom, so blatant in his contempt for mainstream norms and certainties—that he has defied Cheney and the neocons and created his MAGA base: followers who have had it up to here with the rules of centrist dominance and political correctness.
The media consensus seems to be that Harris won the ping-pong game—I mean, the debate—because she spoke with clarity, factual accuracy, and sufficient contempt to continually put Trump in his place.
And yes, I get this, she won the ping-pong game. But in her “victory,” what deeper truth did Harris advance? What not-yet-existing country did she envision and present to the American people... and the world? I heard the clichés, especially the military clichés, but I didn’t see the vision.
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Few Crazy Thoughts Regarding the Batshit Harris-Trump Debate
If you are on your toes, you note what we are witnessing is not about Trump at all. It is about us. What forces us, the raw mass of humanity born into the worst of all times, to give this vile, florid, and stupid monster a seat at the head of the table?
Sep 12, 2024
Pundits, a day later, ruminate about who won the September 10th "presidential debate," but that is the wrong question. The most important revelation from Tuesday night's clusterfuck of bad theater ought to be this: the patient won't survive. The bedridden train-wreck sprawled across the gurney in the hospice unit is the United States of America—and the debate wasn't destined to be revelatory. We already knew that the corpse, writhing and contorting in agony, will need life-support first and a skilled embalmer soon enough. The debate proved for the billionth time that the greatest country on earth has less hope than a popsicle on the surface of the sun.
The debate wasn't about Kamala Harris—she is the default mode, the automatic pilot, a celebration of generic items, a slinky on a long stair case, a golf course watering system in a terminal draught, a row of telephone poles on an endless train ride. Forget about her. She does not exist. AI created her.
This debate was about Donald Trump. If an alien spacecraft lands on your street and parks next to a Honda Fit, the make of the car becomes irrelevant. If you are waking in the morning with a blister on your little toe and notice a tumor growing out of your side as big as the bathroom sink, you no longer attend to the foot discomfort.
Trump is our measuring stick, our gauge of disease, our face of national distress. If Trump had a debate with Jesus himself you wouldn't see it as the bantering back and forth between good and evil—you'd look at Trump and ask, "What the fuck is that?" In any context, Trump does not belong. He is a walking double take. You look at Trump as if your arm falls off and blood streams from your empty shoulder. He is bad shit that should not be there—but there he is.
If Trump had a debate with Jesus himself you wouldn't see it as the bantering back and forth between good and evil—you'd look at Trump and ask, "What the fuck is that?"
For Trump is not the typical American occupant of our national throne—a guy who merely dispenses weapons to right-wing dictators in the name of freedom and the memory of the founding fathers. No, Trump's vileness resembles, but supersedes a bad mushroom trip. A close up screenshot of Trump's face makes you long for a hang gliding mishap and a seat in the waiting room adjacent to the furnaces of hell.
But, if you are on your toes, you note that it is not Trump at all. It is about us. What forces us, the raw mass of humanity born into the worst of all times, to give this vile, florid, and stupid monster a seat at the head of the table?
What terrible rot eats us alive and, in the process causes us to see Trump as an answer to life's most difficult question? In the final, and darkest hour in all human history, what must we do to redeem ourselves? Trump!
And what did Trump tell us in this thigh-smacking comedy called the "Sixth Extinction Slapstick Special"?
For starters Trump told us that all the murderers, rapists, drug dealers, and gangsters dispersed across the entirety of creation have been systematically funneled to the U.S. southern border. All the jails and mental institutions from the stellar nurseries of the Orion Nebula to the Barbary coast have been drained of their residents. The universe, thus, suddenly has no crime, save for "migrant crime" in the land of stars and stripes.
We have all the crime from everywhere and everywhere has no crime at all.
Can you imagine that maybe a couple billion years hence, a team of alien explorers lands on the burnt remnants of our planet and discovers the video of Tuesday's debate?
Trump also told us that these alien thugs have been eating our dogs and cats. For a man who almost chose canine executioner, Kristi Noem, to be his vice president, and who fathered two of the world's most cruel trophy hunters, this sudden passion for animal welfare caught many of us off guard.
He argued back and forth with Kamala Harris about which one fracked the hardest. Picture two arsonists bickering over which one owns the largest gas can, and you get the idea.
He informed us that Harris is a radical Marxist, coming for your guns, Hummers, and bacon.
He let us know that the "Democrat Party" executes babies after birth and that every legal scholar from D.C. to the Big Bang had been clamoring to send abortion back to the states. 100% of our legal minds from Clarence Thomas to Perry Mason had, according to Trump, opposed Rowe v Wade since the universe began as expanding hot plasma. Not a single legal scholar had even one kind word for Rowe, and everyone knows it.
He also said stuff like this:
We did a phenomenal job with the pandemic. We handed them over a country where the economy and where the stock market was higher than it was before the pandemic came in. Nobody's ever seen anything like it. We made ventilators for the entire world. We got gowns. We got masks. We did things that nobody thought possible. And people give me credit for rebuilding the military. They give me credit for a lot of things. But not enough credit for the great job we did with the pandemic. But the only jobs they got were bounce-back jobs. These were jobs, bounce back. And it bounced back and it went to their benefit. But I was the one that created them. They know it and so does everybody else.
And, if you crave more, here you go:
And look at what's happening to the towns all over the United States. And a lot of towns don't want to talk -- not going to be Aurora or Springfield. A lot of towns don't want to talk about it because they're so embarrassed by it. In Springfield, they're eating the dogs. The people that came in. They're eating the cats. They're eating -- they're eating the pets of the people that live there. And this is what's happening in our country. And it's a shame. As far as rallies are concerned, as far -- the reason they go is they like what I say. They want to bring our country back. They want to make America great again. It's a very simple phrase: Make America Great Again. She's destroying this country. And if she becomes president, this country doesn't have a chance of success. Not only success. We'll end up being Venezuela on steroids.
Can you imagine that maybe a couple billion years hence, a team of alien explorers lands on the burnt remnants of our planet and discovers the video of Tuesday's debate? What will our alien visitors say to one another? Perhaps they'll say, "Those dumb fucks where watching this and chewing on popcorn while their planet roasted."
Perhaps the cruelest aliens will talk shit about our long imploded civilization: “Thank the god, Aghjestymunbo, that these crazy motherfuckers killed themselves before they learned how easy intergalactic technology is!”
I am not certain that billions of years from now our aliens will know what popcorn is. I also have no idea if intergalactic wanderers will have the requisite sense of humor to appreciate Donald Trump. If they do, all will not be lost.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nostalgia Reigns at the Trump-Harris Presidential Debate
What's notably missing from both candidates' messages is a truly progressive vision that acknowledges the failures of past policies and proposes fundamental changes to address systemic issues.
Sep 11, 2024
The stage was set for a clash of titans at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Tuesday night. In what could be the only face-off of the 2024 U.S. presidential race, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump squared off in a debate that was as much about America's future as it was about its past. For nearly two hours, the candidates traded barbs, outlined policies, and made their case to the American people in a high-stakes political showdown.
On the surface, Harris and Trump presented dramatically different visions for the country's path forward. Yet, as the dust settled and analysts began to parse through the debate's key moments, a surprising commonality emerged. Both candidates, despite their contrasting styles and policy positions, revealed a shared reliance on nostalgia and a yearning for idealized versions of the past. This backward-looking approach, masked by rhetoric of change and progress, could have profound implications for the upcoming election and the future trajectory of American politics.
Trump's Explicit Nostalgia: Make America Great Again, Again
Donald Trump's appeal to voters was, characteristically, rooted in an explicit call to return to what he portrayed as the golden era of his first term. Throughout the debate, Trump painted a picture of pre-Covid-19 America under his leadership as a time of unparalleled economic strength, global peace, and national greatness.
"We had no problems when Trump was president," he declared, attributing the quote to the autocratic leader of Hungary Viktor Orbán. This statement epitomizes Trump's campaign strategy: presenting his potential second term as a restoration of a supposedly idyllic recent past.
His promise to return to the recent past offers no solutions for issues like climate change, healthcare access, or racial injustice that have only become more pressing.
Trump's vision, however, is largely disconnected from the realities of his presidency. His claims of economic prosperity ignore the growing income inequality and the impact of his trade wars on American farmers and manufacturers. His assertion of global peace overlooks escalating tensions with Iran, North Korea, and China during his tenure.
The former president's rhetoric doesn't promise a better future so much as it pledges a triumphant return to a mythologized past. This approach resonates with a segment of the electorate that is fueled by fear, offering them a comforting, if illusory, promise of turning back the clock.
Trump's nostalgia is more overt, promising a return to a time just before the Covid-19 pandemic upended American life. It's a powerful message for those who feel that recent years have brought unwelcome changes to their communities and way of life. However, this vision ignores the ways in which long-standing economic and social policies have contributed to current inequalities and challenges. His promise to return to the recent past offers no solutions for issues like climate change, healthcare access, or racial injustice that have only become more pressing.
Harris' Implicit Nostalgia: A Return to 'Normal' Politics
Vice President Kamala Harris, in contrast, explicitly framed her candidacy as forward-looking. She repeatedly emphasized the need to "turn the page" and "move forward," positioning herself as a representative of a "new generation of leadership."
Harris' debate performance was widely regarded as stronger than Trump's. She appeared more composed, better prepared, and more focused on substantive policy discussions. Her rhetoric emphasized unity, hope, and the possibility of progress, echoing themes that have been successful for Democratic candidates in recent elections.
While acknowledging pressing issues like climate change and social inequality, Harris stops short of proposing the kind of structural changes that many progressives argue are necessary.
However, a closer examination of Harris' policy proposals and overall message reveals a vision that is less about charting a new course than it is about returning to a centrist, pre-Trump status quo. Her economic policies, for instance, rely heavily on market-based solutions and tax incentives reminiscent of the Clinton era. Her emphasis on "unity" and bipartisanship harks back to the Obama administration's early optimism about bridging partisan divides.
In essence, Harris is offering a return to a romanticized version of recent Democratic governance—a time before the disruptions of the Trump era, when political norms were more stable and progress seemed more achievable through incremental change within existing systems.
Harris' nostalgia is subtler but no less present. Her rhetoric evokes the perceived stability and respectability of pre-Trump politics, appealing to voters who are exhausted by the former president's confrontational style and norm-breaking behavior. While acknowledging pressing issues like climate change and social inequality, Harris stops short of proposing the kind of structural changes that many progressives argue are necessary. Her vision, anchored in centrist Democratic policies reminiscent of earlier administrations, may not be sufficient to address the scale of challenges facing the nation, from wealth inequality to the climate crisis.
Rear-View Mirror Politics: Charting a Course to the Past
The reliance on nostalgia by both candidates reflects a broader trend in American politics. It speaks to a widespread sense of dissatisfaction with the present and anxiety about the future. Both Trump and Harris are tapping into a collective yearning for a time when things seemed simpler, more stable, or more aligned with voters' values and expectations.
However, this reliance on nostalgic visions reveals a significant limitation in both candidates' approaches. By looking backward for solutions, they fail to fully address the root causes of current problems or offer truly innovative visions for the future.
The 2024 election thus presents a critical juncture for American democracy. Will voters embrace the comfort of familiar, backward-looking visions, or will they demand a more innovative, forward-thinking approach to governance?
The debate highlighted a paradox in American politics: While there's a broad consensus that significant change is needed, both major party candidates are essentially offering variations on past approaches. This reflects the inherent conservatism of established political parties and the challenges of proposing radical change within existing power structures. It also speaks to the difficulty of articulating a truly new vision that can appeal to a broad electoral coalition.
What's notably missing from both candidates' messages is a truly progressive vision that acknowledges the failures of past policies and proposes fundamental changes to address systemic issues. As climate change accelerates, technological disruption reshapes the economy, and social tensions persist, the limitations of backward-looking solutions become increasingly apparent.
The debate between Harris and Trump revealed not just the differences between the candidates, but also the shared constraints of American political discourse. It highlighted the need for a more forward-looking, innovative approach to governance—one that learns from the past without being bound by it, and that isn't afraid to reimagine systems and institutions to meet the demands of the future.
The 2024 election thus presents a critical juncture for American democracy. Will voters embrace the comfort of familiar, backward-looking visions, or will they demand a more innovative, forward-thinking approach to governance? It is precisely this question that progressives must begin organising around to challenge the threat of rearview politics from both parties. Only in doing so can we truly begin charting a genuinely hopeful course to the future.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Germany Corrects Trump on Energy Policy—'PS: We Also Don't Eat Cats and Dogs'
"We are shutting down—not building—coal and nuclear plants," the German foreign ministry said. "Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest."
Sep 11, 2024
The German foreign ministry on Wednesday issued a rejoinder to Republican nominee Donald Trump's debate claim that Germany had reverted back to a "normal" energy policy after, as he implied, failing to transition away from fossil fuels.
Near the end of the televised presidential debate, Trump addressed Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, saying:
"You believe in things that the American people don't believe in. You believe in things like we're not going to frack. We're not going to take fossil fuel. We're not going to do, things that are going to make this country strong, whether you like it or not. Germany tried that and within one year they were back to building normal energy plants."
The Germans replied forcefully and included a snarky reference to Trump's baseless claim, made earlier in the debate, that immigrants were eating Americans' pets.
"Like it or not: Germany’s energy system is fully operational, with more than 50% renewables," the German foreign ministry, which is led by Annalena Baerbock of the country's green party as part of a coalition arrangement, wrote on social media. "And we are shutting down—not building—coal and nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest. PS: We also don't eat cats and dogs."
Like it or not: Germany’s energy system is fully operational, with more than 50% renewables. And we are shutting down – not building – coal & nuclear plants. Coal will be off the grid by 2038 at the latest. PS: We also don’t eat cats and dogs. #Debate2024 pic.twitter.com/PiDO98Vxfo
— GermanForeignOffice (@GermanyDiplo) September 11, 2024
"The former president is not famous for his grasp of the finer details of European energy policy," Bernd Radowitz wrote Wednesday in Recharge, a trade news publication.
Radowitz and other commentators took Trump's "normal" to mean fossil fuel-driven energy production.
"As usual with Trump, it takes some patience to interpret his incoherent line of argument, but what most U.S. viewers and potential voters likely understood from this statement is that Germany tried to ditch fossil fuels, but within a year had to give that up. The assumption here is also that Trump by 'normal energy plants' meant fossil-fired generation."
Germany has since 2010 undertaken an Energiewiende aimed at drawing down on fossil fuel use and nuclear-powered energy and ramping up renewables. The transition plan hit a rough patch in 2022 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Russia had supplied more than half of Germany's natural gas, as well as some of its oil and coal. German authorities turned some nuclear plants back on, added more coal consumption into the energy mix, and imported more natural gas from elsewhere, drawing criticism from climate campaigners.
However, those changes were meant to be temporary and Germany has since made progress on implementing its green transition plans. In March, the government declared itself on target to reach its 2030 climate goals. Over 60% of the country's electricity was powered by renewables in the first half of this year, a marked increase from 2022.
The foreign ministry's social media post had been viewed by over 1 million people as of Wednesday morning. It was not entirely clear why the ministry raised Trump's pet remarks, which were seemingly aimed at immigrants of color from low-income countries. Trump's claim, which The New York Times called "false and outlandish," was based on a rumor that Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, were eating pets for sustenance. Trump's running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), had spread the racist rumors on Monday.
As president, Trump had a scratchy relationship with Germany, which he frequently criticized for its export surplus to the U.S. and its lack of defense spending. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, of the center-left Social Democratic Party, made remarks in July that indicated that he hoped Harris would win the election. Scholz, who's held office since 2021, had last year endorsed President Joe Biden for reelection, speaking in unusually direct terms about the U.S. race.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Undebatable: What Harris and Trump Could Not Say About Israel and Gaza
The silent truth would indict not only the Israeli government but also the U.S. government as an accomplice to mass murder that has escalated into genocide.
Sep 11, 2024
U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris won the debate. People being bombed in Gaza did not.
The banner headline across the top of The New York Times home page—“Harris Puts Trump on Defensive in Fierce Debate”—was accurate enough. But despite the good news for people understandably eager for former President Donald Trump to be defeated, the Harris debate performance was a moral and political tragedy.
In Gaza “now an estimated 40,000 Palestinians are dead,” an ABC News moderator said. “Nearly 100 hostages remain... President Biden has not been able to break through the stalemate. How would you do it?”
Silence is a blanket that smothers genuine democratic discourse and the outcries of moral voices
Vice President Harris replied with her standard wording: “Israel has a right to defend itself. We would. And how it does so matters. Because it is also true far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed. Children, mothers. What we know is that this war must end. It must when, end immediately, and the way it will end is we need a cease-fire deal and we need the hostages out.”
“End immediately”? Anyone who isn’t in fantasyland knows that the only way to soon end the slaughter of Palestinian civilians would be for the U.S. government—the overwhelmingly biggest supplier of Israel’s armaments—to stop sending weapons to Israel.
Meanwhile, a pivot to advocating for a cutoff of weapons to Israel would help Harris win the presidency. After the debate, the Institute for Middle East Understanding pointed out that the need to halt the weapons is not only moral and legal—it’s also smart politics. Polls are clear that most Americans want to stop arming Israel. In swing states, polling has found that a large number of voters say they’d be more likely to cast a ballot for Harris if she would support a halt.
What Kamala Harris and Donald Trump said about Israel and Gaza in their debate was predictable. Even more certain was what they absolutely would not say—with silences speaking loudest of all. “Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical point of view, is silence about truth,” Aldous Huxley wrote, describing “the greatest triumphs of propaganda.”
By coincidence, the debate happened on the same date as publication of a new afterword about the Gaza war in the paperback edition of my book War Made Invisible. To fill in for the debate’s abysmal silences, here are a few quotes from the afterword about the ongoing carnage:
“After the atrocities that Hamas committed on October 7, the U.S. government quickly stepped up military aid to Israel as it implemented atrocities on a much larger scale. In truth, as time went on, the entire Israeli war in Gaza amounted to one gigantic atrocity with uncountable aspects.”
As with the steady massacres with bombs and bullets in Gaza since early October, “the Israeli-U.S. alliance treated the increasing onset of starvation, dehydration, and fatal disease as a public-relations problem.”
“In the war zone, eyewitness reporting and photojournalism were severely hindered if not thwarted by the Israeli military, which has a long record of killing journalists.”
“Although the credibility of Israel’s government tumbled as the Gaza war dragged on, the brawny arms of the Israel lobby—and the overall atmospheric pressure of media and politics—pushed legislators to approve new military aid... Official pronouncements—and the policies they tried to justify—were deeply anchored in the unspoken premise that some lives really matter and some really don’t.”
The United Statespersisted in “violating not only the U.S. Conventional Arms Transfer Policy but also numerous other legal requirements including the Foreign Assistance Act, the Arms Export Control Act, the U.S. War Crimes Act, the Leahy Law, the Genocide Convention Implementation Act, and several treaties. For U.S. power politics, the inconvenient precepts in those measures were as insignificant and invisible as the Palestinian people being slaughtered.”
“What was sinister about proclaiming ‘Israel’s 9/11’ was what happened after America’s 9/11. Wearing the cloak of victim, the United States proceeded to use the horrible tragedy that occurred inside its borders as an open-ended reason to kill in the name of retaliation, self- protection, and, of course, the ‘war on terror.’ It was a playbook that the Israeli government adapted and implemented with vengeance.”
Israel’s war on 2.2 million people in Gaza has been “a supercharged escalation of what Israel had been doing for 75 years, treating human beings as suitable for removal and even destruction.” As Israel’s war on Gaza has persisted, “the explanations often echoed the post-9/11 rationales for the ‘war on terror’ from the U.S. government: authorizing future crimes against humanity as necessary in the light of certain prior events.”
That and so much more—left unsaid from the debate stage, dodged in U.S. mass media, and evaded from the podiums of power in Washington—indict not only the Israeli government but also the U.S. government as an accomplice to mass murder that has escalated into genocide.
Silence is a blanket that smothers genuine democratic discourse and the outcries of moral voices. Making those voices inaudible is a key goal for the functioning of the warfare state.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Harris Urged to 'Absolutely Go After Trump for Being in the Pocket of Big Oil'
"Trump cozying up with the industry is wildly unpopular," asserted climate campaigner Jamie Henn.
Sep 10, 2024
Noting former U.S. President Donald Trump's coziness with the fossil fuel industry and the fact that an overwhelming majority of voters want politicians to tackle its greed, one prominent climate campaigner urged Vice President Kamala Harris—the Democratic nominee—to highlight her Republican opponent's Big Oil ties during Tuesday night's debate.
"Harris should absolutely go after Trump for being in the pocket of Big Oil," Fossil Free Media director Jamie Henn said on social media, adding that "89% of Americans want politicians to crack down on Big Oil price gouging."
In a
separate post, Henn urged ABC News, which is hosting the first—and likely only—2024 presidential debate, to ask the candidates about the climate emergency.
"Ninety-nine percent of Americans have experienced some form of extreme weather this year," he wrote. "If ABC News doesn't ask about the climate crisis this evening, it's journalistic malpractice."
On Tuesday, a trio of Democratic U.S. lawmakers called on fossil fuel executives to comply with a request for "information regarding quid pro quo solicitations" from former U.S. President Donald Trump, who earlier this year promised to gut climate regulations if they donated $1 billion to his Republican presidential campaign.
Climate campaigners have been warning of the dangers of a second term for Trump, who during his previous administration rolled back regulations protecting the climate, environment, and biodiversity, resulting in increased pollution and
premature deaths and fueling catastrophic planetary heating.
"If a Trump administration was merely going to be a four-year interregnum, it would be annoying. But in fact it comes at precisely the moment when we need, desperately,
acceleration," 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben wrote in a Guardian opinion article last week.
"The world's climate scientists have done their best to set out a timetable: Cut emissions in half by 2030 or see the possibilities of anything like the Paris pathway, holding temperature increases to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels, disappear," he continued. "That cut is on the bleeding edge of the technically possible, but only if everyone is acting in good faith. And the next presidential term will end in January of 2029, which is 11 months before 2030."
"If we elect Donald Trump, we may feel the effects not for years, and not for a generation," McKibben added. "We may read our mistake in the geological record a million years hence. This one really counts."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Gets Immunity as Christmas in July Gift From Supreme Court
We cannot minimize the string of lies that emanated from Trump’s mouth and the danger that all of his positions represent for the diverse groups that form the Biden coalition, for the entire country, and democracy itself.
Jul 05, 2024
The Supreme Court ruling that extends immunity to former U.S. President Donald Trump for acts committed in his official capacity, during the attempt to impede the certification of President Joe Biden’s victory in 2020, is another powerful reason to fear his return to the White House in January 2025, should he win in November—regardless of Biden’s poor performance in the CNN debate.
The conservative majority on the highest court is treating Trump like a monarch, conceding unprecedented protections to him. Whatever he does in his official capacity, he cannot be touched, even if his actions involve persecuting his political opponents or implementing a twisted plan for raids and mass deportations around the country.
Without immunity Trump has done whatever he wants; image now that he has it, at least partially. A demagogue, liar, opportunist, and vindictive person who sees the presidency as a vehicle to enrich himself; to get even with those who, in his mind, have persecuted him; and to push for an extremist agenda on various matters, including immigration, with no regard for civil and human rights.
Before the multitude that is practically calling for Biden’s head continues hyperventilating, they must turn their gaze to Trump, remembering all of the bad things he has done as president and plans to do if he wins on November 5.
Trump not only has Project 2025, the road map to execute a series of extreme public policies, including on immigration, at his disposal, but now he has the blank check of immunity to do whatever he wants to implement his macabre plans, as long as it is in an official capacity.
I want to make it clear that, indeed, Biden had an unfortunate performance in the debate and I do not know if the leader will remain in the contest, or another figure will emerge.
But we cannot minimize the string of lies that emanated from Trump’s mouth and the danger that all of his positions represent for the diverse groups that form the Biden coalition, for the entire country, and democracy itself.
The editorial boards of some papers have asked Biden, at 81 years old, to remove himself from the contest for the good of the country and his party because he is very fragile, elderly, and doesn’t have what it takes to confront the “young buck,” Trump, at age 78. As far as I know, those same editorial boards have not asked Trump to leave the race for the good of his party and the country, because he is elderly and also a convicted felon whom a jury has found liable in court of sexually assaulting a woman.
I recognize that if Biden remains in the contest, he has a difficult task to appeal to voters who were already undecided prior to the debate. But before the multitude that is practically calling for Biden’s head continues hyperventilating, they must turn their gaze to Trump, remembering all of the bad things he has done as president and plans to do if he wins on November 5.
Perhaps the Supreme Court’s immunity decision will pull them out of their hysteria and remind them of the alternative. This week that the United States celebrates 248 years of the Declaration of Independence, because the colonies wanted to free themselves from the yoke of an English king, it’s pretty ironic that, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in her dissent to the majority decision, “In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law.”
A “king” who plans mass deportations based on lies about immigrants. Among all of the lies Trump pronounced during the debate, those related to immigration were the most significant: that Biden “opened” the border; that the “largest number of terrorists” in history are crossing the border; or that “people are coming in and they’re killing our citizens at a level that we’ve never seen.”
Study after study shows that undocumented immigrants commit fewer crimes than people born in the United States and, as a coalition of national Latino leaders wrote in a joint declaration after the debate, “The facts are that since the last president left office, violent crime is down substantially across the country and that immigrants are associated with reductions in crime in American communities coast to coast.”
“As we know from scripture, those in glass houses should not throw stones, so a person convicted of 34 felonies pointing the finger at the alleged and misleading criminality of others is one of the ironies of this election year,” the joint statement concluded.
And that person in a glass house, who would have immunity to do whatever he likes if he is elected, is the alternative to an elderly, but honorable Biden. Like my mother said, “Viejos los cerros y reverdecen.” The hills are old, and they can still be green.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Here's How It Would Work to Replace Biden Before or During the Democratic Convention
Biden stepping down and being replaced by a dynamic, younger candidate might be risky at this point. But it’s not as risky as a visibly enfeebled Biden staying in the race.
Jul 03, 2024
Since last week’s debate, plenty of smart people have argued that U.S. President Joe Biden must be replaced if former President Donald Trump is to be defeated and democracy protected. Among them are The New York Times editorial board, James Carville, David Remnick, former Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau, Biden friend Tom Friedman, pollster Nate Silver, and too many more to name. Meanwhile, a post-debate CBS News/YouGov poll shows that 72% of registered voters think Biden does not have the “mental & cognitive health to serve as president,” while only 27% think he does; 63% think Biden should not be running for president while only 37% think he should be.
Despite that, Biden’s inner circle and leading Democratic officials have been pushing back with their own version of a “big lie” that we shouldn’t believe what we saw with our own eyes, Biden just had one bad night, and he’ll be just fine. But as Times columnist Bret Stephens wrote: “The transparent problem with the president’s performance wasn’t that he debated poorly. It’s that he is suffering from serious cognitive decline, something from which there is no coming back… To those who love the president, starting with his wife, it’s time to tell him: for God’s sake, and the country’s, and his own—don’t run.”
So, if Biden is to be replaced as the Democratic nominee, how would it work legally?
If President Biden withdrew, and one or more prominent younger Democrats threw their hat in the ring, the party would undoubtedly hold a series of debates and town halls to introduce them to national voters and see who performs best under the national spotlight.
There are approximately 3,933 regular convention delegates elected in primaries and caucuses, almost all of whom are Biden delegates. In addition there are 739 “automatic” or “superdelegates” who are mostly party functionaries and elected officials for a total of approximately 4,672 delegates. The regular delegates may vote on the first ballot, and to win nomination on the first ballot a candidate must garner a majority of these or about 1,968 delegates. According to rule changes adopted after the 2016 Hillary Clinton/Bernie Sanders contest, superdelegates may not vote on the first ballot. They can only vote in the second and subsequent ballots, if no candidate wins on the first ballot. It would then take a majority of all delegates, including regular and superdelegates, or approximately 2,258 votes to win the nomination.
While regular delegates normally vote for the candidate they are “pledged” to, according to rules adopted after the 1980 primary contest between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy, regular delegates are not technically required to vote for the candidate whom they are pledged to.
According to the convention rules, regular delegates being required to vote for the candidate they are pledged to is aspirational, not binding. The rules state that “all delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” Thus, if in “good conscience” one or more regular delegate no longer believes her candidate reflects the sentiments of those who elected her, she has the right under the rules to vote for another candidate whom she believes in good conscience does—it’s apparently up to each delegate to make that call. Thus, at least in theory, even if Biden stays in the race, if there’s a big enough groundswell to replace him, he could fail to win the nomination on the first ballot.
In reality, if Biden stays in the race, that result is highly unlikely. The regular delegates are picked in the first place because they are generally loyalists of the candidate they’re nominated to support. And prominent Democrats who might be viable alternatives to Biden are probably too scared of threats to their careers from the Democratic establishment to directly challenge Biden at this point.
If, however, Biden withdraws his candidacy before the convention, it becomes an open convention. As Elaine Kamarck of the Brookings Institution, who helped write the party rules, states: “About 4,000 people have already been elected to the convention. If Biden stepped aside tomorrow, several people would get into the race, no doubt, and the race would consist of calling these people and trying to convince them. It would be an old-fashioned convention. All 4,000 delegates pledged to Biden would suddenly be uncommitted, and you’d have a miniature campaign.”
Among the possible alternatives to Biden are Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, and Vice President Kamala Harris. If President Biden withdrew, and one or more prominent younger Democrats threw their hat in the ring, the party would undoubtedly hold a series of debates and town halls to introduce them to national voters and see who performs best under the national spotlight. None of these potential candidates significantly differ from each other or President Biden on the main issues, so the campaign for a successor would likely turn on personality and which one seems the most electable.
If an alternative to Biden is nominated, there’s then the question of what happens to the campaign funds raised to date by Biden. According to an email from Trevor Potter of the Campaign Legal Center, if a candidate withdraws, then the candidate’s campaign committee may transfer the funds to the national party that may spend them on the new nominee. If Vice President Harris were the new nominee, since Biden and Harris currently share a campaign committee, she would have access to all the funds in the committee. However, Biden’s campaign committee would not transfer more than a de minimis part of the funds to another candidate’s campaign committee. Another candidate would need to rely on the funds transferred to the National Committee, raise new funds, or refund the money to the original donors who could then contribute to the new candidate.
Biden stepping down and being replaced by a dynamic, younger candidate might be risky at this point. But it’s not as risky as a visibly enfeebled Biden staying in the race when over 70% of registered voters say they don’t think he has the mental and cognitive ability to serve. If an ageing relative no longer has the capacity to drive safely and might crash his car into a school bus killing dozens of children, you take away his keys.
Indeed, with so many voters dreading a Biden-Trump rematch, an exciting new candidate might well inspire a wave of enthusiasm.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Unconscionable Surrender to Fascism': Democrat Jared Golden Says He's OK With Trump Win
A political science professor described the Maine congressman's op-ed as "one of the most irresponsible things a Democratic member of Congress has written in recent memory."
Jul 02, 2024
Breaking with many of his fellow Democrats, Maine Congressman Jared Golden suggested Tuesday that former Republican President Donald Trump's return to the White House wouldn't threaten U.S. democracy—and was sharply ridiculed for that take.
"After the first presidential debate, lots of Democrats are panicking about whether President Joe Biden should step down as the party's nominee," Golden wrote in a Bangor Daily News op-ed. "Biden's poor performance in the debate was not a surprise. It also didn't rattle me as it has others, because the outcome of this election has been clear to me for months: While I don't plan to vote for him, Donald Trump is going to win. And I'm OK with that."
"Democrats' post-debate hand-wringing is based on the idea that a Trump victory is not just a political loss, but a unique threat to our democracy. I reject the premise," he continued. "Unlike Biden and many others, I refuse to participate in a campaign to scare voters with the idea that Trump will end our democratic system."
Golden—who represents the "Trump-friendly" 2nd District, a priority for Republicans this cycle—also referenced the insurrection incited by the presumptive Republican nominee after his 2020 loss to Biden, writing that "pearl-clutching about a Trump victory ignores the strength of our democracy. January 6, 2021, was a dark day. But Americans stood strong."
The backlash to Golden's op-ed was swift and strong, with Fordham University assistant political science professor Jacob Smith calling it "one of the most irresponsible things a Democratic member of Congress has written in recent memory."
Veteran journalist Mark Jacob said on social media that "Congressman Jared Golden, an alleged Democrat from Maine, waves the white flag against Trump in an unconscionable surrender to fascism. Maybe he thinks he can cut a deal. The cowards and quislings are making themselves known."
Some critics highlighted that the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority—which includes three Trump appointees—ruled Monday that Trump, and anyone else who occupies the Oval Office, has absolute immunity for "official acts." In her dissent, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that "the president is now a king above the law."
Trump celebrated the ruling and reportedly is prepared to embrace his expanded powers if he wins in November. The high court decision also jeopardizes Trump's recent felony conviction and three pending cases against him, including two that stem from his efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
"Jared Golden's op-ed today may be one of the worst takes we've seen so far, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's decision yesterday," declared Young Democrats of America president Quentin Wathum-Ocama. "I'm astounded that the congressman has such an absurdly bad take and is apparently ready to give up on an election five months out."
Some journalists and Republicans suggested that Golden's op-ed may be politically motivated, considering the makeup of his district. His GOP challenger, former NASCAR driver Austin Theriault, said: "This is a very phony attempt to avoid accountability. Simple questions for Jared Golden: Does he support Joe Biden for president or not? Does Golden believe Biden is mentally competent or not? He won't say, because he puts politics ahead of Mainers."
Golden, who co-chairs the Blue Dog Coalition, has a history of voting with Republicans on various climate, military, and student debt relief policies. His new opinion piece provoked calls for members of his own party to identify and rally around a write-in candidate "so Maine Democrats have an actual Democratic option in November."
Other Democrats in Congress have contributed to mounting warnings of the threat posed by Trump, who has said on the campaign trail that he would be a dictator on "day one" and "root out" those he called "radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country."
If elected this year, Trump is also expected to pursue the policy agenda of the Heritage Foundation-led 2025 Presidential Transition Project—or Project 2025—which the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism has described as a "far-right playbook for American authoritarianism."
Congressman Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that "Project 2025 is a threat to our nation. The conservative radical plan rolls back rights for everyone and allows blatant discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. It's sickening, and we must do everything to prevent this destructive plan and Donald Trump at all costs."
Biden's poor performance in the debate with Trump last week has prompted some supporters to reaffirm the importance of his reelection, given the alternative, and others to suggest that he should be replaced ahead of the Democratic convention next month.
On Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas became the first Democrat in Congress to suggest that Biden should step aside.
"Too much is at stake to risk a Trump victory—too great a risk to assume that what could not be turned around in a year, what could not be turned around in the debate, can be turned around now," Doggett said. "President Biden saved our democracy by delivering us from Trump in 2021. He must not deliver us to Trump in 2024."
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Debate Fiasco for Both Candidates—And This Nation
This is what we should expect from a debate "moderated" by a corporate news outlet.
Jun 30, 2024
It was, of course, not a presidential debate. Not a surprise. Trump came in ready to repeat what he tells audiences at his rallies – raging, lying by the microminute, promising perfection and spewing hate at Biden. Biden – flustered, bumbling at times, stumbling over facts, at least tried to answer specific questions from the moderators – Jake Tapper and Dana Bash. At least eight times, Trump brushed aside their questions and repeated his previous flailing tirades against Biden. It is a wonder Trump didn’t slurp saliva along with his sneering arrogance.
Democratic operatives were aghast during and after the merciful end of this 90-minute look/see by an estimated 51 million viewers. Biden prepared for over a week with his debate advisors and probably was so overprepared as to be tightly wound. Also, he had a cold which he should have noted at the outset to explain his weak tone of voice.
The moderators were forewarned about Trump trying to take over the show. They cut the mics of each candidate while the other was talking. Trump adjusted. He leapfrogged their questions and bellowed without ever being told: “Mr. Trump, you are not answering the questions just addressed to you.”
CNN correctly said beforehand that the moderators were not going to interrupt with any fact-checking, no matter how wild and crazy. As a result, the unfurled, unstable, disjointed man from Mar-a-Largo kept doing himself in, mitigating Biden’s staggering failure to deliver the most obvious rebuttals, especially on the issues of “democracy” and “climate.”
All the questions asked by the moderators were predictable by the candidates and their staff. That is how deep is the ditto nature of the mass media. Earlier the Washington Post asked sixteen of its opinion columnists to offer one policy question for the presidential debate. The moderators pretty much covered the questions asked. None of the sixteen columnists mentioned the corporate crime wave, the plight of worker exploitation (e.g., frozen minimum wage, workplace health/safety casualties, and anti-labor laws), massive corporate welfare giveaways, corporate tax reform, the global arms race or widespread abuses of consumers in many marketplace sectors.
Most prominently, the super-dominant power of giant corporations over our government, politics, economy, culture, and our children’s future never occurred to these savvy observers of what’s really going on in America.
Back to Biden’s collapse. Long-time Democratic Party loyalist, exhorter and critic, Robert Kuttner repeated his demand that Biden step aside. He elaborated: “With Biden heading the ticket, Democrats will likely lose the House, Senate, state legislatures and governorships, and down-ballot races all the way to school board, as well as the presidency.” I’ve known Kuttner for years. He rarely panics to this extent. He added that, “In coming days, the media echo chamber, which for once has it right, will keep reinforcing the depth of Biden’s defeat and the story of utter panic among Democratic officials, strategists, and donors. That will be self-enforcing.”
The vast majority of actual voters have already made up their minds. The rest will be treated with billions of dollars of advertising featuring selections from both Biden and Trump’s deliveries. What may save Biden, whose team asked for this early Debate, were the ravings and pathological lying of dangerous, dictatorial Donald. (See the Association Press Debate Fact Check).
There was little daylight between Biden and Trump on militarism, Empire, genocide and a devouring, bloated military budget. But domestically, Biden could have exposed Trump as an abject tool of the worst of Big Business and Wall Street over Main Street, contrasting his record in the process. Here is one salvo that Biden could have delivered crisply and deliberately:
Let’s look at your record, Mr. Trump.
CHILDREN – You blocked extending the child tax credit in January 2022, which was delivering $300 a month to over 60 million children;
WOMEN – You’re opposed to their reproductive rights and want to punish them for their choice, not to mention your long history of abusing women;
WORKERS – You and your Republicans in Congress have long opposed raising the paltry federal minimum wage frozen at $7.25 an hour. As President, you displayed your hatred of Unions and weakened job safety protections;
IMMIGRATION – You single-handedly demanded your Party in Congress abandon a bipartisan immigration reform bill that the Congress was ready to send for my signature earlier this year;
CONSUMERS – You weakened enforcement of life-saving health and safety laws and shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that worked to make Wall Street accountable;
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH – You think climate disruption is a hoax and tell the main fossil fuel polluters to “Drill, baby, drill” instead of backing planet-saving solar energy and wind power;
PATIENTS – You want to end Obamacare and oppose the expansion of Medicaid in Southern Republican states, taking away healthcare for tens of millions of Americans;
PUBLIC LANDS – Belong to all Americans and their descendants. You want to turn over big chunks of this land to corporations;
TAXPAYERS – In 2017, you gave under-taxed super-profitable corporations and the very rich another giant tax cut which greatly increased the federal deficit; and
Your hatred for the well-being of America shows how phony is your MAGA slogan. That’s just some of what you’ve done to the American people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy