Considering the pandemic it faces to function and the disinformation coming from its taproot source, the New York Times deserves Pulitzers in multiple categories, including investigative and explanatory honors.
Editorially, however, the bible of journalism has been as spotty as, well, the bible.
Consider: During the presidential primary run, the Times endorsed Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren, depending on where you stood on the progressive scale — a copout endorsement, plain and simple.
If you don’t define the scale, how do do you know where you fall on it? (And there was conspicuously no defining where the Times fell on it.)
Now it’s taken the same wavering stance on who Joe Biden should pick as his (promised) female running mate. In a political piece last week, the outlet named Kamela Harris, the Representative from California, as the most likely pick.
But in an opinion piece today, the Times said that Stacey Abrahms, the gubernatorial hopeful from Georgia, was the “obvious pick,” because of the Democrats’ need to secure the state and connect to young voters.
This is no time for hemming, brethren. Donald Jemimah Trump does enough waffling for the rest of us. Besides, there are real stories to be found in Biden’s ultimate choice — starting with the historical nature of the pick itself.
Regardless of whether there’s an actual election in November (and that’s seriously in doubt), Biden’s VP of choice may be the most telegraphed in modern politics. When has a candidate ever promised to name a VP from the pool of the politically-shunned?
More importantly, the pick is going to tell us what the Democratic party envisions for its future. Does it see national political experience as a merit badge or mark of shame?
The choice matters, even if Trump remains in office until his death. Because when he goes, so too will the party anchored to him. They simply have no provision for this inescapable political reality: For the first time in U.S. history, most American 15-year-olds are non-white, according to the latest census data.
Not only will that fact never change in the U.S.; it will apply to an ever-growing demographic. Whenever we do conduct a presidential election, it will be the last between grandpa Simpsons: angry, white, male and uncertain of their place in the world.
And finally, brethren, how about some propers for Warren? She has failed to crack the circle of serious contenders among the pundits, which is simply wrong. Among all the finalists, she truly deserves to be our vice-president. She’s worked longer and harder for the executive office than any of her colleagues, male or female, in office of out of it.
That her efforts have gone unrecognized perhaps says the most about the American political landscape and our view of women in it, regardless of how progressive we fancy ourselves.
The seven-year-old daughter of the wisest soul I know had one question when Mom asked child who she would vote for in the Democratic primary if she had a vote.
“Which one has a cat?” the girl queried.
From the mouth of babes. (Perhaps) unwittingly, her question underscores the embarrassment of riches — and choices — facing Democrats this election year.
Consider the GOP slate of top contenders when they were vying for the top office. A brain-dead brain surgeon. A Senator who fries his bacon on AR-15 muzzles. A Senator who suffered the greatest flop sweat since Broadcast News.
And of course, Agent Orange This isn’t just low-hanging fruit. These are coconuts, rolling off the truck and down the street, ripe for the scooping.
Now consider the Democratic slate: two successful (and legitimate) billionaires, the former vice-president to America’s first African American Chief Executive; an eloquent, gay mayor with Mideast war experience, and a Senator whose looniest notion is Medicare for all.
And we haven’t even gotten to the best candidate: Elizabeth Warren.
This endorsement is wholehearted, but the girl was right. Their pets could as well be the deciding factor in who to choose. Even if one owned a rabid baboon, they’d still get my vote should they win the nomination. You know, since we’re currently presided over by one anyway.
But look closely at the Democratic candidates, and you’ll see Warren’s story arcs eerily similar to our last Democratic president. And both are, at their core, un-corporate American success stories.
Warren grew up in a working class home and neighborhood. She began her career in education. She is criticized for being too ponderous, too deliberate, and too detailed in her answers.
Warren’s victory would be as equally historic as Obama’s, though you’d never know that from the 24/7s. It’s wonderful that the news has paid no attention to the popularity of Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg, two Jewish contenders who would be the first from their faith to become president (remember when being Catholic was a deal breaker?)
But let’s not underplay Warren’s story so much that we forget its history. America tried to elect the first female president four years ago (and her 3 million+ margin of victory should have been the end of the electoral college). An arguably stronger candidate has taken her place, only without the scandals. There are no Burismas, NDA’s, stop-and-frisk scandals in Warren’s closet, so far as we know. Her undressing of Bloomberg in the debates demonstrated she can scrap with a billionaire.
She’s also laid out her plan as president to the smallest details (perhaps too small for a U.S. electorate). But just her first two oaths of her prospective administration — that it will not hire any current lobbyists and that it will not hire employees of for-profit federal contractors — are enough to counteract the nepotism and cronyism that has left the country on life support (literally if coronavirus isn’t brought under control).
Warren, too, is about as progressive as America is ready to go. While Sanders has been refreshingly blunt about his political status — he considers himself a “democratic socialist” — it won’t be long until the GOP labels all his supporters socialists. We do the same thing with Republicans, calling them Trumptards. Well, this outlet does. It’s just so damn on the money!
Warren is just to the right of Sanders, to the left of Biden. Both her and the Biden administrations are more likely to close some of political divisions that riddle the political landscape and draw lawmakers from across the aisle, if not make red states competitive in the Senate. It’s hard to picture Sanders suturing wounds with those in MAGA hat country.
Oh, and in answer to that child’s brilliant question: Most of the candidates have dogs. And Warren’s is a Golden Retriever named Bailey, who accompanies her and her husband on countless campaign stops. ‘Nuff said.
Finally, Warren represents where we are as a nation. The time has never been more right for women to take the reigns. They took the streets with #MeToo. They took Hollywood predators (and others in boardrooms and high-rise offices) off those streets. What would be more fitting — more American — than to pound an authoritarian rapist into the gravel?
Oh, and a side note from my mom, a secret progressive in South Carolina. She reports that, on the cusp of the S.C. primary, Trump was in her state, pleading for them to vote Bernie in what he’s termed “Operation Chaos.”
He’s right. However you vote, vote. Be heard. Cause some chaos. Just not where he expects it.
Last night, on my way to dinner, I received a text from the Elizabeth Warren campaign. I’ve received many as California heads toward its Super Tuesday primary vote. This time I decided to engage. Unlike Donald Trump’s perfect phone call, you really can read this transcript, in its entirety:
Warren’s office: Hi there! It’s Dana with Warren for President. Is this Guy?
Me: The one and only. (FYI: Calls are recorded to ensure quality of service.) How can I help you?
Warren: I’m volunteering for Elizabeth because corruption in Washington is preventing real change, and Elizabeth is determined to be a president who works for the people, not big donors. Which presidential candidate are you planning on supporting in the upcoming California primary?
Me: Please answer this one question that keeps me on the fence, and moderators will not ask.
Warren: I would love to!
Me: Let’s say, god willing, Liz wins. How does she plan to take the keys to the WH when Donnie Dimwit refuses? Because you know, if he contests an election he WINS, he will certainly claim her victory fraudulent.
He’s already made a strategic appointment of a lackey in the Defense Dept.
(Richard Grenell, Trump’s new head of U.S. Intelligence)
The question is far more important than Medicare, the tax plan, you name it. The contender for the Dems needs to answer that primary question before getting to those secondary ones.
So where does she stand on that issue? Thank you.
Warren: I completely understand that and it’s a great question! Luckily, she has a great plan for that called “Restoring Integrity and Competence to Government After Trump.” It may not answer all your questions, as Trump is pretty unpredictable, but you can find it here: https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/after-trump
Me: You know her team needs something stronger than a url. Liz needs to do the Constitutional research to have a strong answer about how a sitting president is forcibly removed from office. Then offer something like this: “I believe our military (or whatever agency is required) will follow the Constitution and take the necessary measures.”
Warren: They definitely have strong plans, I just wanted to send you the link so you could read the plan straight from her mouth (or, rather, her hands as she typed it up)! It is hard because there is no Constitutional precedent so even though Trump resisting a peaceful transition of power is clearly unconstitutional, nobody knows quite yet how to prepare. She was a law professor though and has supreme knowledge of the Constitution, so I trust her!
Me: Good answer. Still needs a polished response, because sooner or later, it will come up. Best of luck. Oh, and float this by her, too. 🙂
Warren: I absolutely understand that! Thank you so much. And I’ll read your article. 🙂
When I got back home, I visited the Warren web site, an impressive manifesto that lists, by bullet points, what she would do in office. I highly recommend reading it. Among her promises:
My administration will not hire any current lobbyists.
My administration will not hire employees of for-profit federal contractors, unless I personally review the situation and decide it is in the national interest.
My administration will not hire executives of companies that break federal law or are under investigation unless six years have passed since the conclusion of the investigation or enforcement action.
My administration will not hire any person who receives a “golden parachute” from their employer.
To prevent conflicts of interest, officials in my administration will have to divest from any individual stock, bond, or other investment that federal ethics officials determine may be directly influenced by the actions of the employee’s agency.
Senior officials in my administration will be required to divest from all complex investments – including individual stocks and bonds, as well as commercial real estate and privately-owned or closely-held businesses.
Senior officials must also commit to divesting any interests in family trusts if ethics officials determine that an asset belonging to the trust might pose a conflict of interest.
It was in impressive list, with even more bullet points and specific proposals on the site. A nice dose of determinism and detail, and a respite from the glib ad pitches on the 24/7s.
But not one word in the entire screed about how to evict a squatter (literally) who refuses your notices of eviction. Whatever the volunteer thought Warren’s plan contained, it was not on Liz’s official website.
So I Googled it myself, with the following question: “What does the Constitution say about forcibly removing a sitting president?”
Turns out, the answer was as frightening as the question. The best I could find was a section of the 25th Amendment, which has become a chant of sorts among Never Trumpers, as its the only Amendment that even mildly addresses the issue when impeachment fails. Turns out that’s a red herring too.
Under the 25th Amendment’s fourth stipulation, it would only take 14 people to depose the president — Vice President Mike Pence and 13 of Trump’s 24 Cabinet members.
Section IV of the amendment reads:
“Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”
Translation: We’re screwed.
Look at the wanted poster above. Now spot 13 who would vote against President Pussy Grabber. Then imagine Pence, whose only job is White House wallpaper, leading that Gang of 13 through the revolt. If you did, please PayPal $100 to this site for your very own piece of the Brooklyn Bridge.
The truth is, the framers of the Constitution never envisioned that a man who hated his government winning election its highest office. Just as Catholics likely don’t have policy for removing a Pope who finger diddles little children (shit, they don’t have one for priests).
That’s the problem with genuflecting to any aged text. Times will change. Type will not.
Yet, here we are. We’ve reached the point, with Trump’s transgressions in office, that he could, at least technically, lose a presidential election. He certainly could lose the popular vote, as he’s only the fifth president (after Adams, Hayes, Harrison and Bush II, all Republican) to take office on a technicality, the electoral college.
But even should he lose the electoral vote as well, who, exactly, leads the eviction? How do we respond when he contests the results and claims, as we know he would, that millions of illegal immigrants voted against him? Or that the Russians meddled, as they already are? And who would senators want as president during the appeals process? How would a Trump-weighted Supreme Court vote when it inevitable reached their desks?
There’s good reason to expect this scenario, beyond Trump’s toxic narcissism: The moment Trump leaves office, he becomes a civilian. A sue-able, arrest-able civilian. Should that day ever arrive, there must be a miles-long line of lawmakers and law enforcement brass eager to put bracelets on Trump.
Which is why that day will probably never come. The Giulianis and Dershowitzes of his staff would surely delay a legal decision until fat ass is either dead or dictator. Let’s take it further: Can anyone, wannabe president or casual reader, picture a scenario where Trump loses an election, offers a hand to the victor and says “Good contest, (sir/madam), here are the keys. Don’t forget: You have to jiggle the master bedroom toilet handle.”
So I’ll repeat my question to the polite- but ill-informed Dana. Which candidate is going to offer a real answer, should we in the media ever work up the nerve to ask that question on a debate stage?
My guess is none, perhaps because the presidency itself has become irrelevant.
We know its time for Donnie to go. We also know he won’t.
So perhaps we should start focusing on the office with any real power — the Senate.
