Biden's judo moves, part two: The Age Thing, the Immunity Thing, and more on FACTS

I keep saying it. You kids survived covid and boomers survived '68. We can survive this. Just buckle down and fight. As I am doing here.  By proposing judo tactics instead of grunting sumo.

Today -- three topical issues. Two of them somewhat overblown and one of them truly important.

1. I tried to cover the important one, last time. It's the only truly central issue in this U.S. presidential election year, and one that Democrats always ignore.  

That issue is the vastly consistent right wing, all-out war vs. all fact using professions, from science and teaching, medicine and law and civil service to the heroes of the FBI/Intel/Military officer corps who won the Cold War and the War on terror. Indeed, their core agenda is to wage war against the very notion of fact as a thing.

No other matter is as important! Because MOST other matters - from climate change to election denialism, to racism, to abortion, to the state of the economy - will be settled, quickly, if we restore disproof of lies.

Indeed, last time I spoke of a way that Joe Biden could raise this as a readily achievable goal.  If nothing else, just proposing that method would emphasize that Democrats are generally the ones standing up for use of actual, demonstrable facts...

2. ... just as Democrats are the ones who don't want immunity from rampant law-breaking by presidents. And yes, the 'ruling' for blanket presidential criminal immunity, by the Trump-appointed (and blatantly corrupt) Supreme Court majority, was so utterly insane and treasonous that it shocked even cynical Rachel Maddow. 

So, why aren't Democrats eager to claim and use that immunity, while they are in office? All those jokes about Biden dispatching 'Seal Team Six' miss the point. The real reason is simple. They don't need it. 

Just look at the ratio of indictments and convictions for malfeasance-of-office and other felonies like child predation, between the two parties. It's about forty-to-one Republican/Democrat, across the last 40 or so years! And the ratio is infinite, when it comes to presidents and top tier cabinet officers. (In other words, the Clinton, Obama and Biden admins had none. The most honest and least corrupt national administrations of any and all nations, across all of human history.)

This explains the desperation of high goppers to make the whole thing all-or-nothing. They know that if we go back to a nation of transparency and laws, using calm disproof to lance the Kremlin-run lie pustules, then sooner or later the blackmail will spill and hundreds of them will see their darkest secrets revealed, changing that crime ratio from double to triple digits. And John Roberts will be remembered by history next to Roger Taney.  

That is why they must now go all-in brownshirt, as forecast in their horrendous Mein Kampf called Project 2025. For many of them, the only alternative to prison, or shamed retirement, or just universal ridicule is to emulate 1934's Night of the Long Knives. Perhaps with a triggering Reichstag Fire.

There are things that JoeB and the dems could say, that they aren't saying. 

Example: every lame argument by the suborned SC majority - that 'presidents shouldn't be distracted from hard choices by legal second guessing' - could be satisfied by something called "slow process," where presidents might limit their time dealing with legal matters to (say) an externally prioritized ten hours a week. Slow... yet with justice wheels still rolling. 

That plus an added layer of 'presumption of good faith' in post-hoc jury instructions should enable a president with decent legal advisors to navigate difficult ground, as Commander-In-Chief - as presidents have done for 240 years. Both of those clarifications could be arranged by legislation, negotiated in good faith, with an aim at finding a sweet spot between presidential flexibility and ... the Law. But that was never the intent of this corrupt SC majority.

Instead, they gave us a Tyrant's Bill of Spites. 

I'd go deeper into that travesty. But what'd be the point? No one will care about my 'slow process' proposal... nor my suggestions re: the War on Facts. (Though I may do a midweek posting about the latter, in more detail.)

What I WILL spend the rest of this missive on is matter #3. The whole 'age thing.'

== A sweet-spot win-win-win re: the 'issue' of Joe Biden's age ==

3. Joe Biden's poor performance in the first debate is now history, with lingering distraction ripples all over. (So much for his being 'jacked up'!) Several tiring foreign trips likely roused his lifelong stuttering debility... but he also admits now that he needs to nap more.

Okay then, it happens that I have another Big Suggestion, how JoeB could deal with this matter decisively, in what could be a win-win-win-win for Democrats. And for the nation, world and future.

But first let's deal with the Fox-o-sphere ravings - "Do you want a geezer answering that terrible phone call at 3 am?"

Well, yes, I do, if it's this geezer. For several reasons.

3a. It's the appointments, stupid! We are a nation of institutions. For those 3am calls, we have a Defense Department and a State Department and a Cabinet filled with civil servants* and appointed officials. And selecting the latter is the President's most vital task. 

Biden has done so, superbly! 5000 or so skilled, dedicated, brilliant professionals - without a single legal blemish among them - replaced Donald Trump's 5000 horrifically corrupt, stoopid dogmatists and Kremlin agents like Flynn & Manafort. Plus a few potemkin semi-'adults' like Tillerson and Kelly, who later denounced their ex-boss as a living monster.** 

A man - even elderly - who works hard to appoint folks of character - in the caliber of Antony Blinken, Lloyd Austin, Pete Buttigieg and Kamala Harris - is someone who is unafraid of being in a room filled with smarter people. That's diametrically opposite to Two Scoops Trump. Moreover, with such Very Best Folks working out all the plausible options for him, I am unafraid that such a wise grampa might face decisions at 3am.

Again: It's the appointments, stupid. And with those 5000 on the job... and 100,000 qualified civil servants protected from the Project 2025 plan (to return to a Spoils System)... I can sleep at night. And I do not care if Grampa takes some naps.

3b. Joe cares. Being human, he might resist a bit. Still, he will confront the matter of the age thing, if it gets worse after re-election. At which point he'll simply retire, allowing a vigorously qualified and now fully trained VP Kamala to take his place. (Down below, in comments if someone reminds me, I will describe how Democratic Presidential candidates always choose a qualified running mate and all but one GOP nominee chose some living horror.)

Was Kamala my first choice? No. But she is calm and balanced and totally qualified, and we'd be just fine.

But still, I'm not done with the 'age thing.'  In fact, here comes my crackpot idea!

== A judo move for Biden to get a win-win-win-win out of the 'age thing' ==

This one wasn't in my book Polemical Judo. But it's in the same, jiu jitsu spirit. The sort of move that could stagger the opposition, leaving them speechless and then shrill, while proving to the public how serious and thoughtful you are... and so much more.

3c. Call for 'debates' among the top tier of Democrats! 

Yep. Do this now! Joe Biden could announce:

"Look, I had a bad debate. I and millions of others don't think it means that much. But I do listen! And I know some of you out there are concerned,  Moreover, unlike my opponent, I know that wishing something and yelling it doesn't make it so. 

"Hey, I am showing some signs of time's passage!  I surround myself with the best folks the nation has to offer and I have vast experience. And some say I'm generally kind of a wise-guy... 

"But I won't be obstinate. So let's test this!

"I hearby invite six of the top members of my party... truly fine and brilliant men and women with utterly proved chops as leaders... to join me onstage for a series of three forums, leading up to the Democratic National Convention, a month from now in Chicago!

"These would not be 'debates' as such. We won't be attacking each other... much. But it will accomplish many things at once! 

- First, it would test me! If I can hold my own with these whippersnappers, that should anchor my rightful (already-earned) place as the party nominee with joyful confidence!

- If I fail that challenge, then the best new leaders of our party - and in-future the nation - will have a chance to show what they've got, before the party convention delegates, who will then have the authority given to them by voters this spring, to choose another slate. 

"I am confident they will pick Biden-Harris! But if not, I will campaign for any of these fine folks, with vigor and energy!

- This will also show the depth of the Democratic Party's bench! The public will see that there are no flukes. Any and every person on the forum stage will be blatantly better - smarter, more grownup and vastly more moral - than any and every politician in the Republican Party.

- And finally, jeepers, why should we turn down this opportunity for a vast TV audience? Let the forum participants disagree over this and that practical matter or proposal! We'll still have a great chance to present our accomplishments, plus proofs about the dangers facing our nation, our planet, civilization, freedom and our children!  And a chance to disprove the other party's mountain of volcanic, poisonous lies.

"I am consulting across a wide range of wise folks. But clearly, joining me onstage will be my own chosen running mate, world respected stateswoman and my trusted friend, Vice President Kamala Harris! 

"Who else? Obviously, we need Governors Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom up there! I want Pete Buttigieg, too. I'll let Bernie, Liz and AOC thrash out among themselves which of them to send from their wing.  And from the other wing...? Hey Joe Manchin! Care to come back for a few nights and try the waters? They're pretty darn foul over in Fox country. Over here we argue fairly, about true things.

"So there you have it. Unlike my opponent, who squelches any competition, who demands utter obedience and denies any possible fault, I'll admit I might be wrong when I look in a mirror and say "You still got it, kid!" 

"Like any wise grampa, I'll listen to the best and wisest of later generations! 

"And so, we're gonna get six of em up on stage with me. And I predict two things. 

"First, you'll see a terrific future for the Democratic Party and for America!

"But also, you will see the fact that I still got it! And when I don't any longer... we have a team that will keep America great and keep America winning!

God bless you all and good night."

=======================================

=======================================

Addenda

* Project 2025 includes utter trashing of the 140 year old Civil Service Act which ended the pyrotechnic corruption of the old Spoils System. The CSA insulated civil servants to do their jobs professionally, according to the law and enabled the U.S. to efficiently win our wars, build our industry and infrastructure, have clean food and water and obey laws. Trump felt frustrated by this and he intends to end it, finishing off one of the last bulwarks against a return to 6000 years of capricious rule by inheritance brat lords.

** Here's one of my standing wager demands... which no MAGA has ever had the guts to step up to meet:

Mike Pence, James Mattis, John Kelly, Rex Tillerson, Mark Milley, Mark Esper, H.R. McMaster, Elaine Chao, Omarosa, Bill Barr... jeez, over fifty former "great guys" have authored books about what a wretchedly horrible man they worked for. All of those 'adults in the room' have been shrugged off by Trump as 'terrible people!' Well, maybe so, in one or two - or even a dozen - cases. But unquestionably,  Donald Trump has been 'betrayed' by more folks who he formerly called "great guys!" than across ALL other presidencies combined!

And hence there's one thing that no Fox ravings can obscure and that no MAGA can deny. 

It shows that Donald J. Two Scoops Trump is a terrible judge of character!

Unusual Topics To Raise at the Presidential Debate

Who among us doesn't yearn to ask questions at the presidential fora?  Poking at both candidates, shaking the routine of canned talking points and practiced answers?  Sure, I have a firm preference. But separately, How I wish that I could ask the following:

1) Mr. President and Governor Romney. There is a crime afoot that's been committed by politicians of both parties against the voters in almost every state, disenfranchising millions and distorting elections while giving partisan radicals  the upper hand over moderate liberals and moderate conservatives.  That crime is called gerrymandering -- the deliberate twisting of voting districts in order to create safe seats, a job security scam for politicians.

Everyone knows gerrymandering is dishonest and destructive, helping drag American politics away from negotiation and practicality toward total partisan war.

In a few states, like California, citizens have rebelled to end this dark practice, and already in that state republicans and democrats are talking to each other, like they used to, before culture war.  What would you do, as president, to bring the foul gerrymandering habit to an end, and force politicians to work for a living, representing all citizens in their districts once again?

FOLLOWUP: Everyone knows the Electoral College is absurd, distorting elections almost as much as gerrymandering.  To eliminate it would take a Constitutional Amendment and that it won't happen.  But one simple measure would ensure the Electoral College matches the popular vote.  Simply insist all states award their electors proportional to the votes cast in that state, instead of winner-takes-all.  Two states already do this. Will you commit yourself to push for that simple reform?  

2) Mr. President and Governor Romney.  Today, many Americans have narrowed their news inputs down to just one or two television channels and web sources that offer narrow, extreme views on the issues of our day. These channels -- found on both the far left and the far right -- push indignation and resentment till millions of Americans no longer consider members of the other party to be fellow citizens, only enemies in culture war.

Is it time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine, which served our country well for so many years?  If Sean Hannity or Keith Olberman get to rant at hypnotically captivated viewers for an hour, pushing one narrow perspective, shouldn't their viewers get to see serious questions or rebuttals by top level opponents? Say just one minute of response for every ten minutes Olberman or Hannity get to rant?

Look at how - right now in this debate - you are at your best, answering questions. Might just a few minutes each night, set aside for questions, shake us out of partisan stupor, arguing fairly with each other once again? 

3)  Governor Romney, why do you never mention the record of past Republican governance of the United States? The GOP held power more than the democratic party, across the last 30 years. Yet, you never speak the name of your Republican predecessor in the office you seek, even though you surround yourself with Bush officials and advisors and will put many of them back into positions of power. Can you cite for us right now any ways that America was statistically healthier in 2009 than it was in 2001? And if you can't, why should we re-hire you? 

4) President Obama, you promised a government that would be much more open to its citizens, yet you've only done a little to cut down on secrecy or to increase citizen oversight. Every year, elites of government, business, and personal wealth gather more information about American citizens while our ability to look-back decays. Yes, real government can be more complicated than a candidate's promises. But can we believe you, when you vow to get that promise back on track?

5) Mr. President and Governor Romney, do you agree with each other about anything?  Not motherhood or apple pie, or easy generalities like free enterprise or American greatness, or generalities about solving the debt, but some issue that would not win you votes?  Some hard news that we, the people, really ought to hear, that politicians find difficult to say? For example: about the 70 year War on Drugs?

Will you promise that -- before the third debate --  you'll together issue one page of joint stipulations?  Things that both of you think we need to hear, because you both agree not to attack each other for saying it? 

----------

Okay, I try for questions that I hear nobody else asking. And I'll bet none of you have heard or seen these questions elsewhere.

As you might guess, I have tons of others that I'd love to poke at these fellows. And even more suggestions!  Some will be posted later. One can hope that the network hosts -- even the candidates -- might raise them on their own.

Ah yes, hope. Though delusional, it springs eternal.

== Other matters: "Which 47%?" ==

Amid the furor over Mitt Romney's "inelegant" remarks about the 47% of Americans who are "freeloaders" -- who pay no net federal income tax (FIT) -- many rebuttals have shown that he slagged mostly retirees, lower middle class workers (who still pay payroll and other taxes), and even our fighting men and women who get their combat pay untaxed. (Along with a darned big slab of millionaires and corporations whose accountants and lawyers get them off scot free.) Note also that the fraction who pay no FIT had its biggest increase under George W. Bush.

What's astonishing is the fact that many let him get away with a conflation of two entirely separate statistics.  The 55% of the public who support President Obama and the 47% who pay no FIT are supposed (by Romney) to completely overlap.

They do not.  Yes, democrats still stand up for the very poor, and hence a third of the 47% do pretty much plop onto the democratic side. On the other hand it has long been the plain fact that Red America suckles in far more net tax dollars than it pays, while Blue America -- the wealth and productivity and innovation-generating areas -- pay more more in taxes than they get back… yet blue states whine about taxes much less.  See the very starkly informative graphic below:

Of course it's more complicated than that. In fact, the conservative in me feels that all Americans should be asked to pay at least a small, token tax just to feel vested in how the money gets spent. It's one of many Goldwater style suggestions that could go on the table for negotiation… if today's conservatism still bore any resemblance at all to that of Goldwater and Buckley. (Barry how we miss you.)

== Political Miscellany ==

As perfect evidence of that drift, take this nonsense that Buckley and Golwater would never have stood for: "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers," said Neil Newhouse, a Romney pollster.  Of course Robert Reich is no conservative. But his point in this article is clear.  Lacking any facts at all to support their side, and knowing full well that they dare never mention (at all) their record at governance, the Murdochians have completed their migration.  They now say whatever they damn well please and let assertions stand in for truth. That is now the Red-Blue divide.

(When only 6% of U.S. scientists call themselves Republican, and every other clade of knowledge is under attack by Fox, this final shift can come as no surprise.)

Some of the heirs of Barry Goldwater have taken notice. Mike Lofgren, in The American Conservative  (One of the few journals of the right that today would be considered sane by Goldwater and Buckley) has penned a scathing denunciation of how today's worldwide caste of uber-wealthy appear to be seceding from the nations and peoples they increasingly control. In "Revolt of the Rich," Lofgren shows how this process - bringing us toward wealth disparities like those of 1789 France - threatens the very fabric of our western/american social contract.

"It is no coincidence that as the Supreme Court has been removing the last constraints on the legalized corruption of politicians, the American standard of living has been falling at the fastest rate in decades. According to the Federal Reserve Board’s report of June 2012, the median net worth of families plummeted almost 40 percent between 2007 and 2010."

Here is another snippet:

"If a morally acceptable American conservatism is ever to extricate itself from a pseudo-scientific inverted Marxist economic theory, it must grasp that order, tradition, and stability are not coterminous with an uncritical worship of the Almighty Dollar, nor with obeisance to the demands of the super wealthy. Conservatives need to think about the world they want: do they really desire a social Darwinist dystopia?

"The objective of the predatory super-rich and their political handmaidens is to discredit and destroy the traditional nation state and auction its resources to themselves. Those super-rich, in turn, aim to create a “tollbooth” economy, whereby more and more of our highways, bridges, libraries, parks, and beaches are possessed by private oligarchs who will extract a toll from the rest of us. Was this the vision of the Founders? Was this why they believed governments were instituted among men—that the very sinews of the state should be possessed by the wealthy in the same manner that kingdoms of the Old World were the personal property of the monarch?"

If I might add, it would not end there.  Read about Paris, 1789, and the Estates Generale.  How the artistocratic First Estate demanded everything, conceded no obligations to the people, the state or society, and justified their exemption from taxes almost literally by calling themselves the job-creators.

In retrospect, and on a purely pragmatic basis, that was a very big mistake for those lords, an obstinacy that wound up costing them everything. It makes you wonder about the intelligence of the self-flattering aristocracy of our time.

Lofgren's whole article makes compelling reading and I suggest you recite it aloud to some conservative "ostrich" who seems sane enough to listen... and possibly even to stand up to reclaim the sadly hijacked movement of Barry Goldwater.

==See more of my articles on Politics for the 21st Century

Why the Candidates Should (But Won’t) Stipulate

It's been said that a politician gets to be perfectly honest just once in a long career -- at its end. Refreshing candor sometimes pours after an old pol has faced the last campaign. No more fund raisers or flattering voters. One chance to tell the truth.

All right, it’s rare. Many politicians hurry through a revolving door, into fat directorships and lobbying firms. Still, it can be colorful when a few spill their hearts.

Take the day in 1992 when both Republican Senator Warren Rudman and Democrat Paul Tsongas made headlines declaring that everybody was at fault for the country's fiscal condition at the time, from then-President Bush to the democrat-controlled Congress, to the American people. Responsible economists later credited Rudman and Tsongas for spurring reforms that helped lead to the Clinton era surpluses.

Around the same time, retired senator and conservative eminence gris Barry Goldwater denounced the followers of émigré philosopher Leo Strauss – so-called “neocons” – for hijacking Goldwater’s beloved movement over cliffs of romantic delusion. A more recent example of post retirement candor came When G.W. Bush’s ex-Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, revealed a swamp of backroom dealings and ineptitude, explaining that he was "old and rich" and unafraid to speak his mind. On the other side, some claim that Senator Joe Lieberman really came into his own when he ran as an independent, shrugging off party discipline (if such a thing exists, among democrats.)

Alas, under our electoral system candor is punished. Folks on both sides of the lamentably oversimplifying “left-right axis” yearn for the best and most sincere people on the other side to wise up!  To eject radicals from control over the other party’s agenda. Too bad we rarely ponder the way crimes like gerrymandering have been used by our own side, with terrible effects upon the radicalization of politics.    (Elsewhere I describe one time that party self-reform actually happened.)

== A Modest Proposal ==

Let me offer here a proposal that I've made every presidential election for decades. Throughout the campaign we’ll learn how the candidates disagree on a myriad issues. And platitudes, what they think voters want to hear.

Logically, there must be a third category -- areas where these well-informed professionals agree with each other, but fear to speak  first.  But consider: there’s no political cost to telling voters what you really believe... if your opponent has agreed, in advance, to say the same thing.

What's wrong with two leaders finding patches of consensus amid a sea of discord? It has a name - stipulation... as when attorneys in a case agree to agree about a set of points, so the trial can focus on areas where they disagree.

What does stipulation have to do with politics? Given the intensity of partisanship in recent American political life, can we dream? Bear with me for a “what-if” thought experiment.

Suppose, amidst the 2012 campaign, Republican candidate Mitt Romney and President Obama were to suspend their mutual attacks just long enough to meet for an afternoon. Staffs would cover debate rules, and maybe how to prevent spirals of mudslinging and people would applaud just seeing them talk to each other like adults.

Only then -- they go for a walk, alone. During this quiet moment before the rough and tumble resumes, they seek just a few points of consensus.

Don’t dismiss it too readily. For all his faults, the last GOP nominee – John McCain did this sort of thing before. So did Senators Clinton and Obama, amid their primary fights in 2008.  In fact, the only ones to object would be extremes in both parties.

Oh, neither candidate will change the other's mind concerning major divisions. But here we have two knowledgeable public persons, presumably concerned about America's future. Surely there’d be some overlap? Things that both of them feel that we, as a nation, should do.

Imagine a joint statement. Though reiterating a myriad points of disagreement, they make public simultaneously their shared belief that America should, for its own good, pass law "X", or repeal restriction "Y". Further, they agree - neither will attack the other for taking this stand.

No longer pandered to, folks might say -- "Gosh, if both say the country needs this strong medicine, let's give it thought."

This would not free candidates completely from the stifling effects of mass-politics. But it could let them display something rarely seen... leadership. Even statesmanship. Setting aside self-interest in favor of hard truth, telling the people what they need to hear, whether they like it or not.

=== Is This Impossible? ===

Well, it happened before, during the Presidential campaign of 1940. When Franklin Roosevelt was running for a third term, he approached Republican candidate Wendell Wilkie, to negotiate just such a stipulated agreement in the area of foreign policy. Britain badly needed escort vessels for the North Atlantic and the U.S. had over-age destroyers to spare. But Roosevelt feared political repercussions during a campaign in which he was already under attack for breaking neutrality. Wilkie agreed to FDR's request, and declared that lend-lease would be his policy too, if he were elected.

Everyone benefited -- Wilkie rose in stature. FDR got his policy implemented, and the world was better off because political advantage was briefly put aside for the common good. On other issues, Roosevelt and Wilkie battled as fiercely as ever. Yet, that historical act of stipulation shines in memory.

How might today's politics differ if two adults -- each the standard bearer of a major party -- agreed to let it be known how they agree? Might they take on some of our most politically impossible subjects? Perhaps a cow as sacred as the Social Security retirement age, a compromise on gun control, some campaign finance reform…

… or the biggest candidate for such a declaration?  The obvious of course. The topic that neither side dares to raise first.  The failed Drug War.

== How it could happen ==

Is this quixotic proposal too much to ask of today's opportunistic brand of politician? Perhaps. Indeed, I have little hope that it has a chance of happening during the 2012 election cycle, while partisanship towers foremost in the minds of the partisan attack dogs who have turned America into a silly place for two decades, overshadowing any national good.

Still, our politics can evolve. Only during the most recent generation has the tradition of Presidential debates become so entrenched that no front-runner can now duck them. Ancient hurdles of age, race, and gender are falling. And note, there are millions of Americans who deeply yearn for a more mature approach to politics. If a candidate offered this kind of stipulation process, and the other refused... well, there might be benefits there, as well.

Indeed, imagine if a third party candidate – say the Libertarian Party’s unusually reasonable/interesting Gary Johnson – were to join one of this year’s presidential debates. (Okay, so I think that would devastate one of the major candidates, offering sane, libertarian-minded conservatives a place to escape their party’s current madness.)  Johnson’s natural move would be to pounce on obvious things like the drug war. Ironically, this could offer one of the other guys cover to step forward, partially agreeing with Johnson while remaining moderate/skeptical. Good positioning, politically speaking.  And as a result, we all benefit when the topic itself (changing the drug war) moves up in peoples’ minds.

All right.  It won’t happen. Not this time around. But it could.  And maybe someday it will.

Shatter the barriers against candor!

Once upon a time, it was just a glimmer in a few eyes to imagine that debates would be standard in elections.  Now it’s normal.

Might the Candidates' Post-Convention Summit and Letter of Stipulation also become traditional, like doldrums in July and mudslinging in October?

Someday, the whole nation may look forward to the occasion, once every four years, with a sort of delicious, nervous anticipation -- awaiting the one day when two eminent politicians will say not what is politically savvy, but what is simply wise.