Prior to the September 29th debate, my prediction to friends was that Biden would do well, but the result would be inconclusive. That is probably about how it turned out, although I did not imagine quite how awful Trump would be.
Biden won the “debate” overwhelmingly. Apart from Trump’s serial lies and rude interruptions, he uniformly displayed a variety of sour grimaces throughout. He behaved like an unruly teenager being called to account by a gentle and firm but understandably exasperated Principal. And then there were his refusals to condemn white supremacy, to urge his followers to avoid violence or to accept the results of the election. Indeed, apart from the sheer ugliness of Trump’s performance, it reinforced a looming question: To what extent will Trump abuse the powers of his office to remain in power (and to escape potential prosecution and incarceration)?
For his part, Biden remained calm and largely positive in his outlook. There was certainly no sign of “Sleepy Joe” or a man of diminished mental acuity. His most effective moments came when he stepped away from combat with Trump and spoke directly to the viewing audience about his concerns for us. Once again, his decency and empathy spoke volumes.
Will Tuesday’s spectacle make a difference? It should, but that is by no means certain. It has long been my firm belief that Donald Trump is a contemptible human being and an extraordinarily dangerous president. At the same time, I have accepted that there are people of intelligence and decency who do not share that view. I know some of them personally and their perception is for me a matter of bafflement and despair. I have to say to them today, “Really, folks? Really? Is that what you are prepared to see in a President of the United States, a personage who used to be referred as ‘the leader of the free world’”?
A note to Attorney General Barr. You have repeatedly displayed not only your devotion to an all-powerful presidency, but your partisan loyalty to Donald Trump. In consequence, you have earned unprecedented rebukes from the faculty of the law school you attended and repeated calls for your resignation by hundreds of DOJ alumni who served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. As you watched the proceedings last night, did you not ask yourself whether the survival in office of Donald Trump is a cause for which you are willing to sacrifice what is left of your reputation?
A note to Judge Amy Coney Barrett. You are, by all accounts, a person of high intellect and integrity. As such, you must be personally troubled by the circumstances under which you were nominated and that a confirmation process is being pursued with extraordinary and unseemly haste. The President has made it clear that he expects your presence on the Supreme Court to help him prevail in the litigation that seems destined to follow the election on November 3. During your confirmation hearing, you will doubtless be asked to recuse yourself from any election issues to come before the Court. I suspect you will decline to make that commitment, but I hope that you will give recusal your prayerful consideration. Your service on the Supreme Court is likely to span several decades and it would be a shame for it to carry the indelible stain of having begun as a pawn of Donald Trump.
I would describe the “debate” as mental mud wrestling with a lot of BS thrown in. I also described it to friends as disgusting and shameful.
I could not agree with you more, Doug. It was further evidence, as though we needed it, that Trumps a dangerous man and an even more dangerous president. I, like you, am puzzled that so many intelligent, successful people continue to be taken by him. It is the supreme case of willful ignorance. Let us hope that enough people waken up to that by Nov. 3rd.
Trump is so ignorant of or indifferent to ethical considerations and notions of conflict of interest, that he has publicly declared that he is appointing Justice Barrett in a rush so that she will help him in litigation arising out of the election. He has stated that is why he is appointing her. I have fantasized that she will recuse herself because of the appearances of a major conflict of interest for her. I hope my fantasy is her reality. (However I do recall Justice Thomas not recusing himself when there was a case before the court involving a litigant for whom his wife worked.I point that out because there must be special dispensations for extreme right wingers.)
Thanks, Doug, for the special bulletin on the debate. It certainly deserves special notice. To one closely observing US political discourse for the past 70 years, I have never seen a high level debate so hard to watch, so embarrassing to those expecting American politics to function at a higher level. It is often said that, with an individual, or in this case, a political culture, caught in a negative cycle and struggling with destructive behaviors, motivation for a reverse in course and efforts to begin some degree of recovery does not occur until the worst is experienced. I hope last night might prompt some principles in the divisive, out-of-control conflict to reach that point. It won’t be Trump himself, but he is only an instigating role player in the drama that devastated the values that the GOP has been honored for since its foundation, and has brought political discourse and progress in our nation to its current sorry state. Doug’s special notes to Atttorney General Barr and Supreme Court Nominee Amy Barrett are especially relevant, and GOP leaders like Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham could well also take note. Hard to be optimistic, but better than giving up hope!
As usual, you picked the right word for Trump’s performance last night (“ugly”). A dozen words flitted through my addled brain (some unprintable), but “ugly” is perfect.
As to the soon-to-be Justice Amy Barrett, I agree that Trump’s primary interest in confirming her before the election is to assure him a 5th vote to decide the election in his favor. (I say 5th b/c Chief Justice Roberts has demonstrated that he’s not a partisan hack.) I’m not sure what “election issue” wd require SC adjudication…Trump constantly asserts that there will be fraud in the voting/vote-tallying…but factual disputes are not decided by appellate courts, I think it’s possible that Trump is counting on GOP state legislatures to appoint electors who will vote for Trump even if Biden wins the popular vote in their states…and that’s the issue that cd reach the SC.
Pls let me know if I’m wrong and/or just being paranoid.
It’s hard to say whether litigation will necessarily reach the Supreme Court and, if it does, exactly what the issue will be, but recall Bush v. Gore and hanging chads. That was a case that many thought should not be in the Supreme Court, but there it was. I plan to discuss the matter of competing electors in a forthcoming blog.
Comments are closed.