Friday, July 26, 2024

J.D. VANCE BELIEVES IN FAMILIES, NOT CITIZENS, AND ONLY SOME FAMILIES

On social media yesterday, The Rude Pundit said something astute:


By now I'm sure you know what Vance told Tucker Carlson about "childless cat ladies" in 2021:
“We’re effectively run in this country, via the Democrats, via our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too,” Vance said.

“It’s just a basic fact: You look at Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, AOC, the entire future of the Democrats is controlled by people without children,” he said. “And how does it make any sense that we’ve turned our country over to people that don’t have a direct stake in it.”
And maybe you know what he said in a speech that year about giving parents extra votes:
Let’s give votes to all children in this country, but let’s give control over those votes to the parents of those children. When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have more power — you should have more of an ability to speak your voice in our democratic republic — than people who don’t have kids. Let’s face the consequences and the reality: If you don’t have as much of an investment in the future of this country, maybe you shouldn’t get nearly the same voice.
It's true: He doesn't believe you can care about this country simply because ... you care about this country.

Vance cares about his own family, and says he cares about America. But he believes in an America where people who aren't like his family aren't fully American, if they're American at all.

Take a look at the speech Vance delivered at the Republican convention earlier this month. He said:
You know, one of the things that you hear people say sometimes is that America is an idea. And to be clear, America was indeed founded on brilliant ideas, like the rule of law and religious liberty. Things written into the fabric of our Constitution and our nation. But America is not just an idea. It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future. It is, in short, a nation.
What does he mean by that? He means America is a place where some people are true citizens because they've been here longer than other citizens. People like his family -- including his own wife, but only conditionally:
Now, it is part of that tradition, of course, that we welcome newcomers. But when we allow newcomers into our American family, we allow them on our terms....

I am, of course, married to the daughter of South Asian immigrants to this country....

Now when I proposed to my wife, we were in law school, and I said, “Honey, I come with $120,000 worth of law school debt, and a cemetery plot on a mountainside in Eastern Kentucky.”

... Now that cemetery plot in Eastern Kentucky is near my family’s ancestral home.

... they love this country, not only because it’s a good idea, but because in their bones they know that this is their home, and it will be their children’s home, and they would die fighting to protect it.

...Now in that cemetery, there are people who were born around the time of the Civil War. And if, as I hope, my wife and I are eventually laid to rest there, and our kids follow us, there will be seven generations just in that small mountain cemetery plot in eastern Kentucky. Seven generations of people who have fought for this country. Who have built this country. Who have made things in this country. And who would fight and die to protect this country if they were asked to.

Now. Now that’s not just an idea, my friends. That’s not just a set of principle. Even though the ideas and the principles are great, that is a homeland. That is our homeland. People will not fight for abstractions, but they will fight for their home.
Vance's wife is worthy of being buried among these true Americans because she's borne his children. She's borne the children of a true American. That's what he means when he says, "we allow newcomers into our American family ... on our terms."

Recall that when Vance delivered this speech, he thought he'd be matching up with Kamala Harris, who's also the daughter of immigrants, but who hasn't borne any children, much less the children of anyone who could someday fairly soon have seven generations buried in one American cemetery. Harris is, of course, the stepmother to her husband's two children, but he's Jewish, and I don't believe his ancestors have been in America as long as Vance's (though if you've read Hillbilly Elegy, it's likely that they've been much more respectable citizens). So while Harris's parents were in America legally -- they were allowed in on America's terms -- she's unwelcome on Vance's terms.

All this reminds me of something Kathleen Parker wrote about Barack Obama in 2008, before she became a Washington Post columnist:
"A full-blooded American."

That's how 24-year-old Josh Fry of West Virginia described his preference for John McCain over Barack Obama. His feelings aren't racist, he explained. He would just be more comfortable with "someone who is a full-blooded American as president."

... Full-bloodedness is an old coin that's gaining currency in the new American realm. Meaning: Politics may no longer be so much about race and gender as about heritage, core values, and made-in-America. Just as we once and still have a cultural divide in this country, we now have a patriot divide.

Who "gets" America? And who doesn't?

... It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.

Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Josh Fry's political sense. In a country that is rapidly changing demographically — and where new neighbors may have arrived last year, not last century — there is a very real sense that once-upon-a-time America is getting lost in the dash to diversity.
To Vance, America is about families. His own brawling, addicted, irresponsible, fucked-up family is a collection of true Americans. Harris's blended family isn't.

Thursday, July 25, 2024

THE RESPONSE TO A KEY PART OF KAMALA HARRIS'S STUMP SPEECH WILL BE VERY GENDERED

Democrats, including me, are cheering this portion of a speech Kamala Harris delivered in Milwaukee on Tuesday:


Before I was elected vice president, before I was elected United States senator, I was elected attorney general of the state of California, and I was a courtroom prosecutor before then. And in those roles, I took on perpetrators of all kinds: predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So hear me when I say I know Donald Trump's type.
Obviously, Republican voters won't respond well to this. But I don't think negative responses to this passage (which I assume will become part of Harris's stump speech) will be exclusively ideological. For many people, I think it will be a measure of how they feel about men and women.

For many people, including people who didn't think of themselves as Republicans before they got on the Trump train, what's appealing about Trump is that he seems to be a powerful man who does what he pleases and gets away with it. We say that, as a businessman, he's cheated and defrauded people, and they respond that you have to be a little devious and crooked to get by in the cutthroat world of New York business. And as for his sex life, many people see him as a stud rather than a predator, and while they won't admit it to themselves, they thrill to the idea that he sexually imposes his will on women. And some of them will admit it to themselves:


Many men think they should be able to get away with financial chicanery because everybody does it. They think behavior toward women that you and I would see as predatory is simply normal. And some women agree with them.

To people like this, Harris will undoubtedly come off as a finger-wagging scold who doesn't want men to engage in perfectly healthy behavior. I think some normally Democratic men will fall into this category as well, though I hope it won't be a large number.

On the other hand, there could be a number of Republican women who know what bad men are like, and who'll appreciate what Harris says.

Harris isn't leading in the polls, though she's scrambling the race. She's doing much better with young voters -- her lead over Trump is 20%, according to a new Axios poll, compared to a 6% Biden lead in Axios's last youth poll. And she's doing better with union voters in swing states, according to a new Emerson poll.

But attitudes about bad men and prosecutorial women might affect the votes of some Americans who are normally reliable Democrats or Republicans. Trump was already making inroads among men of color; I wonder what the effect of Harris's candidacy will be on the white male vote. On the other hand, I think Harris could impress some normally Republican women with talk like this. I certainly hope so.

Wednesday, July 24, 2024

THEY'RE GATHERING EXCUSES FOR A TRUMP LOSS, AND THEY'LL DEPLOY THEM UNTIL JANUARY 6


Okay, here we go:


Ana Paulina Luna is a sitting congresswoman, albeit one who posed this way the year of her first (unsuccessful) House run:


Another Republican member of Congress, Eli Crane, wonders about a second shooter and claims to have heard reports that, as one conspiracy-minded site puts it, the home of gunman Thomas Crooks "was scrubbed, cleaned and even silverware removed, prior to the investigative units arriving."

These are some of the less "respectable" Republicans in Congress. But if right-wingers will never find what they'd love to find -- a Democratic/"Deep State" conspiracy to assassinate Trump -- they can at least count on crackpots in their party planting the idea of an assassination conspiracy in the minds of many GOP voters.

But you don't need to believe that there was more than one gunman, or that Crooks had a government "handler," to say what M.D. Kittle of The Federalist says in response to reports that the Secret Service would like Donald Trump to limit himself to indoor rallies:
As The Washington Post first reported Tuesday evening, the U.S. Secret Service is “encouraging” the Trump campaign to halt the large-scale events his supporters have grown accustomed to....

Shutting down the outdoor events would smack of election interference, a way to stymie a successful means of campaigning.
You just need to believe that the Secret Service was incompetent, and now the Democrats and "Deep State" have decided not to let a crisis go to waste, to use a Rahm Emanuel phrase that Republicans love to throw back in Democrats' faces.

All of this will come into play if Kamala Harris wins the presidential election in November.

We know Republicans will say the election is rigged. But not all of them will say that undocumented immigrants voted and fake ballots were fed into the drop-off boxes and ballot readers. Recall that after the 2020 election, there was the crazy theory of election fraud -- the things Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell said -- and the "polite" theory, which, after 2020, was advanced by commentators such as Mollie Hemingway in her book Rigged: How the Media, Big Tech, and the Democrats Seized Our Elections. From the publisher's description of the book:
Big Tech, wielding unprecedented powers, vaporized dissent and erased damning reports about the Biden family's corruption. And Democratic operatives, exploiting a public health crisis, shamelessly manipulated the voting process itself. Silenced and subjected, the American people lost their faith in the system.
Republicans genuinely believe that the Hunter Biden story, if fully aired before Election Day 2020, would have thrown the election to Trump, and that accommodations for (understandably) COVID-fearful voters tipped the election to Joe Biden. But they didn't really get the "polite" stolen-election theory out there until it was too late. (Hemingway's book was published in October 2021.) This time, they'll want the "polite" version and the crackpot version out there simultaneously, while they still have time to overturn the election results.

So if Harris wins, they'll argue that discouraging Trump from holding outdoor rallies made a massive difference in the final vote, whether or not there was a Vast Liberal Conspiracy to shoot Trump in the first place. This will be one of many arguments they'll make, and it all might be enough to persude Trumpified election officials to refuse to certified a Harris victory.

I agree that the Secret Service ought to be able to protect Trump at an outdoor rally, but I don't understand why not having the option to do outdoor rallies would make any difference in his vote totals -- rally attendees are invariably superfans already, as are the people who watch the rallies on TV and online, and how many attendees or viewers care about the nature of the venues?

As for the "Democrats shot Trump" theory, let's ignore the fact that Democrats aren't psychopaths and ask why it would be to their advantage to do that. After the failed assassination attempt, the media was ready to declare Trump a demigod, a tough-as-nails American hero, which was entirely predictable. The shooting hasn't massively improved his standing in the polls, mostly because he's the same jerk he's always been, but it could have if he'd maintained a posture of humility. And if Trump had died? There would have been a huge outpouring of sympathy for the GOP, and the replacement candidate might well have been Nikki Haley, who led Biden by 9 in a March New York Times poll, and by 16 in a February poll from Marquette. Why would Democrats want that?

In the next few months, Republicans will describe everything they possibly can as election interference. Let's hope the guardrails hold.

Tuesday, July 23, 2024

THE BROS THINK WE NEED THEIR HELP TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE WANT

Many pundits are sad today because the Democratic Party won't have a mini-primary to choose Joe Biden's replacement on the presidential ticket. But how do Democrats feel? Morning Consult has done some polling:
A Morning Consult survey conducted after President Joe Biden ended his re-election campaign found that 65% of Democratic voters support Harris to lead the party’s ticket, more than double the level of support she had in a hypothetical look at the same question late last month following the first presidential debate.
As has Quinnipiac:
Democrats and Democratic leaning voters were given a list of 10 names of possible Democratic candidates for president instead of Joe Biden and asked who they would most like to see win the Democratic nomination for president.

Vice President Kamala Harris tops the list with 45 percent support, California Governor Gavin Newsom receives 12 percent support, Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg receives 11 percent support, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer receives 7 percent support, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear each receive 4 percent support, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly receives 3 percent support, and Maryland Governor Wes Moore, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, and Colorado Governor Jared Polis each receive 1 percent support.
Those are blowout numbers, as is this:
Vice President Kamala Harris raised $81 million in the first 24 hours since announcing her bid for president, her campaign said, a record-breaking showing as Democrats welcomed her candidacy with one of the greatest gushers of cash of all time.
See also this:
Future Forward, the flagship super PAC blessed by President JOE BIDEN, received $150 million in new commitments from major Democratic donors in the 24 hours since the president announced he would step aside from the race, Elena Schneider reports.

The fundraising boon ... gives VP KAMALA HARRIS, Biden’s endorsed successor, an enormous boost as the Democratic Party reorients to a new nominee.
Sounds as if Democrats are very satisfied with Harris as the candidate. And that should be no surprise. Go to FiveThirtyEight's collection of 2024 Democratic primary polls. When you get to the bottom of the list, keep clicking "Show more polls." Long before Biden dropped out, in every national poll that asked respondents about a field without Joe Biden, Kamala Harris won, usually by double digits. When Harris's lead was only in single digits, it was because her closest rival was Michelle Obama, who has made it clear she'll never run for office.

Here are three typical polls, all posted on one day late last month (click to enlarge):


Survey USA: Harris by 27 over a field including Newsom, Buttigieg, Whitmer, Shapiro, and Wes Moore. Morning Consult: Harris by 10 over a field including Newsom, Buttigieg, Whitmer, Moore, Beshear, Cooper, Pritzker, and Moore. Data for Progress: Harris by 21 over a field including Newsom, Buttigieg, Whitmer, Pritzker, Shapiro, Cory Booker, and Amy Klobuchar.

In a field without Biden, Kamala Harris is the Democrats' consensus choice. Kamala Harris has always been the Democrats' consensus choice.

But bros like Ezra Klein aren't satisfied. They still think we Democrats don't know what we want, and need to have a bro-devised process to help focus our tiny minds:
I think there’s a middle path here that Democrats should consider. None of the top-tier candidates are going to challenge Harris for the nomination. But what about some second- or third-tier candidates? Let a few up-and-comers make their case against Donald Trump. Let’s see some CNN town halls, some multicandidate forums. Nobody is going to go negative on each other here. Give the country a reason to watch a lineup of young Democrats, most of all Harris, make their cases against Trump day after day for the next few weeks.

Think of it not as a contest. Think of it as an exhibition. Maybe the people who’ve endorsed Harris can participate, too. She’s going to need a vice president. So maybe Gretchen Whitmer and Shapiro and Kelly and Beshear should be up there, too.... Maybe a little strategic ambiguity about what these candidate forums and voter town halls are would be good.
Harris vs. "some second- or third-tier candidates"? You mean the way Joe Biden ran against Dean Phillips and Marianne Williamson? We all derived a great deal of civic nourishment from that process, didn't we?

And what does Klein mean when he writes, "Think of it not as a contest. Think of it as an exhibition," and then "Maybe a little strategic ambiguity about what these candidate forums and voter town halls are would be good"? Beyond the obvious (We can't allow you simple folk to know what your big-brained betters are doing), is Klein arguing that this will be described as an exhibition but will actually be a contest, because donors who want another candidate will urge writers like Klein to magnify any Harris slip-ups and promote a donor-friendly alternative?

Klein goes on to say nice things about Harris, and says she'd almost certainly emerge from his process as the nominee. (Though you never know -- he writes, "If she really isn’t up to it, [Democrats] need to know that now.") He describes this as good publicity for the party (though I'd remind him that a few excellent speeches by the presumptive nominee would also be good for the party, especially if other party stars show up in support of her).

But it's clear that if you're happy about the party's consolidation around Harris, Ezra Klein thinks you're uninformed and need educating. I worry that patronizing bros like this -- and not just the ones in the media -- will choose not to vote for Harris, 'cuz she's a girl and a bunch of girls and girlymen decided to make her the nominee by acclamation, without contests and brackets and March Madness and a Final Four. We need to outvote Republicans, but we may also need to outvote America's Ezra Kleins.

Monday, July 22, 2024

THIS IS GOOD, AND IT'S BEING DONE RIGHT

In the comments to the previous post, I'm seeing some dismay about what just happened. I'm normally the doom-and-gloom guy, but I'm optimistic.

One reason I'm optimistic is that the Democratic response to Joe Biden's withdrawal from the race is exactly what I've wanted from the party for the past three and a half weeks. Democrats suddenly seem decisive. They seem ready to end the drama immediately. I'm heartened that so many Democrats rapidly coalesced around Kamala Harris after Biden's endorsement, everyone from Bill and Hillary Clinton to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to all fifty state party chairs. (Shame on Barack Obama for holding out, but his donor-fueled wish for an open contest is out of step with the majority of the party, and won't be relevant.) This is a party that seems ready to move forward, after weeks of spinning its wheels. I'm not surprised that Biden dropped out, but I'm pleasantly surprised that Democrats knew how to manage the transition.

And it's clear to me that this is good because so many Democratic voters are suddenly hopeful. It's being reported that the Harris campaign received $70 million in small-dollar donations as of 1:00 A.M. This excitement could be contagious. It could spread to swing voters. The polls mostly say that Harris does no better against Donald Trump than Biden does, but that could change, at least momentarily, because of this excitement. After that, Harris will have to grind out a win. But Biden seemed to have no potential for improvement -- voters knew him and Trump, and nothing seemed to change their opinions of either. But while there's absolutely a chance that voters will sour on Harris after this moment, she has the potential to build on her base of support, in a way that Biden couldn't.

It's been impossible for me to ignore the frustration of some voters who are either anti-Trump or gettable, like the guy I saw on the Upper West Side of Manhattan a week or so ago who was wearing an ANYONE UNDER 80 / 2024 T-shirt. (Yes, I know -- Trump is barely under eighty. But I assume anyone who wears this shirt doesn't know that.)

Then there's Lauren Hough, the author of the memoir Leaving Isn't the Hardest Thing. She's a military veteran, a lesbian, a former bartender, bouncer, and cable installer, a victim of childhood sexual abuse. She's a writer now, but she's not highly educated or credentialed. She lives in Austin and hangs out with musicians and barflies, not elitists. She's in her forties. She loathes Trump. This was her take a couple of days ago:


I see a lot of younger people who just can't believe Democrats were going to go trhrough with a Biden candidacy. Rightly or wrongly, they saw Biden as self-evidently unable to do the job. Here's Kat Abughazaleh, a twentysomething former Media Matters writer who makes anti-Fox, anti-GOP, and anti-Religious Right videos. She posted this just after the June 27 debate:


Like many people who watched last night's debate, I have one question for Democrats: What the hell do you think you're doing? Now, before anyone attacks me for helping Trump or sabotaging the Democrats, I'd like to say I'm making this video because I want the Democrats to win. I care a lot more about that than preserving tradition. At some point, liberal politicos decided that seniority and decorum matter more than actually winning races and passing bills. We as voters deserve better. And it's not like the DNC is some helpless baby. They could have had an actual primary with actual candidates. And they should have. A lot of us voted for Joe Biden expecting him to be a one-term president. But then he changed his mind. So we all have to deal with the consequences to prop up the ego of an 80-year-old man.
This is harsh, but it's a perspective shared by many people under the age of fifty -- and I mean people who hate Trump and want him gone forever. Biden and the rest of the Democratic Party were at risk of losing these voters this year. They weren't winning them back. And now these voters are gettable again.

I don't share the perspective of some Democrats I've encountered on social media who seem to think the election is already won. Harris is not an Obama-level political talent. America is sexist and racist. Republicans and the Republican-dominated courts could make trouble for Democrats. (I don't believe the courts will knock her off the ballot -- they know that making it impossible for a major party's candidate to run would be taking us into Putin territory, and I think they still want to seem as if they're operating withing the guardrails. On the other hand, I could imagine the courts ruling that Harris can't use money collected by the Biden-Harris campaign, even though her right to use that money seems to be a matter of settle campaign finance law.) Nevertheless, I feel hopeful. Millions of voters hated the choice they had, and now one party has responded to that frustration. That should count for a lot.

Sunday, July 21, 2024

IF WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT WEST WING FANTASIES, HERE'S MINE (with a Biden-withdrawal postscript)

The editors of the New York Times opinion section are undoubtedly aware that many Democrats regard the various replace-Joe-Biden scenarios as "West Wing fantasies," so they decided to troll these Democrats by commissioning Aaron Sorkin to devise a resolution for the party's current crisis, in the manner of the West Wing scripts he used to write. You can probably guess what Sorkin proposes:
... there’s something the Democrats can do that would not just put a lump in people’s throats with its appeal to stop-Donald-Trump-at-all-costs unity, but with its originality and sense of sacrifice. So here’s my pitch to the writers’ room: The Democratic Party should pick a Republican.

At their convention next month, the Democrats should nominate Mitt Romney.
Of course.

Sorkin knows that Romney doesn't support any of the policies that matter most to Democratic voters:
Does Mr. Romney support abortion rights? No. Does he want to aggressively raise the minimum wage, bolster public education, strengthen unions, expand transgender rights and enact progressive tax reform? Probably not.
Would Aaron Sorkin personally benefit from any of these policies? Of course not. So he doesn't care, and, because he's a narcissist like most successful people in this society, he thinks rank-and-file voters don't care about anything he doesn't care about.

Sorkin writes:
But is [Romney] a cartoon thug who did nothing but watch TV while the mob he assembled beat and used Tasers on police officers? No. The choice is between Donald Trump and not-Trump, and the not-Trump candidate needs only one qualification: to win enough votes from a cross section of Americans to close off the former president’s Electoral College path back to power.
Democrats have overperformed in off-year elections since the Dobbs decision, Democrats running in close Senate races are outpolling their Republican opponents, Democrats -- as Sorkin himself notes later in the piece -- have won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections, and yet his idea of a candidate who can "win enough votes from a cross section of Americans" is, naturally, a Republican. And not only a Republican, but a Republican who's run for president twice and lost both times.

Which is not to say that Republicans are entirely useless. I'll get grief for this from "burn the lifeboats" Democrats, but let me present you with my best-received post at Bluesky:

I know I'm supposed to hate the Never Trumpers for their past sins, but people like Rick Wilson, Michael Steele, and now David Frum think Democrats could win this race. Imagine if a few actual Democratic operatives and pundits felt that way. (Gift link.) www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc...

[image or embed]

— Steve M. (@stevemnomoremister.bsky.social) Jul 19, 2024 at 1:35 PM

My West Wing fantasy isn't that Democrats pick a Republican candidate -- it's Democrats hiring some Republican operatives. Not for the policies, or the morally dubious tactics -- it's clear that Democrats need an infusion of people who don't hate themselves. When things go wrong in the GOP, Republicans don't decide that the public hates their party, and they certainly don't go running to every A-list reporter they know and say, "Wow, our party really blows, doesn't it?" They don't incessantly apologize for who they are. They don't engage in circular firing squads.

In my West Wing fantasy -- I hope this is gee-whizzy enough for Aaron Sorkin -- the Democratic presidential campaign hires a young operative who's concealing the fact that much of her past experience was working for Republicans. When her background is discovered, her bosses decide to fire her. Then she says something like this:
I know that what I did was completely unprofessional, but I just want to say one thing:

You need people like me.

Do you know what I learned when I was working for the other party? I learned that you don't win if you hate the people on your own side. I learned that when things are going right, you go on offense, and when things are going wrong, you go on offense. Here's what I never learned: I never learned that it was a good idea to tell a high-level reporter that your candidate is bad. I never learned that it was a good idea to criticize your own party's policies. I never learned those things, and because Republicans don't do those things, they win elections they shouldn't win. They win even though most Americans think they're wrong on abortion and wrong on guns and wrong on how much you should tax rich people. They won in 2016 with an ignorant, congenitally lying criminal and sex addict at the top of the ticket.

You can win with a flawed candidate if your people just shut the hell up and all row in the same direction. That's a lesson this party needs to learn.
That's my fantasy. Sadly, I think Democrats are more likely to actually put a Republican at the top of the ticket than they are to learn -- from disaffected Republicans or, even better, from people on their own side -- that they should not criticize their party publicly, should not undermine their nominee publicly, and should resolve internal fights swiftly and privately while focusing on promoting Democratic policies and criticizing Republican extremism. Couldn't there be a Democratic Party like this? Or is that just a fantasy?

*****

POSTSCRIPT: Well, this one was overtaken by events almost immediately -- President Biden has withdrawn from the race (but won't resign as president -- and he shouldn't). He subsequently endorsed Kamala Harris as the replacement candidate.

Republicans would know what to do in this situation: They'd rally around Harris and talk her up as an amazing candidate. Will Democrats do that? Or will some demand an open convention, while others grumble about whatever process is used to make the transition? I assume the latter, sadly. We'll see.

Saturday, July 20, 2024

DEMOCRATS, STICK TOGETHER FOR ONCE AND TELL "BIDEN MUST RESIGN" REPUBLICANS TO STFU

I'm pleased to see the CNN headline "Democratic Consensus Solidifies Around Harris, Should Biden Step Aside" -- if President Biden does end his campaign, Democrats should finally, finally unify around a single alternative and get back to the critically necessary work of reminding voters what a horrorshow a Donald Trump presidency would be.

But here's a potential hitch, though it will be one only if Democrats allow it to be:
As Democrats clash over whether President Biden can win in November, Republicans are saying dropping his bid is not enough — that Biden is mentally unfit to run the country another six months.

... Republicans are laying the groundwork to pressure him to resign from office.

"Everyone calling on Joe Biden to *stop running* without also calling on him to resign the presidency is engaged in an absurd level of cynicism," Trump's running mate Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) posted on Saturday.
Vance added:


This is being echoed by useful idiots such as Brian Stelter and the usually astute Daniel Drezner.

If Biden withdraws from the race, Democrats need to unite around the message that he is highly capable of serving as president for the next six months. And they should use this as an opportunity to call Republicans on their bad-faith arguments.

Earlier this month, I told you why Biden shouldn't resign: If Harris were to become president this year as well as the Democratic presidential candidate, she would need to choose not only a running mate (a choice that's entirely up to her and her party), but also a vice president to serve the last few months of the term. It could be the same person, but it doesn't have to be. Republicans will pounce on the replacement-VP choice as an opportunity to own Harris and the libs. They'll either refuse to approve her choice or hold star-chamber hearings, probably chaired by a sociopathic extremist like Jim Jordan, in which literally anyone she's chosen will be portrayed as worse for America than Osama bin Laden. Both houses of Congress need to approve the replacement VP. Every Republican in the GOP-controlled House will vote no, just to make Harris look weak, at a time when she's fighting to be a credible presidential candidate.

And then there'll be no vice president in the event Harris wins the presidential election, which means no vice president (acting as president of the Senate) to count the electoral votes on January 6, 2025. If it's a Democratic victory, it's likely to be a close one, and it will be fiercely disputed by the GOP. Who will act as president of the Senate if there's no VP? The new Senate will have been sworn in by then -- that happens on January 3, before the electoral vote count, and seventeen days before the president is inaugurated. If Republicans have the majority in the new Senate, they'll designate the president pro tem -- presumably the senior-most Republican, Chuck Grassley -- to preside. Will he ratify a Democratic victory that's being actively disputed by Republicans? Of course he won't.

That's why Biden shouldn't resign. Now, here's how Democrats should respond to arguments for his resignation.

They should insist that Biden has the physical capacity, the mental astuteness, and the moral judgment to be president for the remainder of his term. (They should absolutely refer to moral judgment -- why not use this as an opportunity to go on offense against Trump?) If they want to concede that Biden sometimes has difficulty summoning up words, they should say that nevertheless he's crystal clear on the issues he's dealing with.

They can argue that he recognizes that he might not have the energy to swerve as president and run for reelection, which are two full-time jobs, so he's making the job of president a priority. And they can argue that Vance, who's not even forty, has no understanding of the wisdom that comes from experience. Vance has never worked long enough to develop expertise at anything in his life -- he's gone from the military to law school to venture capital to a vague nonprofit to a career in politics, and now he thinks he can tell someone who's devoted decades to serving this country that he knows who has the ability to be president. Who does he think he is?

Democrats don't need to take my advice, but they should close ranks around Biden and insist that he has no reason to leave office. And they should remind the public of what Republicans did to Merrick Garland in 2016, and say that Republicans want the opportunity to do the same thing to Kamala Harris when she chooses a vice president to serve oyut the term. For once, Democrats should call Republicans act on their habitual bad faith. They should say that Republicans are certain to act in a nakedly politcal way because they'd rather deal Democrats a defeat than be civic-minded.

Democrats probably won't do this, of course. They don't play hardball this way. But I can dream.