Be Tolerant of Each Other's Presidential Choices (and other election thoughts)

We should be more tolerant of others’ choice for President of the United States.  As I see it, the parties tried to foist on us a choice between the worst person to have been President* and the person who has been the worst President.**  To the degree that people are trying to find the lesser problem between those choices, I have to commiserate them.

* See my 2016 blog: Donald Trump’s profile

** See my 2024 blog: Why will People Vote for Trump even though they Consider Him Unfit?

If someone is passionately pro-Trump or Progressive (President Biden and the other mentioned possibilities all represent the Progressives), I try to help them understand why people might be voting contrary to their strong preferences.

Depending on the positions taken by the new Democrat candidate, people in non-contested states should consider that they have the privilege and responsibility of voting for neither major party, if they disagree with each.  Your vote doesn’t have any impact except that whichever party you vote for will claim that your vote shows support for that party.  I don’t care who you vote for (Mickey Mouse is OK), I just urge you to keep the established parties from mis-characterizing your vote if you dislike both.

We voters should be united in opposing both parties.  Both parties lie to us to try to divide our country.  As derogatory as they are to each other, they collude to protect their duopoly.  No one is representing the centrist voters and neither party respects democracy or the separation of powers which made our country great.  See my blog: Our Political Parties have Abandoned the Center

The Biden-Trump debate was amazing in that both clients were incoherent.  I was shocked to conclude that had I been dropped in, unprepared, to take either candidate’s position I could have easily won the debate against the other.  Yuck!

Democrats have reason to fear ex-President Trump’s personality, the January 6^th uprising, his lies about the 2020 election, etc.

However, Republicans have cause to fear the woke left that wants to control thought (use of pronouns, etc.).  The Democrats have foisted hoaxes on the public in each of the last 3 Presidential elections. 

·        2016: the Steele Dossier financed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign

·        2020: at the behest of Joe Biden’s campaign, 51 Intelligence Officers sold their souls to convince people that Hunter Biden’s laptop was a Russian hoax.  The media participated by not reporting, for example, that many intelligence officers refused to sign.  Some of those intelligence officials had access to CIA files.  The CIA had already confirmed that the laptop and emails were, indeed, Hunter’s.  When asked why he did not consult with the CIA, James Clapper testified “I didn't want to be tainted by or -- this, in any way, involved access to classified information.    Bad choice of words.  I didn't want -- I wanted only to go on what I had seen publicly.  That's all.”  Sounds like he wanted plausible deniability.

·        2024: the Democrats tried to cover up President Biden’s reduced capabilities.

The Biden turmoil is interesting.  There was no concern in the Democratic Party (other than Dean Phillips who was ignored/ridiculed) until they decided that Biden would lose the election.  A deteriorating President wasn’t a problem to the Democratic Party, but a loss of power was unacceptable.

In the discussion, many Democrats make it clear that they don’t want VP Kamala Harris to be the candidate.  The main argument expressed in support of Ms. Harris was that picking someone other than her would alienate African-American voters.  It is stunning that her credentials were rarely mentioned. 

The Democrats undermine their minority talent.  This 2020 article explains “increased pressure for Biden to pick a woman of color” to be VP.  Although it also includes a Biden quote “the most important thing is that there has to be someone who, the day after they’re picked, is prepared to be president of the United States of America”, the Democrats created the impression that Ms. Harris was selected because of being a Black woman rather than a uniquely strong candidate for VP.

Likewise, during the 2020 campaign, President Biden pledged to appoint a Black woman to the Supreme Court.  It would have been better to say that he was going to pick the best candidate he could find, then select Ketanji Jackson.  But, as is typically the case, trying to buy votes justified, in his mind, setting Ketanji Jackson up to be viewed as having been selected for her physical attributes more so than her acumen.

President Biden did the same thing with the military, announcing that he would promote minorities, rather than saying he’d pick the best people for the jobs.  Either way, he could have promoted minorities but he preferred to increase their burden of being viewed as “quota” nominees, because he felt doing so was to his political advantage.

President Biden sadly showed the accuracy of the phrase “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Biden kept stating that his candidacy was critical to the future of the USA.  No other candidate could step in for him.  Even if his motivation was not malicious, his thinking clearly was corrupted.  Once people develop that perspective, it is an easy slippery slope to do unethical things (such as those mentioned earlier) because they tell themselves that such actions are critical so they can assume/retain power to help people.

Given a choice of Biden, Harris, Trump, or Vance, I’d pick Kamala Harris.  It is hard to imagine she could be worse that President Biden.  I’ve often commented on my opposition to ex-President Trump and as noted below, J. D. Vance creates huge concerns.  I admit that I did not like Ms. Harris’ 2020 campaign to be President because she was too progressive.  But that’s scant evidence and out-of-date compared to what I’ve seen of the others and primaries demand that people be extreme to succeed..

J. D. Vance has done a TREMENDOUS job of making his life meaningful.  He was raised in an extremely abusive family.  Joining the Marines, attending Ohio State University and then Yale Law School are admirable achievements given his handicap.  I would LOVE to support a candidate with that background, but I have a lot of concerns about Mr. Vance.

1.      He says he joined the Marines believing President Bush had good cause to invade Iraq, then was disillusioned by the government’s deception in that regard.  Spot on!  But then Vance uses that experience to justify being the most anti-Ukraine politician in Washington.  It doesn’t take much thought to understand that the Iraq invasion and helping Ukraine defend itself are light-years apart, perhaps diametrically opposite.  It is hard to believe that Mr. Vance does not understand this.  Defending Ukraine is probably my #1 issue, so Mr. Vance gets dinged for a terrible position and questionable motivation.

2.      He has said that the 2020 election was stolen and “"If I had been vice president, I would have told the states, like Pennsylvania, Georgia and so many others, that we needed to have multiple slates of electors and I think the U.S. Congress should have fought over it from there”.

3.      He believes Lina Khan is doing a great job as Chair of the Federal Trade Commission.  That’s worthy of an entire blog.

4.      In 2016, he wrote "I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical asshole like Nixon who wouldn't be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he's America's Hitler."  Now he enthusiastically supports Trump, claiming that Trump convinced him by being a great President.  This is extremely different from people like Nikki Haley and Bill Barr who continue to believe that Trump is not suited to be President but feel that he is a better choice than Biden (and possibly other Democrats).

5.      He does not accept abortion even in the case of rape.

6.      He is a supporter of high tariffs.  (At least 3 of the candidates are pandering to voters with unwise tariff programs in my opinion.)

7.      His career since Yale is short and not very encouraging:

a.      In the first 3 years, he worked for Senator Cornyn, then clerked for Judge David Bunning of the US District Court in eastern Kentucky, then spent nearly two years as an attorney with Sidley Austin.  I don’t yet know the details of his jobs, but moving around so quickly makes me wonder if he could have accomplished much.  I’ve never heard a reference to anything he accomplished in those jobs.

b.      In 2016, his book “Hillbilly Elegy” was published.  Working on the book seemingly would have distracted him from getting a lot done in the jobs mentioned in the previous bullet.

c.      It is my understanding that his Mamaw (grandmother) taught him that family is important above all else.  I have this nagging question of why, if family is so important, he would write a book and fund a movie to demonstrate how incredibly dysfunctional his family was, including their unlawful activity.

d.      Then, he spent two years in venture capital, as a partner with Peter Thiel.  How did a young fellow with his experience earn that position?  What did he accomplish?

e.      He then joined a new venture to jump-start new companies in cities not usually thought of as hubs for new success companies.  That’s a great vision and he can sell it.  But what came of it?  What did he accomplish?

f.       Then Thiel and others seeded his next venture, Narya, with $100 million to accomplish the same goal.  Clearly, Vance can talk his way into positions and money. 

g.      Vance moved back to Ohio to be closer to family with the idea of starting a non-profit “Our Ohio Renewal” to deal with the opioid crisis (pertinent given his family’s drug history) and running for political office.

h.      Inside JD Vance's Faltering Ohio Anti-Opioid Nonprofit  is one of two sources I read that reports that his non-profit seems to have done extremely little.  He says they commissioned a study, but it is not clear that anyone has ever seen the study.  A spokesperson for Ohio Opioid Education Alliance had never heard of Vance’s non-profit.  Despite his ties and clear fund-raising ability ($100 million for his VC fund), he raised so little money (less than $50,000/year) before closing that it was not required to report to the IRS.  Reportedly, most of the money raised was paid to his best friend from Yale Law school who, at the same time, was serving as a political advisor to Vance.  To be fair, this friend developed stage IV non-Hodgkins’ lymphoma, which clearly would have had a very detrimental impact on the non-profit.  But how come this quintessential fund-raiser was not able to raise funds for such a lodestone cause?  Maybe that’s not where his real interest lay.

 

Regarding other potential Democratic candidates besides Harris:

Gretchen Whitmer (governor of MI) and Amy Kobuchar (Senator, MN) stimulate my interest. Klobuchar ran a more leftist campaign than I would have liked in 2020, but our system pushes candidates to the extremes in primaries.

Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigrieg interested me early, but I became convinced that he is inexperienced, not a good thinker and unfavorably ambitious.  He wants to pack the Supreme Court.

Governor Gavin Newsom (CA) is a physically attractive individual with good presentation skills.  He sounds good unless you think about what he is saying or look at what he is doing.  Because he is so slick, I worry that he could win an election and do a lot of harm.

I’d have to give more careful attention to Governor Pritzker of Illinois.  He seems to have accomplished a lot of things in IL, but I’d have to study those changes to form an opinion.  It seems as though he has been very partisan and has been involved in gerrymandering and not adequately addressing IL’s debt.  But as noted, I’d have to look more deeply.

Governor Shapiro (PA) intrigued me.  I believe that our public education system is the most systemically racist institution in our country.  Public charter schools have clearly shown how we can improve education in the inner city, but the teachers’ unions have steadfastly opposed public charter schools.  In two consecutive campaigns, Governor Shapiro pledged to support programs which would enable impoverished students to escape their dysfunctional schools.  But each time, he has reversed himself after the election.  I gave him some benefit of the doubt the first time, but now that it has happened again, I am leery.  Of course, I’d have to hear what he has to say, but for now, his words don’t seem to carry much weight with him.  Why should they carry weight with me?