Today is the start of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago. As it currently looks, the Harris-Walz campaign has grabbed the momentum away from Trump-Vance since Kamala replace Biden at the top of the ticket. These short paragraphs include my thoughts of the race over the last four weeks or so.
Many Issues are Intertwined.
J.D. Vance has recently stated that Americans should have more children. It's an essential issue for him, and I wonder if he realizes the contradiction between this position and the other policies he doesn't support. Many Gen X, Y, and Z individuals are having affordability issues in today’s economy and can't see bringing additional children into the picture if they're struggling financially. When a bill was introduced during the Biden administration about expanding child tax credits, Mr. Vance skipped the vote. Rhetoric will not change the dynamic here, with many young people postponing having or not having children. If you're pro-family, a pragmatic, genuine person might say you should support environmental regulation, worker protections, support for child care, affordable health care, public education, and more regulation over corporations. Among the wealthy in our country, affordability is not an issue when these young people decide to have a family. Empty rhetoric will not motivate younger Americans to having a family – actual policies that will improve affordability in this space may be the key for young people to be motivated to have more children.
Is Age an Issue now with the election?
Early this summer, Trump commonly complained about Biden's age of 81, a concern all voters should consider regarding a candidate. While he did this, not once did Trump say that he was only three years younger than Biden. Once Biden dropped out, Trump’s attack no longer is no longer applicable as Kamala Harris will be 60 in October (Walz is 60). Should the news media now focus on Trump's age of 78? Not just his age but how he's been going off the rails in his speeches and attacking his opponents personally and not talking actual policy. Will Trump pivot now that his age could be called into question or will he down play it and say his age is really not an issue (many of us know he's the master pivoter). The dynamic has changed, and now, shouldn't Trump be referred to as Don-old?
Why is Trump running for President?
To those followers of Trump, do they believe that Trump wants to run for President to serve all Americans? Do they think he has detailed policy proposals to lead our country for the next four years? Or do they think he's trying to avoid trouble with our legal system? Perhaps Trump supporters have just decided to support him regardless of his lies and meanness because they hate the Democrats?
Well, Trump's negative campaign may come back to hurt him. People are tired of being told that the nation is falling apart. They hear from Trump that crime is rampant in the cities because we have open borders (I've listened to this repeatedly stated by Republicans over the last several years – even when corrected, they continue to use this false narrative). If you listen to several of his speeches over the last few weeks there’s no hope, no joy, no optimism; it's so hostile and angry. So, it appears that diehard Trump people believe everything he says, and they're going to support him, regardless of the rhetoric and his current legal standing.
Inflation Numbers on August 14th
It's the middle of August, so the main economic news today is that year-over-year inflation has dropped to 2.9%. The Fed wants it to be around 2% or lower, but it's a work in progress and going in the right direction. According to Trump, he says the economy is lousy and he only can fix it. A day after the recent inflation news, I went to Foxnews.com (News Corporation) to see how they would cover this. I perused the site and reviewed their firs 25 articles without any mention of this positive economic news. Again, the inflation rate is at 2.9% and the feds are targeting 2% so there’s room for improvement and yet Fox News did not cover this. It’s important to note that this network doesn’t always cover news that may benefit all Americans, their main agenda is to preach fear that the Democrats are ruining the country. Even though Trump has harassed this network when they don’t always cozy up to him, it hasn’t prevented him from using them to get his message across to his base.
Is Immigration an Issue that Trump uses to rile up his Base?
Trump doesn't want to solve the immigration problem. It's an issue that he can use to help rile up his MAGA base and stoke fear that illegal immigrants are taking your jobs and causing crime in the community. The Democrats had an immigration bill that they proposed (I still thought Biden errored by not addressing this critical issue earlier). Trump killed this bill during his administration. I think he put a lot of pressure on the conservative members of the House and Senate to squash a bill that would have addressed our immigration issue. People who are poor, vulnerable, or uneducated will listen to this trope, and Trump's rhetoric says he will support them and not allow those illegal immigrants from taking away their livelihood.
The Biden-Harris administration earlier this year did propose some immigration reform and when the bill was in the house, Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House heard from Donald Trump. His message to the Speaker was to not support any legislation which might help the White House in an election year. He wants the glory to create immigration reform during his second administration even though very little action was done during his first term.
Is it fair for a Veteran to Publicly Disparage Another Veteran's Service?
On the vice-presidential ticket for the November election, you have both candidates who are veterans. That typically is not common, Vance was in the Marines for four years, and he served in Iraq for six months but didn't see combat. Walz served in the Army National Guard for 24 years, retiring in May 2005. In March of 2005, Walz's battalion was notified of a possible deployment to Iraq within two years. He had submitted retirement paperwork in February of 2005 to run for Congress in 2006. However, that didn't prevent Vance from using the term "stolen valor" to say that Walz ran away from his responsibilities before being deployed to Iraq.
There's something in the military establishment code where you should not criticize someone else's service in any way a veteran or service member should not, but that's not what Vance did. Vance thought Walz was a "chickenshit" for quitting before being deployed to Iraq. He served for 24 years in the Army National Guard, and then, once elected to Congress, he served in the first Congressional District of Minnesota for 12 years.
How dare Vance question Walz's military service to smear him as reputable and gain support? It was an awful thing to do. It's not as though Walz quit after learning of a possible deployment; he had submitted his paperwork before hearing the possible deployment and proceeded to represent Minnesota in Congress. Indeed, Walz didn’t quit the Army National Guard to be appointed to a board of Apple or Microsoft, he wanted to serve a congressional district in Minnesota. His attitude was not about money and power but was about continuing to serve the public.
Often, Republicans will complain that their opponent running for office is not a veteran, but Walz did serve for 24 year so they need to pivot. Regardless of serving 24 years in the Army National Guard, their new attack is that he didn't serve in actual combat. This "stolen valor" attack just shows the misinformation they spew is the latest example of using rhetoric and misleading information to smear their opponent, without including the actual facts of the matter.
Why didn't Kamala Harris have any Opposition?
I was a little surprised that Biden finally dropped out of the race, but so much political pressure was put upon him, and senators, governors, and the former house speaker convinced him he would not win in November. After dropping out, his VP, Kamala Harris, jumped in to replace him. As a more progressive thinker, I hoped there'd be a debate or a vote among Democratic delegates to decide who should run for the presidency, but that's not what happened. Democratic strategists and leaders such as James Carville, Nancy Pelosi, and Jim Clyburn suggest the party run a mini-primary. However, this would have involved town hall meetings, possible debates, and interviews with delegates. Because Biden dropped out late in July, there was never enough time for a mini-primary. Being the VP helped her fill that void. I also believed that no one stepped forth among the other possible candidates, which helped her secure the nomination (to be fair, I think only some candidates had time to announce their interest in the position).
Political Musings in the Middle of August. The election is over two months away so a lot will happen in this highly contested election.
Comments