| From: Bill Wolf | 7/11/2024 11:34:26 AM | | | | | | What Biden’s Exit Could Do for Democrats
They want a new candidate to battle Trump in November. It isn’t too late.
By Karl Rove
July 10, 2024 at 5:24 pm ET
President Biden insists he’s staying in the White House race. If that doesn’t change, it’ll be because of his selfishness and congressional Democrats’ pusillanimity. Both have kept Mr. Biden’s deeply flawed candidacy afloat.
Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi has gently raised the issue, but until Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries inform Mr. Biden that for the sake of party and country it’s time to pack up, he’s not going. So far, Messrs. Schumer and Jeffries haven’t found the courage to tell their increasingly infirm and isolated standard-bearer the truth. If he loses in November—which is likely—they’ll bear much of the blame.
Some Democratic senators and representatives have expressed deep concerns about Mr. Biden’s ability to win after his catastrophic debate performance. Many more have remained publicly silent, despite knowing the debate confirmed voters’ fears that Mr. Biden lacks the mental acuity and stamina to be president. The president told ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos last week that his debate disaster provided “no indication of any serious condition.” Voters know better.
Mr. Biden insisted that “the Lord Almighty’s not comin’ down” to force his withdrawal. But he’s mistaken to say he’s the person most qualified to beat Mr. Trump. He may be the only Democrat likely to lose to him.
It’s delusional for Mr. Biden to believe he’s winning the race. But since the president is getting political advice from his son Hunter, it’s clear he doesn’t have a rational decision-making process. Bottom line: No presidential candidate whose party is as severely divided, dispirited and unenthusiastic as Democrats are today has ever won.
Rather than accept the national consensus that the president isn’t up to the job, Team Biden is trying to push past this moment. But teleprompter speeches before small crowds, call-ins to friendly radio and television hosts, and a handful of awkward public appearances in the next few weeks won’t turn this around—especially since Mr. Biden continues stumbling even in the most controlled settings.
One group is very enthusiastic about Mr. Biden’s insistence on staying in the race: Team Trump. That campaign team understands that Mr. Biden’s debate performance now makes it difficult for Mr. Trump to blow the race. As long as the former president sounds sensible, avoids recording devices on golf courses and stays away from Truth Social late at night, he has the upper hand.
What if Mr. Biden decides to withdraw? That would upend everything.
Contrary to what Mr. Biden’s supporters say, the convention to replace him need not degenerate into a brawl. Hopefuls might slip opposition research to journalists to discredit or weaken their competitors, but that’s as far as the mudslinging is likely to go. Any Democrat who ran would understand that public nastiness is a sure path to defeat and perhaps even to future irrelevance. Outwardly, each would accentuate the positive by arguing he or she is the best Democrat to beat Mr. Trump.
All but 43 of the 3,939 convention delegates were slated by the Biden campaign. The Chicago gathering won’t be a bunch of Bernie Bros or “Squad” members; instead, it’ll be mostly normal Democrats who want to win the election. If no candidate gets a first-ballot majority when the regular delegates vote, then 739 Democratic so-called superdelegates can vote. Talk about a crew of practical politicos focused on victory. And we’ll be glued to our screens the entire convention.
Vice President Kamala Harris would be the favorite but hardly the sure thing. Her 2020 bid revealed that she’s a weak candidate. Her unfavorable numbers are worse than Mr. Biden’s and Mr. Trump’s. And she’s in charge of border policy: How has that worked out? If there’s a new nominee, that person could keep Ms. Harris as vice president to avoid ditching the first black and Asian-American female veep.
It’s true Mr. Biden’s war chest can’t be transferred to any candidate except Ms. Harris—and only after he’s nominated and then withdraws. But it can be transferred to a super PAC supporting the Democratic nominee.
Money may not matter as much for a new face. Remember this winter when polls pitted Republican Nikki Haley against Mr. Biden in a hypothetical matchup? She led him in December by 6 percentage points in a Fox poll and in January by 8 points in a YouGov-CBS News poll and 13 points in a CNN survey. If Democrats picked Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly or Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, they could find themselves similarly ahead. Americans want new faces.
Mr. Biden’s fundraising email on Monday said that “this election is bigger than me or you.” If he really believes that, the president should exit the race.
Mr. Rove helped organize the political-action committee American Crossroads and is author of “The Triumph of William McKinley” (Simon & Schuster, 2015).
wsj.com |
| | The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Bill Wolf | 7/18/2024 8:21:12 AM | | | | | | Business | Schumpeter
Tech bros love J.D. Vance. Many CEOs are scared stiff
Donald Trump’s running-mate has a deep-rooted resentment of big business
Jul 17th 2024
J.D. Vance’s life is full of twists and turns. His memoir from 2016, “Hillbilly Elegy”, chronicles how a boy from a drug-afflicted home in the Ohio rustbelt, who almost flunked high school, made it to Yale Law School. As a bestselling author, celebrated by liberals for his unflinching portrayal of left-behind people and places, he turned staunchly anti-establishment, attacking what he saw as business elites benefiting from moving factories abroad and paying low wages at home. As a venture capitalist, he was mentored in Silicon Valley by Peter Thiel, a conservative contrarian who then backed him for the Senate. Now he crusades against the very tech giants that, like Meta, owner of Facebook, made Mr Thiel billions as an early investor. He was once a “never-Trumper”. Now he is Donald Trump’s vice-presidential running-mate.
economist.com |
| | The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Bill Wolf | 7/24/2024 8:51:06 AM | | | | | | The moral bankruptcy of Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz
Two of Silicon Valley’s famous venture capitalists made a case for backing Trump: that their ability to make money is the only value that matters.
By Elizabeth Lopatto, a reporter who writes about tech, money, and human behavior. She joined The Verge in 2014 as science editor. Previously, she was a reporter at Bloomberg.
Last week, the founders of venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz declared their allegiance to Donald Trump in their customary fashion: talking about money on a podcast.
“Sorry, Mom,” Ben Horowitz says in an episode of The Ben & Marc Show. “I know you’re going to be mad at me for this. But, like, we have to do it.”
Marc Andreessen and Horowitz insist they voted for Democrats until now. They are friends with liberals. They claim to be nervous about the social blowback they will receive for this, especially because of the historically progressive nature of the tech industry and the Bay Area.
.
.
.
.
So this VC cabal is trading against the basic principles of America — not merely against personal freedom, but democracy itself — in the hopes of profit. It’s not the first time tech has made the trade against freedom; IBM made it during the Holocaust.
In venture capital, you are what you fund. Andreessen and Horowitz understand this, even embody it. But they aren’t just funding the issues they discuss on their podcast; they are funding Trump and Vance. That means those donations are anti-abortion, anti-immigration, and possibly even anti-democracy because that is what the Trump / Vance ticket stands for. These are not subsidiary issues: these are now what two of Silicon Valley’s most prominent figures now stand for, too. Is that a good investment?
theverge.com
|
| | The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Bill Wolf | 7/24/2024 5:41:40 PM | | | | | | The Secret Battle for the Future of the Murdoch Empire
Rupert Murdoch, the patriarch, has moved to change the family’s irrevocable trust to preserve his media businesses as a conservative force. Several of his children are fighting back.
July 24, 2024Updated 5:22 p.m. ET
Rupert Murdoch is locked in a secret legal battle against three of his children over the future of the family’s media empire, as he moves to preserve it as a conservative political force after his death, according to a sealed court document obtained by The New York Times.
Mr. Murdoch, 93, set the drama in motion late last year, when he made a surprise move to change the terms of the Murdochs’ irrevocable family trust to ensure that his eldest son and chosen successor, Lachlan, would remain in charge of his vast collection of television networks and newspapers.
The trust currently hands control of the family business to the four oldest children when Mr. Murdoch dies. But he is arguing in court that only by empowering Lachlan to run the company without interference from his more politically moderate siblings can he preserve its conservative editorial bent, and thus protect its commercial value for all his heirs.
Those three siblings — James, Elisabeth and Prudence — were caught completely off-guard by their father’s effort to rewrite what was supposed to be an inviolable trust and have united to stop him. Remarkably, the ensuing battle has been playing out entirely out of public view.
Last month, the Nevada probate commissioner found that Mr. Murdoch could amend the trust if he is able to show he is acting in good faith and for the sole benefit of his heirs, according to a copy of his 48-page decision.
A trial to determine whether Mr. Murdoch is in fact acting in good faith is expected to start in September. Hanging in the balance will be the future of one of the most politically influential media companies in the English-speaking world.
Representatives for the two sides declined to comment. Both have hired high-powered litigators. The three Murdoch siblings are represented by Gary A. Bornstein, the co-head of litigation at Cravath, Swaine & Moore. Mr. Murdoch is represented by Adam Streisand, a trial lawyer at Sheppard Mullin who has been involved in estate disputes concerning Michael Jackson and Britney Spears.
Few media stories have been watched as closely as the succession battle over the Murdoch empire, both because of the irresistibly Shakespearean nature of the drama, and because of the empire’s outsize political influence. Mr. Murdoch’s decision in 2018 to formally designate Lachlan as his heir put to rest years of speculation over his wishes for the company.
What it did not do, though, was ensure that Mr. Murdoch’s wishes would survive him: The existing trust gives all four of his oldest children an equal voice in the company’s future.
The Murdoch family has been divided before. James and Elisabeth at one point competed with each other and Lachlan to eventually take over the company, and at various times they have clashed with one another and their father. James, who once helped run the company with Lachlan, left it in 2019 and now oversees an investment fund. Elisabeth runs a successful movie studio, Sister, and has for years sought to position herself as the “Switzerland” of the family, maintaining good relations with all. Prudence, Murdoch’s oldest child and the only one from his first marriage, has been the least involved in the family business and has remained the most private of the children.
But given Mr. Murdoch’s advanced age, this battle has all of the makings of a final fight for control of his sprawling media conglomerates, which own Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post and major newspapers and television outlets in Australia and Britain. It has already driven a new wedge into the famously fractured family.
Politics, and power, are at the root of the struggle. Since Mr. Murdoch designed the trust nearly 25 years ago, the family’s political views have diverged sharply. During Donald J. Trump’s rise, Mr. Murdoch and Lachlan became more closely aligned, pushing the company’s most influential outlet, Fox News, further to the right, making the other three children increasingly uncomfortable.
 
James Murdoch and his wife Kathryn, Prudence Murdoch, and Keith Tyson and Elisabeth Murdoch.Credit...Danny Moloshok/Reuters; PA Images/Alamy; Tim P. Whitby/Getty Images
Mr. Murdoch has called his effort to change the trust Project Harmony because he hoped that it might head off a looming family struggle when he dies, according to a person with knowledge of the family. But it has had the opposite effect.
After filing his petition to amend the trust, Mr. Murdoch met separately with Elisabeth and Prudence in London, hoping to win their support, this person said. Instead, they were furious. Elisabeth responded to the possibility with a string of expletives.
Days later, on Dec. 6, Mr. Murdoch’s representatives went ahead with the motion to make the changes at a hastily called special meeting of the trust in Reno, Nev. The representatives for the three children sought to adjourn the meeting and block the proposed changes but failed, according to the court decision.
The fight has left Mr. Murdoch estranged from three of his children in his twilight years. None of them attended his wedding to Elena Zhukova, his fifth wife, in California last month. (Lachlan did.)
In a handout image provided by News Corp, Rupert Murdoch and Elena Zhukova at their June 2024 wedding ceremony at his vineyard estate in Bel Air, Calif.Credit...News Corp., via Associated Press
Though the trust is irrevocable, it contains a narrow provision allowing for changes done in good faith and with the sole purpose of benefiting all of its members. Mr. Murdoch’s lawyers have argued that he is trying to protect James, Elisabeth and Prudence by ensuring that they won’t be able to moderate Fox’s politics or disrupt its operations with constant fights over leadership.
According to the court’s decision, Mr. Murdoch was concerned that the “lack of consensus” among his children “would impact the strategic direction at both companies including a potential reorientation of editorial policy and content.” It states that his intention was to “consolidate decision-making power in Lachlan’s hands and give him permanent, exclusive control” over the company.
The document makes it clear that Mr. Murdoch’s actions have pushed Elisabeth, Prudence and James into a joint posture against him. The siblings share the single legal counsel and are fighting to retain their voice in the company’s future, arguing that their father is trying to disenfranchise them. They say Mr. Murdoch’s move violates the spirit of the initial trust, enshrined in its “equal governance provision,” and that it was not done in good faith.
This will be one of the main issues in the trial. As the Nevada probate commissioner, Edmund Gorman Jr., wrote in his decision: “A rational fact finder could find that the determination that the Amendment was in the best interests of the beneficiaries was made with ‘[d]ishonesty of belief, purpose, or motive,’ i.e., in bad faith.”
The action is taking place in a Reno probate court, which is devoted to dealing with family trusts and estates. Nevada is a popular state for dynastic family trusts because of its favorable probate laws and privacy protections. The decision obtained by The Times contains a review of the facts by a probate commissioner whose role is to adjudicate cases before sending any unresolved issues to a judge for trial, as he did here.
The trust holds the family’s shares in Mr. Murdoch’s empire, which is now mainly divided between two companies: Fox, which includes Fox News and the Fox broadcast network, and News Corp, which holds his major newspapers.
All six of Mr. Murdoch’s children have an equal share of the trust’s equity. That includes Chloe and Grace, the two younger children he had with his third wife, Wendi Deng. But those two have no voting rights.
As of now, the voting rights are shared among Mr. Murdoch and his four oldest children through their own handpicked representatives on the trust’s board. But Mr. Murdoch has the ultimate control and cannot be outvoted. After he dies, Lachlan, James, Elisabeth and Prudence each get a single vote. As Mr. Murdoch put it in an interview with Charlie Rose in 2006: “If I go under a bus tomorrow, it will be the four of them who will have to decide which of the ones should lead them.”
Image
Rupert Murdoch with his sons Lachlan, left, and James, in 2016.Credit...Leon Neal/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
The probate commissioner’s review of the facts shows that Mr. Murdoch is moving to expand Lachlan’s voting power to secure a majority and ensure that he cannot be challenged. The changes would not affect anyone’s ownership stake in the company.
To bolster his argument that he’s making the change in order to benefit all of his heirs, Mr. Murdoch has moved to replace two of his longtime executives as his personal representatives on the trust with two people with more independence. One is William P. Barr, an attorney general under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Trump, who was also a guest at Mr. Murdoch’s most recent wedding.
The court document shows that Mr. Barr is leading Mr. Murdoch’s effort to rewrite the trust. It quotes Mr. Barr’s statement to the court when he introduced Mr. Murdoch’s move at the special meeting of the trust on Dec. 6. Mr. Murdoch, he said, “knew the companies and the environment better than anyone else and believed that Lachlan was in the best position to carry on that successful strategy.”
The basic contours of the trust date back to Murdoch’s divorce from his second wife, Anna Mann, mother to James, Elisabeth and Lachlan, whom Mr. Murdoch divorced before marrying Ms. Deng in 1999.
Concerned about the destructive potential of a dynastic succession fight, Ms. Mann insisted that the divorce settlement give the four children equal control over the empire, people close to the family have said. As part of their agreement, Mr. Murdoch locked this provision in place permanently through an irrevocable trust.
But Mr. Murdoch came to see that provision as untenable after he placed Lachlan in charge of Fox and News Corp in 2019. A primary source of the problem was his younger son, James, who had been passed over in favor of Lachlan. In recent years, people close to James and his wife Kathryn have said that after Mr. Murdoch’s death they would consider joining with Elisabeth and Prudence to wrest control from Lachlan and tame the companies’ wilder right wing instincts.
James and Lachlan shared operating responsibility for the companies from 2015 to 2019, a relationship that frayed during the Trump administration, as the two split over Fox’s fawning treatment of Mr. Trump. Lachlan and his father dismissed James’s concerns, pointing to the network’s record ratings. James left the business following Lachlan’s ascension to chairman and chief executive in 2019, and stepped down from the News Corp board in 2020, citing “disagreements over certain editorial content published by the company’s news outlets.”
James and his wife, Kathryn, a longtime climate change activist, remain occasional, and cautious, public critics of the family empire. After wildfires ravaged Australia in early 2020 they shared their “frustration with some of the News Corp and Fox coverage” of climate change in a statement to The Daily Beast, noting “the ongoing denial among the news outlets in Australia.” After the Jan. 6 riots at the Capitol in Washington, James indirectly criticized Fox News, saying that unnamed “outlets that propagate lies to their audience” had “unleashed insidious and uncontrollable forces that will be with us for years.”
In the spring of 2019, Mr. Murdoch’s children — including the two children he had with Ms. Deng — received payouts of roughly $2 billion each from Murdoch’s sale of his movie studios and other assets to the Walt Disney Company. James and Kathryn announced at the time that they would devote part of that fortune to causes like climate change and combating “high-tech illiberalism.”
Image
Rupert Murdoch with, from left, Chloe Murdoch, Grace Murdoch and Wendi Deng Murdoch in 2019.Credit...Christopher Smith/Invision, via Associated Press
According to several of his associates, Mr. Murdoch has come to resent James’s criticisms and complaints, given that the family empire, which Mr. Murdoch built almost single-handedly, has made James and his siblings multibillionaires. The court document indicates that Mr. Murdoch’s representatives have referred to him in their own communications as the “troublesome beneficiary.”
James had differed with his father and brother over Fox News, arguing its play to Mr. Trump for short-term ratings gains would undercut its parent company’s long-term prospects, a fight he lost before parting ways with them.
Since leaving the company, James has been managing his own portfolio of investments, with a controlling interest in the company that runs Art Basel and major stakes in media companies in India.
It has always been unclear how serious James was about trying to make any move against Lachlan, or if he would have the backing of his sisters for such an effort. The fact that they have come together to preserve the trust suggests that he and his sisters are now solidly aligned against Lachlan, and that they may well try to oust him, or at least try to influence the direction of the company, after their father’s death.
Whether they will have the legal power to do so will soon be determined in a courtroom in Reno.
Benjamin Mullin contributed reporting.
Jim Rutenberg is a writer at large for The Times and The New York Times Magazine and writes most often about media and politics. More about Jim Rutenberg
Jonathan Mahler, a staff writer for The New York Times Magazine, has been writing for the magazine since 2001. More about Jonathan Mahler
nytimes.com |
| | The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| From: Bill Wolf | 7/29/2024 8:06:21 AM | | | | | | North Korean officials looking for medicines for Kim's obesity-related health problems, Seoul says
HYUNG-JIN KIM
Mon, July 29, 2024 at 7:06 AM EDT
SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un has regained weight and is suffering from obesity-related health problems including high blood pressure and diabetes, and his officials are looking for new medicines abroad to treat them, South Korea’s spy agency told lawmakers on Monday.
The 40-year-old Kim, known for heavy drinking and smoking, comes from a family with a history of heart problems. Both his father and grandfather, who ruled North Korea before his 2011 inheritance of power, died of heart issues.
Some observers said Kim, who is about 170 centimeters (5 feet, 8 inches) tall and previously weighed 140 kilograms (308 pounds), appeared to have lost a large amount of weight in 2021, likely from changing his diet. But recent state media footage show he has regained the weight.
On Monday, the National Intelligence Service, South Korea’s main spy agency, told lawmakers in a closed-door briefing that Kim weighs about 140 kilograms (308 pounds) again and belongs to a high-risk group for certain diseases, according to Lee Seong Kweun, one of the lawmakers who attended the meeting.
Lee said the NIS told lawmakers that Kim has shown symptoms of high blood pressure and diabetes since his early 30s and that he will likely eventually suffer from heart disease if he fails to improve his health.
Another lawmaker, Park Sunwon, said the NIS believes Kim’s obesity is linked to his drinking, smoking and stress.
Park and Lee quoted the NIS as saying it obtained intelligence that North Korean officials have been trying to get new medicines abroad for high blood pressure and diabetes for Kim.
North Korea is one of the most secretive countries in the world, and there are virtually no ways for outsiders to know Kim's exact health conditions. The NIS also has a spotty record in confirming developments in North Korea.
Kim's health is the focus of keen attention outside North Korea since he hasn't formally anointed a successor who would take charge of the country's advancing nuclear arsenal targeting the United States and its allies if he was incapacitated.
The NIS, in its Monday briefing, maintained its assessment that Kim's preteen daughter, reportedly named Kim Ju Ae, appears to be bolstering her status as her father's likely heir apparent. But the NIS said it still cannot rule out the possibility that she could be replaced by one of her siblings because she hasn't been officially designated as her father's successor.
Intense speculation about Kim Ju Ae, who is about 10 years old, flared as she has accompanied her father on a slew of high-profile public events starting in late 2022. State media called her Kim Jong Un's “most beloved” or “respected” child and churned out footage and photos proving her rising political standing and closeness with her father.
The NIS told lawmakers that at least 60% of Kim Ju Ae's public activities have involved attending military events with her father.
 |
| | The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Bill Wolf who wrote (12085) | 7/29/2024 8:08:15 AM | | From: Bill Wolf | | | | What happens if Rupert Murdoch wins?If Lachlan Murdoch comes out on top in the (latest) succession fight over the media empire built by his father, Rupert, what would it mean for the family’s companies?
The Times’s Edmund Lee, who has covered the Murdochs for years, set down his copy of “King Lear" to examine Lachlan’s record for clues about what he might do next.
Murdoch wants to alter the family trust to hand majority control of his companies to his elder son. Under the terms of the so-called irrevocable trust, his four oldest children — Prudence, Elisabeth, Lachlan and James — would have equal control of the empire after Murdoch dies.
Prudence, James and Elisabeth are fighting to prevent any change.
Lachlan’s career is mixed. He left the family company amid a bitter dispute with his father in 2005 and started his own investment firm. A bet on a radio network worked out. A big investment in a TV network did not.
Lachlan returned to the fold about a decade later and became his family’s heir apparent, taking over as chair of News Corp and executive chair and C.E.O. of Fox when his father retired last September. (Murdoch became chairman emeritus of both companies.)
Lachlan’s big deals haven’t worked out. Last year, Lachlan failed to reunite the two parts of his media empire after investors balked at his first big attempted deal since taking charge.
He also didn’t manage to pull off the sale of a real estate listings business.
The Murdoch empire still faces serious structural problems. When your business relies primarily on newspaper and cable subscriptions, chances are you’re seeing fewer dollars come into the register:
- News Corp, which publishes The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post, as well as influential titles in Britain and Australia, cut 5 percent of its work force last year. But The Journal is a bright spot, with digital subscriptions having grown an average of 17 percent a year since 2019.
- Fox has been steadier. N.F.L. games on its broadcast network are consistent money makers and viewership is solid at Fox News. Even so, investors expect total revenue to be essentially flat on average over the next few years.
|
What will Lachlan do if he wins control? He could try again to reunite Fox and News Corp, but may have to win over investors via moves including selling off weaker businesses like the newspapers (except for The Journal).
If Murdoch’s fight to protect Lachlan fails, his oldest son is sure to face angry siblings who could unite to demand sweeping changes across both of the family’s companies after Murdoch dies — including who runs them. |
| | The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Bill Wolf | 8/2/2024 9:16:56 AM | | | | | |
Declarations
The Fight of Trump’s Political Life
Kamala Harris has the wind at her back. Her strengths became clearer in the past two weeks.
By Peggy Noonan
Aug. 1, 2024 5:52 pm ET
Those who think about politics and history as a profession can’t resist comparing presidential years. “This is 1968 all over again.” “We’re back to the dynamics of ’72.” We do this because we know political history and love it, and because there are always parallels and lessons to be learned.
But it should be said as a reminder: This year isn’t like any previous time.
This is the year of the sudden, historically disastrous debate, the near-assassination of one of the nominees, the sudden removal of the president from his ticket, the sudden elevation of a vice president her own party had judged a liability, and her suddenly pulling even in a suddenly truncated campaign.
We have never had this year. And it continues to astound.
Kamala Harris just got two excellent weeks in the clear. Donald Trump’s campaign had to take her down early or at least hit her hard—and didn’t. She has the wind at her back; he’s scattered and stuck on the back of his heels. This week she had a good rally in Atlanta; he went before a hostile National Association of Black Journalists, was taken aback by his first questioner’s accusatory tone, matched her energy, and revealed, if you didn’t know, how cutting and personal the coming months will be.
What is remarkable is how surprised the Trump campaign seems to have been by Ms. Harris. Why? Smart people understood Joe Biden would eventually have to step aside, and she was his most likely replacement. Why have they responded as if shocked? We have a trough of videos of her talking, it’s devastating. Where is it? Is that all you’ll need to make a coherent case? When are you going to locate the meaning of this thing?
“San Francisco liberal,” “way too radical.” All that feels tired, the reflex of an aged muscle. It sounds like the 1990s. This isn’t the ’90s. New ages need new arguments, or at least arguments freshly cast.
Can Mr. Trump shift gears? He grew up, as I did, watching “The Ed Sullivan Show.” I’m sure it was on every Sunday night at 8 at the Trump house in Queens. On that show you saw every week the great Borscht Belt comics of 1950-70. Their timing—“Take my wife—please!”—is ingrained in him. What he does now is shtick, because he likes to entertain and is a performer. The boat’s sinking, the battery’s spitting, the shark’s coming! As Hannibal Lecter said, “I’d love to have you for dinner!”
This works so perfectly for those who support him. For everyone else it’s just more evidence of psychopathology. He has to freshen up his act. Can he?
Ms. Harris will dominate the coming week with the unveiling of her vice-presidential choice. Then there will be the convention, in which they’ll pull out all stops. And then August will be over. Meaning a third of the 100-day campaign will be over. Does Mr. Trump know that he’s fighting for his life?
I want to take a quick look at some factors that are major pluses for Ms. Harris.
• She is new. She seems a turning of the page away from Old Old Biden and Old Old Trump. She looks new, like a new era. She displays vigor and the joy of the battle. The mainstream media is on her side. Coverage hasn’t been tough or demanding.
• On policy she is bold to the point of shameless. This week she essentially said: You know those policies I stood for that you don’t like? I changed my mind! Her campaign began blithely disavowing previous stands, with no explanation. From the New York Times’s Reid Epstein: “The Harris campaign announced on Friday that the vice president no longer wanted to ban fracking, a significant shift from where she stood four years ago.” Campaign officials said she also now supports “increased funding for border enforcement; no longer supported a single-payer health insurance program; and echoed Mr. Biden’s call for banning assault weapons but not a requirement to sell them to the federal government.” It’s remarkable, she’s getting away with it, and it’s no doubt just the beginning. It will make it harder for the Trump campaign with its devastating videos.
Will the left of her party let her tack toward moderation? Yes. She’s what they’ve got, and in any case people on the wings of both parties have a way of recognizing their own. Progressives aren’t protesting her new stands: That’s the dog that didn’t bark.
• She too is a born performer. She knows what she’s doing when she’s campaigning. She is less sure of what she’s doing when she’s governing. But she gets a race. Running for the 2020 Democratic nomination, she wasn’t good at strategy or policy, but the part involving performing and being a public person and speaking with merry conviction—she gets that and is good at it.
• She is beautiful. You can’t take a bad picture of her. Her beauty, plus the social warmth that all who have known her over the years speak of, combines to produce: radiance. It is foolish to make believe this doesn’t matter. Politicians themselves are certain it matters, which is why so many in that male-dominated profession have taken to Botox, fillers, dermabrasion, face lifts, all the cosmetic things. Because they’re in a cosmetic profession.
• She has a wave of pent-up support behind her. By November we’ll know if something big happened. Barack Obama deliberately, painstakingly put new constituencies together. He created a movement. It had fervor and energy. What we may see this year is something different—that a movement created Kamala Harris. That is, the old constituencies held, maintained fervor and rose again when Mr. Biden stepped aside and Ms. Harris was put on top. I’m not sure we’ve seen that before.
She has many particular challenges. One is this: When you see Mr. Trump, that’s Trump. He is what you think he is. He doesn’t hide much. You look at him and think (pro or con), OK, I get it, I know who that guy is. When you see Ms. Harris, is that Harris? Is what she is showing you her? You wonder, “Is this real and genuine?” I wonder how she’ll address that or answer it.
Another: She stumbles in interviews. Will she try to get away with not doing any?
Another: People will continue to wonder how liberal she is, and how strong she is, but I think an equally or more important question will be how serious she is. Does she think seriously, deeply, soberly? I haven’t seen her betray this tendency. Mr. Obama was a serious man, Hillary Clinton was fully understood as a serious woman. (That’s why her campaign could produce and she could capitalize on the famous “3 a.m. phone call” ad.) Is Ms. Harris? Is she a credible commander of the U.S. nuclear arsenal?
Some will respond, “But Donald Trump isn’t serious!” My answer would be: That’s why he lost the popular vote twice. If Democrats lose the popular vote, they almost certainly lose the election.
Mr. Trump himself would reply: I controlled the nuclear arsenal for four years. Nothing blew up.
wsj.com |
| | The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| From: Bill Wolf | 8/4/2024 8:28:29 AM | | | | | | Chinese Migrants Rush to Find Way to U.S. Border Before Doors Close
Possibility of Trump’s return piles pressure on those fleeing life under Xi Jinping as Bolivia becomes new jumpoff point for 7,000-mile trek
By Wenxin Fan
Updated Aug. 4, 2024 12:01 am ET
New measures to stem the flow of Chinese migrants into the U.S. over the southern border have set off a scramble of would-be asylum seekers from the world’s second-largest economy, with many spurred to take new risks by the possibility of a second Trump presidency.
Some are now attempting to start their overland journeys from as far away as La Paz, Bolivia, roughly 7,000 miles and nine border crossings from Tijuana, the final stop in Mexico for many trying to make it into the U.S.
The government of Ecuador suspended visa-free arrivals for Chinese nationals on July 1, closing the most popular access point for Chinese migrants hoping to reach the border. The move was welcomed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which two days later deported 116 Chinese migrants on a charter flight from Texas to the northeastern Chinese city of Shenyang.
Chinese officials, meanwhile, have been making examples of those caught and punished for the attempt.
In recent years, tens of thousands of Chinese people have attempted to enter the U.S. by first journeying to Mexico through the treacherous Darién Gap that connects South and Central America, typically after flying into Ecuador.
wsj.com |
| | The New Qualcomm - write what you like thread. | Pastime Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| |
