We Built It Blog by Larry Jacob

The one and only vice presidential debate was held on Wednesday, October 7 between Vice President Mike Pence and Dem candidate Kamala Harris. Historically, vice presidential debates have been largely inconsequential. People have voted based upon the presidential candidates, not the VPs Normally, the notoriety of the VP candidates is transitory, and it fades from memory soon after the election, especially if they lose.

For example, how many of the last five LOSING VP candidates can you name? See answers below. (Naming the winners would have probably been too easy for most of you, so I wanted to challenge you. Full disclosure: I didn’t remember them all either, which proves my point.)

That said, in my opinion this year will be an exception. If Joe Biden were to win the election he would be 79 on Inauguration Day, which would be nine years older than the next oldest president, which, ironically, is Donald Trump. The median age of US Presidents on ID is 55. It is a young man’s job. Because of Biden’s age and his perceived compromised acuity and cognition among many voters there is doubt among them that he will be able to complete the first term should he win. Therefore, the qualifications and policies of Kamala Harris are taking on greater significance than normally would be the case.

To no great surprise, my research has indicated that, in general, Trump supporters thought Pence had won, and Biden supporters thought Harris had won. To be sure, there were some exceptions, but we all have our personal biases, so that is normal. A post-debate ABC poll reported an even split. Therefore, I am not sure how may minds were changed either way.

Below please find my analysis of the debate. As those of you who have been reading my blogs could guess, I think Pence won handily. I will demonstrate why below.

1. The moderator, Susan Page, failed to ask certain questions that needed to be answered with respect to (a) rioting in the cities, (b) Harris’ support for the fund to bail out those jailed for rioting, (c) defunding the police, (d) immigration, (e) Biden’s record of sexual harassment, (f) his ties to Robert Byrd and various segregationist senators, and, perhaps most significantly, (g) his list of possible nominees for SC vacancies. I realize time was limited, but these are important topics that, coincidentally, reflect poorly on Biden-Harris. Consequently, some have questioned her objectivity.
2. As always, both candidates wanted to defend their respective running mates against attacks by the other side and avoid committing memorable gaffes like the ones I mentioned in my previous blog.
3. Harris’ primary goal was to beat up on President Trump’s record, particularly with respect to issues on which he was perceived to be vulnerable, such as his handling of the pandemic, the post-COVID economy, and that old standby, racism.
4. Her secondary goal was to avoid having to answer questions on certain topics, such as the Green New Deal, taxes, fracking and “packing” the Supreme Court. These are examples of issues she and Biden have either refused to discuss of have flip-flopped their position depending on their audience. They are forced to do this because they have to portray themselves as moderate to the general populace while, at the same time, avoid offending the radical left Sanders supporters whose support they need to win. They have been aided and abetted in this “shell” game by a biased media, which refuses to ask them tough questions.
5. Harris was unwilling or unable to provide answers on (1) “packing” the Supreme Court, (2) reasons for the Dems stalling the latest COVID relief bill, and (3) accepting the results of the election. Regarding “packing “the Court it is obvious that Biden’s and Harris’ refusal to deny it is tantamount to an admission that they will seek to do so. Pelosi and Schumer had pointed out that “everything is on the table.” We should take them at their word. Regarding the COVID relief bill Pelosi has admitted she wants to “bail out” states like CA , IL and NY that have been overly profligate in their spending. Their financial plight has nothing to do with expenses related to COVID. Regarding accepting the election results, in reality, both Parties want to keep their options open, because, clearly, there is a substantial risk of election irregularities, if not outright fraud. Criticizing Trump for this and not Biden is grossly misleading. Also, Hillary Clinton and other prominent Dems have continually advised Biden to “never concede” the election results.
6. Pence’s goals were to expose Harris’ inexperience on national and international issues and get her to answer questions on the above topics.
7. Pence exposed Harris on the following: (a) Biden’s plan for dealing with the CV was so similar to what Trump has done and plans to do that he said it “resembles plagiarism, a concept with which [Biden] is familiar;” (b) the debunking of the Russia alleged collusion investigation, and best of all (c) Harris’ criticism of the developing vaccinations to the point that many Americans may mistrust it and be reluctant to take it. He said that was unconscionable and could cost many Americans their lives. Question to ponder: If Biden were to win and a vaccination were to become available would the Dems promote it and take it or continue to denigrate it?
8. Harris told several boldfaced lies. Some of the more egregious ones that I recall were the following:

a. She claimed Biden’s plan to eliminate the so-called “Trump Tax Cuts” would only raise taxes for Americans earning over $400,000. Pence pointed out that Biden’s plan would raise taxes on all working and middle class Americans by $2,000 or more as the “Trump Tax Cuts” had reduced other taxes besides income taxes.

b. She denied that Biden would eliminate fracking. The reality is he has flip-flopped on that issue depending upon his audience at the time, but the radical left wing of the Dem Party wants it eliminated, and the Dems’ own website calls for it to be eliminated.

c. She would not answer any questions about packing the SC, statehood for DC and Puerto Rico, or ending the Senate filibuster rule. Pence correctly asserted that a refusal to answer was, in essence, an admission that they intend to push through all those changes once they obtain the power to do so. Each of these actions would result in solidifying Dem control of the Senate and/or the SC, and hence the entire government, perhaps, for a long time.

d. She denied support for the Green New Deal, whereas their own website expresses support for it. If you’re not familiar with the GND I urge you to read my previous blogs on it and see for yourself how it would fundamentally change our way of life as well as bankrupt the country.

e. She cited Trump’s comments after the Charlottesville riots as evidence he is a racist and a white supremist. In point of fact, she took his comments out of context. Trump has condemned White Supremacy, the KKK and David Duke many times. I have seen the tapes. Biden is the one who has made racist comments in the past.

f. She said that Abe Lincoln had not nominated anyone to the SC prior to the 1864 election. She failed to point out that the Senate was not in session, and that as soon as it returned he did so.

CONCLUSION

As I said above, I believe most of those who watched the debate will feel that their person won. That’s only normal. The post-debate ABC poll bears this out. The result of the poll was virtually an even split. In my opinion, Pence was the clear winner, primarily for the reasons cited above.

As a general analysis I would add that Harris did not seem to be prepared for the intensity of the moment. She did not have a good answer for various questions. She either dodged them or lied. Perhaps, that was because neither she nor Biden has been subjected to and toughened by the close media scrutiny and criticism that Trump and Pence have. Pence had the best sound bite when on two occasions he admonished Harris for twisting the facts saying “you’re entitled to your own opinion, but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Like Biden, Harris flip-flopped on several issues.

One final point. The classic question before every election is “are you better off today than you were four years ago?” According to a recent Gallup Poll 56% of Americans say “yes,” and only 32% say “no.” Normally, that would augur well for the incumbent. But, this has been a crazy year.

The poll results do make some sense to me. They appear to confirm what many of us think, namely that a majority of voters like Mr. Trump’s accomplishments but not the man, personally. How those conflicting views will play out in the election is anybody’s guess.

Quiz answers: 2000 – Joe Lieberman; 2004 – John Edwards; 2008 – Sarah Palin; 2012 – Paul Ryan; 2016 – Tim Keane.

Okay, President Trump has developed a case of COVID. As I write this he seems to be doing well, as well as can be expected given his age and obesity. He is getting the best of care by a team of a dozen or more doctors and healthcare workers. He is being treated with a cocktail of the most effective therapeutics of which we are aware, and the virus was caught early.

The White House has announced he will be discharged from Walter Reed today. By the time you read this he will likely be back there. Of course, he will continue to receive his medications and be monitored closely. Regardless of political affiliation most people have been wishing him a speedy and full recovery. Of course, there have been some exceptions. Some commentators on the “fake news” networks have been gloating and actually saying they hope he dies, but we need not waste time and space discussing those morons.

Has he treated the CV in a cavalier manner by not wearing a mask when prudence dictated he should have? Yes. Did it contribute to his catching the CV? Probably. Was it ill-advised for members of his family not to wear a mask during the debate, particularly since they were shown on national tv? Yes. Has the mask issue become a big distraction from other important campaign issues? Yes. Was the whole mask issue an example of his arrogance and disdain for his safety and others around him, including those who attended his rallies? Many people think so. I wouldn’t go that far, but it certainly is bad optics, and it has handed the Dems a campaign issue. Should it be a reason not to vote for him in the election? NO!

The basic fundamentals and issues have not changed. The mask issue should not cancel out all the good Mr. Trump has accomplished. I have detailed his accomplishments in previous blogs, but perhaps, a refresher is called for at this time. So, below please find a partial list of his most significant accomplishments:

1. He has brokered peace deals between Israel and various Arab Middle East countries, the first time in a long time anyone has been able to do so, as well as between Serbia and Kosovo. Few thought this was possible. These efforts have earned him two Nobel Peace Prize nominations. TWO.
2. He has decimated, if not totally destroyed, ISIS. Do you remember the many beheadings and terror attacks we were forced to watch on tv during the Obama-Biden Administration? Do you remember the Caliphate virtually taking over the Middle East? Not any more.
3. Under his watch America has increased oil and gas production through fracking and other means enabling us to achieve energy independence. We are no longer under the economic thumb of OPEC.
4. He brought thousands of jobs back to America, which few thought was possible, and he built the best economy in our lifetimes with record low unemployment for Blacks, Hispanics, women and teenagers before the CV pandemic forced him to shut it down.
5. He is fulfilling his promise to build a wall across our southern border to reduce illegal immigration and enhance our security from terrorism, drugs and crime.
6. He has dealt firmly with our enemies, including Iran, North Korea, Russia and, most of all, China, causing them to respect the US once again.
7. He has enhanced our military preparedness, brought troops home, and been a strong advocate for veterans and veteran benefits.
8. He has been a strong advocate for and defender of the police, ICE, and first responders.
9. He has nominated three Supreme Court justices, two of which have already been approved, and the third likely will be, and appointed hundreds of lower level federal judges, all of which share the philosophy of interpreting the Constitution as written.
10. In addition to providing jobs he has helped Blacks by championing a prison reform bill and providing aid to historically Black colleges.
11. He has been a strong supporter of Israel and moved the US embassy to Jerusalem, a largely symbolic but nevertheless significant gesture.

CONCLUSION

The foregoing is but the highlights of his accomplishments. Many of them have been targeted specifically toward helping minorities and the disadvantaged.

He has accomplished more in four years than almost any other president in history, all while battling a hostile media and a non-cooperative House. Certainly, he has accomplished more that Biden has in 47 years.

Your vote should not be based solely on his not wearing a mask and catching the CV. It should not be influenced by the havoc caused by a virus over which he had no control. It should be based on his overall record. Has he made your life better or worse these past four years.

This election is too important for voters to be swayed by this one issue. It is truly a choice between Capitalism and Socialism. Yes, COVID is scary and life-threatening, but at some point we will find a cure, and it will be a distant memory. On the other hand, voting for the GND and Socialism will have long-lasting ramifications for the country politically, economically and socially.

The moderate Biden of the eighties and nineties is long gone. The current Biden is totally under the control of a cadre of Socialists. If you doubt me, Google The Green New Deal and read my previous blogs in which I describe it. Harris, one of its staunchest advocates, is a Socialist in disguise who could not even draw double digits from Dem voters in the primaries.

Ignore the “white noise” being spewed by the pundits and the pseudo “experts” on the “fake news” channels. Vote for Capitalism. Your grandchildren and great-grandchildren will thank you.

Joe Biden has been calling President Trump a racist and a liar, repeatedly. Even though there has not been a shred of evidence to support those assertions the mainstream media has repeated them so often that, after a while, they have developed the ring of truth. Many voters have been picking it up and repeating it as gospel.

I do not recall any racist comments or actions on Mr. Trump’s part. On the other hand, he sponsored a crime bill, which freed many imprisoned AAs; he has provided financial aid to many historically Black colleges; he has hired many Blacks; and he is enjoying the support of many prominent Blacks, such as Herschel Walker, Tim Scott, Herman Cain, and Dr. Ben Carson.

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence of Biden’s racism going back to the beginning of his career some 47 years ago. Moreover, he has continually changed his positions on various issues to the point where voters do not know where he stands on them. I’m not sure he even knows. He is either lying or forgetting what he has said previously.

After the debate I decided I had had enough of this character assassination. I decided to conduct a little research to ascertain for myself to what degree, if any, those charges were accurate. I followed the advice of the late sportscaster, Warner Wolf, and went “to the tape.” With just a small amount of research I uncovered many examples, but in the interest of brevity I will only cite a few to make my point. I know all politicians stretch the truth somewhat, but Biden has gone far beyond a mere stretching of the truth.

1. After the debate The NY Times, no friend of Trump’s, published a fact- check of some of Biden’s comments. You may recall that Biden made a big point of how the Obama-Biden Administration had left Trump a “booming” economy, for which he (Biden) was responsible and which, he said, Trump turned into the worst recession since the Great Depression. According to the NYT that is false. In fact, Trump inherited a stagnant economy, which he turned into a booming economy (until the shutdown caused by COVID).
2. In assessing Trump and Biden, again with respect to the economy, Robert Johnson, CEO and founder of BET, commented as follows: “I would rather choose the devil I know [Trump] than the devil I don’t know [Biden].” He added that he has not heard anything “coherent” from Biden regarding the economy or “spurring growth.” He stopped short of an actual endorsement of Trump, but I think it’s obvious which candidate he prefers. Incidentally, many of us have not heard anything coherent from Biden on the economy or anything else.
3. I found many recordings over the last four years in which Mr. Trump condemned and disavowed White Supremacists, the KKK and David Duke. Conversely, I found many examples of racism and anti-Black comments and actions on Biden’s part. For instance: (1) He makes no secret that Robert Byrd, the former head of the KKK, was his “mentor.” He even delivered a eulogy at Byrd’s funeral; he collaborated on legislation with various segregationist Senators, such James Eastland, John Stennis and Strom Thurmond; (3) he sponsored the 1994 Crime Bill, which led to the increased incarceration of Blacks; (4) he characterized Blacks as “predators” and commented how he didn’t want his children growing up in a “racial jungle; (5) he denigrated Blacks saying that “if you don’t vote for me you aint Black;” (6) his treatment of Anita Hill (a Black woman) during the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court hearings was despicable; and (7) in his 47 years in government I don’t think he can cite one example of legislation he has sponsored to alleviate the suffering of minorities with respect to poverty and crime. During the Dem debates Harris came very close to calling him a racist for his stance on busing. Mr. Trump correctly pointed out that he has done more for minorities in 47 months than Biden has in 47 years.
4. Biden refused to state whether or not he was in favor of statehood status for Puerto Rico, Washington, DC, and/or other US territories, “packing” the Supreme Court, eliminating the Electoral College, or ending the Senate filibuster even when pressed repeatedly by Chris Wallace. It should be obvious, therefore, that he would support those or at least not stand in the way of his radical allies who do so. These would virtually guarantee a permanent Dem majority in the Senate, which, in turn, would make it very possible for them to maintain permanent control of the government. Remember, Pelosi, Schumer and other radical Dems have warned that “everything is on the table,” so I wouldn’t scoff at that notion.
5. Biden vehemently denies that he is for the Green New Deal, free healthcare for all including illegals, free housing, free education and against fracking. Each of these radical policies and many more are on his website. If you doubt me, check it out for yourself. I have discussed these in previous blogs. They are impracticable, unworkable and would bankrupt America.
6. Biden denies he supports the Bernie Sanders Manifesto. Again, check his website.
7. He denies he will seek to raise taxes, but he won’t or can’t explain how the country will pay for all his programs. He claims he will only raise taxes on the “rich,” but he’s lying. There are not nearly enough rich people to pay for everything. So, if Biden were to win be prepared to pay higher taxes. I am not aware of any candidate who has won a presidential election while promising to raise taxes. (If you are aware of one, please tell me.) Stunningly, Biden may do just that thanks to a complicit media.

CONCLUSION

Biden is trying to have it both ways. He is walking a fine line to appear moderate to mainstream voters while, at the same time, kowtowing to the radical left wing in order to maintain their support. He knows he needs their unwavering support to win. Consequently, he flip flops depending on his audience. The favorable media will not call him out for it, so he may get away with it.

On the plus side, there have been signs that Mr. Trump’s support has been growing among Blacks and Hispanics. For example, in the last five presidential elections GOP candidates have garnered 8 – 9% of AA votes. The latest Hill-HarrisX poll disclosed Mr. Trump is favored by 24% of AAs and 32% of Hispanics. The turnout will be crucial. According to the latest NBC Marist Poll he is leading among Hispanics in Florida, a key swing state, by 50 – 46%.

I believe Biden is controlled by the radical elements in the Party. Therefore, if he wins he will support the radical policies rather than the moderate ones. The moderate Biden of the eighties and nineties is long gone.

The Dems are trying to buy the election with the promise of free stuff. Many voters are being fooled, but smart ones are not. They know nothing is really free. Someway, somehow, someone has to pay for the goodies. That someone will be you and me.

And the winner is….. see below. The first, and maybe the last, 2020 presidential debate is in the books. Who won; who lost?

First, my general impressions:

1. I didn’t care for the free-flowing format. It encouraged too much interrupting and talking over one another and not enough clear, substantive discussion of the issues. At times, I felt like I was watching a rerun of a Jerry Springer show.
2. Biden had a low bar to clear with respect to demonstrating his cognition, and he did so. He had a few stumbles but no major gaffes.
3. Trump was the more aggressive debater. I felt that some aggression was a plus, but, at times, perhaps it was too much. Once he even clashed with Wallace. No doubt, his supporters would approve, but I’m not sure about the undecideds.
4. Both frequently interrupted and talked over the other. I don’t blame Chris Wallace. He tried valiantly to control the process but often to no avail. He did the best he could, but the format had been agreed to by both campaigns beforehand.
5. Biden was the more disrespectful, personally. He called Trump a “racist,” “stupid,” a “clown” and a “liar.” At least once that I recall he told Trump to “shut up.” Probably, he was following his advisors’ advice to be tough and aggressive, but I don’t think disrespecting the president like that was the way to go.
6. Biden dodged the questions about packing the Supreme Court, banning fracking and corruption regarding payments to Hunter Biden.
7. Biden outright lied when he said the Hunter matter had been resolved with no corruption found.
8. Trump’s response to the question regarding his taxes was weak. That issue will likely not go away.
9. Trump had a strong defense for Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination. He could have buttressed it, however, by pointing out that historically there have been some 29 previous instances in which presidents of both parties have put forth election-year SC nominations.
10. If you’re looking for a sound bite that will resonate, Trump’s comment that he “accomplished more in 47 months that [Biden] did in 47 years” would be it. It may not be quite up there with Reagan’s “there you again” or his promise “not to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience,” but it was effective.
11. Biden was caught between a “rock and a hard place” on a few other topics. For example, he disavowed the Sanders-Biden Manifesto which as a blatant contradiction; he failed to express support for the Green New Deal, which he had championed in the past; he had a weak answer on law and disorder in the streets; he had no effective retort to Trump’s claim of multiple endorsements by police unions; and he dodged the question about Antifa, characterizing it as “just an idea.” All those will likely anger his supporters on the “left.”
12. Both candidates made errors of fact or gave disingenuous answers as politicians often do. It would have been illuminating to have instant factchecking.

CONCLUSION

Who won? Was there even a clear-cut winner? I think it is all in the eye of the beholder. Biden supporters will breathe a big sigh of relief that he got through the debate without a major gaffe. As I said, he had a low bar, and he cleared it. Moreover, the mainstream media and twitter crowd will likely declare him the victor.

Trump supporters will point to the various instances where Biden either could not answer a question or gave a disingenuous answer. Also, some of Biden’s answers may have alienated his base, especially the ones on Antifa, the Green New Deal and the Supreme Court.

I suspect that undecided voters, and, yes, there still are a few, probably did not see enough to sway them either way. There were no knockout blows. Now, it’s time for the “spin doctors” to do their thing. It’s always humorous to see them tell us what the candidates “really” meant. It will be interesting to see how, or if, the debate results translate to the polls. They don’t always. The post-debate polls should be out soon, maybe even today.

In summary, I think the debate , though entertaining, did not accomplish what debates are supposed to do – namely, give viewers a definitive sense of the candidates views on the issues and help them decide for whom to vote.

I hope the other debates, if there are any, will resolve matters further.

Presidential debates have become a regular feature of presidential campaigns. Whereas they are not required by law they have become something candidates have been unable to avoid. All they can do is attempt to influence the ground rules in their favor. Seemingly minor factors, such as the temperature in the debate room, can turn out out to be significant.

In my opinion, determining the winner and loser of a debate is extremely subjective. People tend to favor their candidate of choice.

Most voters will soon forget the substance of who said what. However, one way to “win” a debate is for the candidate to utter a memorable quip or zinger or for is opponent to commit a gaffe that people remember. With that in mind I compiled a list of what are generally considered the most memorable quotes, quips and gaffes from presidential election debates.

But, first a few quiz questions to test your knowledge:

1. The first televised debate between presidential candidates was (a) Lincoln – Douglas, (b) Truman – Dewey, (c) Eisenhower- Stevenson, (d) Kennedy – Nixon.
2. Each of the following will serve as a moderator for one of this year’s debates, EXCEPT (a) Steve Scully, (b) Anderson Cooper, (c) Chris Wallace, (d) Kristen Welker.
3. The first debate will be held on (a) Sep 28, (b) Sep 29, (c) Oct 6, (d) Oct 13.
4. The first debate will be in (a) Cleveland, (b) Chicago, (c) Washington, DC, (d) NY.
5. How many presidential debates are scheduled? (a) 1, (b) 2, (c) 3, (d) 4.
6. Debates between VP candidates have been held regularly since (a) 1960, (b) 1972, (c) 1980, (d) 1984.

Memorable quotes, quips and gaffes

Who said it:

7. “There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under [my] administration.” (a) Ford, (b) Nixon, (c) Carter, (d) McGovern.

8. “There you go again.” (a) Trump, (b) G. W Bush, (c) Reagan, (d) Bill Clinton

9. “Where’s the beef?” (a) Mondale, (b) Carter, (c) Gore, (d) Reagan

10. “…. They brought us whole binders full of women.” ( a) Johnson, (b) Kennedy, (c) Romney, (d) Kerry

11. “Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. You’re no Jack Kennedy.” (a) Johnson, (b) Bentsen, (c) Carter, (d) Humphrey

12. “You’re likeable enough…” (a) Ford, (b) Kennedy, (c) Obama, (d) Trump

13. “I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” (a) Nixon, (b) Goldwater, (c) Hillary Clinton, (d) Reagan

Answers: (1) d; (2) b; (3) b; (4) a; (5) c; (6) d; (7) a; (8) c; (9) a; (10) c; (11) b; 12. c; 13. d.

CONCLUSION

In most cases, I believe the ultimate impact of the debates on the ensuing election has been questionable. That has especially been true with respect to the VP debates. In fact, many voters do not even watch it.

However, I think this year will be an exception. Many voters are keen to see how Biden will hold up due to questions that have been raised about his mental acuity and stamina. Others are anxious to see President Trump’s response to criticism of his administration’s handling of the COVID pandemic. Both sides will want to see the candidates’ positions on the issue of mail-in voting.

Furthermore, the VP debate will be more significant than normally since many voters suspect Harris would exert unusually strong influence and control over a President Biden. For example, in recent conversations with the media both Biden and Harris have referred to a “Harris-Biden ticket.” One such reference could be passed off as an error. However, each candidate has committed that “slip” at least once, which leads some to wonder.

In addition, there is serious doubt that Biden would even be able to complete the term of office, should he win. So, to me, this year the debates will be more significant that normally.

As the 2020 election enters the home stretch I have a few observations.

1. Biden’s campaign strategy of confining himself to his basement is beginning to backfire. In my opinion, at first, it made sense as he was able to avoid non-scripted speeches and random questions that would have exposed his cognitive weaknesses. Also, COVID concerns gave him a plausible excuse. As long as he was maintaining a comfortable lead in the polls there was no reason to campaign actively. As I wrote in a previous blog, so-called “porch politicking” had been successful for other presidential candidates in the past, such as James A. Garfield and Calvin Coolidge, but that was 100 or more years ago, and the country is very different now.
2. As the race has tightened Biden has been forced to engage in real campaigning, and it has not gone well for him. His speeches have been lackluster; he has been drawing sparse, unenthusiastic crowds; and he still has not demonstrated an ability to answer unscripted questions. On the other hand, President Trump’s crowds have been sizeable and very enthusiastic, and he routinely answers difficult and hostile questions. One cannot help but notice the contrast.
3. As I have discussed in previous blogs the Dems are on the wrong side of most issues, such as law and order and the economy. Most of them have refused to condemn the rioters, and many of them have openly expressed support for them. Pre-COVID, Mr. Trump built the best economy the country has ever had, and most people have confidence he can do it again.
4. They have been having some success with portraying Mr. Trump as a “racist.” Many Trump-haters and far left Dems agree with that characterization. However, they have been levelling this accusation for four years now. During all that time they have been unable to support this accusation with hard proof and examples, and voters are beginning to recognize it for what it is – baseless, and a desperate argument one makes when he doesn’t have facts or logic on his side.
5. The Dems have had the most success in portraying Mr. Trump’s response to the CV as slow and inadequate. According to the latest Hill-HarrisX poll, which was conducted from 9/18 – 9/21, only 45% of Americans approve of his performance with respect to COVID. Why is his approval rating so low? I’m not sure, but, perhaps, the volume of false and exaggerated criticism from his various critics has taken its toll. In any event, perhaps a review of the COVID timeline would help clarify matters. Perhaps, it will help expose Biden and other critics for the second-guessers and disingenuous liars they are.

a. January 9, 2020 – The World Health Organization (WHO) disclosed the appearance of a “mysterious” virus originating in Wuhan Province, China. This was the first inkling Americans had of its existence. Very little was known about the CV, including its origin, virulence, degree of contagion, and how to treat it.

b. January 21 – The CDC confirmed the first US case.

c. January 31 – WHO declared a global health emergency.

d. February 2 – President Trump issued a travel ban with respect to travel from China. A couple of days later he expanded the ban to include several European countries. You may recall he was vilified in the media and elsewhere. Even most of his advisors thought it was unnecessary. As it turned out, this action saved many lives, according to some estimates as many as 1 million or more.

e. What were the Dems doing at this time? They were focused on impeaching Mr. Trump. Many people, including me, denigrated it as a “fool’s errand” and a distraction. How right we were!

f. Joe Biden ridiculed the travel bans, calling Mr. Trump a “racist and “xenophobic.” Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo and Bill De Blasio, among others, were “pooh poohing” any dangers and urging people to come to their cities to enjoy and to celebrate the Chinese New Year.

g. As the year went on and the CV pandemic got worse Mr. Trump provided strong support to various state governors as needed including masks, ventilators, testing equipment and even hospital ships to handle any overflow of CV patients. Many states were ill prepared to fight the pandemic. Even the Federal government had inadequate medical supplies, but that was the fault of the Obama-Biden administration, not Mr. Trump. Many governors have been effusive in their praise for his assistance. Others have played the “blame game.”

h. He has cajoled private businesses into providing the above mentioned needed equipment.

i. Most importantly, he has gotten various drug manufacturers to fast-track the development of a vaccine, a few of which are now in final trials. A safe, viable vaccine might be ready as early as the end of the year. Many medical experts have praised this quick turnaround.

j. Yes, some 200,000 Americans have died, and that is tragic. But, it is now apparent that were it not for Trump’s quick decisive actions many more would have.

k. Through their use of revisionist history Biden and the Dems have managed to convince the public that Trump is culpable, but it was they who were late to address it. I would like to know what they would have done differently at the time. None of them has told us yet.

CONCLUSION

I give points to the Dems for the political effectiveness of their “blame Trump for COVID” campaign. However, as I have demonstrated, it is a false narrative. In my view, it is doing the country a grave disservice.

As I said, Biden and company have not explained what they would have done differently. Moreover, it’s not as though they made recommendations at the time that were ignored. Remember, for the first several months there was much contradictory and false information being disseminated from the medical experts, from WHO and, most of all, from China. In reality, no one understood the CV, its virulence and level of contagion and how to treat it. The real villain in this debacle is China, not Trump, but Biden is in China’s pocket, and, therefore, will not criticize it.

Hopefully, the public will wake up to the real facts regarding Trump’s response to COVID. Perhaps, they will come to light during the debates.

As most of you know, Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing has left a vacancy on the Supreme Court to be filled. As I predicted in my last blog a fierce battle has ensued over the timing of nominating her replacement. In all likelihood, this will be as contentious as the election, itself, and, in the long run, may turn out to be even more significant. Why, you may ask? Because, the nominee could be on the court and ruling on matters for decades.

Predictably, President Trump and his supporters want the vacancy filled as soon as possible and by a right-of-center candidate. Based upon multiple media reports Mr. Trump plans to disclose his choice by the end of the week. He has committed to naming a woman. He has stated that there are five under consideration. The two most likely candidates seem to be Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa. Both are strong candidates and both seem to check the required right-of-center boxes. Barrett has more experience on the Appeals Court and is better known, but Lagoa has the added benefits of being Hispanic and from a key battleground state, Florida. The Dems and their supporters are strongly opposed not only to both of them but also to the very idea of any nomination.

It is important to understand one thing right at the outset. The Constitution states clearly and emphatically that the President is authorized to nominate Justices to the Supreme Court with the “advice and consent of the Senate.” It does not say “except during an election year.” So, legally, the Dems do not have a leg to stand on. Their sole avenue of recourse is to prevent the Senate from confirming a nominee.

That could happen as the GOP only has a three person majority. Furthermore, two Senators, Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins have already expressed a reluctance to proceed before the election, and a few others are reportedly wavering.

Don’t be deceived by the media reports criticizing President Trump for taking this action. His plan is not without precedent. My research has disclosed that since 1900 there have been several instances in which a president, both Dem and GOP, has nominated and the Senate has confirmed a SC Justice in an election year. You may hear someone mention the “Thurmond Rule” as justification to prevent a nomination during an election year. This “rule” is named for former senator Strom Thurmond who basically made it up to justify blocking LBJ’s nomination of Abe Fortas back in the 1960s. However, it is not an actual “rule,” and it has no legal standing.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are being very disingenuous about this entire issue. Predictably, the GOPers are defending Mr. Trump’s proposed action, while the Dems are condemning it. As always, most of the media is supporting the Dems. In my opinion, their arguments are specious.

The bottom line is it is all about power. The Party that has it will want to forge ahead with the nomination; the Party on the short end will oppose it. The prospect of having an additional “friendly” SC Justice on the Court for life is too valuable a commodity to ignore.

If one does a little research one will find instances in the past where each of them has argued for the other side of the issue. For instance, as recently as 2016 former President Obama, VP Joe Biden, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other leading Dems were pushing for the confirmation of Merrick Garland as a replacement for Antonin Scalia even though it was an election year, and Mitch McConnell and leading Republicans were opposing it. Even Ginsburg spoke out in favor of Garland’s candidacy. Now, supposedly she told her granddaughter she was opposed to an election year nomination. I understand their motivation. I don’t consider it hypocritical. In politics, it’s all about power. If you have it, use it while you can.

CONCLUSION

One reason why it is imperative to fill the SC vacancy as soon as possible is the strong possibility that the Court will be called upon to resolve presidential election disputes in one or more states (as in 2000), particularly with respect to mail-in ballots. In that event having only eight members could result in a 4-4 tie. That would throw the dispute back to the appeals courts and degrade the validity of the election results further in the eyes of many voters. That would be devastating as the key to the continued viability of the Republic is that the voters have confidence that elections are free and fair.

In summary, expect a lot of posturing and threatening from the Dems between now and the election. Already Chuck and Nancy have threatened that if the Republicans proceed “nothing [will be] off the table.” What does that mean? Your guess is as good as mine, but in the past they have signaled they may seek to “pack” the Senate by pushing for statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, DC, impeach Mr. Trump again, and/or seek to “pack” the court when they reacquire power. (The first one is farfetched; the latter two have already been tried and failed.)

As I said, I expect this issue to add to the divisiveness, violence, contentiousness, and mistrust we are already experiencing.

My advice to Dems. Grow up. Quit your griping. In the words of former President Obama, “elections have consequences.” If you don’t like what’s happening, try winning more of them.

She was diminutive in stature, but larger than life in all other respects. As a Supreme Court Justice her fiery dissenting opinions earned her the sobriquet “Notorious R. P. G.” Her 23 year tenure on the Supreme Court was one of the longest in history. She was a powerful and tireless advocate for the rights of women, minorities, and the disadvantaged as well as other liberal causes. As you will see, this attitude was shaped by her experiences beginning in childhood and continuing throughout her life.

As the de facto leader of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court she often clashed ideologically with the more conservative justices, such as Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist, but, at the same time, they exhibited a mutual respect for each other that should serve as an example for all officials in the legislative and executive branches of government.

Scalia often praised her tenacity as an advocate for her causes. Regarding women’s rights, he called her the “Thurgood Marshall of that cause – so to speak.” Those who are familiar with Marshall’s record and accomplishments regarding civil rights will recognize that as high praise, indeed. Despite their sharp ideological differences she and Scalia were close friends with shared outside interests, e. g. opera and cooking, and enjoyed each other’s company away from the Court. She was devastated by his untimely death in 2016.

Joan Ruth Bader was born on March 15, 1933 in Brooklyn, NY. Her father was a first-generation immigrant from Ukraine. Her mother was born in the US. She had an older sister who died from meningitis at age six. Bader’s childhood nickname was “Kiki,” which was derived from the fact she had been a “kick baby” in the womb.

In elementary school Bader’s class had several girls named Joan, which apparently led to some confusion. So, Bader’s mom suggested that the teacher call her by her middle name, Ruth. Thereafter, “Joan” was kaput, and she became known as “Ruth.”

Ruth’s mother was determined that Ruth would receive a strong education, which was most unusual for a female in those years. Undoubtedly, this desire was fueled by her own experience. Due to limited financial resources, her parents could only afford to send one child to college. So, they sent her brother, and her desire for a college education was thwarted. That was very common at that time. Her desire for Ruth was to become a teacher, a noble profession to be sure, but a far cry from what she ultimately achieved. If that had come to pass think how different history would have been. Sadly, Ruth’s mom died from cancer the day before Ruth’s high school graduation, so she never got to see what Ruth accomplished.

Ruth attended Cornell and graduated with a BA in government. She made Phi Beta Kappa and was the highest ranking female student in her class. More importantly, she met her future husband, Martin Ginsburg.

In 1956 Ruth enrolled in Harvard Law School, one of nine women out of a class of 500. Supposedly, the Dean invited all nine females to a welcoming dinner at his house. A nice gesture, but the story goes he asked each of them “why are you at Harvard Law School taking the place of a man?” Can you imagine a Dean of a law school asking such a question today?

When her husband got a job in NY she transferred to Columbia. Upon graduation Ginsburg had difficulty finding a job despite the fact that she had been ranked tied for first in her class.. She was being denied due to her gender. The deniers included Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. It was only after one of her law school professors strong-armed a US District Court judge to hire her that she got a job.

Some of the highlights of her early career included the following:

1. In 1963 her first job was a professorship at Rutgers, where she was told she would be paid less than a man because she had a husband with a well-paying job. At the time she was one of only 20 female law professors in the nation.
2. In 1970 she co-founded the Women’s Rights Law Reporter, which was the first US law journal that focused on women’s rights.
3. In 1972 she co-founded the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union, which specialized in gender discrimination against women, of which there was plenty. She handled hundreds of cases, including six that she argued before the Supreme Court, winning five of them. (One might wonder how she lost the one she did.) Shrewdly, some of the cases she chose had male plaintiffs, which demonstrated to the SC justices that discrimination could and did cut both ways.
4. In 1980 President Carter appointed her to the US Court of Appeals for DC.
5. In 1993 President Clinton appointed her to the SC. She became only the second woman to serve on the SC after Sandra Day O’Connor.

During her tenure on the SC she was involved in many landmark cases. As I said above, she became known for her “fiery” dissenting opinions, earning the sobriquet “The Notorious RBG.” For me, the two cases that stood out are the 1996 decision that required Virginia Military Institute to accept female applicants and the 2000 decision that made George W. Bush president.

In recent years she was beset with a plethora of physical problems, such as broken ribs, a procedure for a blocked artery, and, of course, the big one, cancer. Through it all she refused to retire. She viewed her work on the SC as too important to abandon.

The tributes have been pouring in from various sources – both US and foreign, and both supporters and adversaries. Some examples:

1. President Trump called her an “amazing woman.”

2. Former President Jimmy Carter – “We [Rosalynn and I] join countless Americans in mourning the loss of a great woman.”

3. Chief Justice John Roberts – “Our nation has lost a jurist of historic stature.”

Perhaps, this is not a time for politics, but as they say, in a presidential election year, “everything is about the election.” The election is the proverbial “elephant in the room.”

Pols on both sides of the aisle will be anxiously waiting to see (a) when (not if) Mr. Trump will nominate a replacement, and (b) who it will it be. Mr. Trump will be widely criticized, but it is the smart move, politically. The new justice would likely remain in place for decades.

The politics of replacing Ginsburg are very complicated. Most observers believe Mr. Trump will act sooner rather than later, while the GOP still has a majority in the Senate, perhaps even before Election Day. The president has already published a list of potential appointees, and chances are he will choose someone from that list. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has signaled the Senate is primed to “fast track” a nomination.

On the other hand, the Dems desperately want Ginsburg to be replaced by a liberal. Thus, they want to delay matters in the hope that they will seize control of the Senate on November 3 and/or that Biden will defeat Mr. Trump. The matter is being further complicated by the fact that Biden has not yet published his list of possible successors, and he seems to be reluctant to do so. Remember, the new Senate will take over on January 1, not on Inauguration Day, so the GOP has a narrow window of time in which to act.

An additional complication is that the GOP’s control of the Senate is very tenuous. Only a majority vote is required for approval, but there are only 53 GOP senators, and many of them are embroiled in tough re-election campaigns. Therefore, they may be reluctant to support the Administration on a vote this controversial so close to an election. Additionally, two of them – Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski – have already expressed reluctance to voting on a replacement until after the election.

In short, what we will likely get is the last thing we need in this already tumultuous election year. More controversy, more animosity, and more violent protesting/rioting. Stay tuned.

CONCLUSION

Ginsburg was the recipient of a slew of honors. For example:

1. In 2002 she was inducted into National Women’s Hall of Fame.
2. In 2009 she was named one of the “100 Most Powerful Women.”
3. In 2012 she was named Glamour Magazine’s “Woman of the Year.”
4. In 2015 Time Magazine dubbed her one of the “100 Most Influential People.”

Ginsburg’s years’ long battle with cancer was well-documented. Many people grew to admire her strength, determination and dedication to her work. When a reporter asked her when she thought there would be enough women on the SC, she replied “when there are nine.” And she meant it.

During the latter stages of the Obama Administration many of her friends were urging her to retire, so that Obama could name a liberal replacement. She adamantly refused. She admired the longevity of Justice John Paul Stevens, who had retired at the ripe old age of 90 after having served 35 years. She wanted to beat that record. At the time of her death she had served 27 years, and was the fourth-oldest Justice in history.

Ginsburg passed away on September 18. She dedicated her life to fighting for the disadvantaged and was an iconic role model to women. She was loved, admired and respected by supporters and opponents alike. Rest in peace Ruth. You were a tower of strength, and you will be sorely missed.

Tomorrow, Friday, is September 11, a date that will always have special meaning for all Americans, indeed for all decent people worldwide. Like December 7 and November 22, September 11 is a date that will, in the words of former President FDR, “live in infamy.”

September 11, 2001 at 8:46 a.m. ET, Americans’ safe and secure lives changed forever. Like the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor and the JFK assassination, undoubtedly, most everyone remembers where they were and what they were doing when they first heard of the attack. At that moment, the first hijackers’ plane crashed into the north tower of the WTC. This was followed quickly by a second plane crashing into the south tower, and, later, a third one crashing into the Pentagon. Incredibly and inexplicably, by 10:28 both towers had collapsed.

Later in the day, a fourth plane crashed into a field in Shanksville, PA. It is believed that this fourth plane was bound for a target in Washington, D.C., perhaps, the White House or the Capitol, and it would have succeeded but for the heroism of some of the passengers on board.

This year will mark the 19th anniversary of those horrific attacks. They resulted in just under 3,000 deaths. Most of those were workers who were trapped in their offices and consumed by fire or smoke/chemical inhalation. They could not escape because most of the stairwells were blocked.  Many victims have only been identified due to their DNA, in some cases many years later.

Compounding the tragedy was the fact that NYC’s 911 operators were not as well informed as they should have been. Thus, they were advising callers from inside the towers not to descend the stairs on their own. Some of them proceeded to the roof hoping to be rescued by helicopter. Unfortunately, helicopters could not land on the roofs due to the heat and thick smoke. Many of us who were watching on tv witnessed the awful sight of people jumping to their deaths (in some cases, actually holding hands with others for support) rather than awaiting their fates from the fire.

The horror of the attacks, themselves, was amplified by the fact that the victims were not soldiers but innocent civilians who were merely working at their jobs.  In addition to the thousands of civilians, police officers, firemen and EMS workers that were killed in the attacks, themselves, thousands more volunteer workers and even people who lived or worked in the vicinity ended up contracting various illnesses from inhaling the many carcinogens in the air and dying subsequently, in some cases many years later.  Many of us know or know of someone, such as Jamie Testa, a close family friend, who suffered this fate.  Even today, 19 years later, people are still contracting diseases and dying.  Horrifying as it may seem, some doctors have predicted that eventually these victims will exceed the 3,000 killed on 9/11. 

The primary illnesses are cancer, respiratory disorders, asthma, COPD and gastroesophageal reflux disorder. In addition, in the aftermath health workers noted a significant increase in anxiety, depression and PTSD. As I said, many of the above have manifested themselves years later. Even now, new cases are being presented. The number of documented cancer cases, alone, has tripled in the past few years. The physical, mental and emotional toll has been astounding. An estimated 18,000 people have contracted illnesses from the toxic dust. Moreover, there is speculation that 9/11 has caused health issues in babies whose mothers were pregnant at the time of the attacks, such as premature birth, respiratory problems, below average weight, and increased neo-natal requirements.

This was the deadliest attack on US soil ever. By comparison, the shocking Japanese sneak attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, which, as I said, President FDR characterized as “a date that will live in infamy” resulted in “only” 2,400 deaths, and they were mostly military personnel.

This year, due to the health threat of the CV many of the commemorations will be scaled down.  There will be an attempt to balance paying proper respect to the victims with the safety and health of the participants. 

For example, the 911 Memorial and Museum, which is the body in charge of the commemoration, has changed the procedure of the reading of the names of the victims.  911 M&M Director Alice Greenwald stated the overriding objective was to “balance safety and tradition.”

Many friends and family strongly objected to the changes.  A group called the Stephen Stiller Tunnel to Towers Foundation announced it had arranged its own ceremony a few blocks away (on the corner of Liberty and Church Streets).  Survivors would still read the names live but at a safe distance from each other.  Said Chairman Frank Stiller, “we need to ensure that “America know[s] what happened 19 years ago.  And they need to [experience] the emotion of the day [live], not [via] a recording.”  

Normally, the survivors read the names of every 9/11 victim out loud in real time on tv, including those killed at the WTC (in both 1993 and 2001), the Pentagon and on flight 93. This is a particularly poignant scene as the readers are typically the spouses, children and/or grandchildren of the victims. In addition to citing the name of the victim some of the readers add personal messages of remembrance. In my opinion, these readings of the names of the victims is a fantastic idea as it helps us to remember the horrific and cowardly terrorists attacks and continue to pay tribute to the victims.

However, this year due to COVID concerns, the procedure will be altered.  In lieu of the traditional live reading of the names family members have pre-recorded the victims names, which will be streamed on line beginning Friday morning.  The 911 M&M will permit family members to gather at the site to listen, but they will be spread out to observe social distancing. 

In addition, there was a huge controversy over the traditional Tribute in Light ceremony.  The Tribute of Light is an amazing spectacle.  It consists of 88 vertical lights placed on top of Battery Park Garage, which is located six blocks south of the former WTC site.  It creates two columns of light which represent the Twin Towers.

Initially, the 911 M&M announced that, due to COVID concerns, it would be cancelled.  But, under pressure from the survivors and other groups it was reinstated with appropriate safety precautions.  In an additional statement Greenwald stated “this means something to us so profound, we must have it.”  The objective was “how we could do it safely that became a question for us.”  I agree as I’m sure most of us do.

The 911 M&M committee effected these changes with good intentions and perhaps an abundance of caution.  They insisted they wanted to conduct the ceremony but, at the same time, “avoid close contact among the readers who are usually paired at the podium.”  It is scheduled to commence at dusk. 

Some of the surviving relatives and friends understood.  Anthoula Katsimatides noted “it [the ceremony] wasn’t cancelled.  It’s just been changed in such a way where we still get to pay tribute to our loved ones in a respectful and safe way.”  However, others were not mollified.  For example, Jim Riches, who lost his firefighter son, Jimmy, characterized it as a “slap in the face.”     

There will also be a memoriam at Shanksville, PA.  President Trump and the First Lady, will be the featured speakers.  Joe Biden is also expected to attend, but hopefully not at the same time.   

I understand this will also be scaled down due to COVID.  The names of the passengers will be read in tribute, but there will be no musical interludes nor any other entertainment.

In addition to the deaths there was significant damage to the economy of NYC and the US as a whole. The entire Wall Street area, including the financial markets, was closed until September 17. Air travel was disrupted. Americans’ psyche was severely damaged. The cleanup of the WTC area was not completed until May 2002. All in all, it took 3.1 million man-hours to clean up 1.8 million tons of debris at a cost of $750 million.  Internationally, countries were generally horrified and supportive, although some of the people in some Muslim countries, such as Iraq, were seen to be celebrating.

Fifteen of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, with the others having originated from Egypt, Lebanon and the UAE. The terrorist group, Al Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden, quickly claimed responsibility. Bin Laden had declared a holy war on the US and had issued a fatwa calling for the killing of Americans. Following 9/11, bin Laden became public enemy number 1. Eventually, the US exacted revenge, hunting him down and killing him.

In the aftermath of the attacks, Americans wanted to know how our intelligence agencies had failed to anticipate them. Who had “dropped the ball?” Amid many investigations and finger-pointing it became obvious that the major factor was a failure to communicate and share intelligence and information. For example:

l. The CIA had intelligence reports that a terrorist attack was forthcoming, but it was expecting it to be in Israel, not the US.
2. The CIA knew that two known terrorists had slipped into the US.
3. The FBI had information of certain anomalies at some US flight schools.
4. The Justice Department policies advocated very limited intelligence sharing, even with other agencies.
5. The CIA and NSA were reluctant to reveal sources of information and their methods of attaining it.
6. None of these agencies reported their information to each other or to the White House.
7. In 2004 Attorney General John Ashcroft testified to the “9/11 Commission” that the “single greatest structural cause…. was the wall that segregated or separated criminal investigators and intelligence agents.”

I hope that the coordination and information-sharing among these agencies have been enhanced since 9/11, but I have my doubts. As time has gone on, I sense that we have grown more and more complacent and the various alphabet agencies have resumed “guarding their own turf” rather than sharing intelligence and information for the greater good.

CONCLUSION

Americans’ lives have changed considerably since 9/11. Many believe that not all of these changes are good or even necessary. For instance:

1. The US created the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate and oversee intelligence activities and security. In addition, it passed the USA Patriot Act. These agencies have improved our readiness and security but at the price of certain civil liberties. There is, and should be, a balance between security and liberty, and depending on one’s political point of view the pendulum may have swung too far, or not enough, toward security.

2. Enhanced security at airports and train and bus terminals has made travel more complicated, time-consuming, and nerve-wracking. Some people have curtailed or ceased their travel entirely, particularly internationally.

3. Many parents are apprehensive, if not paranoid, about letting their children go outside to play or ride their bicycles in the neighborhood. Also, they accompany their children to the school or school bus stop and pick them up at the end of the day. The various terrorist attacks in schools in recent years have done little to assuage these fears and concerns. Schools have ramped up security protocols. Some have even hired armed guards. Some people have advocated arming teachers.

4. Many Americans have become very focused on enforcing immigration laws strictly to protect our borders, which has led to conflicts with those who view such an approach as “racist” and favor looser, or even open, borders.

5. On the plus side, there has been a significant increase in patriotism and gratitude toward veterans.

In my opinion, parents should make a concerted effort to educate their children on the tragedy of 9/11, what happened, how it happened and what it means. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation approximately one-third of Americans are under the age of 26, and, therefore, have little or no recollection or knowledge of this event. The danger is that as time passes the populace will forget, and we should never allow that to happen. Educate your kids!

Already, some people are “down-playing” the 9/11 attacks. For example, Rep Ilham Omar, one of the notorious “Four Horsewomen of the Apocalypse” who has uttered many disparaging remarks about America and Americans, has summed up 9/11 as “some people did something.” Really? Is she kidding? It’s easy to write off her and others of her ilk as “kooks,” but she does have followers who place credence in what she says.

I encourage everyone to find the time to visit the 9/11 Memorial and Museum. It is on the site of the original WTC complex in lower Manhattan. It occupies approximately one-half of the acreage of the original complex. It features two huge waterfalls and a “survivor tree,” which symbolizes resilience and strength. Take the time to stroll around this beautiful area. Take one of the many tours. You will find them most informative. Yes, it is tragic to be reminded of the horror of that day, but, on the other hand, it is uplifting to be reminded of the heroism and resilience of many first responders and even ordinary citizens and to experience the healing that has occurred. Remember, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.

Undoubtedly, many of you experienced 9/11 firsthand. Please feel free to share your experiences.

I am finding this election increasingly difficult to analyze and comprehend. Based on the candidates’ policies, Biden should not be ahead in the polls, but he is. I have observed a lot of conflicting information. For example:

1. Joe Biden has been leading in all the polls all year. Presently, he is ahead nationally by anywhere from five to eight points depending on the particular poll, and he is slightly ahead in most of the swing states, although his leads have narrowed since the two conventions. Yet, I cannot figure out the source of much of Biden’s support. In my view, the polls are not consistent with what I am seeing with my own eyes.
2. According to the evidence I have observed Biden is losing the enthusiasm test to President Trump. I think isolating himself in his basement for months has not helped his campaign. Now, he has been venturing out in public, but I have not seen any enthusiasm for his candidacy among the voters. I have yet to see him draw a large, enthusiastic crowd, a crowd that chants and cheers.
3. He has seemed stale. The tone of his speeches has been drab and lifeless. We all know he is reading from a script that has been written for him, and it shows. In a recent speech he even ended a sentence by saying “end quote.”
4. Attendance at his “rallies” has been limited to just a few reporters or a select few supporters. He either takes no questions or limits them to a few “softball” questions that are pre-approved by his staff.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Trump routinely draws large, enthusiastic crowds wherever he goes. I see this difference as wholly inconsistent with what the polls are telling us.
6. The Dems are on the wrong side of all the issues that voters care about.
7. Historically, the number one issue in most elections has been the economy. People want to be able to provide for their families. In the words of the late Ronald Reagan they want to feel that they are better off now than they were four years ago and they want to feel that conditions will improve prospectively. They prefer optimism to pessimism. All the polls say voters have more confidence in President Trump to manage the economy. Don’t forget, prior to the CV he had led us to the best economy ever. Conversely, the Obama-Biden economy for their eight years in office was poor.
8. Most voters are appalled and frightened by the rioting and lawlessness in the cities. Even though CNN and MSNBC have done their best to hide this most voters have seen the evidence on news outlets, such as Fox News, local news, and U-Tube. Perhaps, my favorite shot was of a CNN reporter describing a “peaceful protest” in one of the cities as we saw fires burning in the background. Even CNN host Don Lemon admonished the Dems on air that the issue was being mishandled. People want to feel safe. They want to be able to walk their neighborhood streets, sit in their backyard, go to the store, and go to work without fearing for their lives. They want to know their kids will not be killed while playing in their yard or walking to school.
9. The Dems are seen as supporting the rioters, because (1) every city plagued by rioting is under their complete control and has been for years or, in some cases, decades; (2) they have either defunded the police or sharply curtailed their ability to deal with the situation; and (3) they refused to condemn or even criticize the rioters’ actions until recently, when they realized it was hurting their poll numbers.
10. It appears as though the COVID pandemic is waning. Cases, hospitalizations and fatalities have been declining; businesses and schools are re-opening; unemployment, which at one point seemed headed to 25%, is down to 8%; major league sports are being played without major issues; there are various therapeutics available to treat the virus; and, most importantly, there are three separate vaccines in final trials. It looks like a vaccine will be available by year-end. These events are mitigating what the voters have seen as one of Mr. Trump’s biggest weaknesses. The Dems’ complaints that Mr. Trump is rushing the vaccines along for political purposes rings like “sour grapes.”

I am continually perplexed why Biden’s support in the polls is as strong as it is given some of the planks of the Dem platform, which Biden has repeatedly endorsed. The Bernie Sanders crowd had a heavy hand in its construction, and clearly it is a far-left platform with some elements of socialism.

For example:

1. It supports the Green New Deal, which, among other things, advocates an end of fracking and all fossil fuels. So, why would anyone who works in the oil, gas, coal, auto, and airline industries vote for Biden? Don’t they realize his policies would eliminate their jobs?
2. It supports no bail for criminals. So, if law and order is an important issue to you why would you vote for Biden?
3. It supports open borders and free healthcare for illegal immigrants. That is a recipe for financial, economic and social disaster. Why would anyone vote for a candidate that advocates that?
4. Biden has been promising a huge tax increase, which would be necessary to pay for his policies. If you buy his story that it will only be levied on the “rich” I have a bridge I can sell you.

These are but a few examples. I have described this in previous blogs. Biden and the Dems are relying on an uninformed and/or apathetic electorate. Any voter that digs a little below the surface would see the folly of the Dems’ platform.

CONCLUSION

I believe Biden’s popularity is a “mile wide and an inch deep.” Many of his supporters are not for him so much as against President Trump. I don’t believe that they will be strongly motivated to turn out in big numbers on Election Day. That is one reason why the Dems are so strong on mail-in voting.

Furthermore, I keep hearing reports of surveys claiming that as many as 12% of Trump supporters are reluctant to admit it to pollsters. If true, that does not augur well for the Dems. Perhaps, the Dems suspect this is true. That would explain Biden’s sudden change in campaigning strategy. It would also explain why some Dems are vowing to “fight to the end” and to never accept defeat and concede the election.