Tag: crucial election

Words of “This is NOT the way to win a presidential election”

Michael Matheron1 Comment

From the Biden campaign, few seconds ago, I received this email offering a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” for something I do not want:

President Biden.
President Obama.
George Clooney.
Julia Roberts.
And YOU! We’re running a contest to give supporters like you a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to win an all-expenses-paid trip to meet two presidents and two movie stars. All you have to do is pitch in today, and you (and a guest of your choosing) could be having your very own in-person conversation with President Biden and some of his good friends. You don’t want to miss this opportunity, Michael: Chip in $25 today and your name will be automatically entered for a chance to meet President Biden, President Obama, George Clooney, and Julia Roberts! No amount is too small, and your contribution will support our campaign and Democrats nationwide, so don’t miss out on this incredible opportunity — enter now! Thank you for being part of our team, Michael, Biden HQ

For background, let’s look back a week at a recent celebrity-heavy marketing idea: Robert De Niro’s comments outside the Trump courthouse NY election fraud trial. He’s certainly media-ready and entitled (in both meanings of the word) to have his say. Here’s part of his say:

“We New Yorkers used to tolerate him when he was just another crappy real estate hustler masquerading as a big shot . . . I love this city. I don’t want to destroy it. Donald Trump wants to destroy not only the city but the country, and, eventually, he could destroy the world. . . . I don’t mean to scare you. No, wait, maybe I do mean to scare you. . . If Trump returns to the White House, you can kiss these freedoms goodbye that we all take for granted.”

Certainly, having long-term ties with the south shore of New York’s Long Island, I agree with De Niro’s take. Being old enough, at 74, I fully recall how we who knew “the Donald” berated him as New York’s most sinister yet ridiculous cartoon character, akin to De Niro’s own 1982 movie character Rupert Pupkin in The King of Comedy. And I understand De Niro’s passion, it was good to see an actual liberal at the microphone rather than the perpetual parade of MAGA politicos in Trump red necktie costumes blurting outrageous lies.

In any event, back to the email I just received . . . Who does the Biden campaign’s outreach appeal to? Firstly, who would believe that “you (and a guest of your choosing) could be having your very own in-person conversation with President Biden and some of his good friends,” Barack Obama, George Clooney, and Julia Roberts? Was Barbra Streisand busy? And what would I, for example, offer in conversation that would interest Barack, Julia, and George? That’s a rhetorical question.

Secondly, appeals to celebrity charisma has been a mainstay tendency that has addled our society for far too long, and, for seriousness sake, Democrats are the worst offenders, facetiously and self-servingly pounding that drum. The Biden campaign’s celebrity-based offer of far-left liberal geegaw is grist for the mill of antri-Democrat insult among MAGAs, of course, but also independents (whose votes we desperately need). Instead, have campaign messages take a rhetorical and tactical stance commensurate with the criticality of this election. Please!

Long may you run . . . .

Finally, this Biden celebrity campaign appeal is insulting to the seriousness of the moment, and the voter, it’s frankly grifty in its character: subconsciously insinuating that this election is just another contest, not the kind of election that De Niro’s cris de coeur identified: an election wherein a Trump win could engage us perhaps in a bloody battle to preserve the very country “that we all take for granted.” I’ve voted since 1968, and I believed every presidential election was the most important of our history, in hindsight, perhaps in history’s arc, unknown to us, they were. There’s an old saying I’ll paraphrase: “When, with age, we lose our physical strength, let us hope we grow in wisdom.” Bar none, this election is the most consequential in our history, and, coincidentally enough, the next president’s term will begin in 2025, our nation’s 250th anniversary.

Arizona Attorney General Gets the Best Gift at Giuliani’s 80th Birthday!

Michael Matheron2 Comments

Lest we forget in the midst of Donald Trump’s New York trial for messing with the 2016 election, we’re still in the midst of doling out indictments for 2020 election mischief. Among the states still trying to clear up their 2020 election schemes, Arizona has finally succeeded in serving Rudy Giuliani with his indictment, the worst birthday surprise. In a real sense, Kristen Mayes, Arizona’s AG, bagged the best and biggest prize. . . Awkward. How did he come to this pass? Well, it was an iconic Rudy self-own, among many, perhaps his finest hour.

Until yesterday, during his Palm Beach shindig, Rudy was the only one of eleven indictments that had not been successfully served. In fact, he taunted Arizona officials trying to find and serve him since the indictment was handed down in late April. Yesterday was, in fact, the final day that Arizona could serve him, so the clock was on Giuliani’s side. But he outed himself as only Giuliani can, stupidly broadcasting on Twitter/X during his birthday bash. At 7:06 pm, with his galactically unearned overconfidence he posted this, with an “I win/You lose” accent.

Why is this man smiling?! And why is he with the Palm Beach H.S. cheerleading squad?! Oh, and how has his house not been seized?! Does he have pants on?!

Well, by shortly after eleven o’clock the bigmouth was served on his way to a car. He was full, one supposes, of his jubilant sense of (1) having made it to his 80th year at home rather than prison, and (2) having bamboozled the Arizona judicial system. In fact, he zoomed from penthouse to doghouse, clutching in his paws an indictment birthday gift grab bag full of lovely felonies:

1) FRAUDULENT SCHEMES AND ARTIFICES, in violation of A.R.S. §13-2310{A);
2) FRAUDULENT SCHEMES AND PRACTICES, in violation of A.R.S. §13-2311{A);
3) FORGERY, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2002{A){1) & {A){3);
4) CHANGING VOTE OF ELECTOR BY CORRUPT MEANS OR INDUCEMENT, in violation of A.R.S. § 16-1006{A){3);
5) TAMPERING WITH A PUBLIC RECORD, in violation A.R.S. § 13-2407{A){3);
6) PRESENTMENT OF FALSE INSTRUMENT FOR FILING, in violation of A.R.S. § 39-161.

Now for the denouement: Attorney General Mayes, with great aplomb posted this:

With more, much more, to come . . .

The Truly Crucial Election 2024: “Not the odds, but the stakes”

Michael Matheron1 Comment

Elections Have Consequences, Let’s Report Them With That In Mind

Months ago, Joe Rosen, an NYU journalism professor and writer for PressThink, coined a valuable phrase, well-aimed at the media, about our upcoming 2024 election: “Not the odds, but the stakes.” A concise phrase, easily memorable, it’d make a great tee shirt. And it ought to be repeated, hopefully helping to create a national “organizing principle,” as he calls it. We most certainly need an organizing principle to replace the near universal betting sheet analysis of election 2024 by media outlets.

Personally, I enjoy and like MSNBC’s Steve Kornacke, yet he epitomizes the genre, and in his case, his on-air delivery at breakneck speed resembles nothing less than the running of the Kentucky Derby. This approach creates a sense of emotional excitement that short circuits viewers’ more considered thinking about the election. As a country we often view elections as sports events, in candor, there is more than a scintilla of horseracing about elections. But in a crucial election, when this characterization becomes primary, as it is in this upcoming election, it can have a numbing effect on the mind’s ability to view elections soberly: too much adrenalin as an election year lifestyle.

Now, Perhaps More Than Ever Before

Most importantly, this election is truly, explosively, undeniably crucial. Though it’s trite to say so, a trite observation isn’t always and forever wrong, particularly when Donald Trump is the likely GOP candidate. As I wrote in “Is This Election “Crucial”? You Bet It Is!”:

We don’t need to wonder if this election is crucial. No waiting for hindsight is required. Drop the debate about it. Use time, especially air time, more productively. We’ve already witnessed Trump and company at work; they openly showed their cards to the entire nation. He earned two impeachments, 90 some odd criminal charges for actions he feels entitled to, and near universal disdain here and abroad for using the nuclear option against our electoral college and his own Vice President. If this was the warm-up act, imagine the main event. Despite my admission that hindsight plays an important role in labeling presidential elections “crucial,” we don’t need hindsight to label this election crucial. We’ve been to the circus and we saw the elephants.

Hopefully, Professor Rosen’s memorable phrase will explode off the Twitter/X page and infiltrate editorial and producers’ weekly meetings of media actors everywhere. Let’s replace the odds with the stakes, and soon.

Is This Election “Crucial”? You Bet It Is

Michael Matheron3 Comments

Crucial Elections Are a Moveable Feast

Once again we enter the one-year countdown until our next presidential election, and, as always, this is a crucial one. Trite as that observation may be, trite is not always wrong. At 74, I’m old enough to recall the 1959 election and every one since. Each of those was labeled crucial by many. Yet, “crucial” is a moveable feast: what were the perceived stakes then, in each presidential election? In hindsight, FDR’s election in 1932 was crucial for the nation. Abraham Lincoln, elected in 1860, became crucial for the Union of the States. George Washington, elected to serve in 1789 was a crucial election, perhaps most importantly because he refused to accept the mantle of king, and calmly retired to Mount Vernon.

Mostly and realistically, the crucialness of an election is a post facto consensus. For one example among many, especially during the conservative resurgence since 1980, people still argue, for instance, that Herbert Hoover’s laissez faire policies would have brought us out of the depression more swiftly and satisfactorily. Liberals see Ronald Reagan’s two terms as a wrecking ball to all we believe in; conservatives sanctify him, calling his elections crucial to the birthing of the Tea Party and the MAGA movement. We need not talk about Nixon, he was always obvious.

The point is that we ought to belay the crucialness game. It’s hindsight alone that generally makes the case whether the previous election was crucial. On the whole, most presidential elections have had but a modicum of cruciality. In hindsight, few presidencies threatened to utterly unhinge our governmental and constitutional foundations, although admittedly, FDR gave many a Republican a scare during that worldwide period of enthusiasm for socialism, ever more an honest threat then to many in the gilded class than now. Nixon frightened the Democratic party into an uncharacteristically fighting stance. The Bush-Cheney alliance accelerated the decimation of even the concept of truth.

Belay Waiting for Hindsight

And then there was Trump. Among the despicable and degenerate presidencies, his was the worst we’ve faced as a nation, and we barely survived him. Pardon me if I don’t waste time demonstrating that he swung a wrecking ball to all we hold dear. And far from just retiring to Mar-A-Lago, like Washington did to Mount Vernon, he is now more than ever before front and center, bringing fear and trembling to the majority of Americans, from old-fashioned conservatives to card-carrying socialists. Despite his very real legal jeopardy in courtrooms throughout the land, he confidently speaks openly about his policies for his next attack on his own country: martial law using armed services troops on our soil; presidentially ordered selective prosecutions; destruction of the civil service system; frightening cabinet picks; wildly disturbing pardons; historical revision. What else? Do we need mention the whole that would likely be worse than its parts?

As a looming dictatorship of the Kleptocrats, i.e., government by thieves, Trump’s enabler’s plan to steal not only wealth in all its material forms, but moral, intellectual, and cultural wealth. Moreover, they plan – are already planning – to use our legal, electoral, and constitutional systems to do so, and in so doing, to destroy those systems and install authoritarian rule, in a way they will maintain was “lawful.” And by and large, the opposition, particularly the moribund and reticent Democratic party, treats this election surprisingly lightly, as if an historically unprecedented malevolent threat were simply another presidential election. This despite Trump’s first term presidential record of abuse at every turn.

We don’t need to wonder if this election is crucial. No waiting for hindsight is required. Drop the debate about it. Use time, especially air time, more productively. We’ve already witnessed Trump and company at work; they openly showed their cards to the entire nation. He earned two impeachments, 90 some odd criminal charges for actions he feels entitled to, and near universal disdain here and abroad for using the nuclear option against our electoral college, and his own Vice President. If this was the warm-up act, imagine the main event. Despite my admission that hindsight plays an important role in labeling presidential elections crucial, we don’t need hindsight to label this election crucial.

We’ve been to the circus and we saw the elephants.