Cagle World

It is universally acknowledged that the 9/11 Commission is the gold standard for after event investigatory panels, an example of what can be accomplished when partisan political considerations are cast aside and the search for truth is an actual search for truth.

As the debate intensifies in Congress over creating a commission to examine the Jan. 6 assault on the U. S. Capitol, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appears determined to turn the gold standard into fool’s gold.

Her insistence that the proposed 11-member commission be dominated nearly 2 to 1 by Democratic appointees would seriously compromise the panel’s credibility before it begins, and deepen the divide between those who hold conflicting views of the events of Jan. 6.

Pelosi’s every decision is driven be her ego, an obsession with wielding power and a lust for political advantage. Her approach to the proposed study commission is consistent with that established pattern.

Public acceptance of the 9/11 commission report and the high degree of confidence in its findings was achieved by its bipartisan composition, including a former Republican governor, Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, and a former Democratic Congressman, Lee Hamilton of Ohio, serving as co-chairs.

Pelosi wants to ignore that history by placing seven Democratic appointees and four Republican ones on the commission as a hedge against any findings that differ from Congressional Democrats’ preferred narrative that the riot was planned and executed by pro-Trump groups, egged on by the president to block Congressional ratification of the Electoral College result.

As if to underscore the Speaker’s plan for a desired result, Virginia Democratic Congressman Gerry Connolly proposed Republicans be denied commission membership altogether, alleging their votes against election certification disqualified them.

The proposed commission would be armed with a mandate to determine the origins of the storming of the Capitol, as well as provide answers for what seemed to be a remarkably ill-prepared law enforcement presence, allowing the building to be breached, property damaged, offices ransacked and members of Congress fleeing the chamber.

Not surprisingly, her partisan advantage scheme drew a vigorous negative response from Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who saw it as an attempt to guarantee the commission reached a pre-determined conclusion.

A handful of Democrats shared McConnell’s view, expressing concern that without equal representation, the commission’s findings would invite skepticism and fail to win public confidence that the truth behind the most serious civil assault on government in modern history had been laid bare.

McConnell suggested the proposed commission expand its purview and examine the protests which tore through American cities last summer.

Pelosi rejected it, insisting the focus remain exclusively on the storming of the Capitol and not be distracted by testimony or documentation of the violence, looting and arson which marked many of the protests in response to police misconduct and the deaths of Black men at the hands of law enforcement.

Should the creation of the commission be approved by Congress, Pelosi’s demand for a narrower focus will likely carry the day.

Neither the Speaker nor most of the Democrats in Congress are eager to open a full-throated debate over the anti-police protests with which many of them sympathized. Moreover, they make a valid point that an insurrection against the seat of government is a far more serious matter than civil protests turned violent.

Should she remain adamant on the partisan tilt of the commission, though, Pelosi will be accused of torpedoing the idea, allowing the current narrative to stand – an insurrection abetted by Trump and carried out by a mob of his supporters.

In her political calculation, she emerges victorious either way: The commission will validate her pre-determined outcome or, if there is no commission, the blame will be Trump’s legacy.

Pelosi’s reputation as a major leaguer in the sport of political hardball has been well-earned, even when it fails spectacularly as it did in 2020, when her party absorbed a serious beatdown in the Congressional elections, losing 15 House seats despite her persistent predictions of substantial Democratic gains.

Whether the horrific events of Jan. 6 are scrutinized by an independent commission is unclear at this point. In Pelosi’s hands, though, It is certain political benefit will take priority over the gold standard.

–

Copyright 2021 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

Republicans are within a mere six seats of winning control of the House of Representatives, well within striking distance heading into the 2022 mid-term election.

It is a disquieting sign of the depths to which discourse in national government has sunk that Democrats will seek to increase their majority by convincing voters that controversial Georgia Congresswoman Marjory Taylor Greene represents her party’s governing philosophy. Republicans will use a similar tactic to warn that equally controversial New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a glimpse into the country’s future under Democratic rule.

Greene’s comments and actions range from the truly offensive (racist tropes, violent rhetoric and promoting QAnon conspiracy theories) to otherworldly lunacy (laser beams from outer space igniting California wildfires). Ocasio-Cortez and her like-minded colleagues were scolded publicly and held responsible for the loss of more than a dozen House seats through their out of mainstream demands – defund the police, abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement, close prisons, among other things – while appearing to side with violent protestors in city after city.

House Democrats, in a rare interference in the internal affairs of the opposition party, voted to remove Greene from her assignments on the Education and Labor Committee and Budget Committee.

There is no real significance to revoking her committee membership, nor will her absence have any impact on policy issues before either committee. A minority member of an opposition-controlled committee exerts minimal impact on policy. Her loss of membership was designed solely for political influence and partisan advantage, despite being supported by 11 Republicans, by focusing on her incendiary comments as indicative of her party’s beliefs.

The Democrats’ loss of 15 House seats in 2020 was seized upon by Republicans as proof their party had been co-opted by far left socialists like Ocasio-Cortez ,whose governing principles are anathema to most Americans. Even a few outspoken Democrats shared that view.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s campaign strategy – campaign exclusively as the anti-Trump – was badly flawed and her pre-election insistence that Democrats would gain seats embarrassed the party and exaggerated Republican characterizations as a band of wild-eyed socialists.

Pelosi, though, denied reality, pronounced the election and her party’s losses as a victory and claimed President Biden had received a mandate from the American people.

While House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy was pressured to unilaterally remove Greene from her committee assignments, he chose to permit the Republican caucus to decide, based on his belief that permitting Democrats to dictate Republican committee assignments constituted a surrender of party prerogatives.

Greene’s apology for her actions – some of which occurred prior to her election to Congress – and disavowal of the more egregious conspiracy theories she once espoused came across as more obligatory than genuine.

Ocasio-Cortez has established a pattern of conduct centered on an obsession with weighing in – largely on social media – on every issue every day. She relishes Twitter combat with anyone from House colleagues to Senators to corporate and business leaders.

The prominence of Greene and Ocasio-Cortez will provide their respective parties with a weapon utilized with great effect by former President Trump in his relations with the media – single out the most outrageous and obnoxious personality and identify him or her as representative of the whole.

Republicans believe voters will dismiss Greene as an aberration, an individual of narrow-minded, loathsome views who embraced logic-defying notions of events. They hope that the vision for the country as espoused by Ocasio-Cortez will be seen as a dangerous first step toward democracy’s downfall.

Historically, the party of the incumbent president loses House seats in the first mid-term election – a lesson that provides optimism for one side and concern for the other.

For Republicans, the striking distance for control of Congress is tantalizingly narrow and for Democrats, it’s ripe for expansion.

That a freshman Congresswoman and a two-termer may hold the balance of power in their hands is extraordinary.

–

Copyright 2021 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

When Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell took the floor of the chamber and, in his smooth Kentucky tone, declared that President Trump provoked the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol, it was a blunt assessment that a clean and lasting break from the ex-president is critical if the party hopes to remain credible and relevant.

With an eye on the 2022 midterms and an opportunity to regain control of the Congress, McConnell made it clear that a comeback by a party dominated by a twice-impeached alleged insurrectionist was doomed.

Coming off a major victory in which more than a dozen seats were gained, Republicans are within striking distance of a House majority. Thirty-four Senate seats will be contested – 20 currently held by Republicans and 14 by Democrats – putting Senate control in play.

For McConnell, who’d remained tight-lipped and circumspect while suffering through the worst excesses of the Trump Administration, his warning that only by breaking free from the cult of Trump could the party restore itself was welcome and overdue.

While McConnell supported the right of the Trump campaign to challenge the election outcomes in several states, he became increasingly uncomfortable at the president’s trafficking in conspiracy theories and his obsessive insistence that he had won a landslide victory which was stolen from him by shadowy outside forces intent on bringing socialism to the country.

He refused to support objections to the official certification of the election results, understanding it would embarrass his party. More than 50 legal challenges had been dismissed for lack of factual basis yet Trump’s team of attorneys slogged on and their arguments grew increasingly bizarre.

It was the storming of the Capitol, the spilling of blood in its corridors and terrorizing members of Congress that was the last straw for McConnell and convinced him to break with Trump in the most public forum possible – the floor of the U.S. Senate.

McConnell said the American people had been lied to by its leaders, and that the president himself had provoked a crisis unlike any in modern history. He implied Trump is beyond rehabilitation, unfit to lead the party and by any political calculation would inflict irreparable damage on Republican candidates if he remained a significant and influential party figure.

McConnell managed to hide his dismay publicly as Trump presided over an erratic and chaotic White House, firing members of his staff, attacking and insulting Cabinet officers and – in the end – even turning on his own vice president.

McConnell’s direct accusation – Trump as provocateur of unbridled violence – signaled the Republican Party must move on, that it cannot afford to defend, dismiss or rationalize the ex-president’s actions.

When Trump left office, his public approval rating stood at 34 percent, slightly higher than that of Richard Nixon, who resigned in 1974 to avoid impeachment and certain conviction for his role in the Watergate break-in.

Trump will maintain a grip on a segment of the party, but over the next four years that support will weaken and his committed base shrink. He’s not one apt to go quietly into that good night, so Trump will likely attempt to control the party’s direction to validate his claim of a rigged election.

There has been speculation he will explore a 2024 candidacy (provided he isn’t barred from office by an act of Congress), create a third party, launch a self-promotional media outlet and encourage his daughter Ivanka to seek a Senate seat in Florida. The unpredictable Trump could do any, all or none.

While McConnell’s warning may have produced a sigh of relief among many party leaders who desired Trump’s departure but held their tongues, it is critical they now step up and join the Senator in wresting control of their party back.

Success of an elected leader relies in considerable measure on two qualities – fear and loyalty. Trump no longer inspires either.

–

Copyright 2021 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

Despite having failed to prevail in any consequential legal challenge to overturn the presidential election, President Trump and his team of conspiracy theorist attorneys – egged on by hardcore supporters and advisers, members of Congress and an element of the media – have continued to insist he was re-elected overwhelmingly and his victory stolen by massive fraud and foreign interference.

Even the most devoted Trump disciple must have concluded by now that the Biden Administration will assume office Jan. 20 and the ex-president will retire to Florida to plot a takeover of the Republican Party and his comeback in 2024.

Given the apparently pointless strategy of perseverance, it is reasonable to ask: “What is the end game here?”

Any hope that the Supreme Court will agree with the president and set aside the election in whole or in part vanished long ago.

The bizarre and dangerous demands that martial law be invoked, the Constitution suspended and Trump continue in office were quickly consigned to the loony bin where they belonged.

Even a nascent movement to block the Congress from exercising its Constitutional duty to certify the election was dismissed by Republican Party leaders horrified at the prospect of becoming party to what amounts to a coup to seize power, a turn of events normally reserved for “Mission Impossible” films set in a banana republic.

Might the end game be a Trumpian strategy to assert a dominating influence over the yet to be written history of the 2020 presidential election?

Could the goal be to assure the Trump view of the election – fraud-riddled and worthy of a RICO violation – be given attention and veracity equal to the Biden view of a victory given him by a nation weary of the tumult, chaos and muddled policies of the past four years?

Trump is an individual obsessed with the acclaim of others, indulging in self-praise at every opportunity even when demonstrably unrealistic.

From his insistence that the audience for his inauguration in 2017 was the largest in history to his repeated claim that he accomplished more on behalf of African Americans than Abraham Lincoln, Trump lifted exaggeration and embellishment to new heights.

He thrives on the roar of the crowd, the chants of support from campaign audiences and the crush of television cameras following his every move while recording his every utterance.

His need for attention and adulation is the equivalent of the human species need for oxygen.

He gleefully and shamelessly diminishes his opponents by hanging derogatory nicknames on them. His vocabulary is stuffed with one or two-word descriptions of the intellectual shortcomings of his critics or anyone who disagrees with him.

It is not at all difficult, then, that given his history and personal pathology that defeat at the hands of Joe Biden – the highest and most public rejection of his career – was so devastating and drew the intensity of vitriol embodied in his reaction.

Responding by creating a mythology for academics and scholars to study and accept in their works of history fits neatly into Trump’s obsession with bending reality to his will.

The ongoing legal challenges to his failed re-election effort are an integral part of that strategy.

It is crucial to Trump’s self-esteem to insert doubts about the legitimacy of Biden’s election into the historical record. It is equally important to him that his defeat be presented as a classic case of victimization, that sinister forces at play robbed him of his rightful due and punished millions of Americans who cast votes for him only to see their desires stricken.

A steady stream of litigation based on anecdotal evidence and affidavits alleging first hand knowledge of illegal behavior by election officials is necessary to maintain the narrative that Trump was cheated out of a victory that he earned and deserved.

The greater the attention to the Trump attorneys’ legal maneuvering and arguments, the greater their credibility in the eyes of historians who, it is hoped, will accord it equal weight with the Biden narrative.

Seventy-five years ago England’s Prime Minister Winston Churchill, was turned out of office and was asked how he felt he’d be treated by history.

“History will treat me very well,” he responded, “because I intend to write it.”

Trump, it would appear, intends to follow old Winnie’s advice.

–

Copyright 2020 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

While President-elect Joe Biden’s recent suggestion that all Americans wear face masks for the first 100 days of his presidency was as much public relations as policy, it was a refreshing change in the messaging of the last eight months for an anxious nation grappling with an unprecedented public health crisis.

Biden’s “mask up, people” suggestion was a lighthearted attempt to highlight his differences with the Trump administration over dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, which has infected more than 15 million Americans and killed at least 287,000.

“Throw off your masks; you have nothing to lose but your health” has been Trump’s call to the American people as he routinely and crudely attacked his own Administration’s public health experts, dismissing convincing evidence that personal protections – masks, social distancing and avoiding public gatherings – are effective in halting the spread of a pathogen.

To drive his point, Trump refused to wear a mask and defiantly whipped up crowds of tens of thousands of supporters at campaign rallies while ridiculing Biden as a weakling who always wore mask at his infrequent campaign appearances.

Even upon his release from the hospital, where he was treated after contracting the virus, Trump returned to the White House and made a public spectacle of ripping off his mask and exhorting people to not fear the virus or allow it to dominate their lives.

Recognizing that it is beyond his authority to require mask wearing, Biden framed his suggestion as a request that the American people join hands with him in the struggle to defeat the pandemic.

It is a public relations gesture, to be sure, but it cost him nothing politically. There was no risk for him to throw the weight of the Oval Office behind the mask-wearing idea while the upside – displaying an understanding of the seriousness of the outbreak and the toll it’s taken rather than dismissing it – is considerable.

Those who’ve consistently refused to wear masks as an intrusion on their personal liberty obviously won’t be swayed by Biden’s suggestion, but they are outnumbered by the majority of Americans to whom a face covering while outside the home is an exceedingly small inconvenience to help protect themselves and their families from a devastating illness.

Biden’s suggestion is a call to shared responsibility, a trait the American people possess in abundance. They are motivated by respect, concern for others and a generosity of spirit rather than selfishness.

It was to that population that Biden’s mask wearing appeal was directed, confident that it would resonate particularly in light of the out of control surge of the virus since September.

After easing somewhat during the summer months, the re-emergence of the virus has forced states to re-impose lockdowns, close schools and restrict business activities.

Even with the approval of a vaccine and its deployment imminent, providing immunity to a majority of the population will consume the better part of 2021, pushing a return to normal and robust economic recovery to 2022.

In the meantime, the need for masks will remain. Various studies have predicted that upwards of 150,000 lives could be saved over the coming months if mask wearing approached universal.

Biden owes his election victory in considerable measure to the Trump Administration’s chaotic and ineffective response to the pandemic. The American people gave Biden their trust and confidence that he would see it as an existential threat to the country and bring the expertise and resources of government to bear on it.

His recent announcement that he intended to retain Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, is a step in that direction.

In his role as an advisor to the Trump White House, Fauci’s experience must have been like the guy who went to a meeting of the Flat Earth Society and he was the only person in the room who knows its round.

Thanks to Biden, he’ll have an opportunity to prove it to everyone else much to the benefit of the American people.

–

Copyright 2020 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

In politics, conventional wisdom embodies a narrative created by like-minded individuals who promote it relentlessly until it achieves credibility and acceptance by a broader audience.

It is strategic effort to inject a specific theory or hypothesis into the circulatory system of the pundit population hoping it will ricochet around the echo chamber of mainstream and social media until it becomes a universal truth.

Credibility is achieved through repetition by the chattering class whose members are eager to pounce on the latest scrap of gossip to portray themselves as knowledgeable insiders plugged into the political power centers.

Such is the latest notion that after President Trump leaves office, he will slide seamlessly into the Republican Party’s acknowledged leader and driving force for next four years.

He will, the speculation goes, control the Republican National Committee, its fund-raising apparatus and message all while positioning himself for another presidential run in 2024.

The media, academics, work-seeking consultants and that amorphous mass known as strategists have tripped over one another scrambling for bookings on network and cable talk shows to offer their insight and sage opinions on the party’s future and its soon to be ex-president.

It’s time to prick that bubble and reveal the wisdom as fool’s gold.

While Trump may see himself as the colossus standing astride the party in January, establishment leaders who, while they’ve remained largely silent up to this point, are ready to turn the page on the Book of Donald.

They’ve grown weary of the erratic behavior and daily drama, his chaos theory of governance, and being blindsided by abrupt, whiplash-inducing policy decisions in late night Twitter storms. They are appalled and embarrassed by his increasingly irrational insistence that he won a landslide re-election and was robbed by international conspirators who criminally changed millions of votes to defeat him to impose a socialist government on the United States.

Republicans worry also that the potential legal entanglements facing Trump and his business organization post-presidency could drag on for years, with embarrassing revelations of financial and ethical misbehavior a constant theme in the media.

Trump in control of the national party is a terrifying prospect. Standing by without raising a hand to prevent it is not an option.

Democrats have a vested interest in perpetuating the conventional wisdom, seeing in it an opportunity to turn it to their partisan advantage. They’re confident that the Trump brand has inflicted such extensive damage it will impact Republican candidates in the 2022 midterm elections and the 2024 cycle.

Their strategy is bolstered by polling which revealed that a greater percentage cast votes to defeat Trump rather than support Biden.

Trump’s base of support (he received 73 million votes) will endure for a period upon his departure, but maintaining it over the longer haul is highly problematic.

Some will never abandon their conviction he was the victim of a conspiracy and insist an asterisk follow President Joe Biden’s name, denoting his illegitimacy. That belief will fade over time, hastened by domestic issues, international crises, and the COVID-19 pandemic, which has devastated the economy and panicked the country.

The wiser and cooler heads in the Republican Party understand they cannot allow Trump to remain their face and voice, carrying on the uproar, chaos and ugliness into the next four years.

If Trump is seeking redemption by challenging for the presidential nomination in 2024, the response for the party couldn’t be clearer or more urgent. The temptation must be resisted to become ensnared by the history of military leaders accused of fighting the last war. Coalescing behind a candidate and avoiding a repeat of the out of control primary process of 2016 is crucial for Republicans.

The conventional wisdom concerning Trump and the future will continue to live, if for no other reason than the media finds it irresistible.

The Republican Party, though, should unmask it for what it is – fool’s gold.

–

Copyright 2020 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

Despite an Election Day disaster – at least six House seats lost and potentially up to a dozen when all the votes are tabulated – Speaker Nancy Pelosi will likely fend off a challenge from a band of disgruntled Democrats and secure another term as leader.

With Joe Biden in the White House and Mitch McConnell as Senate majority leader, though, she cannot fend off the reality that she’s been marginalized. Her craving for power may have been sated, but she will be relegated to a secondary role in achieving the new president’s agenda.

For President-elect Joe Biden, the fulfillment of his campaign pledges will run through the senator from Kentucky, assuming at least one of the two Republican Senate candidates win run-off elections in Georgia in January.

While Pelosi will continue to have a voice, it will be a muted one, unlike the megaphone she wielded for the past four years belaboring President Donald Trump and exercising what she was convinced was a brilliant political and campaign strategy.

Her strategy – campaign as the anti-Trump – crashed and burned in a spectacular fashion, an outcome predicted by vulnerable Democrats who warned of widespread discontent in their districts over failure to enact a COVID-19 relief package prior to the election.

They were left with little to brag about in the way of accomplishment, opening the way for Republican opponents to associate them with the radical themes pushed by the party’s left wing.

In a post-election caucus, angry Democrats turned their fire on Pelosi, blaming her and her team for failing to respond aggressively to accusations of turning the country toward socialism, de-funding police departments, phasing out the oil and gas industry with a resultant loss of thousands of jobs and appearing to side with violent protestors in the streets of major cities.

Even House Majority Whip James Clyburn of South Carolina blamed the de-funding law enforcement movement for harming Democratic candidates.

Pelosi offered a worn-out cliche defense: “we lost the battle but won the war.” That’s what losers say when they attempt to convince others they didn’t really lose. Historically, it hasn’t worked and it won’t mollify Pelosi’s critics, either.

The Speaker will also be put to the test by the very public and rancorous split in party ranks, pitting the small but exceedingly vocal band of progressives against the larger centrist bloc, each blaming the other for the poor election day showing and demanding a tactical change in strategy to more closely reflect their point of view.

It will be, though, Pelosi’s diminished stature and weakened influence that will be felt as the new Administration and Congress assume office in January.

Biden understands that whatever he desires – nominations, spending, social programs – can only be had by cooperation with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Biden is a classic centrist whose 47-year career in government was a model of compromise, seeking common ground and sharing in the credit. Even in his rather unorthodox campaign from the basement of his home in Wilmington, he resisted the siren call of the far left and he is committed to a moderate center/left Administration.

The Biden administration will rely on Pelosi to keep its more rebellious members under control while, at the same time, guaranteeing majority support for the Biden agenda.

Her role will be dramatically different from the one to which she’s become accustomed. She will be expected to loyally follow the Administration path rather than charting it, to shift from constant critic to buoyant cheerleader, and to be the dependable, reliable policy and party advocate.

Bluntly put, Biden needs McConnell more than he needs Pelosi.

The four years she jousted with Trump elevated her to a level higher than reached by most of her predecessors.

Unfortunately for Pelosi, she began to believe her own press clippings and became blinded to the reality that the fawning media attention ended up being an illusion.

–

Copyright 2020 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s stubborn, self-defeating refusal to venture an opinion on suggestions to increase the number of U.S. Supreme Court justices is a textbook example of poor decision-making that’s turned what should have been a one day story into a running narrative that threatens to dominate the campaign discussion three weeks out from Election Day.

Biden compounded the controversy with his appallingly arrogant response to reporters that the American people didn’t “deserve” to know his position on the court packing scheme being pushed by his party’s left wing.

Biden and his running mate, California Sen. Kamala Harris, have dodged repeated questions seeking their position on issue.

Biden brushed the inquiries aside, saying he’d articulate a position once the election was over, adding that he wanted to avoid media coverage of his response. A strange stance in a business that relies on media coverage for its existence.

The idea of increasing the court’s membership was floated by a bloc of left wing Democrats in response to President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the seat left open by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Conceding they were powerless to defeat the nomination, the small band of Democrats opted to negate it by expanding the court by four justices who shared their legislative agenda and could be counted on to block rulings which failed to comply with it.

The proposal threw Biden into a bind – he could support it and risk alienating the moderate, centrist base crucial to his success, or oppose it and arouse the wrath of the left whose distrust of him still lingers.

He chose the path of least resistance – stonewall and refuse to respond.

In addition to delivering a campaign gift to Trump, stiffing reporters always fails to put an issue to rest. Instead, it whets their appetite for dogged pursuit until they receive an answer.

The story has legs now, but its central theme has been transformed from whether court packing is sound policy into Biden’s persistent refusal to take a position.

Biden’s campaign badly misjudged the potential impact of the court packing plan, believing it was inside baseball and in a nation totally preoccupied with an unprecedented public health crisis, a suggestion that the Supreme Court be expanded would fail to gain traction with voters.

That sort of groupthink and analysis produced the pickle Biden now finds himself in. To be sure, the overwhelming majority of Americans are largely unfamiliar with and generally disinterested in the internal functioning of the court, but they expect and are entitled to a straightforward, honest answer from a candidate for president.

How Biden truly feels isn’t terribly clear, and his campaign brain trust erred by failing to develop a response to a question they should have seen coming. Something like “I have some reservations about it, but, as president, the country may rest assured my nominations to the court will be individuals of great intellect and integrity who will preserve and protect the freedoms we all enjoy.”
Not all that difficult is it?

Being dismissed as undeserving of a response suggests to voters that Biden’s core principles – values he cherishes and believes in – are less important than keeping political insiders happy.

The entire episode is a serious miscalculation by a campaign which has become perilously complacent, lulled by favorable poll numbers into a sense victory is at hand and all that remains is coasting through the coming weeks before turning to planning inaugural activities.

With time running out, falling on the ball has become the default strategy.

Biden’s cavalier kiss off of the American people as undeserving of his attention is an example of his history of the kind of shoot from the lip, unthinking, glib reaction many in his party feared would surface during the campaign. They must be yearning for the good old days of Biden in the basement reading canned commentary from a teleprompter.

–

Copyright 2020 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

It took a few days, but cooler and infinitely wiser heads among Democratic Party leaders – including presidential candidate Joe Biden – distanced themselves from demands from vocal leftists that the Supreme Court should be expanded and packed with jurists who will swear to uphold the party’s legislative agenda.

As upset as they are over President Trump’s decision to fill the seat of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg no matter the outcome of the Nov. 3 election, Democrats quickly grasped the court packing demands as an ill-conceived and naked political attempt to impose an ideological litmus test on future nominees, requiring them to commit publicly to place partisan considerations ahead of legal precedent or constitutional strictures.

The scheme would reduce the constitution to nothing more powerful or binding than a series of suggestions, rather than as the document which provides the bedrock basis for a system of democracy.

Moreover, it exposes the party as a band of quarrelsome individuals angry over failing to get their own way and willing to change the rules to do so, no matter the damage it inflicts on judicial independence and integrity.

Lost in the clamor is the notion that the court was not created to reflect the prevailing political and partisan winds sweeping through Congress, but to rise above them, rule on the merits of cases before it and interpret the constitution in a manner consistent with the intention of the founders.

Democratic leaders were privately aghast at the court packing scheme, understanding that it played directly into Trump’s hands by shifting the debate away from whether a nomination should be submitted some six weeks before the election and framed it as the kind of political combat so relished by the president.

The Trump campaign has relentlessly pounded the theme that Biden represents an out of the mainstream school of thought, a tilt toward establishing a socialist, spendthrift, soft on crime national administration. Aligning himself with a plan to remake the Supreme Court into an arm of the Democratic Party would offer Trump another and more compelling line of attack.

A slight majority of the country favors delaying a nomination until after the election on the theory that, if Trump wins a second term and the Senate remains in Republican hands, the issue is resolved on its own.

If Biden wins, the theory goes, he should be given the opportunity to fill the vacancy as a matter of fundamental fairness to the expressed will of a majority of the voters.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has brushed aside accusations of hypocrisy arising from his refusal to schedule action on a nominee to the court seven months prior to the 2016 election and, at this point, has secured the backing of his membership to move ahead with hearings and a confirmation vote for Amy Coney Barrett, who currently serves as a circuit judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.

The vocal left will likely continue to ratchet up the rhetoric, arguing as loudly as it can that a potential 6-3 right of center balance on the court endangers much of the progress of recent years on social issues in particular.

Demanding a reconfiguration of the court to meet their demands, however, only serves to undermine public confidence in the judicial process and promotes a belief that a fair and unbiased application of the law and the constitution has taken a back seat to an obsession with political victories.

The ballot box remains the most effective and constructive way to address and resolve the issues facing the country. It may strike some as unfair on occasion, but democracy is not unfailingly fair in every circumstance.

In fact, that’s why we have, enjoy and must preserve independent courts.

–

Copyright 2020 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.

Joe Biden’s seven point national average lead over President Trump is holding fairly steady. But with his margins in several key battleground states – Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan – shrinking, it’s increasingly clear the defining moments in the campaign will be the three presidential debates.

The ninety-minutes face offs on Sept. 29, Oct. 15 and 22, are shaping up as make or break, pressure filled tests, potential turning points for the election outcome.

Make no mistake: Biden goes into the debates holding a lead and the White House is his to lose. But predictions of a landslide – double digit percentage edge and in excess of 400 Electoral votes – are somewhat premature, a product of wishful thinking and an intense dislike for Trump.

By campaigning largely from his basement, appearing at carefully scripted and controlled events and limiting interaction with the media, Biden has protected and nurtured his edge in numerous polls. Standing behind a podium six feet or more away from Trump, though, will be a drastically different environment, a mano a mano where the stakes couldn’t be greater.

Trump is arguably the most undisciplined political figure in history, a wild rhetorical swinger who doesn’t care about context or accuracy. Nuance and subtlety have never been a part of his persona, privately or publicly.

Biden’s supporters portray him as a skilled, adept debater. They point to his experience in the Senate and as vice president as proof of his ability to present his vision for the country, react quickly, think on his feet and respond forcefully to criticism. But that was not the Biden many Americans saw during the Democratic primary season debates, where he often appeared rattled and unsure of himself when under assault from his competition.

Trump will continue his relentless, scathing onslaught against Biden for remaining quiet while violence, looting, arson and attacks on law enforcement swept a number of American cities. Biden has chosen to describe the unrest as largely peaceful demonstrations to focus attention on police misconduct and racially-motivated enforcement.

The president’s law and order campaign and Biden’s protracted silence in the face of the unrest has, according to some, been impactful and responsible in some measure for the erosion of Biden’s lead in the swing states.

Biden eventually condemned the violence and called for the arrest and prosecution of those responsible, but his response came after months of nightly rioting and wanton destruction. His belated reaction proved costly and, not surprisingly, was attributed to his concern that a more vigorous response would draw the wrath of the activist progressive wing of his party that viewed the demonstrations as legitimate civic exercises, blaming police for escalating tensions until riots boiled over.

Nightly newscasts of buildings aflame, rioters dancing gleefully in the streets with looted merchandise, heaving rocks, bottles and Molotov cocktails at police and menacing bystanders took a toll.

Pressure grew on Biden to take a stand, warning that Trump benefitted from the uprisings, that voters were weary and fearful of the mob violence they saw on their television screens each evening – a jarring denial of the “peaceful protest” characterizations.

Even Biden-friendly media used their forums to implore him to break his silence.

Even so, the campaign strategy of blaming Trump for the violence smacked of an attempt to thread the needle – avoid a total break with the progressives, allay public fears by condemning the lawless and argue the upheavals are Trump’s fault.

It is crucial that Biden be at the top of his game when confronting Trump. Any hint of weakness, uncertainty, or indecision will be exploited by the president in his typical bulldozer fashion.

Defending against a Trump take-no-prisoners assault can be exhausting, requiring Biden to focus on the president’s frequent dissembling, weird conspiracy theories, self-praise, outlandish predictions, bizarre historical allusions and overheated language directed at protesters.

While the tightening of the contest as election day draws closer was anticipated, it is crucial for Biden to understand and appreciate fully the potential for solid debate performances to determine the outcome.

–

Copyright 2020 Carl Golden, distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate.

Carl Golden is a senior contributing analyst with the William J. Hughes Center for Public Policy at Stockton University in New Jersey. You can reach him at cgolden1937@gmail.