Cagle World

If the trial balloon floated by Democrats gains altitude and Joe Biden withdraws from participation in the three scheduled presidential debates, it will surely go down as one of the most egregious blunders in presidential election history.

For someone who for months has fought off rumors and speculation about his declining mental nimbleness, Biden’s withdrawal from the debates would confirm for many the validity of the rumors and accuracy of the speculation.

Remaining sequestered in his basement is central to his campaign strategy, a belief that he benefits greatly from President Trump’s erratic and undisciplined behavior while remaining out of the media spotlight and studiously avoiding interviews and public appearances.

Biden’s history is one of misstatements, rambling responses and embellishing his personal role in a variety of incidents. At times, he appears befuddled and incapable of maintaining a cogent train of thought. His ability to ad lib – a debate essential – is non-existent. And when attacked as he was during the Democratic Party primary season, his responses often verge on the unintelligible.

In his most recent interview, Biden grew agitated over a question and angrily implied that the questioner was addicted to cocaine.

Using friendly media to raise the possibility of ditching the debates seems like a calculated move by the campaign to assess the public reaction and, if necessary, develop a plausible cover story to rationalize a withdrawal.

One columnist went so far as to propose that since Biden had nothing to gain and everything to lose in a debate with Trump, there was no legitimate reason to engage the President.

Translation: I’ll probably lose, so I won’t participate.

Another pundit characterized presidential debates as having outlived their usefulness and were no longer relevant, while still another offered the astoundingly silly suggestion that Biden should refuse to debate unless Trump released his income tax returns.

Biden’s campaign quickly reiterated their candidate’s eagerness to debate in what resembled a “whistling past the graveyard” response.

The obvious cover story for skipping the debates would be concern for personal safety in the face of an unprecedented public health crisis – the same rationale Biden is currently utilizing to remain in his basement.

However, with major league baseball, professional basketball and hockey having resumed their seasons – albeit abbreviated ones – voters would react skeptically to an argument that Trump and Biden standing more than six feet apart for 90 minutes in an empty auditorium poses a threat to either one.

Presidential debates have become a vital element of campaigning. For the overwhelming number of voters, taking the measure of presidential candidates responding to media questions and making their case for leading the country is as close as they’ll ever come to personal contact.

Refusing to participate because of a deep fear of embarrassing oneself or appearing unprepared to take on the burdens of the presidency is not an acceptable explanation.

Despite his seclusion, Biden has built and maintained a lead in numerous national and swing state polling. However, believing that public distaste for Trump is so deep it will negate significant adverse reaction to rejecting 60 years of presidential debate tradition is foolishly short-sighted.

To be sure, Trump is in his element during one on one debates. He enjoys nothing more than standing in the center of the ring throwing haymaker after haymaker, hoping one will land with devastating consequences.

Unconcerned with the veracity of his assertions, he is the embodiment of the ancient Greek prophecy: “In war, truth is the first casualty.” For Trump, the debate is war.

Biden, though, must demonstrate he’s willing to mix it up, to stand tall, challenge Trump and demolish once and for all the man-in-decline narrative.

Whatever his and his staff’s misgivings, his debate participation is imperative. Failure to do so will add a third question to the nation’s political lore:

Should Nixon have burned the Watergate tapes?

Did Bill Clinton have sex with a White House intern?

Should Biden debate Trump?

Yes, yes and yes.

–

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.

When the Iran-Iraq war broke out in 1980, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger opined on the hostilities this way: “It’s a pity they can’t both lose.”

With the presidential election less than four months off, a frustrated American electorate views it in the same fashion Kissinger viewed the war.

While President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden have both adopted a campaign strategy that can loosely be described as “Vote for me because I’m not him,” voter enthusiasm has waned, replaced by a plaintive “is this the best we can do” plea.

The nation is faced with choosing between an incumbent president leading an increasingly dysfunctional White House and a challenger sequestered in his bunker/basement, straying out infrequently never more than one hundred miles or so from home.

Both campaigns have been defined by a lethal pandemic sweeping the nation, sickening some 3.6 million, proving fatal to nearly 150,000, sending unemployment levels to record highs, crashing the economy, destroying businesses and dramatically altering everyday life in America.

Trump’s response to the most serious public health crisis in over a century has been less than compelling. He’s casually dismissed the pandemic, predicted it would quickly fade, suggested a vaccine will soon be available, blamed governors for failing to control the spread of the virus and trafficked in bizarre conspiracy theories about its origins and who is responsible.

As the cruise ship slowly slips beneath the waves, Trump is standing on the promenade deck bragging about his shuffleboard score.

While he praises his administration’s record in dealing with crisis, two White House aides – neither of whom possess any background or expertise in public health – publicly trash Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and a member of the White House coronavirus task force.

In campaigns and government, one of the unbreakable rules is “Don’t step on your own story.” Translation: Deliver your message and say or do nothing to undercut it. Trump has repeatedly not only stepped on his own story, he’s stomped on it with both feet until it’s an unrecognizable mess and then assails the media for covering his actions as “fake news.”

Meanwhile, Biden, safely cloistered (hiding, say his critics) at home, has ventured out in public in tightly controlled appearances, deeply sensitive to a propensity to misspeak or appear befuddled when his train of thought derails.

His campaign periodically issues position papers notable more for vague generalities and uplifting phraseology about the national utopia that awaits a Biden presidency. His close advisors fret about the incoming fire from the far left, ultra-progressive wing of the Democratic Party while seeking common ground to either bring them aboard or, at the very least, mute their rhetoric.

His message? If not me, you get Trump. “Vote for me because I’m not him.”

They worry, too, about the impact of the outbursts of violence and civil unrest in cities and towns across the country. They are very much aware of the need for Biden to thread the needle, mollifying the vocals on his left while turning aside Trump’s accusations that he is anti-police and pro-anarchy.

He’s embraced the strategy of conducting a near-stealth candidacy while watching from afar hoping Trump self-immolates.

While polling in June and July is a notoriously poor indicator of results in November – ask Hillary Clinton – Biden has compiled leads ranging from a margin of error four points to a total blowout of 15 points even though the level of enthusiasm remains a concern.

Underestimating Trump, however, is dangerous – again ask Hillary – but time is running out on the president.

Come November, Kissinger’s hope from 1980 won’t be fulfilled, and the American people will live with the result.

–

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 Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden remains semi-cloistered in the bunker/basement/television studio of his Wilmington, Del., home, the vice presidential selection process plods on.

Biden’s campaign is facing increasing pressure from the party’s progressive wing to choose a running mate who supports massive reductions in spending on police departments and major revisions in law enforcement powers. By pledging to select a woman as his running mate, Biden availed himself of several highly qualified women capable of fulfilling his principal condition – ready to step in as president should it become necessary.

Protest gatherings, marches and violence erupted across the country after the death of an unarmed black man at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer gave rise to demands to “Defund the Police” and propelled support for the selection of an African-American woman as Biden’s running mate.

Biden’s campaign quickly recognized the perils of the “Defund the Police” movement and distanced the former vice president with a declaration of opposition. But President Trump’s campaign, sensing a potentially powerful wedge issue which could be exploited, piled on. It moved quickly to hang the movement around Biden’s neck as evidence the Democratic Party had ceded control to its radical elements who supported abolishing police departments.

A recent Harris/HillX poll bore out the Trump view – 52 percent of Democrats supported defunding while 78 percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents opposed it.

Trump ratcheted up the attack with his usual volatile and incendiary rhetoric. He proclaimed himself the ”president of law and order,” threatened to turn dogs loose on protesters, shoot looters and mused aloud about mobilizing the U.S. military to quell demonstrations.

At a time when the country sought leadership to address the protestors’ legitimate grievances and work with Congress to develop policies to resolve them, Trump chose to lead the country into war.

The lawbreaking chaos – attacks on police, burning businesses, looting in a party atmosphere – demanded a law enforcement response and, in most cases, received one. Scores of arrests were made and curfews enforced. The demonstrations that followed, while raucous and noisy, were generally peaceful.

Meaningful reforms in policing procedures and practices – a position Biden has embraced – enjoys healthy majority support, but withdrawing traditional law enforcement functions does not.

Proponents of the “Defund the Police” movement struggled to explain their goal is re-allocating funds spent on policing to social service programs to help individuals whose behavior is better served by professionals in the field of mental health, for instance, than by encounters with police officers not trained to deal with such confrontations.

They’ve been victimized by their sloganeering, as critics quickly framed the debate over police or no police. Nor has their cause been helped by inflammatory anti-police remarks against a background of violent street clashes, arson, looting, and destruction of property.

Many progressives are already suspicious of Biden and, as he deals with the increase in support for an African-American vice presidential selection, he’s treading on tricky terrain.

Two potential running mates under serious consideration – California Sen. Kamala Harris and Florida Congresswoman Val Demings – drew opposition from some outspoken Black leaders because, they contended, their earlier careers in law enforcement (Harris as a prosecutor and Demings as a chief of police) disqualified them. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar took herself out of the running, realizing her service as a county prosecutor worked against her.

If Biden passes on Harris or Demings, he’ll be accused of caving in to the militant progressives. Should he choose either one, he’ll encounter significant backlash, continued criticism and possible loss of support from that wing.

It’s another straw on the camel’s back as the party struggles to construct a united front for the four-month run to the election.

Party establishment figures are unhappy and concerned over what they perceive is a shortage of enthusiasm on the part of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, among others, and are privately furious over primary election challenges backed by progressives to incumbent members of Congress.

Biden has surged to a double-digit lead in several polls but concerns persist it is a lead on paper only, that Trump – buoyed by an enthusiastic rock solid base – is capable of making up ground in significant chunks while Democrats squabble among themselves and worry about whether large disgruntled segments of their party will desert it.

His choice of a running mate may hold the answer.

–

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.

Not since Hillary Clinton described supporters of then-candidate Donald Trump as “a basket of deplorables” has a public official or candidate uttered such an insensitive, demeaning. condescending and politically stupid remark as that delivered by Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden’s admonition to an African-American radio host that a failure to support him means “you ain’t black.”

Even Biden’s campaign staff was horrified at the comment and sprang quickly into damage control mode, only to make it worse when one of his senior advisers justified it as something said “in jest.”

Does Biden actually believe that African-American voters he and the entire Democratic Party rely so heavily on is an apt subject to joke about?

In only three words – “you ain’t black” – Biden reinforced every stereotype about the Democratic Party’s historic relationship with the African-American community. He implied that black voters are incapable of determining for themselves which candidate to support and that Democrats have taken their votes for granted for years.

Biden apologized for his remark, attributing it to his propensity for being “a wise guy” given to off the cuff commentary not intended to be taken seriously.

Black leaders weren’t buying it.

The founder of Black Entertainment Television, for instance, ripped into the former vice president and suggested he spend the remainder of the campaign apologizing to the African-American community.

The episode is indicative of the nervousness among party leaders over Biden’s viability as the candidate capable of turning Trump out of office. It focused yet again on the concerns over his continued stumbles, mistakes, occasionally incoherent ramblings and propensity toward revisionist history to inflate and embellish his record and accomplishments.

Even in the insular campaign setting brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic, when preparation time and talking points rehearsal are ample, Biden has blundered and appeared disconnected from reality.

His discomfort in speaking into a camera in the makeshift studio in his basement in Wilmington, Del., is palpable. He’s remarkably ill at ease, and it shows through. Fairly or not, his performances feed the perception that he is a 77-year-old man in decline and whose cognitive abilities have slipped.

His preoccupation with choosing a vice presidential running mate has taken on the feel of American Idol competition rather than a sober and objective examination of the qualifications and intellect of someone who may very well assume a considerably out sized role in a Biden Administration.

All that’s missing is a panel of B-list celebrities passing judgment on singers, dancers, acrobats, musicians, ventriloquists and comedians. Restoring a sense of dignity to the search is crucial to avoid tumbling over the line from seriousness into farce.

He is committed to a female running mate and while he hasn’t committed to an African-American, there exists an expectation that he will do so as a sign of his gratitude for the overwhelming support black American has given to Democratic candidates over many years.

Indeed, his latest verbal blunder may become a factor in the selection process.

At the same time, he’s under pressure from the party’s progressive wing to turn to the left for a running mate as evidence that he shares their agenda and understands the necessity of bringing them onto his side.

While his “you ain’t black” moment has been seized upon by some as clear evidence that Biden is a closet racist, there is nothing of consequence in his 40-year history in public life to support such a contention.

His center-left ideology has compromise and consensus as its foundation and there have been occasions when achieving public policy goals has not always satisfied the more strident segments of his party. That does not a racist make.

It is clear that Biden will receive overwhelming African-American support in his contest with Trump. History, party loyalty, his eight years sitting at the right hand of President Obama and deep-seated dissatisfaction with the president guarantee that outcome.

It does not, however, mitigate the shame of “you ain’t black.”

–

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.

He’s stuck in the basement of his home in Wilmington, Del., unable to engage in traditional campaigning, soak up the cheers of raucous rally crowds or impress audiences with knowledgeable and insightful policy pronouncements.

In addition to the frustrations of home confinement, former Vice President Joe Biden is tormented daily by published and broadcast reports suggesting he’s been weakened and should stand down rather than risk losing to President Trump.

When the coronavirus pandemic struck and forced a near halt to every phase of American life, political activity was an immediate casualty. Barnstorming national tours, television coverage of adoring crowds and daily newspaper dispatches from the campaign press plane vanished.

When the country will re-open and what it will look like when it does is unclear. A vacuum has been created and its impossible to control what rushes in to fill it.

Consider:

– Biden is distrusted by left wing progressives who remain bitter over the loss of Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders. They don’t believe Biden will be the keeper of the progressive flame, but will extinguish it in the name of political expediency.

– Biden’s debate and television interview performances have been uneven. He often appeared befuddled and incapable of arranging his thoughts crisply and concisely. He’s also been under siege since allegations of sexual assault were lodged against him by a former female staffer from a 1993 incident in a Senate office building.

– Conflict of interest accusations remain unresolved concerning the appointment of his son, Hunter, to a $50,000 a month seat on the board of directors of an energy company in Ukraine while the elder Biden served as the Obama Administration’s point man on dealing with that nation.

He has denied the sexual assault accusations lodged by Tara Reade but the campaign was knocked off balance and it’s dominated media coverage. Howls of Democratic hypocrisy erupted following Reade’s allegations. Critics gleefully recounted the merciless attacks on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh when he stood accused of assaulting a high school classmate.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way.

After Sanders abandoned his campaign, the party establishment was encouraged by the prospect of a unified party closing ranks and erasing its 2016 the nightmare.

Biden has given no indication he’s considering stepping aside and, in the absence of an earthquake-like revelation, he’ll tough it out, hoping normalcy will be restored and he’ll return to the press the flesh campaign style that’s always served him well.

It is his third attempt at the presidency and, at age 77, his last. He hasn’t yet amassed the delegate majority to assure his nomination but its within his grasp. Its highly unlikely the convention will be stampeded into choosing someone else.

With the awesome power of incumbency at his disposal, Trump confronts none of Biden’s problems. He towers over the political landscape and controls the daily news cycle. Where he goes, the media follows. When he tweets, the media chases his comments.

In the Real Clear Politics national average, Biden enjoys a four-point lead over Trump – slim and close to the margin of error – but an edge nonetheless. Make no mistake, it’s a race he can win.

Trump’s response to the pandemic has often been erratic, including rambling two-hour news conferences crammed with misinformation, attacks on the media, and impossibly optimistic predictions about national recovery. The economy has been devastated, unemployment is the highest since the Great Depression, and there is a growing restlessness verging on rebellion over the prolonged lockdown.

Whether Trump can weather this storm and whether Biden can take advantage of it remains to be seen.

Biden must exercise caution and avoid one of the more egregious errors committed by Clinton – a belief the American people wouldn’t take Trump seriously and he’d self-destruct. Today, Trump is tweeting from the White House while Clinton communicates with her followers from somewhere in Westchester County, N. Y.

Biden would prefer to be free from his basement.

–

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.

For the millions who “felt the Bern” in 2016 and again this year only to be bitterly disappointed both times, it’s now time to subject former Vice President Joe Biden to the heat and passion of the progressive movement.

The committed army of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders is convinced it is well positioned to move Biden further to the left and demand full throated support to the socialist senator’s agenda.

Despite endorsements from Sanders, Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren and former President Barack Obama, Biden remains a figure of some suspicion in the progressive movement, who feel he’s overly cozy with corporate and big business interests – two of Sanders’ favorite targets.

Doubters cite Biden’s reluctance to endorse “Medicare for All” – perhaps the core principle of the progressive movement – as evidence that he does not fully share their vision of government responsibility. His support for reducing the age for Medicare eligibility from 65 to 60 is, in their view, totally inadequate and indicative of Biden’s propensity for compromise and consensus rather than bold strokes.

Other issues remain unresolved as well – a wealth tax, forgiving student loan debt, free higher education, addressing income inequality, citizenship for undocumented immigrants, an aggressive response to climate change, and an end to the activities of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

While Biden has indicated he is open to discussing the progressive agenda, his acceptance of it is highly problematic. His history is a dedication to bipartisanship, negotiating and bargaining, giving some to get some, a willingness to settle for incremental victories to achieve long term goals.

His approach is scoffed at as old school, out-of-touch politics, bespeaking a timidity that is no longer relevant. The progressives insist that purity of ideology and action is the sole path to constructing a government suitable to today’s needs.

Progressives are still smarting from what they are convinced was a deck stacked against them in 2016. And, they believe the same party establishment that conspired to secure the nomination for Hillary Clinton feared Sanders’ growing strength and closed ranks behind the former vice president.

Party leaders foresaw disaster in a Sanders candidacy. They believed he would be dragged down and take the rest of the ticket with him by his strident advocacy of trillion dollar spending and massive, radical social policies.

Trump, they feared, would destroy Sanders in a debate format, portraying him as a left-wing fringe candidate bent on destroying the economy in pursuit of a domineering socialist government.

Sanders would never gain acceptance in large swaths of the country, turning voters against the Democratic Party and overcoming whatever misgivings they held about Trump.

Biden is now faced with the task of bringing the progressives to his side, asking them to moderate their demands in the interest of victory and to exercise patience and forbearance in fulfilling their goals. There is leverage in numbers, and Biden must deal with their movement or risk wholesale defections from his candidacy.

They will, of course, not turn to the president. Bernie’s supporters may dislike Biden, but they detest Trump as the embodiment of all evil in American politics and government.

Party leaders will attempt to convince them that deserting Biden means they will get Trump. The prospect of four more years of a Trump Administration may be a more compelling argument than any effort to change minds on policy issues.

Biden must thread this ideological needle, maintaining his commitment to the moderate middle course philosophy which captured the nomination while soothing the wounds of those whose dreams were dashed twice at the hands of pragmatic establishment figures.

The progressive movement will likely not wither away but will retain some level of influence. When push comes to shove over direction and vision, though, it will be a thorn in the side rather than a dagger at the throat.

Biden may momentarily “feel the Bern,” but the splash of victory will extinguish it.

–

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.

The national Democratic Party establishment is no longer desperate. It’s merely nervous.

When former Vice President Joe Biden dispatched Vermont socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders with a string of blow out primary victories, the party leadership heaved a sigh of relief, confident they’d avoided an election day disaster.

Suddenly, in late February, the COVID-19 pandemic gained a foothold in the United States and Biden’s campaign playbook was swept into the recycling bin.

The devastating and deadly virus produced a seismic shift in the political environment, the ultimate effects of which are still unknown, other than immediately de-railing what was certain to be an all-out Biden assault on the president.

At a time when the former vice president should be deep into his campaign, he’s been pushed to the sidelines as a spectator, looking on in frustration as Trump dominates the media and commands the attention of a frightened nation seeking reassurance in the face of the most serious public health crisis to strike in a century.

Biden has struggled to shoehorn himself into the debate, but his efforts have come to naught or turned into embarrassment.

His early effort to deliver a message to the American people from a makeshift television studio in the basement of his home was disastrous. He fumbled his lines and seemed befuddled reading from a teleprompter, underscoring the perception he was a 77-year-old man in early decline and not up to the intellectual and physical demands placed on the leader of the free world.

While Trump has benefitted from the natural public response to rally around its leadership in times of great peril, Biden is caught in a conundrum – criticize the president and risk coming across as a crass partisan sniper, or mute his planned offensive and risk appearing as a reluctant supporter of the Trump administration’s actions.

Biden has chosen the passive approach, remaining largely out of public view while engaging in a few interviews whose impact is quickly negated by the fast-moving developments of the pandemic.

The virtual national lockdown has precluded indefinitely the packed arena rallies and fund-raising extravaganzas which draw hordes of national media and give Biden a platform to assail Trump’s record.

Gone are the traditional campaign staples – parades, picnics, airport tarmac rope lines with their reaching hands, press plane news availabilities, policy speeches to national business, labor and public interest groups. When and if they will reappear is uncertain.

Even the party’s national convention – the three or four days devoted to celebrating the candidate – will likely be a virtual presentation, reaching a fraction of the usual network and cable television audience.

Many Democrats worry Biden has failed to raise his visibility, more aggressively speak out and emphasize his differences with Trump’s response to the pandemic. Missed opportunities will haunt him, they believe, as Americans deal with their concerns and fears into the summer months.

Others counsel patience, convinced that Biden will have ample time to make his case once the crisis ebbs, daily life returns to normal and Americans focus on the presidential contest.

Those advising a measured approach believe the downside of appearing to embrace political opportunism outweighs any lost campaign time, and Biden can still portray himself as placing the overall public good ahead of self-serving partisan considerations.

Left unsaid is a concern that Biden will stumble in any effort to address the pandemic and debate the intricacies and nuances of the medical, scientific and economic considerations involved. A misstep or rhetorically clumsy attempt to make a point could be devastating, raising questions yet again about his ability to grasp the essence of an issue and articulate a coherent and cogent response.

It will be easier to raise the level of aggression at a time when hospitals are not overflowing, medical equipment is not in short supply and business and commercial activity is on the upswing.

The strain of nervousness currently running through the establishment won’t vanish overnight. It won’t ease until Biden confronts Trump in a traditional campaign setting, forces the president onto the defensive and establishes himself as a viable alternative.

It may not be a perfect plan, but at the moment the nation is in an imperfect place. And, it’s certainly preferable to the Sanders-inspired desperation.

–

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.

With his we-know-where-your-children-go-to-school threat directed at two Supreme Court justices, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer cast his lot with his party’s lunatic fringe, tacitly legitimizing mob rule as an acceptable response to political or policy differences.

Schumer, the congressional face of the Democratic Party, warned Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh they would “pay the price” if they voted to uphold a restrictive anti-abortion law enacted in Louisiana.

While Schumer stopped short of advocating violence, his remarks were stunning in their personal nature and implications that mob psychology is an appropriate factor in partisan disagreements with Supreme Court rulings.

Rather than realizing that he’d gone too far, Schumer initially responded by attacking the Chief Justice John Roberts, accusing him of promoting a right wing conspiracy and distorting his remarks.

As the outrage grew, Schumer issued a half-baked apology – “I shouldn’t have used those words” – which was as mealy-mouthed as it was insincere.

His rationale that he was from Brooklyn and that’s the way people talk there was borderline idiotic and insulting to that borough’s population.

In his attempt to explain himself and get out from under what he belatedly realized was a rapidly deteriorating mess, Schumer lamely insisted his remarks were meant as a warning to Republicans that they would be punished by voters if the court ruled in favor of the Louisiana law.

No Republicans were mentioned, though. Only the two justices.

Schumer is not some political naif who fails to understand or appreciate the impact and consequences of his rhetoric. He chose his words and knew precisely the effect they would have when delivered to a receptive audience.

Despite Schumer’s protests to the contrary, it shouldn’t have come as a surprise he would confront a barrage of accusations that it was an outrageous and unprecedented attempt to intimidate the court by threatening its two newest justices.

In a larger sense, the episode – tawdry as it was – is indicative of the increasing hold of the far left on the national party.

Schumer played to the cheap seats, currying favor with the faction of his party to whom civil discourse means restricting oneself to only one profane expression per sentence. His threats were morsels of raw meat tossed to a faction to whom intimidation tactics are an essential part of their agenda.

Stalking, confronting and verbally berating members of the Trump administration in public places have been embraced and celebrated by the party’s left fringe. Remember former press secretary Sarah Sanders and her family being denied service and asked to leave a roadside chicken palace in Virginia?

Others were harassed with their families in restaurants and forced to leave to avoid physical confrontation while still others dealt with chanting protestors outside their homes.

The president shares a portion of the blame as well for the depth to which the public debate has fallen. He ridicules and demeans opponents, hanging derogatory nicknames on them, poking fun at physical appearances and mocking their intellectual prowess. His ongoing combat with the media has often taken an ugly turn, including characterizing reporters as “an enemy of the people” and accusing them of partisan bias.

The issue before the court which Schumer addressed involves the constitutionality of a Louisiana law to require physicians who provide abortion services to hold credentials at a hospital within thirty miles of their offices.

Opponents argue the law is so restrictive that its practical effect would be to ban abortions and deny a constitutional right.

Abortion is one of the most divisive issues in American politics, arousing intense passions on both sides and, sadly, producing violence and physical harm.

There is, however, no justification for publicly threatening those in whom the Constitution places trust and the solemn responsibility for determining the validity of government actions in dealing with the issue.

No matter the court’s eventual disposition of the case, there will be disappointment and jubilation. Reaching extraordinarily difficult decisions on matters of great sensitivity and emotional intensity is the court’s sworn duty and obligation and is the foundation upon which judicial independence rests.

Justices serve lifetime appointments to insulate the court from political retribution brought on by their decisions and, more importantly, to guarantee the justices are totally free to deliberate without looking over their shoulders or worrying about political and private interest pressures.

And, it is that freedom which was so gravely threatened by Schumer.

–

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.

The national Democratic Party is in full panic now, its leaders in a headlong flight like something from a 1950’s sci-fi flick where terrorized townspeople flee a 10-story tall monster crushing cars and flattening buildings.

It’s not some Godzilla-like creature risen from the ocean depths. Just a cranky, white-haired 78-year-old socialist from Vermont leading a dedicated band of followers trampling on a party establishment and reducing to rubble the philosophical pillars which support it.

It’s the second coming of Sen. Bernie Sanders, delivering payback to the party hierarchy he blames for rigging the 2016 presidential primary process and cheating him of the nomination. His victory in the New Hampshire primary following a first place finish in the train wreck that was the Iowa caucuses secured his position leading the remaining viable contenders for the nomination.

Sanders – like Donald Trump four years ago – is an agent of change, not working at the margins and nibbling at the fringes change but bulldozing the political landscape flat and starting over change. Both boast dedicated, committed armies to prove their points. Both provided an outlet for the restiveness and alienation that gripped much of the country and turned it into a rebellious movement.

Four years ago, Trump’s candidacy was dismissed by the Republican Party overlords as another public relations stunt, part of The Donald’s obsession to be the center of attention but not to be taken seriously.

The Sanders candidacy was viewed more seriously – particularly since his strong showing against Hillary Clinton in 2016 – but the smart money insisted he was little more than a gadfly promoting ideas and policies that wouldn’t gain traction with voters. His showing against Clinton was fool’s gold, the argument went, the result of a wretched campaign by Clinton rather than a rush to embrace Sanders.

As Trump rolled through the primaries, blustered through debates and captured outsized media attention, the resonance of his message was ignored by those at the helm of the national party. Who in their right mind would support a thrice-married New York City real estate mogul with a history of financial chicanery, bankruptcies and a penchant for derogatory behavior toward women?

Trump succeeded by declaring his candidacy posed a choice between the tired status quo elements controlling the party and his pitch to disaffected Americans who felt ignored by an indifferent government interested only in perpetuating themselves in power.

It wasn’t merely frustrations Trump recognized and played to – it was an anger simmering across the nation by Americans who’d lost jobs, saw homes fall into foreclosure and their hopes for their and their children’s future vanish.

When Trump cried “Make America Great Again,” his listeners envisioned a return to a past when hope and optimism were genuine and hard work was its own reward.

Political correctness, he said, was the ruination of America and a mockery of traditional values.

And, they responded by electing an unproven entity whose qualifications and experience were greatly outweighed by his opponents.

Despite vast unbridgeable ideological differences, the Sanders/Trump parallels are vivid.

Sanders has relentlessly attacked the wealthy, large corporations and an uncaring, unresponsive government. From chronic income inequality to the perils of climate change, Sanders has laid blame at the doorstep of self-serving and self-absorbed robber barons.

“There should be no such thing as billionaires,” he once cried to his audience.

He and his army reject criticism they are engaged in class warfare, arguing that if there is a war, the middle class and the low earners are the only casualties.

The rich, Sanders contends, have become a protected class even enjoying the approval of elements of the Democratic Party – the party of the working class – desperate to maintain status and power.

And, as Trump before him, Sanders’ message has resonated, attracting the disaffected and overlooked with a pledge that his Administration would tolerate it no longer.

The suddenly real possibility that Sanders will ride that wave of discontent to the presidential nomination has induced a panic, a fear that his candidacy built on socialism will produce an electoral disaster, costing the party a chance at regaining the White House and potentially losing control of both houses of the Congress.

The monster that now stomps the streets is leading a revolution. And, they are the ones who poked it awake.

–

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.

At some point, the national Democratic Party’s leadership will discover a backbone and summon up the courage to sever its connection to Hillary Clinton.

Continued eye-rolling and hand-wringing each time Clinton delivers another critique of the party’s current field seeking the presidential nomination merely reinforces the timidity of the party establishment in dealing with the antics of its last presidential candidate.

Aside from muted murmurings of concern, the lack of any serious pushback to her rhetorical bomb-throwing stems from a lingering fear of the Clintons or the hope that she will recognize the damage she’s causing and desist.

Fat chance. Clinton is the epitome of self-absorption, stubbornly blaming others for her 2016 defeat while gleefully diminishing those now reaching for the prize she fumbled away. Her assault on Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders – currently in first, second or third place in the nomination competition – was stunning in its personally insulting tone.

“Nobody wanted to work with him…nobody liked him…he got nothing done…it was all baloney,” she said of the time she shared in the Senate with him, adding that it was unfortunate that people “got sucked into it.”

She went on to characterize him as a “career politician,” seemingly blinded to the irony of the comment uttered by someone whose spent eight years as First Lady, eight more as U. S. Senator from New York, four years as Secretary of State and who twice sought her party’s presidential nomination. She spent the bulk of her adult life holding or seeking public office.

Her attack on Sanders followed her bizarre accusation that Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard – a National Guard major who served in both Iraq and Kuwait – was a “Russian asset.” It was a claim she also directed at Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate in 2016.

Gabbard, the first Samoan-American to serve as a voting member of Congress and the first Hindu to serve, has since brought a lawsuit against Clinton, claiming that the comments defamed her, caused significant economic harm and was an effort to undermine her presidential candidacy.

In light of Clinton’s long public record, Gabbard’s description of her as “a cutthroat politician” was superfluous.

Clinton has loathed Sanders since 2016 when he opposed her in the Democratic presidential primary and came surprisingly close to overtaking her.

She clearly never forgave him, first because he ran against her and second because of delaying an endorsement of her. He was among those she blamed for her loss to President Trump, lumped in with former FBI Director James Comey, Wikileaks, Russian hackers, and the media.

She has retained the support of long time sycophants who’ve attached themselves to the Clintons like barnacles on the hull of a harbor scow, either out of a sense of blind loyalty or the need to keep the monthly paychecks flowing.

She sent shivers through party leaders when she flirted publicly with the notion of entering the race last year, boasting she’d defeated Trump once – winning the popular vote – and would like nothing better than to do it again.

At the time the Democratic field numbered more than two dozen and her public utterances were widely viewed as an effort to clear out the field, scare off lesser candidates, and produce a draft Hillary movement the establishment couldn’t resist.

Nothing of the sort occurred, relegating her to spectator status but giving her the opportunity to roam free and deliver potshots at the remaining field.

She is a divisive, destructive force in the party, driven not by policy differences or the current dispute over progressivism versus moderation as the path to defeating Trump. Hers is a far more personal obsession – proving conclusively that victory was unfairly denied her four years ago, that she lost only because of the ineptitude or malfeasance of others.

Despite dozens of analyses and insider books that reject her assertions, she has refused to concede that her campaign was badly organized, strategically flawed, and poorly executed.

Her increasing visibility in this year’s campaign bodes ill for Democrats, not only as a reminder of the demoralizing loss to Trump but the ongoing potential for her to trash Sanders and others at a time when the party is already broken into factions driving cohesion and unity further away.

Whether it’s an individual like national chairman Tom Perez or a delegation of the party’s heavy hitters, it’s time to stiffen the spines and deliver a blunt message to Clinton – retire, write, lecture, do another book tour, enjoy your grandchildren and cease mucking around in this year’s campaign.

–

Copyright 2019 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.