JOE BIDEN’S DECISION NOT TO RUN

A dramatic moment in the Rose Garden

    Joe Biden’s announcement not to run for President, though a disappointment to those who were hoping that he would, is good for the Democratic Party, good for President Obama and his legacy, probably good for current Democratic front runner Hillary Clinton, and good for Vice President Biden himself.
    It is good for the Democratic Party because it avoided an unnecessary and potentially unpleasant clash between two friends and former colleagues, Clinton and Biden, whose positions on most issues are similar and whose  candidacies could only have divided their mainstream constituency. That could have paved the way for a third candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders, who calls himself a Democratic Socialist, whose loyalty to the Democratic Party is somewhat problematic, and whose chances of winning the national election are questionable.
    It is good for President Obama because it assures him of the continued availability and involvement of his trusted friend and colleague for the remainder of his term in office. There is much left to be accomplished and the Vice President has been and now can continue to be an important ally and spokesperson for the Obama legacy. Were he to have entered the presidential race, his time would of necessity have been largely preoccupied with the rigors of campaigning, made even more demanding by the lateness of his declaration.

DONALD TRUMP WAS RIGHT (ABOUT ONE THING)!

Donald Trump and Jeb Bush go at it!

    At the last Republican debate Jeb Bush’s declaration that his brother, President George W. Bush, had kept America safe drew enthusiastic cheers and applause from the predominantly Republican audience.
    I was amazed by the audacity of the comment, given the fact that the 9/11 attacks had occurred on his brother’s watch.  Donald Trump was right in pointing that out recently. What took him so long?
    I can understand why none of the other candidates called Jeb to account that night: they didn’t want to remind people of that fact. It’s not good for the Grand Old Party!               
    Trump’s remark has triggered a firestorm of criticism. “I’m not blaming (President Bush) for the attacks,” Trump said in his own defense. “I’m just pointing out that it happened on his watch!”’ He has a point!
    What Jeb should have said, however, was, “My brother brought the country together after 9/11 and we didn’t have another attack during the rest of his term in office.” That would have been an acceptable statement. For Jeb Bush to ignore 9/11 was disingenuous.
    But there is more to be said about this issue. No President should boast about “keeping us safe.” Just be grateful that since 9/11 there has been no similar, nor as devastating, attacks. There have been plenty of attempts, some successful (the Boston Marathon bombing, for example). Despite the best efforts of the CIA, the F.B.I. the Secret Service, the State and local Police Departments, corporate and private security personnel, and the general public, there is always a possibility of another successful

THIS ONE'S TO YOU, MR. PUTIN

Think about it, , , ,

What a much better world this would be,
Vladimir, if you just would  agree
to stop causing a fuss,
and start working with us,
as a partner not an enemy.

Here is yet another offering for the Trump Limerick Anthology:

Mr. Trump boasts oft of his biz:
“ No other’s .as great as mine is!
I can build a hotel
or a wall very well.
As your President I’ll be a whiz!”

                                                      (RSA)

Try your hand at a limerick and post it as a comment .

WHAT JOE BIDEN SHOULD DO

Vice President Joe Biden - Should he or shouldn't he?

    The concern of every Democrat should be to retain the White House in 2016. That is the primary premise upon which Vice President Joe Biden should be basing his decision to enter or not to enter the presidential race.
    We respected his needing to weigh the emotional impact of his son Beau’s death on himself and his family against the total commitment required to mount and conduct an all-out campaign to become the President of the United States. But it soon became evident that his decision had as much to do with his assessment of the possibility of winning. The probability of his entering the race seemed more likely, when Bernie  Sanders’ popularity was soaring and Hillary Clinton’s poll numbers were showing the eroding effect of her Republican opponents’ attacks regarding her use of a private e-mail server, and the main line media’s preoccupation with the subject.
    We can assume that Mr. Biden was asking himself not just whether he was emotionally ready to run, but whether he was the logical person to replace the former  Secretary of State as the establishment’s Democratic front runner for President. Secretary Clinton’s strong performance in the first debate and the subsequent surge in her poll numbers, along with the decline in his own ratings, must be giving the Vice President second thoughts.
    Joe Biden has always wanted to be president. He has already lost two presidential bids. This is his last chance.  Realistically, it is now or never again, given his age. But does he want to risk becoming a three-time loser? No wonder he has taken so long to make up his mind! It’s a terribly difficult decision.
    As another more centrist candidate, Mr. Biden is well aware that his entering the race would draw more support from Hillary Clinton than from Bernie Sanders, a far left extremist who calls himself a Democratic Socialist. I suspect that he shares the conventional wisdom that Hillary would fare better in the general election than Bernie. If, therefore, his entering the race would result in Bernie’s winning a plurality in the primary, that would defeat his purpose entirely and jeopardize the primary premise for his entering, viz., assuring a Democratic victory in the general election. 
    Based on this analysis, here is what I wish Mr. Biden would do. I think it would be a huge boost to the Democratic cause if he were to make the following announcement immediately:

ANOTHER TRUMP LIMERICK

    Here;s another one for the Trump Limerick Anthology:

The Donald’s quite proud of his hair.
Is it real or a wig? If you care,
then inspect it intently,
or pat it quite gently.
If you tug it, however, beware!

LIMERICKS TO "THE DONALD"

The Donald

    It's fun to write limericks about interesting characters. Donald Trump is a limerick writer's dream. I am hereby inviting anyone who enjoys this light verse form to share your talents with our Minding What Matters viewers by contributing to my anthology of limericks devoted to The Donald. Please post them as comments to this article or on my Facebook page.
    Here's one to prime your poetic pump:

There’s a boastful campaigner named Trump,
who is doing quite well on the stump.
All his insults and gaffs
only get him more laughs.
Will he wind up a champ or a chump?

NOW, THAT WAS A DEBATE!

  

    Democrats have every reason to be happy about Tuesday night’s first debate and proud of the candidates who are seeking to be the presidential nominee of their party.
    The event attracted a far larger television audience than expected, and the reactions of viewers indicate they were not the least bit disappointed by what they were watching. The tone was tough but civil, as differences of opinion were expressed, often strongly. The content was wide-ranging, substantive, and never dull, thanks largely to the probing questions of moderator Anderson Cooper and his two colleagues. They did not let anyone avoid their questions!
    The pace was lively, the time passed swiftly, and at the end those present and those watching on television had been given a good look at the candidates and an initial opportunity to compare and contrast them. With at least five more debates to come, voters will have a chance to modify or confirm their impressions.
    It will be interesting to see how this debate impacts the polling. The overwhelming consensus of the media analysts was that Hillary Clinton "won” the debate, but that Bernie Sanders had also done well, and that Martin O’Malley had helped himself to some degree by his performance. Lincoln Chafee and Jim Webb did not fare so well. In my view Hillary was the most informed, the best prepared, and by far the most “presidential” of the group. Martin O’Malley would be my second choice in that last regard.
    The Sanders campaign had prepared their constituents for the debate, and Bernie mentioned more than once the huge number of his supporters who had gathered across the nation to watch the debate. Given the demographics of his constituency, I would suspect that they had been geared up to tweet their favorable responses to their champion’s performance and to encourage support from their contacts. That probably accounts for his impressively high number of comments on social media, along with the resulting $2,000,000 in new donations. He has certainly taken a page out of Barack Obama’s book on how to build a support base! He is a formidable contender.
    Bernie also did well with the focus group I watched after the debate. They resonated, as have many others who have warmed to his message, with his intense attack on the unfair distribution of wealth in America. It was interesting, however, that when asked whether they could see him as President, hardly any hands went up.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE

On the eve of the first Democratic presidential debate and after reflecting on the two Republican debates that have been held so far, I should like to offer the following Ten Commandments for those who engage in political discourse, and I shall be watching to see how well the candidates observe them:

 1. Be truthful -    Thou shalt tell no untruths or half-truths.

2. Be honest -       Thou shalt not pretend, but shalt share thine own ideas with conviction.

3. Be humble -     Thou shalt not boast, but thou mayest reference thine own record.

4. Be factual -      Thou shalt be accurate and forthcoming with facts and figures.

5. Be fair -           Thou shalt not misrepresent thy opponent’s point of view.or record.

6. Be clear -         Thy shalt not leave thy hearers wondering what thou didst mean.

7. Be concise -     Thou shalt not be verbose but shalt speak directly to the question.

8. Be relevant -    Thou shalt address issues that impact thy hearers' lives and welfare..

9. Be direct -        Thou shalt not be devious, but thou shalt answer the question asked.

10. Be friendly -   Thou shalt avoid personal attacks, and thou shalt remember to smile.

AUTHENTIC AUTHENTICITY

   “Authenticity concerns the truthfulness of origins, attributes, commitments, sincerity, devotion, and intentions,” states the Wikipedia article on the topic. But I have some problems with the word, the way it is being used in the political arena. I’m tired of hearing political pundits and commentators acting as if they are the judges of an individual’s authenticity. When you think about it, calling someone authentic is really a meaningless comment.    

Polonius advising his son Laertes

    First of all, it merely reveals what the person who uses the term thinks of the one to whom it is applied, and too often it is being applied to the wrong persons for the wrong reasons.
In the second place, how is authenticity being defined, and on what basis does one attribute it to someone else? It is someone’s subjective opinion, not an objectively provable quality. One can suspect but not presume to know with absolute certainly, another person’s hidden motives.
    So what does it mean to be authentic? Is it being what Polonius urged his son Laertes to be: “This above all: to thine own self be true. . .” (Hamlet, Act I, Scene 3). If so, to which “self” must I be true, for I am a complexity of  ‘‘selves.” I know am not always true to my best self, so does that mean I am not an authentic person? We all wear masks at times. I once wrestled with that dilemma in a poem entitled The Real Me, which includes these lines:

THE ELEPHANT IN THE GUN ROOM

    The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
    The Second Amendment needs to be repealed or drastically amended, because it is being used to justify a purpose for which it was never intended. There is no moral justification whatsoever for using it to argue for the right of private citizens to own assault weapons. That interpretation can be directly traced to the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess and carry firearms (District of Columbia v. Heller).
    In another landmark decision (McDonald v. the City of  Chicago, 2010) the Court ruled that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to State and local governments, just as it applies to the Federal government. The Second Amendment, nevertheless, continues to be at the center of the ongoing discussion regarding gun rights and gun controls.           
    The misinterpretation of the Second Amendment, however, is not the elephant in the gun room. On the contrary, that amendment is a “given” in the on-going debate over gun-control legislation. It is far from being an unmentionable reality.
    No, the elephant in the gun room is, in my view, that hidden beast within the human species that takes pleasure in killing other living creatures. It is ever ready to raise its ugly head. Human beings

VIVA IL PAPA!

Pope Francis

Kim Davis

    The Vatican has reported that Pope Francis's brief private meeting with County Clerk Kim Davis was not an endorsement of her views, though the Pope commended her for her “bravery” in refusing to conduct same sex marriages in Rowan County, Kentucky.

    While he was demonstrating once again his compassion for a woman who was willing to go to prison for her religious convictions, his visit with her might have sent a mixed message. Homosexual persons might well be wondering where was the Pope’s compassion for those who because of their sexual orientation have long been denied their civil right to marry the person they love and to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage.
     Pope Francis has to walk a fine line between his compassionate concern for people and his need to uphold the teachings of his church on the sanctity of marriage. He is not ready to abandon his belief that the sacrament of marriage is between a man and a woman.
    More and more people, however, have come to recognize that marriage is a civil right, granted by the State, a right that clergypersons and certain officials are granted the authority to perform.  As a County Clerk sworn to uphold the laws of the State, Ms. Davis’ refusal to perform her duty to marry same sex couples was in the minds of many an act not of civil but of uncivil disobedience.
    Despite the controversy resulting from this recently revealed meeting, my high regard for Pope Francis has not been diminished in the slightest, and I still feel his visit to the United States was a resounding success.
    Viva il Papa!

REFLECTIONS ON THE VISIT OF POPE FRANCIS

Pope Francis addresses joint meeting of U. S. Congress

    I can’t imagine that there were many if any preachers, Protestant or Catholic, who did not talk about Pope Francis in their sermons yesterday. I’m sure the same would be true of the rabbis, imams, and leaders of other faiths on their respective days of worship.
    I certainly did! One could have spent one’s entire time in the pulpit discussing any one of the Pope’s major addresses or sermons, or reflecting on the impact of his presence and personality on his hearers in the various venues where he appeared, and on the tens of millions who viewed any of his itinerary on television. You did not have to agree with everything the Pope said in order to be inspired by him.
    One very evident gift of this revered leader of the Roman Catholic Church is his amazing sense of the occasion, a rare quality even among those accustomed to public speaking. The Pope did not have just one message for all, like most of our political candidates. His words were audience specific and always right on target, whether to the thousands at Philadelphia’s Independence Hall, or the inmates at Curran-Fromhold Prison, or the families of the victims of 9/11 at the World Trade Center Memorial. There were some common themes, of course, like justice, service, the role of the church, and the importance of dialogue, but each message was a prophetic challenge for that particular occasion.

A BIG WIN FOR HILLARY

Hillary Clinton

Hillary hit it out of the park today!

Her speech at the New Hampshire Democratic Party Convention was substantive, specific,  comprehensive, inclusive, passionate, personally engaging, inspirational, and powerful! It was hard-hitting, yet seasoned with humor, realistic in defining the challenges yet optimistic and up-beat in tone.

Above all, she was impressively presidential in her bearing and delivery, as well as in her content. There were many quotable lines, and the audience was responsive and enthusiastic. She made it very clear what kind of president she would be, what her vision is for America, and where her priorities
lie.

Meanwhile, Bernie was Bernie. His message was predictable, as he stuck to the same themes that have worked for him thus far. I responded more positively to his early speeches, but his consistently angry tone and and lack of variety in his delivery and his message have become somewhat tiring to me. I found Hillary's style refreshingly varied and exciting.

The event provided an excellent opportunity for the voters to compare and to contrast the two leading Democratic candidates. In my view Hilliary came out on top. Surprisingly, there were more Clinton than Sanders supporters present, and I would have to say that Hillary's were more vigorous and interrupted far more frequently and loudly with sustained applause than Bernie's, though the latter were valiantly supportive of their champion.
 
Let's see how the commentators evaluate the various presentations, and whether the event has any impact on the polling.


.

SOLVING THE UNEMPLOYMENT PROBLEM

It's time to help young people like this!

       The number of unemployed urban African American young people has reached epic proportions. The problem cannot be solved over night, but there are practical steps that could be taken immediately.
        I mentioned two obvious ones in my previous article: Congress should pass the American Jobs Acts and the Infrastructure bill, which together would put millions of Americans back to work. See GET WITH IT, CONGRESS! They should also pass the minimum wage act for the sake of the working poor.
        In addition, I would propose that every employer of any size in every city or town with a serious unemployment problem hire at least one unemployed African American within the next few days. This would include corporations, small businesses, schools, hospitals, churches, service agencies —every employer!  The mayor of each city should appoint a task force to promote the effort, to enlist the participants, and to coordinate and oversee the program, which would have to include a training element to provide applicants with the needed skills. There has to be an intentionality about such an effort, building upon the civic mindedness and humanitarian instincts of the entire community. What if every city across America would engage in such a program? Imagine the effect!

GET WITH IT, CONGRESS!

Trouble in Charm City following the death of Freddie Gray

        As our entire nation focuses on the unfolding events in Baltimore, following the death of Freddie Gray, the 25year old African American who died of spinal cord injuries while in custody of the police, and in the wake of all the other recent incidents of police brutality toward black males, there is much talk about the need for drastic revisions to our justice system.
        I certainly applaud that long-overdue conversation, which hopefully will result in Congress’ addressing a problem that has existed for far too long, not just in Baltimore but throughout urban America.
        At the same time I am frustrated by the relative lack of attention to the underlying problems of poverty and unemployment that fan the flames of frustration and despair among those trapped in the black ghettos of urban America. Their unemployment rate is far above the nation’s average, forcing many young African Americans to engage in drug trafficking just to survive. Racial profiling and the disproportionate incarceration rate of blacks and other minorities are alarming signals that have been ignored for too long.
        I fault the Republicans in Congress for blocking legislative proposals by the Obama administration, such as the American Jobs Act, the Public Transportation Act, and the Infrastructure bill, that would put millions of Americans back to work and give their lives new hope and purpose, while dealing with our dangerously deteriorating bridges, highways, and rail systems.
       The immediate passage of those legislative proposals would be a huge step toward meeting a desperate need. Why are concerned Americans not addressing their anger at Congress? We should demand that they act  now! Correcting our criminal justice system is important, but dealing with poverty and  unemployment is even  more important. Write your district Representative, your Senators, your local newspaper editor!
        Get with it, Congress! Redeem yourselves, and do what is right. The ball is in your court!

COMMENTS ON THE JANUARY DRONE ATTACK

American hostage killed in drone attack.

        Today’s announcement by President Obama that Dr. Warren Weinstein, a 73-year-old U.S. aid worker, who was kidnapped in Pakistan in 2011, and Giovanni Lo Porto, an Italian social worker who had been a captive since 2012, had been killed in a January drone strike against an Al Qaida compound near the Afghan-Pakistan border has evoked the deep sympathy of the free world for the families of the two men. What a tragic outcome to the families’ long-suffering wait and agonizing hope for the rescue of their loved ones from their terrorist captors.
        Now comes the second-guessing and the predictable blame game. How could we have made such a mistake? Why didn’t our intelligence network know that the two men were being held prisoner in that compound? What went wrong and who was responsible for it?
        And of course, the Obama haters will point to the incident as another example of the failed leadership of “this president” and the incompetency of his administration.

A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT? THAT'S A GLOOMY PROSPECT INDEED!

         Among the horde of Republican hopefuls who have declared or are soon to declare their candidacy for president of the United States, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker appears to be the current front runner by a very narrow margin.
        That should tell us something about the caliber of those who hope to represent the Republican Party in the 2016 presidential election! It tells us even more about the political discernment of the red side of the American electorate. How can any discerning voter want a President who would behave the way Scott Walker has behaved as Governor of Wisconsin? (See SCOTT WALKER FOR PRESIDENT?)

        On the blue side it looks as if Hillary Clinton is still likely to .be the Democratic Party’s nominee. Although none of the Republican candidates comes close to matching Hillary’s experience and qualifications for the office, given the Republicans’ historical effectiveness at negative campaigning she is by no means a shoe-in to win the presidency. The smear campaign has already begun, as predicted (see GET READY FOR THE HILLARY BASHERS).
        The same determined minority that enabled the G,O.P. gains in the 2014 mid-term elections will be working hard to win the White House. What a disaster that would be, if it should happen! It could happen, if the irresponsible majority who slept through the mid-term elections don’t exercise their right and fulfill their duty as citizens to vote.

I’M ON HILLARY’S SIDE!

Hillary Clinton takes a question at her Press Conference

        I’m on Hillary’s side.
        I thought she handled herself pretty well at her recent press conference. If what she did about her emails was not illegal, and it wasn’t, what’s the big deal? If the security of the United States was not compromised, and apparently it wasn’t, I have no problem with her using a properly secured private server.
        True, there are some unanswered questions, but they don’t bother me. I don’t care why she did things the way she did. She said it was a matter of convenience, I accept that. She also admitted, given the firestorm that has arisen, that it would have been better had she used the State Department server for her official email correspondence. I agree with that. I don’t care if she erased some of her personal correspondence. She is entitled to her privacy. Did any of those emails in any way compromise the integrity of her position as Secretary of State? I seriously doubt it. Hillary Clinton is a very intelligent, experienced woman who is well aware of the protocols and the risks of violating them. There is no doubt in my mind that she has her country’s  best interests at heart, and she has demonstrated that as a public servant.
        But here is what I find really infuriating. In the midst of all this politically motivated fuss about Hillary Clinton’s email the media commentators for the most part are barely mentioning one of the most infamous and unprecedented actions ever perpetrated by a group of United States senators. Forty-seven Republican senators signed a letter (click to see) addressed to Iranian leaders that was intended to undermine President Obama’s efforts to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Their action has led many to label the signers as traitors! They have jeopardized our nation’s negotiating position. They have misrepresented our President’s role in the negotiating process.

NYET, NYET, MR. NETANYAHU!

You were preaching to the choir.

        I listened carefully to both of your speeches, Mr. Prime Minister. Your delivery was excellent.You knew your audiences, You told them exactly what they wanted to hear. You waved the Israeli flag well. You were strong on Israeli-American relations, as well you should be.
        Your remarks were very well received by your AIPAC friends and by your hawkish Republican supporters in Congress, whose thunderous applause must have warmed your heart and massaged your ego. You were preaching to the choir! And their response was sure to play well with your friends back home in Israel. Even your opponents must have been impressed with the enthusiastic reception you received from your highly politicized audiences.
        Contentwise your speech to AIPAC was appropriate. You kept it within proper bounds. But was your address before the joint session of Congress equally appropriate? Was it the right thing to do? Nyet, nyet, Mr. Netanyahu! You knew that Speaker of the House John Boehner had violated protocul by inviting you without having consulted the President of the United States. You knew that the President did not approve of having you, as a foreign head of state, address the Congress two weeks prior to your having to face a hotly contested election in your own country.