Eating Dogs?
Taylor Swift knows what she is doing. The past year and a half, her Eras tour stops have become economic booms to cites all over the world. She has brought new fans to the NFL. The timing of her endorsement of Harris-Walz 2024 was near genius. Less than 30 minutes after Tuesday night’s Presidential Debate.
Donald Trump, a few Fox News stiffs, and other MAGA world knuckleheads said Taylor would suffer financially. Taylor is a worldwide draw. She is a marketing wizard. I am pretty sure she took this into account.
_____
MAGA world still is smarting from seeing Trump getting his worn-out arse owned by Vice President Kamala Harris Tuesday night. They are still blaming the ABC News moderators. MAGA world is so used to the media letting Trump get away with his lies that they are now freaking out over the minimal fact checking at the debate. Sorry, pals.
_____
Today’s Chron E-Board goes to town on Trump’s debate performance. The featured photo is the E-Board take headline. This is how the take starts:
“IN SPRINGFIELD, THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!”
Yes, America, a once and possibly future president of the United States made that bizarre, baseless, possibly delusional statement Tuesday night. Sometimes the word “weird” just isn’t enough.
Before millions of TV viewers watching this election’s only scheduled presidential debate, Donald Trump warned us that Haitian immigrants in a small Ohio town — the vast majority of themlegal immigrants, mind you — are not only eating local dogs but cats, too.
This is the end of the take:
After Tuesday night’s debate, here’s what we know:
• The American people deserve better than Donald Trump. “We don’t have to go back,” to quote Harris. “Let’s not go back.”
• Kamala Harris is prepared to be president.
• “They” are not eating dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio.
Here is the entire E-Board take:2024 Presidential Debate: Kamala is ready. Trump is beyond weird. (houstonchronicle.com).
_____
Some of us remember Alberto Gonzales. He was raised in H-Town. He went to MacArthur High School in Aldine ISD. He is a Harvard law grad. Made partner at Vinson and Elkins. Was Governor George Bush’s General Counsel, then appointed to the Texas Supreme Court. When Bush was elected president, Al was named White House Counsel then he became Attorney General. Al got caught up is some controversial issues while serving under Bush including the torture, err enhanced investigation techniques issue.
I ran across an op-ed authored by Al endorsing Vice President Harris. Here it is in its entirety:
I am the only lawyer in American history to serve both as White House counsel and as attorney general. So, while that does not make me special, it does give me a rather unique perspective about presidential decision-making and the necessity of electing a president who respects the rule of law to safeguard our liberties and way of life.
The American presidency is the most powerful position in the world. Of course, our constitution and laws, as well as institutions such as Congress and our courts, act as guardrails to that power. The law provides the certainty of accountability and fundamental fairness. Yet it is the president’s integrity, honesty and respect for our institutions that may be the most important and reliable check on abuses of power.
As the United States approaches a critical election, I can’t sit quietly as Donald Trump — perhaps the most serious threat to the rule of law in a generation — eyes a return to the White House. For that reason, though I’m a Republican, I’ve decided to support Kamala Harris for president.
The character of the person we elect in November is particularly important today because the current members of the House of Representatives and the Senate have proven spectacularly incapable or unwilling to check abuses of executive power. While the U.S. Supreme Court is certainly capable of curbing presidential power, the court has recently ruled that certain restraints on presidential acts would be unconstitutional. The court held that when exercising core constitutional powers, the president enjoys complete immunity from criminal prosecution; it also ruled that when engaging in an official act the president enjoys presumptive immunity. Acts that are unrelated to the president’s official duties can be prosecuted but the motivation behind a presidential decision may not be considered or questioned — which might allow a president to take official actions for personal, self-serving reasons.
Power is intoxicating and based on Trump’s rhetoric and conduct it appears unlikely that he would respect the power of the presidency in all instances; rather, he would abuse it for personal and political gain, and not on behalf of the American people.
Perhaps the most revealing example relates to Trump’s conduct on Jan. 6, 2021, when he encouraged his followers to march to our nation’s capital in order to challenge the certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory. Trump failed to do his duty and exercise his presidential power to protect members of Congress, law enforcement and the Capitol from the attacks that day. He failed to deploy executive branch personnel to save lives and property and preserve democracy. He just watched on television and chose not to do anything because that would have been contrary to his interests. Trump still describes that day as beautiful. And as for those subsequently convicted of committing crimes, he describes them as hostages. He also has promised to pardon the convicted rioters if elected. Why? Because they were acting in his interests.
The contours of the rule of law are shaped ultimately by the U.S. Supreme Court. Many Americans today have lost confidence in the court. Let me be clear that disagreements over their decisions are to be expected, but the growing number of vicious attacks on the integrity of individual justices and the partisan criticism of the court as an institution is dangerous. It is certainly well past time for the court to adopt a tougher ethics code of disclosure. But partisan trashing of judicial decisions undermines the court’s credibility. Further, some of the suggested reforms, such as limiting jurisdiction and imposing term limits, threaten the court’s independence, and are arguably contrary to the principle of separation of powers.
The court’s decision on presidential immunity has been especially targeted for criticism. Critics fear this decision will allow a president to direct the Justice Department to prosecute rivals for political reasons without fear of prosecution. While this may be possible, one should remember that the attorney general and other confirmed DOJ employees take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Every appointee’s allegiance is to the Constitution first, not to the president. The fact that a president may direct an institution or prosecutor to prosecute someone for political reasons does not override that official’s oath to the Constitution. If an appointee is ordered to do something that they feel is illegal, they should quit or refuse to carry out the order. They can go to the agency’s inspector general, the Congress and the media. There still remain these guardrails.
Any discussion about fidelity to the rule of law has to include Trump’s 34 state felony convictions, his state civil financial judgment of libel based on sexual abuse, as well as the pending federal elections interference case, not to mention the recently dismissed federal documents case that Special Counsel Jack Smith is continuing to pursue. Standing alone, these charges, convictions and judgments show that Trump is someone who fails to act, time and time again, in accordance with the rule of law. There is little evidence that he has the integrity and character to responsibly wield the power of the presidency within the limits of the law. And no amount of rationalization to support Trump because of his policies can overcome the disqualification of this man based on his lack of integrity.
To be fair, I have spoken with Trump only once. I do not really know him. It is telling, however, that several senior officials who worked for him in the White House now refuse to support him, including his vice president, chief of staff, defense secretary and national security adviser. Their unwillingness to endorse their former boss is an indictment of his character at a level equal to his many, many criminal indictments.
We do not yet know exactly how Harris will govern if she is elected. The office of the vice president does not often afford the occupant the opportunity to lead, or to make life and death decisions. Harris does not have the same depth of experience in foreign policy or the relationships with foreign leaders that Biden has. Voters are likely to question whether she has the judgment and strength to forge coalitions with friends and stand against tyranny around the world.
Trump and his surrogates will blame her for the economic policies of the Biden administration, as well as the border crisis. Based on my experience, however, a vice president truly has little to no influence on economic policy. A vice president may provide input, but it is the president who is the ultimate decision-maker. That is part of the job of being the president. Further, Congress has as much, if not more, power to affect our economy through legislation. It is as much their failure as Biden’s that child care, housing, gasoline and groceries cost too much. And as for the border, Trump and his supporters in Congress assumed partial responsibility for the tough border situation when they killed bipartisan legislation in order to help Trump’s election chances.
Casting a vote for Harris will require the American people to place their faith in her character and judgment. Some may see her as too progressive and worry she would be too easily manipulated. There is little mystery or doubt, however, about how Trump will act and govern based on past behavior and comments. He will help those who help him and his family for personal or financial reasons. He will likely pull back from our leadership role among other democracies in the fight against authoritarianism. Based on spending levels during Trump’s first term, his policies will likely increase the national debt.
Harris, meanwhile, has sworn fidelity to the rule of law as a former local prosecutor and state attorney general. Her record in law enforcement shows a clear commitment to pursuing justice. While I may disagree with some of her policies, I am hopeful she will be open to dissenting views and will act always in a manner respectful of the power of all three branches of government.
There are many lawyers who served in Republican administrations who share my concerns about the Republican nominee. All of us in the legal profession have a special obligation to abide by and to protect the rule of law. It is part of our oath to support the Constitution. We are not only champions for the poor and the innocent, we are also guardians of the system that protects our personal freedoms.
Like many Americans, I remain optimistic about our future because of the rule of law. We are envied around the world and expected to lead the march for democracy. Even with our many challenges, America remains the greatest country on the face of the earth, and I am grateful and proud to be an American.
We are a divided nation, but Harris appears — at least based in part on her performance at the Democratic National Convention and in her debate with Trump — the best suited, able and committed to unite us in a manner consistent with the rule of law.
So that’s Bush’s VP and AG for Harris-Walz 2024.
_____
We lost again last night. Our lead is down to 3 ½ games in the AL West. 17 games remain on the regular season schedule. If we make the playoffs, it will be because we backed into the playoffs.
