HEY, MR. AND MS. AMERICA, WHAT IS YOUR STATE OF MIND?

By Edwin Cooney

Under our constitution, the president annually must present to Congress and the people his (or eventually her) evaluation of the State of the Union. Thus, as we prepare to vote in 2024, it's a good idea that you and I prepare our own judgment of the state of the American Union.

Last Saturday, July 13th,  a former president was nearly assassinated. The last time we assassinated a sitting president (on November 22nd, 1963), aside from a growing civil rights movement, America was pretty content with itself. Today, what we love, hate, fear and yet long for depends on where we live, what race, religion or gender we identify with, along with ideals that we value or reject.

Happily, it  appears that most of us reject and even resent the attempted assassination of Mr. Trump. His supporters reject the effort due to their love for him. His opponents are loathe to make a martyr out of him. Still, those two motives may tell us more about ourselves than we realize.

As I see it, the only legitimate motive for killing another human being is immediate personal physical preservation! Still, we've been killing one another since Cain killed Abel. Hence, the obvious question: when are most Americans intrigued or excited?

It appears to me that Americans are happiest and most content when we're involved as participants in sports or when judging the lives, backgrounds and motives of entertainers or celebrities: who's the best singer, actor, poet, republican, democrat, liberal or conservative? Who's the best of the best? Who's the worst of the worst?

Here's one for you: when you're riding in or driving a car, are you as sane as other drivers or passengers? What weather forecaster consistently offers the best weather forecast? Are the drivers in New England or in California the worst?  Are the young or are the elderly the best citizens?

How curious are we about things with which we're not familiar?

As for 2024, how capable are we to select the best presidential candidate?

Are we sufficiently tolerant to preserve The United States of America considering our clashes of need, interests, and individual goals and fortunes? Do we care sufficiently about one another to vote responsibly for the next president?

No essay, let alone commentary, is complete if the author doesn't offer some guidance listing the beliefs and principals important to him or her! Here are mine:

1) I believe most people are fundamentally good and well meaning and try to follow the golden rule.

2) America is, as Benjamin Franklin asserted following the Constitutional Convention, a Republic. Subsequently, it steadily has sought to grow into a democracy!

3) America has been led by men and women who have sought to combine both practicality and principle during which practicality most often comes first. Our treatment of Native Americans and Blacks most represents the dominance of practicality over principle!

4) Too many of us hope God will bless America when God's blessings belong to people, not nations! Has any preacher asserted that we will find nations in Heaven?

5) Too many Americans assign racism to others and ignore their own racism!

6) We cleverly turn our personal and physical efforts and emotional drawbacks into profitable institutions for our financial benefit. Thus we have paid doctors, nurses, teachers, preachers, police and fire-persons, soldiers, sailors, prostitutes and pimps.

7) Drivers love to own cars trucks, even hearses and ambulances, but they don't trust each others driving habits!

8) All lawyers are shysters except for one’s own!

9) All politicians are crooks except the ones we prefer!

As for America's greatness, that occurred when we gained our independence from Britain, when we asserted that “all men are created equal,” as voting rights grew in proportion to prejudices, when slaves were freed and the rights of Native Americans were equalized, as government began serving the poor as much as it does the rich, when indebtedness was decriminalized, when church and state were separated, when the rights and responsibilities of the disabled were strengthened, when women gained the vote along with increased status and expectation, and as God's gift of science conquered disease.

Since America is ultimately a collection of the wisest and the foolish, the creative and the lazy, its greatness will inevitably ebb and flow.
 
Any politician who "trumpets" American greatness as a political commodity is trying to sell you and me something we don't need!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THE PREGNANT LULL BEFORE THE STORM

By Edwin Cooney

One of the more attractive aspects of politics is its capacity for great drama. Since Vice President Harry Truman's dramatic succession to the presidency in 1945, post World War II Americans have been increasingly aware that a vice president is more than just likely to succeed to the presidency. Since party conventions are where political selections are made, therein lies the heart of the drama.

In 1952, Ike, an elderly candidate, chose 39-year-old Richard Nixon to be his running mate. Nixon was a young reactionary and, most of all, dramatically anti-Communist. In 1960, young Nixon, who became the presidential candidate, chose Henry Cabot Lodge, a distinguished former senator and retiring United Nations Ambassador, to add wisdom and weight to his team selection. In 1964, Barry Goldwater chose upstate New York Congressman and GOP National Chairman William E. Miller as his running mate, because of his ability to poke holes in Democratic logic and because of his Roman Catholic faith.

In 1968, three men fought for the party's nomination on the first ballot: Richard Nixon, Nelson Rockefeller and Ronald Reagan, the conservative movie actor from California. During the third session of the convention, I remember hearing an interview with South Dakota Senator Karl Mundt as he was naming a list of eight or ten possible GOP vice presidential candidates such as Ronald Reagan, Nelson Rockefeller, Charles Percy, John Lindsay, young Texas congressman George Bush, Gerald Ford, Senator John Tower of Texas, Oregon Senator Mark Hatfield, Ohio Governor James Rhodes, and Wisconsin Congressman Melvin Laird. The list was most informative and even educational. However, ironically, the name not on Senator Mundt's list was that of Spiro Theodore Agnew of Maryland. That little drama would occur on the morning of Thursday, August 5th. Hence, everyone wondered: Spiro Who?

In 1976, Governor Ronald Reagan, seeking advantage over President Gerald Ford, named his running mate a week before the convention and challenged President Ford to do likewise. Reagan's choice was liberal Pennsylvania Senator Richard Schweiker whom Reagan hoped would woo moderate delegates away from President Ford before the balloting. Ford refused the challenge but still won the presidential nomination. He chose Kansas Senator Bob Dole as his vice presidential running mate.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan had the nomination wrapped up by the time of the Detroit convention but needed a running mate with national security experience. At the beginning of the convention, between July 14th and 18th, 1980, negotiations between Reagan and Ford took place to see if they could agree on a duel presidency. Such an agreement was beyond both men, so George H. W. Bush was summoned and chosen.

In 1988, James Danforth Quayle was chosen as the young surprise vice presidential running mate, because although he was young and physically attractive, he would not be a threat to President Bush if he sought re-election in 1992.

During the 2000 Republican convention which was held in Philadelphia between July 31st and August 3rd, Texas Governor George W. Bush asked the head of Halliburton to lead the effort to identify a vice presidential candidate. In the end, Richard B. Cheney was selected. The irony was that because he and Governor Bush both resided in Texas, in order to qualify for election as Vice President, Mr. Cheney had to move back to Wyoming, the state where he resided when he had served in Congress from 1979 to 1989.
 
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, the GOP’s 2008 ""Hot Hottie," was Senator John McCain's VP selection. However, she flamed out by mid campaign.

In 2016, Mike Pence brought to the Trump campaign a needed conservative with a Christian background which helped to sustain Trump during the controversy in early October over the candidate's relationship with — and toward — women..

As for 2024, many believe that Marco Rubio of Florida may be Mr. Trump's choice this week. If such is the case, perhaps the presidential candidate may have to move back to New York similar to Dick Cheney's 2000 move back to Wyoming!

Although many historians and political scientists assert that JFK's 1960 selection won Texas for the Democrats, few believe that vice presidential candidates generally elect the top of a ticket. However, the choice invariably reflects the state and mood of a party and its  constituents.

I predict that Vivek Ramaswamy is likely Trump's best choice due to his youth and his business background. However, how likely is Mr. Ramaswamy to be abjectly loyal to a lame duck president when the future could be all his?

Hence, the title I've given this week's offering. This may well be the pregnant lull before one hell of a storm!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

COONEY EATS CROW — YUCK, OH YUCK

By Edwin Cooney

If you're a dog chasing a car, you're definitely in trouble if you catch it, but how would you know otherwise if you're a dog! I chased a Supreme Court opinion and rather than catching and commanding it, I got fed crow and  drenched by skunk-spray!

Since 1937, conservatives have lectured Americans  about “court packing” or partisan court manipulation. Hence, the decision announced on Monday, July 1st, as we prepared to celebrate our 248th birthday, that our highest court would grant a freely elected president the powers of King George the Third, thus placing all presidential acts above the law, is in defiance of the sacred idea and belief that we are a government of laws and not of men.

FDR was denounced as "the root of all evil" despite the fact that his New Deal saved capitalism. According to the June 30th ruling, if a president shoots his wife, that would be a private act and therefore subject to prosecution. However if, as Commander-in-Chief, he orders a member of the SEALS to shoot his wife, he would be immune from prosecution because that would be an official act of the President of the United States.

In addition, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor points out, a sitting president may accept a bribe for a pardon or even order the assassination of a challenger since all sitting presidents are immune from judicial prosecutions.

Last Monday, the Supreme Court sought to protect the Presidential office against attacks by successor presidents as a matter of legal partisan “payback."

For my part, I've really and truly bought into the idea and the belief that our government is "one of laws, and not of men."

If the person of the presidency and not the office itself is answerable to the law, then the law is not relevant either to the Constitution or to the acts of citizens!. After all, a president is America's first citizen!

Additionally, if a president is immune from the judgment of history, so is a whole people.

When I was first informed about this by a friend of mine from Pittsburgh, he and not I saw the danger in the ruling.

The Supreme Court sent the problem back to the judge handling the potential Washington, D. C. trial and invited the judge to set up an inquiry dividing the responsibilities of the person in the presidency and the acts of an officiating president. Hence, I was pleased that the issue had been sent to a lower judge and court. However, my friend in Pittsburgh is more farseeing than I.

Of course, I'm far from being the only inconsistent observer with an interest in the outcome of what occurred back on January 6th, 2021.

The GOP majority during Congress’ second impeachment of President Trump partially acquitted the outgoing president on the grounds that an impeachment ought to wait until former President Trump's innocence or guilt was decided by the courts. These days, those same Republicans seem to regard any guilty verdict as constituting a political rather than a legal act. Thus, Donald Trump, Stokely Carmichael, Bobby Seal, Malcom X, Huey Newton and the convicted murderer George Jackson are all merely political rather than legal criminals. Men are generally regarded by the company they insist on keeping.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I never heard Martin Luther King claim that he was merely a political prisoner because he never denied that he deliberately broke laws in all parts of the country.

What I failed to consider possible was that conservative Americans would ever grant to the President of the United States absolute executive power when they were once bitter toward Franklin Roosevelt for asserting power in the 1930s.

Perhaps they'll alter their perspective when Presidents Pete Buttigieg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez or Ayanna Pressley start exercising former President Trump's newly granted prerogatives. I'm astounded that social and ideological conservatives would ever grant to one of their leaders Theodore or even Franklin Rooseveltian authority. (Back in 1911, TR stated in an address at Osawatomie, Kansas that human rights are superior to property rights. In 1937, FDR was bitterly accused of trying to pack the Supreme Court to achieve a purely socialist agenda.)

When my younger lad was a little guy, he'd protest the medicine his mother and I would insist he take with the words "yuck, oh yuck!"

As I swallow my crow or inhale my skunk spray, I'm certain that one day very soon, Justices Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett will experience their crow and skunk fragrance that will be worse than mine!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

REPORTING ON THE BIDEN/TRUMP DEBATE

By Edwin Cooney

As all of you who read these musings are aware, I'm supporting President Biden's bid for re-election. Despite his less than stellar performance last Thursday, I'm still with him.

However, former President Trump won the debate on pure performance.

As I wrote some two weeks ago, the American public isn't interested in explanations. It demands dramatic solutions.

If Donald Trump ignored, as he did, questions about climate change or the realistic state of Social Security, he succeeded in coloring all his answers with worries all citizens share about our national security.

President Biden's voice was weak and his articulation was almost nonexistent. Still, throughout his presentation he demonstrated a full and comprehensive  knowledge of governance during this time of intermingling effects of programs and policies concerning both domestic and foreign affairs. No program or policy is so sound that its intention or goal is a guaranteed plus.

Sooner than you can imagine, someone will tell us how many times these two presidents called each other a liar.

Mr. Trump wants Americans to believe that immigrants for the most part are all criminals and perverts. President Biden clearly views most immigrants as the victims of ruthless and tyrannical Central American governments. Conservatives have used the average citizen's fear of criminals and radicals invading the United States since 9/11.

On the subject of Roe v. Wade, the irony is that both men seem sincere in their advocacies. President Biden would support the return of Row v. Wade, a libertarian position. Mr. Trump, on the other hand, wants state governments rather than individuals to decide the fates of mothers and children.

Mr. Trump insists that had he remained president, Vladimir Putin would never have dared to invade Ukraine. Mr. Trump also insists that Iran would never have been sufficiently powerful enough to assist Hamas' October 7th 2023 invasion of Israel. President Biden's genuine sympathy for individual Palestinians compels him to do what he can to make Israel demonstrate to non Hamas Palestinians the humanistic treatment to which they're entitled.

However, in my opinion, President Biden faces two dangers as the result of his poor performance last Thursday.

The first danger is the political momentum former President Trump gains.

The second danger is the resulting unrest within the Democratic Party as it plans for the convention in August. Every convention has rules governing the nominating process. Remember back in 1980 when forces behind Senator Edward Kennedy sought to nullify President Carter's numerical and situational advantage for the nomination by altering existing rules? President Carter prevailed and so did Ronald Reagan that November 4th, 1980.

American voters have always wondered about how genuine the hostility really was between the presidential candidates. After all, American politics is  competitive by nature. Did Kennedy hate Nixon? How is it that Ford and Carter became friends during the Reagan Administration? George H. W. Bush spent much of the fall of 1992 calling Bill Clinton a "bozo." Soon after that election, Bill and George became presidential “bozos” together. Remember John McCain telling a woman during the 2008 campaign that Barack Obama wasn't an “Arab sympathizer,” but that he was really a very nice man. Of course, Obama and Mitt Romney didn't really hate each other.

Sadly, the enmity between Biden and Trump is deeper than Andrew Jackson's was toward John Quincy Adams in 1828 or between FDR and Herbert Hoover in 1932. As understandable as that enmity may be, its real danger may be how it affects the future of the American Body Politic!

Sadly and regrettably, I'm compelled to declare former President Donald J. Trump the winner of last Thursday's not so "presidential" debate. However, regardless of current Republican hopeful expectations or Democratic fears or trepidations, the election is 5 months and 5 days away — more than time enough for that "October surprise" to develop!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY