OKAY, MADAM VICE PRESIDENT, WHAT'S NEXT?

By Edwin Cooney

Now that you've impressed millions of your fellow citizens of your ability to tie Donald Trump in knots, what's your next act of political mastery?

No matter what one is doing: eating apples from a forbidden tree, building an ark, consuming rice with chopsticks, or running for President of the United States, you've got to master your task!

There are many strategical paths to the presidency that if taken can bring forth victory.

Last Tuesday, Vice President Harris manipulated former President Trump so cleverly that he had to concede the popularity and even the practicality of "Obamacare." The Affordable Care Act was essential, Trump insisted, as a framework of a Trumpian health care plan which he deliberately maintained in order to build his own health care plan.

As for Mr. Trump's foreign policy, Kamala Harris told Mr. Trump that both Presidents Putin and Xi by using personal flattery will "...have you for lunch!"

Harris was sufficiently successful throughout the debate that those who haven't yet made up their minds who they ought to vote for, want to know more about the challenger and her plans in a way they were once curious about Mr. Trump's policies and plans.

Now the former president says that he won the debate and doesn't need to debate Ms. Harris a second time. He even implied that there's no need for a Vance-Walz debate in October. In 2016, Hillary Clinton already had a reputation which Donald Trump's audacious behavior eventually overwhelmed.

It's increasingly apparent to this observer that Donald John Trump is becoming exceedingly boring! Thus, 2024 marks the third presidential campaign the public has been fed Mr. Trump's insistence on his capacity to "make America great again!" American greatness is an ongoing expectation that ebbs and flows at home and abroad. American greatness is a judgment rather than a continuous degree of perfection.

Greatness is about achievement applicable to the continuous well-being of a majority of Americans.

David Brooks, writing in The New York Times last week, believes that we're passing through a positive culture change that is about to succeed Donald Trump’s culture of exhaustion and indignation into a new culture of expected togetherness and personal connecting.

Now that the former president, for his own both political and personal protection, is abandoning direct political combat, it's up to Kamala Harris to construct and travel her highway to victory.

Although there's seldom any doubt as to whom this observer favors, seldom do I offer an assurance. Hence, here's a certainty as of today. Should sudden illness overtake President Biden, Kamala Harris would not only succeed constitutionally to the presidency, she'd easily be elected President of the United States in her own right. Up until last Tuesday, September 10th, 2024, such was not the case. Today, minus a major error on her part or a major discovery of Biden-Harris administration "skullduggery," Kamala Harris could be "in like Flynn."

If Vice President Kamala Harris becomes "President Harris" before November 5th, 2024, she'll remain President Harris until Saturday, January 20th, 2029. Hence Mr. Former President, it's in your political well-being to pray for "Old Sleepy Joe!"

Early in 1942 with the United States now in the war with the Axis, Winston Churchill observed:  "This is not the end! It's not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning. "

Kamala Harris, the rest is up to you!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN CLOONEY

A NEW CONCEPT CALLED “THE STINKIN’ TRUTH”

By Edwin Cooney

One of the most fertile institutions in 21st Century society today is the podcast, a program available in a digital format over the internet. I think of these podcasts as mini broadcasts of stories and ideas designed to take the public where it's never been — and sometimes doesn't really need to go.

One of the most intriguing podcasts is called "The Stinkin' Truth,” largely encompassing real possibilities that are true, but that you or I would rather not experience, especially as sports fans.

Here's one set of simultaneous stinkin' truths:  One: Trump might win this November fifth election. Two:  Harris might win this November fifth election. (Keep in mind that all of us must own and handle stinkin' truths!)

A stinkin' truth I've had to face since 2009 is that the Yankees haven't won the World Series.

The world is bathed in truths: relative truths, partisan truths, personal truths, ideological truths and, this fall, Trump and Harris truths.

The most dangerous stinkin' truth is that it's possible that a world leader might miscalculate and bring on a nuclear explosion or that humanity's carelessness and selfishness might permanently poison the earth so that it might not be habitable. (Come to think of it, as bad as that would be for you and me, it might be good for the planet, thus enabling it to replenish itself for the next ten or twenty thousand years of habitation, human or otherwise.)

Sometimes we create our own "stinkin' truths" due to our personal insecurities or doubts about the capacity or veracity of others.

I once had a landlord who insisted that he hated lawyers. According to him, they too often lied, misrepresented, and schemed to make a buck. One Tuesday, early in November of 1980, I insisted that his doubling of my rent was way too much while being unfair at the same time. By Thursday, his lawyer was knocking at my door to serve me with an eviction notice. Oh! I forgot to mention that my landlord was the head of a citywide organization designed to control rent increases. Additionally, I learned that this gentleman actually had a direct telephone line to his lawyer.

Although some "stinkin' truths" are really stinky, some are actually funny. How about the Idaho man, David Rush, who spit 47 ping pong balls from his mouth against the wall in just 30 seconds to set a world record! Rush wasn't as proud of his spitting prowess as he was of his tenacity and persistence in the attainment of his crazy record!

Here's a wondrous truth: UPI recently reported that a Texas cat that had been missing for 3 years was found in Massachusetts. The cat had been loved so much by it's Texas owners that a chip had been inserted beneath its skin and was discovered during  an examination in Massachusetts. The cat, missing since January 2022, is Shoto. Her owner Karla only by chance answered the call from Dakin, Massachusetts and drove the 2,000 miles to retrieve Shoto. Only Shoto knows how her trip began, how she was treated or even how it ended.

Here's still another truth, this one personal. It occurred back in the early 1990’s. My son's cat went missing for about six weeks. One day, my son's mother and her boyfriend came home and there was Cinnamon meowing on her porch, thin as a rail and malnourished. At the vet that afternoon, they discovered that Cinnamon had been trapped in a garage that she had wandered into just before the people who owned the garage went on vacation.

Stinkin' truths are found everywhere: in the grocery store; at the barber or beauty shop; even in the “sack” with your significant other! History books are loaded with stinkin' truths. While it's true that the Electoral College distorts the popular vote, the final stinkin' truth is that we would never have been the United States of America without it. (In fact, still another stinkin' truth is that most every truth demands a price!)

Stinkin' truths possess an integrity. They can't be manufactured. They can only be realized. They can be funny, ironic, even boring, but they just might be the only genuinely real truth on "God's green earth."

Enjoy the idea. There's a lot in it!

No bull!


RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

IS DONALD TRUMP A POPULIST?

By Edwin Cooney

Those who have come to love and respect Donald Trump because of his willingness to propose radical changes to government policy insist that he's merely in the tradition of late 19th and early 20th century social reformers or populists in the tradition of such leaders as Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette, four time Cleveland Ohio Mayor Tom Johnson, William Jennings Bryan and perhaps Clarence Darrow who was called "the attorney for the damned.” However, the examples of the above are precisely what Mr. Trump is not!

America's populist movement occurred in the late 18th and early 19th centuries between 1885 and 1915. It was led by women and men determined to alter the relationship between the public and their government to the overall advantage of the people.

The cornerstone of populism was the legislative initiative, the power of political referendum and even the privilege of the removal of some public officials. The cry was for public “initiative, referendum and recall.” Twice while I lived in California, between 1979 and 2013, voters invoked their capacity for initiative, referendum and recall.

The first time was in 1983 when some San Franciscans sought to recall Mayor Diane Feinstein over her veto of city employee benefits to gay domestic partners Their initiative against Mayor Feinstein badly missed its mark!

The second time was in 2003 when Governor Gray Davis was recalled due to unresolvable budget, social and energy differences. Arnold Schwarzenegger was the result of that 2003 recall.

Although FDR hasn't been considered a populist by historians and political science academicians, several laws passed via FDR were populist in nature. They include the establishment of the Tennessee Valley Authority in 1933 because it established a government corporation that competed with private enterprise, creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission because it regulated banking and trade through the government, and the adoption of Social Security in 1935 because it established government pensions thus changing the reliance of retired workers from private to government pensions.

Keep in mind that not all populist reforms are progressive. Prohibition was a populist movement that altered the relationship between the government and the people.

Angry or resentful presidents, governors or mayors may reject or institute a new policy issue, but in order to be populistic, one must introduce a structural process in a way that alters government's interaction with people which previously didn't exist. Farmers, factory laborers, miners, and some social minorities were affected by the populist movement. Populist leaders included Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. Despite TR's New Nationalism and Wilson's New Freedom during the 1912 campaign, both were regarded as populists regardless of their Republican and Democratic Party affiliations.

Although former President Trump may be exceedingly popular, his social programs and policies lack much coordination or widespread national support. Another difference between Mr. Trump and most populist leaders is that government solutions were front and center to their method of problem solving.

Hence, Mr. Trump can't, by this observer, be considered a populist — not even close! The ultimate question then is obvious: can Donald Trump be elected?

Unfortunately, of course he can. Just ask Hillary Clinton!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

POLITICAL AMBITION AND NATIONAL FATE: HOW DO THEY COMPARE AND CONTRAST?

By Edwin Cooney

As a Democrat, I enjoyed the hopefulness and even the joy apparent in the acceptance addresses of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz last week in Chicago.

The year 2024 marks the 16th national presidential campaign I've followed since 1960. Twice, in 1968 and in 1972, as a Nixon Republican, and five times as a Carter, Clinton, Obama and Biden Democrat, my side has prevailed.

Beyond the participation and hopes of the voters lie the presumptions and expectations of each. How reasonable are our hopes and expectations?

For my personal guideline, I try to keep in mind the purposes stated in the Preamble to the Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Note well, please, that in the above mentioned goals you'll find no political or ideological prescriptions for achieving these goals. Conservatives may stress the importance  of the national defense, liberals often point to the assurance of our domestic tranquility, and some may even emphasize the ordination of the Constitution, but there's nothing about balanced budgets, deficit spending, or the prevalence or lack of religion.

Of course, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris represent vastly contrasting views and interpretations of both the purpose of government and even the interpretation of the Constitution, but beyond those views and interpretations, the genuine goals of the Founding Fathers remain.

Between 1789 and 1932 during the administrations of George Washington through Herbert Hoover, the primary ongoing government obligation was the protection of the public by the military. Since 1933, the primary (though not total) responsibility of government has been the privileges and priorities of our domestic obligations. Up until Franklin Roosevelt, Democratic presidents from Andrew Jackson through Woodrow Wilson opposed direct assistance to either manufacturers or laborers. Grover Cleveland, a personal friend of Franklin Roosevelt’s father James, asserted in his Second Inaugural on March 4th, 1893 that it is the obligation of the people to support their government, not the obligation of the government to support the people.

As is his right, Mr. Trump will make his case to return to the presidency and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, just as the above mentioned Grover Cleveland returned for a second term. However, I believe that Vice President Harris's ambitions are sufficiently significant to justify her election. More specifically, human rights ought to take precedence over property rights.

Human rights must always take precedence over human ambition in order to be legitimate. However, human ambition and human rights must always equal government's obligations to the whole of the people.

Back in 1964, as a very young and naive Republican, I was convinced at the close of the convention that nominated Barry Goldwater and Bill Miller that they were the answer to the security and safety of this free people as it struggled against the threat of Soviet Communism. Practically everyone remembers the phrases for which Goldwater was famous: "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! Let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” (I suspect but can't of course prove that the phrase Barry Goldwater originally hoped would be remembered goes like this: “The Good Lord raised this republic to flourish as the ‘land of the free and the home of the brave,’ not to stagnate in the swampland of collectivism, not to cringe before the bullying of Communism!” The only problem is that in his deliverance of that phrase he stumbled, thus throwing off its rhythm.)

Here are just a few of the promises versus the outcomes since the mid 1960s:

In 1964, voters looked to stay distant from the Vietnam War. In 1968 and 1972, voters hoped for an honorable end to that widened war. In 1976, voters looked toward an administration that would successfully overcome misgoverning inside Washington. By 1988, voters expected the budget to be balanced by the administration that had promised that achievement in 1980. In 1992, voters expected their taxes to remain the same as promised by a president who encouraged the public to "read my lips." In 2008, voters hoped a Black presidency would bring about a dramatic reconciliation of race relations throughout the country.  

As for 2024, however legitimate or outrageous Mr. Trump's or Mrs. Harris's ambitions may be, our national fate is what ultimately will matter.

The rest is up to you, as well as to me!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

SPIRO WHO? DJ WHO? TIM WHO?

By Edwin Cooney

To the disgust of most Trumpites and perhaps to the happy shock of many Democrats, Kamala Harris and Tim Walz, her newly minted Minnesota running mate, appear to have gone from the politically lonely to potential popularity since that July Sunday when "Elderly Joe” announced he was stepping aside in favor of his then beleaguered vice president. Even more likely is that the Harris/Walz ticket, unless they stumble during their convention, may well benefit from the political bounce many newly nominated candidates experience at the close of their party's public business.

Governor Walz' biggest weakness appears to be that because Minnesota doesn't equal Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin Nevada, and Arizona as key electoral college states, many will insist that DJ Vance, because he represents Ohio, almost automatically a “Trump state,” will be more helpful to the former president than Walz may be to Vice President Harris.

Of course, mere speculation can be worthless, but history does bring forth significant past political realities.

In 1948, Thomas Dewey and Earl Warren represented mighty New York State and California in the electoral college. President Truman named  Kentucky Senator and Senate Minority Leader Alben Barkley for Vice President thus representing Missouri and Kentucky. A brilliant orator and storyteller, Barkley, during his keynote speech to the convention, defined a bureaucrat as "a Democrat who holds an office some Republican wants." The Truman/Barkley ticket, although surrendering New York to Dewey, snatched California away from Governor Warren. However, President Truman demonstrated true political mastery by calling the GOP Congress back into special session forcing it to demonstrate that it both couldn't and wouldn't support social legislation promised in its platform.

In 1952, Richard Nixon represented both youth and the anti-Communism movement emphasized by Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy. Additionally, at age 39, the second youngest Vice  Presidential candidate in history, Nixon had a beautiful wife who only wore "respectable Republican cloth coats rather than mink coats.” He was lawyer and debater enough to turn a gift of a dog named Checkers to his two little girls into a pretty national political asset.

In 1956, Adlai Stevenson dropped his 1952 VP choice, Alabama Senator John Sparkman, and invited convention delegates to select their own vice presidential candidate. They selected Estes Kefauver of Tennessee over young Jack Kennedy of Massachusetts.

In 1960, Vice President Nixon chose U.N. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge as his running mate, not because he was any part of the Boston Brahmin set, but because Lodge represented respectable Eisenhower diplomacy.  JFK chose Lyndon B. Johnson because he was running for two offices in his beloved Texas. He is the only man in American history to run for re-election to the United States Senate and for Vice President simultaneously.  Historians generally agree that LBJ is likely the only Vice Presidential candidate to have made a difference in the electoral outcome.

In 1964, William E. Miller's Catholic faith and partisan oratory made him Barry Goldwater's running mate. Hubert H. Humphrey, a civil rights champion and President Johnson's former Senate colleague was raised to the second highest officer in the land by LBJ personally.

In 1968, Maryland Governor Spiro T. Agnew had announced to the world that he'd be supporting New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller for president and lined up his supporters to listen to Rockefeller's announcement of his candidacy. However, when Rockefeller announced he wouldn't seek the nomination, Agnew turned against Rockefeller and proceeded to bring his real anti-liberal outlook into the “Nixon for President” camp. “Spiro Who” became "outspoken candidate” and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew.

Mild, elegant Edmund Muskie as Hubert Humphrey's 1968 running mate, impressed so many voters by the end of the campaign that millions of Americans appeared to champion a 1972 Muskie  presidential candidacy over even Hubert's possible effort.

Abandoned by many usual Democratic constituencies in 1972, George McGovern chose as his running mate Senator Tom Eagleton who did have good relations with traditional Democrats. However, within almost days of his nomination his struggles with depression and other nervous conditions forced McGovern to shift from a one thousand percent position of support to no support at all. Eagleton's successor turned out to be Sergeant Shriver, representing the Kennedy family's party prominence.

Jimmy "who?" Carter and Walter Fritz Mondale as "Grits and Fritz" were very compatible, but Ford and Robert Dole, Ford's VIP choice, sufficiently muddled their message to come in second to the Georgian and the Minnesotan during the Bicentennial year.

In July of 1980, some GOP leaders were sufficiently concerned about nominee Ronald Reagan's lack of foreign policy experience that he might need to require the services of former President Gerald Ford. However, it became clear during a joint meeting between the two men that merging the two offices would neither be practical nor desirable. Thus, George H. W. Bush received a late night call to service. He accepted and the rest is history.

James Danforth (Dan) Quayle was chosen for second place ins 1988 by presidential candidate George H. W. Bush because Quayle was neither Robert or Elizabeth Dole who might well challenge President Bush for re-election in 1992. Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis's choice of Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen was so popular that by the end of the campaign many were sorry that a winning ticket of Bush and Bentsen would be unconstitutional under the Twelfth Amendment..

Bill Clinton and Al Gore were very compatible until President Clinton's personal conduct became most questionable in 1998. The distance both Vice President and Tipper Gore established between the couples, many believe, cost Gore the presidency in 2000 even more than hanging chads in Florida cost the Gores. In 2000, Richard Bruce Cheney had to move back home to Wyoming to comply with that Twelfth Amendment which prohibits presidential and vice presidential candidates to come from the same state even if that state is Texas!

In 2004, it couldn't be said that John Edwards vice presidential candidacy hurt John Kerry's presidential candidacy very much, but Dick Cheney's debate with John Edwards helped President Bush's re-election effort.

In 1984, Walter Mondale chose Geraldine Ferraro and in 2008 John McCain chose Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as their potential vice presidents. Mondale would have been better off had he chosen San Francisco Mayor Diane Feinstein and 24 years later McCain would have been better off had he chosen Joseph Lieberman, Al Gore's 2000 Vice Presidential candidate, but neither candidate made those choices. Thus, the Mondale and McCain presidencies are forever imaginary!

The Obama Biden team lasted eight years and even outshone the Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan team in 2012.

Stunningly, the Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine 2016 ticket stumbled and bumbled its way toward high office thus allowing Trump and Mike Pence to prevail.

As for the 2020 campaign, we're still in it since former President Trump insists it was stolen. However, Joe Biden's Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris helped more than she hurt and thus she and Tim Walz of Minnesota may well prevail this fall.

Of course, much will depend on Trump's and Harris's attitudes and moods this fall. If Harris duplicates Hillary Clinton's contempt and indifference towards even some potential constituents, she's in trouble. However, to the degree that she comes off knowledgable, reflective regarding her mistakes, and above all likable, she and Tim Walz will prevail. Walz may in fact not be of electoral benefit but his substance and likability may enable him to rake in the votes come November 5th, 2024.

One of the lessons great orators know is that if they press issues too often or stridently, they lose their appeal to the public. What few seem to realize is that in 2020, no other Republican loser complained that they'd been cheated out of political office.

As for 2024, no excuses, not even the electoral college is acceptable. It's all really up to you and me!

I assert that next January 20th, Kamala Harris and Tim Walls will be President and Vice President respectively!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY

IS AMERICAN POLITICS MERELY A SPORT OR IS IT DEADLY?

By Edwin Cooney

A mere fortnight ago, the 2024 presidential campaign appeared to be almost a cinch in favor of a former president who'd just barely escaped assassination. Today, it's possible that a part Black, part Asian woman currently serving as our Vice President is slowly but inevitably surging forward towards her historic glory! Vice President Kamala Harris is little known to most Americans, but you can be sure that former President Trump will attempt to identify her to the people according to his personal interests just as she will attempt to do it to him.

Between 1960 and 1988, most presidential and vice presidential candidates had much in common: economic depression, World War II and the dawning of the atomic age, the cold war, together with all of the hopes and fears of each situation. Hence, they generally faced their realities within the mores of mid Twentieth Century American practicality and good sense.

Beginning in 1992, presidential candidate President George H. W. Bush and Arkansas Governor William Jefferson Clinton served differently. President Bush, a hero of WW II, had served proudly in war. Young Clinton altogether avoided serving in his generation's Vietnam conflict.

Presidential campaigns have differing moods and even flavors. Throughout the fifties and into the sixties, presidential campaigns with all their contentions and sharp edges were pretty conventional affairs. Beginning in 1968, assassinations and angry demonstrations took center stage.

In 2004, John Kerry, who had served in that very war and regretted his service, was made to appear unpatriotic in comparison to the sitting president, George W. Bush, who hadn't served at all during the Vietnam War.

In 2008, we finally elected a Black man who told America that “yes, we can" pass an affordable Health Care Act, while his administration would successfully pursue Osama bin Laden.

As a spectator sport, American presidential politics invites comparative Trivial Pursuit questions. For example:

Who was the most obscure vice presidential candidate during this period? My choice would be Idaho Senator Glen H. Taylor who was former Vice President Henry A. Wallace’s Progressive Party Vice Presidential running mate. You might pick Bill Miller, Senator Goldwater's 1964 vice presidential candidate, or Sarah Palin, the Alaska mom and politician, who could “see Russia” from her Alaskan front porch. Perhaps you might choose Geraldine Ferraro, Walter Mondale's 1984 pick, who was the first female vice presidential candidate.

Richard Nixon's name was on five national tickets three times for president and twice for vice president under Ike.

The year 2024 marks the third time Donald Trump has been the Republican candidate. Although he was elected president in 2016, he actually lost by more than 3,000,000 votes in 2016. In 2020, he lost the presidency by 8,000,000 votes. It's my guess that it will take the electoral college to give him another term in 2024. (For a listing of presidential and vice presidential candidates since 1948, see James DeGregario's Complete Book of Presidents although it only goes up to 1997.)

The ultimate question remains: how much does it matter whether we vote in 2024? No one, certainly not I, can answer that question. One thing is for sure: if you only suspect things might be better if you bother to vote, you damn well better do it!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
EDWIN COONEY           

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