Going Even Further Right

I was scanning my blog for posts about nuclear weapons and nuclear war with the thought that I might post about this subject again, when I came upon the following post from June of 2012. Just to remind you, it was during the summer of the run up to the presidential election between Obama (seeking his second term) and what appeared to be Mitt Romney. I conceived the post after hearing a moderate Republican on TV lament that the party was beginning to move much farther right than he was comfortable with, and that Reagan and George W Bush, two center right presidents, might not have much of a chance in the current Republican party.

Imagine that, in 2012, this particular conservative and lifelong member of the Republican party, was concerned that his party was moving too far right, and was concerned that Romney might need to campaign further right than he had governed (remember, he was the Governor of Massachusetts, where his health care policy of health insurance for all became the basis for the Affordable Care Act).

Here is that link.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2012/06/gops-move-to-right.html

As it turned out, Obama won that election, 332 to 206 in the electoral college, and by about 5 million votes overall. Certainly not a mandate, but considering that unemployment, which had peaked around 10% after the economic meltdown of 2008, was still just under 8%, it was a strong victory for Obama. While some say that Romney wasn't the best candidate which is why he lost, many Republicans felt that he didn't go far enough to the right. The fact that Donald Trump became their next presidential candidate, and won, perhaps confirms that criticism.

One of the points I made in that post from 2012, was that the GOP had no choice but to veer further right as they had labelled Obama the most far left president in our history. (Those claiming that clearly missed FDR's 4 terms as president.) 

Unfortunately, as I described in that post, most of Obama's policies were center left, in general. Sure, the Affordable Care Act was a major accomplishment and considered another step towards socialism, but as we have seen since its inception, it is not only popular, it not only provides millions of Americans with health insurance, but it also has forced health insurance companies to incorporate many popular aspects of the ACA into their everyday operations, such as allowing children up to age 26 to stay on their parents policy, removing some of the restrictions which prevented people to attain affordable health insurance due to pre-existing conditions, expanded Medicare eligibility and required insurers to cover a list of essential health benefits.

In other words, if passing and implementing the ACA was a far left policy, then its overall success and popularity must indicate America is a bit further left than the GOP would like to admit.

All this being said, I can't imagine what that conservative pundit thinks today. Or can I?

You see, the person is David Frum, a former speechwriter for President Bush, who is past lamenting about his party's tilt to the far right. He is now an MSNBC contributor, a senior editor of The Atlantic, and has written much about the dangers of Donald Trump.

While it is obvious that he does not support Trump and is alarmed about the state of the GOP, he apparently has not all together given up on his party, or to be more precise, his conservative leanings. He has just found himself trying to live a center right life within a far, far right political party.

But wouldn't someone as far left as you think that Joe? 

True, my political beliefs are a bit further left of the average. As I often say, I see the world in a much different way than those who demonize immigrants (documented and undocumented), believe that we need to have a national religion, think that the LGBTQ+ community is a threat to our nation, worship billionaires (especially the orange one) just because they have a lot of money, regardless of how they accumulated it, think science is a liberal conspiracy, yearn for a "strong" man to lead us despite the danger of his dictatorial tendencies, etc. (It is a large list, growing larger.)

Still, rolling back women's reproductive rights seems pretty far right to me, especially when these new laws guarantee a higher maternal death and child poverty rate. Not to mention the birth of unwanted children conceived as the result of incest and rape. 

And, frankly, so are laws that tell children and their parents that any gender confusion they might be experiencing should be ignored. Sure, the bullying will continue, the suicidal thoughts will still be present, but you have no rights in the land of the free to pursue treatment to help yourself. Additionally, don't bother trying to relieve yourself in the gender specific bathroom that makes you feel more comfortable, that is not a right you need to exercise in America. And, if you live in Texas, be doubly vigilant, because AG Paxton seeks your personal records, no doubt to rid his state of people like you so as to make Texas great again.

As for voting, the foundation of our democracy, well, since the GOP presidential candidate has only won the popular vote in one of the last eight elections, we must pass laws and add restrictions which make it harder to vote.  I can remember not that long ago having political disagreements with friends and family, but we at least always agreed that we should make it easier to vote. There was even talk of devising a way to vote online.

But now there are laws reducing the number of days for early voting, reducing the availability of mail-in votes, or drop boxes for votes, or if someone can hand a prospective voter a bottle of water while they wait in line. Not to mention the closing of polling sites in (coincidentally) minority communities. Can't win through policy, then just make it harder to vote.

In my state, Pennsylvania, when a voter completes their mail-in vote, he/she must record the date on the envelope or the vote might not count. The fact that when you mail a mail-in vote, it is date stamped by the United States Post Office, or if the vote is received before or even within a day of election day, it was clearly mailed in time, doesn't seem to matter. Because, you see, the point is to disenfranchise voters, and the fact that Democrats use mail-in votes more often really has nothing to do with this silly rule. Yea, right.

And let's not forget banning books. It's not enough to monitor your own kids trips to the library, now we must regulate everyone's access to books. Considering that so much information is available at a child's fingertips through the internet, it makes little sense to focus on libraries, to threaten librarians with fines and the loss of their job, when most of those same kids have 24/7 access via their cell phone. But hey, if you're going to go full right, book banning sounds good. 

Speaking of Reagan, the guy famous for his declaration, "Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall", what do you think he would make of a party that embraces the current dictator of Russia, Vladimir Putin? Whose party leader thinks Putin is a strong leader and "very smart". A party with legislative representatives and everyday voters who believe Putin's invasion of Ukraine is justifiable? A party that doesn't understand that a guy who kills his political rivals is a threat to global  democracy?

When Reagan was president, one of his favorite fellow leaders was Margaret Thatcher. Now the GOP is led by a guy whose favorite world leaders are all autocrats or dictators! He even just invited one to Mar a Lago! Do you think they were sharing cookie recipes, or reviewing the dictator playbook for dismantling a democracy?

So yes, I am liberal, I am left of center, and I am just as aghast as David Frum was in 2012 at the GOP's headlong drive to the far right. But more so, I am scared at how many Americans, even though a minority, identify with such far right policies as well. 

Finally, for those of you who followed the Ronna McDaniel saga, I thought it important to remind everyone that Ronna is Mitt Romney's niece. She used to go by the name of Ronna Romney McDaniel, but dropped the Romney when she was named RNC chair. 

Whether that decision was based on the original David Frum complaint that the GOP was moving too far right, and that Reagan, Bush and, as it turned out, Romney were no longer acceptable candidates, or Trump requested it, as some believe, it is clear that the GOP was fully committed to its continued shift to the right at that time.

The fact that NBC News thought she could lend some kind of perspective about how the 2020 election was stolen by the Democrats, or about how the plan in which she actively participated (and may still be indicted in Michigan for) to ignore the American electorate and keep Trump in power almost worked, seems shortsighted, at best.  

Even if she was now going to admit that she was wrong when she was all in for Trump, that she now sees his deficiencies, especially since her party has consistently underachieved since 2016 when she became RNC chair and swerved far right, what would be the value of that? Trump has already kicked her out, is already mocking her for running to the left. 

Ronna sold her soul to glide behind the coat tails of Trump, and is now, like so many of those whom he jettisons when they are of no use to him, left waving in the wind. That is the danger of going far right, or any such extreme. Once you are out, there is no where to go.

Johnny Carson... and Death

I have been watching the Johnny Carson channel lately (yes, that is a real thing). I have probably seen about thirty to forty episodes so far. Considering that the show ran for just shy of thirty years, it is fair to suggest that Carson hosted over 7500 shows if we take into account when guest hosts filled in for him, so I expect to be able to click on the channel and see something different, someone different, for quite a while.

While Johnny, Ed McMahon, and Tommy Newsom (Doc's stand in to lead the band) are no longer with us, Doc Severinson is still alive. But considering that Johnny's last show was in May 1992, many of the guests I have seen to date have also passed away. So far, I have seen, in no particular order, appearances by George Carlin, Burt Reynolds, Milton Berle, Richard Pryor, Joan Rivers, Gary Shandling, David Brenner, Dom Rickles, Bob Saget, Flip Wilson and a few more I am sure I am forgetting. 

I have also seen the first appearance on the Tonight Show by Jay Leno (I kept waiting for Johnny to say, who knows, one day he might host this show), Eddie Murphy, Ellen Degeneres, Jerry Seinfield, and a number of other comics to whom Johnny gave "a shot" but did not achieve the status of the few named above. Obviously, as the years progressed, Johnny took his responsibility to lend a hand to aspiring comics seriously, knowing that one appearance on his show could skyrocket their careers.

Johnny also did some wonderful skits, both alone and with other stars. He often impersonated presidents, his favorite being Ronald Reagan. In addition to poking fun at Reagan, Johnny did a comical skit where he was being interviewed as George Washington. In the skit, he was asked how his polls were going, to which he responded that he hadn't received his newspaper yet, upon which there was a knock on the door, and a young man entered with a newspaper. When asked how he was today, the young man, named Ronnie, replied "Well", which was a word that Reagan often used to begin a sentence. The joke, of course, was that Reagan was a young man when George Washington was president. Carson often made fun of Reagan's age. 

I published a post in September of last year in which I posited that current president Joe Biden may one day be compared to Ronald Reagan, especially in the area of too old to be president. The post compared the two in terms of economic data, most areas in which Biden compares very favorably with Reagan. Here is a link to that post.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2023/09/reagan-vs-biden.html 

So, why ...and Death as part of this post's title? Well, as I say in the paragraph above which begins with "While Johnny..." many of the guests I am seeing on these shows have died, especially on those shows aired in the 1970's and early 1980's. In fact, not to sound too morbid, I quickly got into the habit of googling the guests, not just to confirm my expectation that they were dead, but to see when, in relation to the date of the show I was watching. Often there was a decade or more between the appearance and passing, which was not a surprise considering most of the guests were on the show precisely because they were at the top of their profession, and in their 30's and early 40's. Still, many didn't survive to see their 80th birthday.

And then there is Freddie Prinze who made his first appearance at the tender age of 19, already having made a mark on TV and in nightclubs. Prinze was very funny, and Carson seemed impressed by both his comic material and very young age. To be honest, the brief interview seemed to reveal a young man who knew who he was and how unique his situation was, to be so young and on the verge of great success. Sadly, within three years he was dead, by his own hand.

I have been exercising in our basement more frequently this year. In addition to Carson reruns, I more often watch Friends reruns. While I never really watched Friends in its heydey, that doesn't mean I didn't fantasize about Rachel and Monica, or Monica and Phoebe, or Phoebe and Rachel. Sadly, now when I watch while pedaling, I think about Matthew Perry, who played Chandler Bing on the show.

Since his death late last year, much has been revealed about Perry, his drug use and abuse, his failed relationships, his loyal friends, his unhappiness with his life. If even half of what has been disclosed is true, Perry's fame and money were never able to fill what must have been a very large hole in his life. 

Freddie Prinze and Matthew Perry, along with the endless list of famous and/or rich people who took their lives either directly or indirectly, present such a powerful lesson about what really matters in life. 

Sometimes I feel sad for the people who seem focused only on accumulating great wealth, on thousands of daily clicks, on achieving even 15 minutes of fame. Of course, I sometimes also think about a post which might go viral. But if we are to learn anything from the sad stories of the rich and famous who die, just as we will in some (hopefully) not to near future, it has to be that money and fame, riches and possessions, do not accompany us when we pass to whatever realm we might envision. 

And, whether we will be remembered by millions who may have seen us on the Tonight Show, or just those in our immediate circles of family and friends, those memories will be far more intense, far more intimate, far more real, when based on kind words, compassion, smiles, and comfort. 

To Death... and Living. And all the wonderful times with family and friends in between.

Here are two other posts I created on the topic of Death.. and Living.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2013/11/death.html 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2014/01/just-finished-death.html

Philanthropy

A few weeks ago, my wife and I watched a documentary called The Greatest Night in Pop which detailed how music's biggest stars came together to record "We Are the World." If you haven't seen it, and are either interested in music history, or remember how many musicians came together in the 1980's to perform at concerts for specific causes, or to raise money to address the problems of the day, I highly recommend you watch this Netflix show.

Towards the topic of philanthropy, I checked my blog only to find three posts under the heading, all from 2015. Thinking that in itself revealed a problem, I decided to comment on the topic in this post. In addition, I have enclosed a link to those past posts which I thoroughly enjoyed rereading today. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/06/philanthropy.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/06/more-on-philanthropy.html

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2015/08/almsgiving-charity-assistance.html

For those of you who were young adults in the 80's, Live Aid and Farm Aid, both which occurred in 1985, might be considered the apex of benefit concerts. The most renowned musical artists of the day performed at those two shows, and hundreds of millions of dollars were raised outright, in addition to the millions of dollars of food that was donated by various western nation governments and non government agencies to help alleviate starvation in Africa.

And while it is certainly true that these concerts were blockbusters, the concept began in 1971 when George Harrison lent his name for the Concert for Bangladesh. This event not only set the precedent for benefit concerts, but helped to inspire Bob Geldorf and Midge Ure's song "Do They Know It's Christmas" and then Geldorf's organization of the aforementioned "We Are the World" song and Live Aid extravaganza.

In addition to these more well known spectacles, there has also been the thirty plus year Secret Policemen's Ball shows which raised money for Amnesty International, the Concerts for the People of Kampuchea in 1979, the Freddy Mercury Tribute Concert for AIDS Awareness in 1992, the Tibetan Freedom Concert in 1996, and the Concert for New York City in 2001 after the horrific events of 9/11.

While I am sure there are benefits being held by entertainers now, I am struck by the thought that what is being done today seems to pale in comparison to the global awareness concerts which I detail above. It's not like there aren't crisis galore as we speak. The war in Ukraine is two years old, why hasn't there been a Concert for Ukraine in America yet? Is it just that one of the major party's presidential candidates prefers the invading nation over the invaded? 

Or how about a benefit concert to raise money for both the victims of the Hamas attack into Israel last October as well as the humanitarian crisis that exists for the almost two million Palestinians as a result of the war in Gaza? Is it not possible for people to come together to mourn both the victims of the slaughter which initiated the war and the victims of the war itself? Is holding the idea in one's head that both acts were and are inhumane, not possible in our hyper partisan world?

And, perhaps it is too soon, or just that most people would rather forget, even though seven million people have died so far, but why wasn't there ever a concert for COVID? We lost over 1.2 million Americans to COVID, far more than any World War, more even than the loss of soldiers on both sides of the Civil War. Imagine that, the deadliest evedisaster in American history, and not only did it not bring us together to combat its spread and mourn our losses, it has driven us apart due to the politicization of the origin of the disease as well as the strategies (and vaccines) employed to limit the spread of the disease and reduce the deaths.

Is this one of the factors as to why benefit concerts, and more importantly, philanthropy and charity are in decline? 

First, it is unclear if charitable giving is truly in decline, or if there has just been a temporary dip. When I googled "is charitable giving in decline?", I found evidence that from 2021 to 2022 there was a significant reduction in giving in America. While you may still deduct your donations if you itemize (rather than use the standard deduction) on your taxes, the doubling of the standard deduction that occurred in 2017 has drastically reduced the percentage of filers who can take advantage of this deduction. 

Interestingly, in one of my 2015 posts, I posed the question of how much charitable giving might decrease if the tax deduction was removed. Again, there is not enough data to point the blame for the 2021-22 decline on this tax deduction change, as many economists point to the uncertain economic times as a bigger factor. Still, one might wonder if individual tax payers who no longer gain a tax advantage for charitable donations, in conjunction with the higher costs of living, might reduce their giving. I guess as the economy improves, more light will be shed on this topic.

I know that since our children left the nest, my wife and I have increased our charitable giving. Even now that we are both mostly retired (we each work part time, 12-20 hours a week), we have increased both the number and amount we give to charity. Perhaps, in the short term, charitable giving in America will actually increase despite the two reasons I list above, because baby boomers in the whole will have more disposable money than previous generations did. If that turns out to be true, it will at least bring from back a step or two from the cliff in my overall estimation of the baby boomer generation.

Philanthropy. Charity. Awareness that many others have less than oneself, and conversely, that many of us are very fortunate, privileged one might even say.

If we are indeed headed into a trend where people take to heart that often misinterpreted quote, charity begins at home, and America experiences a decline in everyday household charitable giving, will it simply be another indication that for all the talk about America being a Christian nation, we are all talk, no action? 

Not to put too much pressure on such short term decisions, but if we continue to ignore the brutal invasion of Ukraine by Russia and fail to provide the Ukrainian people with the weapons and money they need to withstand the secession of their land and identity, while pretending that our weapons and monies aren't being used to slaughter women and children in Gaza, then we will be complicent, not only in two human tragedies, but in the surrendering of our "Christianity" to a much more powerful attribute and the exact opposite of charity; selfishness.

 

Shame on You Supreme Court Justices 2

Before beginning this post, I reread the one I composed almost a month ago. In that one I chastised the Justices for their apparent bias against allowing Colorado to remove Trump from their primary ballot. It wasn't just this obvious bias that concerned me but what I called their ivory tower approach to the oral questioning, and the absurdity of their seemingly offhand dismissal of the actual basis for Colorado's Supreme Court decision, that Trump engaged in insurrection. 

It can certainly be debated whether Trump's debunked claims that the 2020 election was stolen, his pressure campaign to convince certain state officials to alter or misreport vote totals and to create "alternate" slates of electors, not to mention his relentless attacks on Mike Pence to "do the right thing", and his apparent glee as the rioters attacked the Capitol building, rise to the level of insurrection, but the fact that all those things occurred (and more), should at least have been a part of the debate as to whether Colorado, or Maine, after digesting these facts, had the right to disqualify Trump. 

To completely disregard this aspect of the decision, seems to indicate that either the Justices are purposefully ignoring it, or have decided not to take responsibility (as the final judicial word on any legal matter), for upholding the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. 

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/02/shame-on-you-supreme-court-justices.html

Now, as a result of their decision to rule on the extent of presidential immunity as being claimed by the ex-president, it seems that ignoring Trump's actions isn't the case anymore, they are actually going to discuss whether he can actually do whatever he wants as president along as his party doesn't impeach him. Hard to believe I would ever look upon Nixon with a bit of wistfulness, as even he knew that his own party might impeach him for his actions, and that he wasn't above the law, while Trump has always acted as if laws are for everyone else, while his grip on the GOP is impenetrable.

This whole situation is the perfect storm of inconceivable actions which the founders could have never predicted. A wanna be dictator with an iron grip on his party along with a Supreme Court more worried about technical legal issues than the fight to save our democracy.

As someone far more insightful that I have said, most great nations fall from within.

What galls me is not just that SCOTUS chose to elucidate their opinion on presidential immunity (an amazing fact in itself, that after 250 years of presidents, it is only now, with Trump, that the issue has to be adjudicated), but that they put a stay on the federal trial to determine Trump's responsibility for January 6th. They certainly could have allowed the trial to move forward, knowing that even if they didn't take oral arguments until late April (and why so much delay for that process is another bad omen), and didn't decide until late May or early June, the trial would still be in progress, since they knew that the judge in the case had already promised over two months to the Trump team to prepare for the trial. Now, if they don't issue their decision until late May or early June, the trial can't begin until late summer. 

As I have heard a number of times, it appears that the Justices have given Trump a de facto escape from accountability, both because of the prep time I mentioned above, and also because of the tradition of the DOJ not to get involved in a judicial case involving a presidential election within 60 days of that election. Two months prior to November is September which is damned close to the possible trial start date of an early June SCOTUS decision plus that seventy plus days for trial prep.

Is this a clear case of SCOTUS prejudice for a political candidate who either actually nominated them or shares their ideology? 

While I can't possibly know the answer to that question, I can speculate that Judge Thomas, whose wife actively lobbied people in Trump's inner circle to do whatever it took to keep him in power, is biased. I also have no doubt that Alito was instrumental in pushing for the Supreme Court to take this case. 

As for the three justices that Trump appointed, I would wager that at least two of them were down with ruling on presidential immunity, especially Kavanaugh, who has a history of supporting extensive presidential powers. I am not sure if I prefer to find out that Chief Justice Roberts was in on the push for taking the case because if he wasn't that leaves us with the dangerous realization that all three of Trump's appointments appear to be on his side, or as Trump would put it, are doing the "right thing".  

Certainly it will be interesting to see if there is some kind of details released on how SCOTUS determined to hear this case. Was there a unanimous decision to hear the case, but some dissent as to putting the election interference trial on hold? Did the three liberal justices find themselves outnumbered by the six conservative justices on both the question to take the case and the decision to grant the stay to delay the trial? Remember, allegedly, a stay is generally only issued if there is a reasonable chance that the requesting party, in this case Trump, has a reasonable chance to win the case. 

Really? There are justices on the Supreme Court of the United States of America that believe that a president of the United States of America has immunity to do whatever he wants while president? There are enough justices that actually believe that the founders who fought for independence from the dictates of the King of England, would be down for an American King?

We have already seen some dissent when it came to the Colorado decision, as the three liberal justices were joined by Justice Coney Barrett in disagreeing with the extent of the majority when they seemed to rewrite the 14th Amendment with their decision that indicated that states can only get involved in state elections when using the insurrectionist clause, despite the fact that the original intent of the amendment was to keep those who fought against the Union out of the Untied States Congress. 

So again I say, shame on you Supreme Court Justices! Perhaps you believe that you shouldn't have a hand in presidential elections which is why you negated Colorado's decision. Unfortunately, you effectively have changed the course of the November election by not allowing the Court of Appeals 3-0 decision to stand, by not allowing the election interference trial to continue while you debated the extent of presidential immunity, and by scheduling oral arguments two months in the future, rather than in a much more aggressive expedited fashion. 

What is truly mind boggling, is that this Supreme Court thinks that should Trump win in November, they might be a backstop for some of his more outrageous policies, as if he will follow the law as they rule. We already see the Republican Governor of Texas thumbing his nose at their decision that only the federal government has authority concerning immigration, already see multiple GOP Congressmen and Governors advising Abbott to ignore that ruling. Do they really think that Trump will care what they say should they rule against one of his executive decisions, do they really believe his MAGA supporters will side with them or Trump?

While Biden engages with NATO countries leaders, Trump hosts the dictator from Hungary at his Florida home. The authoritarian playbook is open and in progress, yet the Justices think Trump will obey any ruling they make with which he disagrees. Again, ivory tower thinking.

A Trump victory in November, that can be blamed, even in part, because the American electorate is denied access to the details of how Trump and his team tried to negate the votes of over 80 million Americans, will add the Supreme Court Justices to the list of enablers which includes those who deny what they saw on TV on January 6th, refuse to evaluate the reams of evidence placing Trump at the head of a conspiracy to thwart the peaceful transfer of power, and ignore all the signs that Trump does not care about democracy or America, never has, never will. 

  

The Key to November's Presidential Election

Before beginning this post, I reread my Nikki Haley for President post from January. Here is a link.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/01/nikki-haley-for-president.html

In that post, I made a case for Nikki to win in November, and that it might be better for America if she did, certainly better than a Trump victory, and perhaps better than a Biden win. Unfortunately, as of now this will not be the case, as Haley recently suspended her campaign. 

I am not sure if the word suspended was used purposefully, meaning that she could reanimate her campaign should something occur that would make it viable again, perhaps, oh I don't know, maybe Trump being convicted of a felony, but for now she is out of the race. While it will be curious to see how many votes she gets in the next few GOP primaries, as no less than twelve states are still set to hold primaries this month, and I would imagine she will appear on many, if not most of those ballots, Trump is the presumptive nominee and will continue to be so until at least the summer when it is possible that one of the DOJ cases against him go to trial.

Which brings me to the title of this post, the Key to November's Election. Drum roll please......

Nikki Haley!

I don't know if she understands this, don't know if she is cognizant of the power she now possesses, but Nikki Haley can make or break either candidate with her endorsement. Should she capitulate, as virtually every other Republican in Congress has done, and endorse Trump, that may be enough to sway some of the over two and a half million Republican voters who have already cast their vote for her so far in the primaries, to hold their nose and vote for Trump in November. 

But if she withholds her endorsement, or actually endorses Biden, those same Haley voters might follow her lead and vote for Biden even though they may disagree with many of his policies. 

In other words, if Haley and those who chose her over Trump in the primaries put America first and either leave the president section blank, or actually choose Biden, that could be the difference in the outcome.

One might say that life is nothing if not ironic, so, as I stated in my post Accountability Finally? 2, from early February, wouldn't it be ironic if, as has already been started by strong women, the final die is case on Trump by another strong woman.

https://wurdsfromtheburbs.blogspot.com/2024/02/accountability-finally-2.html

At this point, only Nikki Haley knows what she will do. I would like to think that she is considering her decision very carefully. I acknowledge that choosing no endorsement for either candidate, or openly rejecting Trump, will mark the end of her political career as a Republican. But if she chooses to emulate Liz Cheney, should she choose the United States over her personal ambition to be president, that choice in itself could not only save our democracy so that she can run for president again in four years, but also might catapult her to a position of strength in 2028 should the democrats not find a unifying candidate for that race. 

I imagine that I will go to my grave and never fully understand the allure of Trump, and why so many millions of Americans would knowingly vote to elect him president despite being convicted of sexual assault, convicted of fraud in his business dealings, been impeached for attempting to extort a foreign leader by dangling military weapons for dirt on a political rival, been caught with classified documents after lying about returning them, and most egregiously, lied about the results of the 2020 presidential election, then incited a mob to attack the United States Capitol while surreptitiously pressuring state and federal officials to "find" votes or just make up electors. Not to mention "jokingly" suggesting he would be a dictator only for one day.

Still, compared to how Nikki Haley may be viewed by future historians who attempt to understand her eventual decision about who to endorse in the 2024 presidential election, I can envision my eventual forgiveness for those in the Trump cult. We are all gullible to some extent, we all fall victim to the occasional scam, we all sometimes sacrifice logic, ignore the obvious, fail to research, or just plain become lazy, especially when the topic is as complicated as democracy.

But Nikki knows better. She knows the danger Trump represents. Knows his demand for loyalty to himself above all, and how that requirement in itself, does not bode well for America. I can only hope that she does not follow the path of most of the men in her party, men who have chosen political relevance over America, men who prefer to gain the crumbs which an autocrat like Trump will drop their way as opposed to the freedom that democracy, messy as it is, offers.

Let's hope Nikki is better than the Ted Cruzes and Mitch McConnells of the world. If not, and Trump is narrowly elected, in part due to her head down, eyes averted compliance to either some sort of party loyalty, or actual deference to Trump to gain some cabinet position, I expect that history may judge her no better than the other myriad enablers who lack the backbone to stand for America and to stand against a dictator wannabe.