Here’s an article called, “The Crypto-Ignorant Person’s Guide To What’s Going On With FTX And Founder Sam Bankman-Fried.”
Well, you can’t get much more “crypto-ignorant” than I am, and so I read it. It’s okay as far as it goes, but it doesn’t really deal with much of the backstory. That backstory is loaded with rumor and further conspiracy theories; here’s another article that goes into some of this.
I’ve always liked the work of Jorge Luis Borges. His writing isn’t to everyone’s taste, but it is to mine.
I was reminded of Borges the other evening when I did a search for “science fiction stories about immortals” and one of the choices was a story by Borges called, quite appropriately, “The Immortal.” Somehow I’d never come across it before, but here’s a little excerpt:
Death (or reference to death) makes men precious and pathetic; their ghostliness is touching; any act they perform may be their last; there is no face that is not on the verge of blurring and fading away like the faces in a dream. Everything in the world of mortals has the value of the irrecoverable and contingent.
Among the Immortals, on the other hand, every act (every thought) is the echo of others that preceded it in the past, with no visible beginning, and the faithful presage of others that will repeat it in the future, advertiginem. There is nothing that is not as though lost between indefatigable mirrors. Nothing can occur but once, nothing is preciously in peril of being lost. The elegiac, the somber, the ceremonial are not modes the Immortals hold in reverence.
There’s always a lot to digest with Borges. Slow reading. But luckily, he writes short stories, so it’s never tedious.
Then I became curious about Borges’ politics, of which I’d previously been unaware. And I found this:
During a 1971 conference at Columbia University, a creative writing student asked Borges what he regarded as “a writer’s duty to his time”. Borges replied, “I think a writer’s duty is to be a writer, and if he can be a good writer, he is doing his duty. Besides, I think of my own opinions as being superficial. For example, I am a Conservative, I hate the Communists, I hate the Nazis, I hate the anti-Semites, and so on; but I don’t allow these opinions to find their way into my writings — except, of course, when I was greatly elated about the Six-Day War. Generally speaking, I think of keeping them in watertight compartments. Everybody knows my opinions, but as for my dreams and my stories, they should be allowed their full freedom, I think. I don’t want to intrude into them, I’m writing fiction, not fables.”…
In an interview with Richard Burgin during the late 1960s, Borges described himself as a “mild” adherent of classical liberalism. He further recalled that his opposition to Marxism and communism was absorbed in his childhood. “Well, I have been brought up to think that the individual should be strong and the State should be weak. I couldn’t be enthusiastic about theories where the State is more important than the individual.”…After the overthrow via coup d’état of President Juan Domingo Perón in 1955, Borges supported efforts to purge Argentina’s Government of Peronists and dismantle the former President’s welfare state. He was enraged that the Communist Party of Argentina opposed these measures and sharply criticized them in lectures and in print. Borges’s opposition to the Party in this matter ultimately led to a permanent rift with his longtime lover, Argentine Communist Estela Canto.
In a 1956 interview given to El Hogar, “[Communists] are in favor of totalitarian regimes and systematically combat freedom of thought, oblivious of the fact that the principal victims of dictatorships are, precisely, intelligence and culture.”
He elaborated, “Many people are in favor of dictatorships because they allow them to avoid thinking for themselves. Everything is presented to them ready-made. There are even agencies of the State that supply them with opinions, passwords, slogans, and even idols to exalt or cast down according to the prevailing wind or in keeping with the directives of the thinking heads of the single party.”
In later years, Borges frequently expressed contempt for Marxist and Communist authors, poets, and intellectuals. In an interview with Burgin, Borges referred to Chilean poet Pablo Neruda as “a very fine poet” but a “very mean man” for unconditionally supporting the Soviet Union and demonizing the United States. Borges commented about Neruda, “Now he knows that’s rubbish.”
I’m accustomed to having to ignore the politics of artists I love in order to continue loving their art. But it’s always a a delight on the rare occasions (Frost being another big example) when the artists I like happen to substantially share my politics.
From commenter “Paolo Pagliaro, who lives in Italy:
In Italy we are able to have uncontested elections – even by a left party adopting “Fascist alert!” as the leading slogan – because strict in person vote, on paper, in a precisely designated site is mandatory; not only we have to show an identity document (usually the “Carta d’Identità”, which the town office issues to citizens in a very short time, everybody has it), but we also have a personal electoral-card stamped by an official at the polling station each time we vote. The exceptions are minimal and cannot impact the outcome by design.
I’m boggling at the absurdity of your system, you simply cannot have confidence in the results, each and every time.
What Paolo describes – or something like it – is typical for European countries and most other countries around the world. Not the US. But the US has become an unserious country, I’m afraid. We do have an absurd voting system, at least in many blue states as well as many purple states, which of course affects the entire outcome. And perhaps “absurd” is a kind word for our voting process.
What’s more, we not only have a cognitively challenged president, we have a president who is obviously cognitively challenged. Just a few years ago most of us wouldn’t have believed it possible. We also are about to have a senator from Pennsylvania who is cognitively challenged in a different way, and was elected despite it.
I repeat: we are an unserious country. But reality can get serious very quickly. In fact, I think it already has, but the US hasn’t adjusted.
Each day the election results have become more and more clear and more and more depressing. It looks to me as though it will take a great deal of luck and almost a miracle to get a Senate majority, or even to keep the Democrats from increasing their razor-thin lead by one in the Senate. So Pennsylvania looms very very large once again, and the loss there is tremendous.
However, that still could be offset by a razor-thin GOP majority in the House, which could at least help stop the Democrats’ pernicious agenda. But we’ve watched too many seats slip out of our hands in the very late counting of mail-in ballots to not feel tremendous anxiety about what will happen this time.
So here we are.
In addition, some states – such as Pennsylvania, once again – may have experienced a switch in the state legislature from Republican to Democrat. The jury is still out, as far as I know, but there’s a good chance that will happen. People who say “the GOP must change the voting rules back again to tighten them up” must be aware that in order for that to happen, the GOP must (1) control a state’s legislature and its governorship (in order to prevent a veto), as well as its appeals court (in order to prevent an overrule) and sometimes even its secretary of state; and (2) have the will and organization to change the voting rules if it does get the reins of power. Once a state gets into the hands of Democrats and the rules are relaxed, however, the state has gone far towards becoming permanently blue.
I hate being so pessimistic. Hate, hate, hate it. But as I think about these things – and I think about them a lot – that’s where my thoughts lead me. Last night I was up very very late with these sorts of ruminations and I felt that I had enough material for about thirty different posts today on how this election went down and its meaning.
Obviously I’m not going to write thirty posts a day. So I’ll be planning to dribble them out over time. Maybe not thirty more, but quite a few more. But not all at once.
For today I’ll just add a few more points. This election mess wasn’t because of Trump or fraud, although they may indeed have contributed. But given the country’s situation and the way its current Democrat leaders have governed, the 2022 election should have been the GOP tsunami that was predicted. I see three basic reasons why it wasn’t, reasons I probably will expand on in future posts if needed.
(1) The aforementioned relaxed voting rules and security either enable fraud, or definitely the appearance and perception of fraud, or even just facilitate ordinarily unmotivated and uninvolved (and indoctrinated) young voters to reliably help deliver Democrat victories.
(2) To most of us, the demonizing of “mega-MAGA” was ludicrous and the idea of most on the right was that all but the most committed leftists would see through it and even be repelled by it. Not so! I think it was tremendously clever. As soon as January 6th happened I thought “this is their Reichstag Fire,” and they made great use of it, never letting up on the propaganda until most Americans except MAGA Republicans were convinced that the right was dangerous. Oh, not everyone on the right was so dangerous, but that there was a huge bloc to be feared and silenced for the good of the country. Biden’s “blood-red” speech in Philadelphia fed into this. Even people who were tired of hearing about January 6th – and many moderates were very tired of it, although the Democrat base was not – were affected by it and I believe a great many were influenced by it and believed it on some deeper emotional level. It was a fear election. The Democrats running in 2022, as well as the MSM, were relentless about tying in GOP candidates to January 6th by labeling them “election deniers.” This handicapped any candidate who supported Trump or questioned the 2020 results in the least, and it tainted all GOP candidates except especially charismatic or successful ones, or those in reliably red areas.
(3) The right is remarkably divided, and has been for much of my lifetime and certainly for my entire existence as a blogger. I’ve written about it time and again, although the labels may keep changing. I think you all know what I mean: Goldwater vs. Rockefeller wings, Buchananite vs. neocon wings, anti-GOPe vs. GOPe wings, Bushites vs. Trumpians, or the “burn it down” folk vs. the “compromise” crowd. Trump didn’t cause those divisions; he reflected them and unfortunately ever since 2020 he has amplified them. In 2022, GOP candidates had the choice to ally with one wing or the other, because the issue couldn’t be avoided and the left knew it and was willing to capitalize on it. “Election denier” or “let’s move on from 2020”? Choose! Either choice was going to alienate a significant portion of the right, but the former was going to alienate an awful lot of independents as well. And like it or not, it’s necessary to gain independents in purplish states or even bluish states in order to win in those states. This also extended to monetary support; McConnell was less likely to give money to those who were “election deniers” and certainly to those who said they wanted to replace him when they got elected to the Senate.
These divisions are now being exacerbated, and can only be temporarily quieted by a very compelling, smart, and charismatic candidate. Reagan did it, and he attracted the moderates in both parties as well. DeSantis is compelling and smart, but he wouldn’t be able to do that in the present climate and with the present mindset of the proportion of the right who are Trump’s most devoted and loyal supporters (I’m not sure what to call them, but perhaps “EverTrumpers” or even “OnlyTrumpers”). Trump’s attacks on DeSantis have intensified the problem, but the dispute isn’t in the mold of the old divisions because DeSantis is not the least bit GOPe. The attacks, however, have tapped into those pre-existing divisions and the old enmity by attempting to prove that DeSantis really is a RINO GOPe tool, cleverly disguised as someone more conservative, and that if he ever gets more power he is a betrayer who will stab the MAGA folk in the back.
As I said, I may indeed elaborate on some of this in the future. Fun, eh?
Here’s a discussion. An excerpt [emphasis mine]:
Ron DeSantis, meanwhile, has surged to numbers never before reached in Florida. He and Rubio both won in Miami-Dade County, a huge liberal enclave in this state–where Rubio hails from, while not previously winning there. They did this by displaying tangible conservative leadership, giving the people a reason to vote for them. It is not a case of name recognition, but proven political delivery.
Look at what DeSantis faced throughout 2022, in terms of issues. He was battled by the Disney corporation. Then he was demonized in the press over a parental rights bill, as the news outlets colluded to call it a homophobic ‘Don’t Say Gay Bill.’ He was dubbed a racist over the flights of immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard. The governor even absorbed criticism for his handling of Hurricane Ian – before the storm even made landfall. In each case, DeSantis held firm – and persevered…
The end result was a show of voter support…
I said it’s about leadership, he says it’s about leadership, but of course that’s a bit too simplistic. And I’m not sure it carries over to a national race, or to other states that aren’t Florida. But it certainly wouldn’t hurt.
In Florida, was it also the changing Hispanic vote? The tightening of the voting rules? The new arrivals determined to not repeat their old errors – or if they were already on the right, happy to be voting where their vote would finally count?
It’s not as though the MSM and the left didn’t try to get DeSantis. I had forgotten some of it until I read that article: don’t say gay, kidnapper, Bush-like hurricane enabler. It didn’t stick; it only made him stronger. Character matters, too, and he didn’t give them fuel for the fire in that regard.
It is instructive to look at exceptions, and Florida was an exception.
I also noticed this comment to a post at Althouse’s:
DeSantis barely won four years ago, yet governed as if he had been elected unanimously. He picks his fights carefully and has an extreme amount of personal and organizational discipline. He actively supports others on the down-ticket Republican “team,”down to the local school board level. As a consequence, he won yesterday the single most lopsided Republican victory in the state of Florida since Reconstruction.
I have very little doubt that a Republican presidential campaign run by DeSantis and his team would have a strategy to beat the Democrat campaign in every winnable state up to and including using mail-in ballots, ballot harvesting, and early voting exactly as the Democrats use them.
Trump opened the door, but DeSantis is going to walk through that door.
That last sentence is way premature, of course. But I see the strengths that that commenter sees. And yes, of course DeSantis will be attacked relentlessly and unmercifully if he runs. In addition, we have no idea if he will run. But he’s a bright spot in a difficult time, as well as an instructive example.
Some thoughts to ponder, although this only applies to certain states (I’ve cued it up for just a few minutes that I want to call your attention to):
Victor Davis Hanson also has thoughts on the election. As usual with Hanson, they are worth reading. I can’t say I disagree much with any of them. An excerpt:
During the COVID-19 lockdowns, American elections radically changed to mail-in and early voting. They did so in a wild variety of state-by-state ways. Add ranked voting and a required majority margin to the mess and the result is that once cherished Election Day balloting becomes increasingly irrelevant.
Election Night also no longer exists. Returns are not counted for days. It is intolerable for a modern democracy to wait and wait for all sorts of different ballots both cast and counted under radically different and sometimes dubious conditions.
The Democrats – with overwhelming media and money advantages – have mastered these arts of massive and unprecedented early, mail-in, and absentee voting. Old-fashioned Republicans count on riling up their voters to show up on Election Day. But it is far easier to finesse and control the mail-in ballots than to “get out the vote.”
To summarize the messages from D’Souza and Hanson: the right must pay far more attention to the changed mechanics and landscape of elections, because at least for the moment they are realities, especially in potential swing states. And they deeply affect the outcome.
In addition, I’m going to link to a blogger I don’t usually link to: Sundance at Conservative Treehouse. That’s because I believe that this article, in which he points out the differences in strategy and tactics between an election campaign focused on votes (the right) and one focused on ballots (the left), is spot on. We’re living in a post-COVID ballot-world, and we must adjust in order to do better.
I believe that this is the most important thing to learn from the elections of 2022.
NOTE: Yes, it would be very very nice to tighten up the voting rules in the states that need tightening. But most of these states are not under the control of the right. Unless and until they are, it is important to learn how to operate successfully under the present rules.
[NOTE: This is a repeat of a previous post.]
Yes, indeed, I am that old—old enough to just barely remember when Veterans Day was called Armistice Day. The change in names occurred in 1954, when I was very small, in order to accommodate World War II and its veterans.
Since then, the original name has largely fallen out of use—although it remains, like a vestigial organ, in the timing of the holiday, November 11th, which commemorates the day the WWI armistice was signed (eleventh hour, eleventh day, eleventh month).
I’m also old enough–and had a teacher ancient enough—to have been forced to memorize that old chestnut “In Flanders Fields” in fifth grade—although without being given any historical context for it, I think at the time I assumed it was about World War II, since as far as I knew that was the only real war.
You can find the story of the poem here . It was written by a Canadian doctor who served in the European theater (there is no separate URL for the discussion of the poem, but you should click on the link about it if you scroll down on the left sidebar). It’s not necessarily great poetry, but it was great propaganda to encourage America’s entry into what was known at the time as the Great War.
The poem’s first line “In Flanders fields the poppies blow” introduces that famous flower that later became the symbol of Armistice—and later, Veterans—Day. Why the poppy?
Wild poppies flower when other plants in their direct neighbourhood are dead. Their seeds can lie on the ground for years and years, but only when there are no more competing flowers or shrubs in the vicinity (for instance when someone firmly roots up the ground), these seeds will sprout.
There was enough rooted up soil on the battlefield of the Western Front; in fact the whole front consisted of churned up soil. So in May 1915, when McCrae wrote his poem, around him bloodred poppies blossomed like no one had ever seen before.
But in this poem the poppy plays one more role. The poppy is known as a symbol of sleep. The last line We shall not sleep, though poppies grow / In Flanders fields might point to this fact. Some kinds of poppies are used to derive opium from, from which morphine is made. Morphine is one of the strongest painkillers and was often used to put a wounded soldier to sleep. Sometimes medical doctors used it in a higher dose to put the incurable wounded out of their misery.
Now a day to honor those who have served in our wars, Veterans Day has an interesting history in its original Armistice Day incarnation. It was actually established as a day dedicated to world peace, back in the early post-WWI year of 1926, when it was still possible to believe that WWI had been the war fought to end all wars.
The original proclamation establishing Armistice Day as a holiday read as follows:
Whereas the 11th of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relations with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed, and
Whereas it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations; and
Whereas the legislatures of twenty-seven of our States have already declared November 11 to be a legal holiday: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that the President of the United States is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the officials to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on November 11 and inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.
After the carnage of World War II, of course, the earlier hope that peaceful relations among nations would not be severed had long been extinguished. By the time I was a young child, a weary nation sought to honor those who had fought in all of its wars in order to secure the peace that followed—even if each peace was only a temporary one.
And isn’t an armistice a strange (although understandable) sort of hybrid, after all; a decision to lay down arms without anything really having been resolved? Think about the recent wars that have ended through armistice: WWI, which segued almost inexorably into WWII; the 1948 war following the partition of Palestine; the Korean War; and the Gulf War. All of these conflicts exploded again into violence—or have continually threatened to—ever since.
So this Veterans/Armistice Day, let’s join in saluting and honoring those who have fought for our country. The hope that some day war will not be necessary is a laudable one—and those who fight wars hold it, too. But that day has clearly not yet arrived—and, realistically but sadly, most likely it never will.
[NOTE: I’ve scheduled this post to be published at 11:11 AM on 11/11.]
In Maricopa they say “trust us,” but do little to earn that trust. Au contraire.
And trust must be earned.
Arizona’s Maricopa County is the state’s most populated county. Polling places had printer machine problems the second they opened.
A few problems include running out of ballots and machines printing illegible ballots…
The Republican Party and the campaigns for Republican governor candidate Kari Lake and Republican Senate candidate Blake Masters accused county officials of incompetence. All three sued the county “over issues with the voting tabulation machines.”
Maricopa County officials assured everyone they would count everyone’s ballot and no one would be disenfranchised. They also claim no one turned away voters on Tuesday.
The Republicans tried to expand poll hours, but a judge said no way.
That’s odd because other places with machine issues stayed open later.
You may recall that Maricopa had issues, although different ones, in 2020. Also, that Maricopa is a red county. The people locally in charge overall in the county are Republicans, but in the past they’ve acted very strangely when challenged and have defended themselves rather than much else. And I’m pretty sure that not everyone with access to machines is a Republican.
You may also recall that this year, gubernatorial candidate Katie Hobbs is the Arizona Secretary of State and in charge of voting integrity, but did not recuse herself:
“We’ve seen this time and time again,” Lake said in a news conference at the Mexican border. “She’s running her office with a great incompetency and maybe maladministration. The ethical thing would be for her to recuse yourself. I don’t think she’s going to do it. And that’s a problem.”
Lake also noted that 6,000 Arizona voters erroneously received mail-in ballots that only featured federal races as she was trying to paint Hobbs as incompetent.
Hobbs, who has faced calls to recuse herself and to resign from her post as secretary of state to ensure a fair and free election, refuses to do it.
Hobbs told the media over the weekend that she will do what she was elected to do in 2018.
“I took an oath of office to do the job that voters elected me to do,” Hobbs told NBC News. “That oath says I’ll uphold the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution laws of the state of Arizona.”
Okay Katie, that’s tremendously reassuring.
ADDENDUM: Speaking of “issues,” California allows mail-in ballots to arrive up to a week after the election, as long as they’re postmarked by the day of the election.
Can’t even imagine why that would undermine faith in the integrity of the system.
A lot of people are blaming Trump for Tuesday’s extremely disappointing results. I haven’t done a systematic study of his “picks” and I’m not planning to do so, but of course a couple of high-profile ones didn’t win – I’m thinking of Dr. Oz. Another pick, Herschel Walker, will be in a Georgia runoff (deja vu, anyone?).
But I actually don’t blame Trump for this; at least not very much. He endorses people but it’s actually the voters in the primaries who make the final selection. A lot of Trump supporters may decide to vote for his choices because they trust him, but I don’t think he can be blamed for picking people he thinks have similar values or who might be people he trusts for some reason. After all, he doesn’t force anyone to choose them as the nominee. Voters do that themselves.
One of the things that happened in some states or districts was that Trump picks were the recipients of crossover Democrat votes in the primaries in an attempt to select the GOP candidates Democrats thought were least likely to win in the general. But that’s the problem with primaries, in particular when there’s no competition for a Democrat nominee (usually because of an incumbent) and Democrats therefore don’t mind taking part in the Republican primary instead. A person can switch parties for the primary; at least, I’m not aware of any state that forbids it, as long as the person changes his or her registration that year accordingly.
I think primaries are highly flawed instruments for choosing nominees anyway, perhaps even worse than the old smoke-filled rooms of my youth. The latter can result in nominees who are dull party apparatchiks taking their turn at bat. But the former can result in extremists who appeal to certain party voters but not to enough people in the state or district to actually get elected in the general. You have to know the territory, as it were, and a candidate who’s not a good fit for the area isn’t going to win. It’s not an easy task at all to choose a nominee, and even the pros are just guessing a lot of the time.
What arouses my ire at Trump are his attacks on DeSantis, which threaten to splinter the party in 2024. Of course, that splintering is somewhat of an old story – the GOP has long been separated into what in my youth was called the Rockefeller wing and the Goldwater wing (boy, am I showing my age), and later there was the RINO wing and the conservative wing.
But Trump versus DeSantis is one conservative against another, and it’s not based on policy disagreements, it’s based on personal rivalry and ambition. Trump sees DeSantis as a threat to Trump.
In the last two years or so, I’ve come to regard Trump as something of a tragic Shakespearean figure. His dimensions are, as he himself would say, huge. He has such great accomplishments and such great flaws. At the moment his flaws are overwhelming his accomplishments in many people’s eyes, and that even includes former supporters. His flaws always were overwhelming to a lot of other people, and the relentless attacks and defamation he’s endured have greatly augmented that effect.
One former supporter, Don Surber, writes this:
Dr. Oz showed how it went with Trump. That’s how poisonous he has become in purple America. We, his fans, see the good in him and the evil in his enemies. But the majority doesn’t and never will. It is a sale that cannot be made. There will be no second term from The Donald. It breaks my heart to see this. I wrote three books on the man. Looking for someone else — likely DeSantis — will cost me readers. As I said about the covid vaccine, you do you. But Trump failed. He cost America the red tsunami we need to rein in Democrats.
I agree with the first part of that paragraph. But I don’t believe that Trump “cost America the red tsunami.” Trump set the stage for successful politicians like DeSantis, people with fighting spirit who confront the press with vigor, aren’t afraid to be conservatives, but who are far more polished than Trump and nowhere near as offensive in demeanor (and yes, the left will attack DeSantis unmercifully too, but I think they’ll have more trouble making the demonizing stick with as many listeners). I think the red tsunami was defeated by Democrat lies and MSM propaganda finding their target audience, and the Gramscian march through our schools, entertainment, and churches, as well as the amplifying effect of social media.
The problem is far greater than Trump or anything Trump did.
I also think that Trump was persecuted and lied about, and attacked along with his family, so incessantly and terribly that even though he took it better than the vast majority of people ever could, it (as well as the manner of his 2020 loss) has driven him to lose some of his political judgment and to rage more than usual.
He’s getting into King Lear on the heath territory. He’s endured a great great deal. But King Lear is not a good look for a candidate.
What are the sorts of things he’s said that I’m talking about? Well, here’s what Trump said about DeSantis on Monday night right before Election Day – and remember that DeSantis was running for the Florida governorship this year [emphasis mine]:
“I don’t know if [DeSantis] is running [for president in 2024]. I think if he runs, he could hurt himself very badly. I really believe he could hurt himself badly,” Trump said. “I think he would be making a mistake, I think the base would not like it — I don’t think it would be good for the party.”
“Any of that stuff is not good — you have other people that possibly will run, I guess,” Trump added. “I don’t know if he runs. If he runs, he runs.”
Then Trump said that if DeSantis does decide to run, “I would tell you things about him that won’t be very flattering — I know more about him than anybody — other than, perhaps, his wife.”
And speaking of what’s “not good for the party” – I submit that Trump’s attempts to threaten DeSantis are absolutely not good for the party.
Here’s what Trump’s previous press secretary Kayleigh McEnany had to say yesterday:
“I know there’s a temptation to starting talking about 2024 — no, no, no, no, no,” McEnany said on Wednesday’s edition of “Outnumbered.”
“2022 is not over. Every Republican energy needs to go to grinding the Biden agenda to a halt, and that could go straight through the state of Georgia.”
When pushed by Harris if that included her former boss, Donald Trump, McEnany was emphatic in saying, “I think he needs to put it on pause, absolutely.”
She also added that DeSantis should campaign for Walker in the Georgia runoff, but said nothing about Trump needing to do the same. McEnany is a smart cookie and she served her former boss very well, but this is her advice at this point.
Oh, and speaking of Georgia, Governor Kemp was up for re-election last Tuesday as well. Trump has plenty of reason to dislike Kemp intensely; he thwarted Trump’s accusations of fraud in Georgia in 2020. But here’s what Trump said about Kemp in late September, only about 6 weeks prior to Kemp’s gubernatorial contest with Stacey Abrams:
The former President’s criticism of Kemp now includes hyping Democrat Stacey Abrams as a preferable alternative to the GOP governor, whose crime against Trump was staying out of his attempt to overturn the Georgia 2020 election returns.
“Having her, I think, might be better than having your existing governor, if you want to know what I think,” Trump said Saturday at his rally in Perry, adding later, “Stacey, would you like to take his place? It’s OK with me.”
Kemp won anyway – or maybe Trump’s remarks about Kemp even increased his margin, because they might have attracted people to Kemp who hate Trump. But I bet Trump’s remarks about Kemp and Abrams didn’t help Trump’s pick, Herschel Walker, or Republican turnout. No wonder McEnany seems to want Trump to stay away from Georgia during the leadup to the runoff.
Many people think Trump had sabotaged the two runoffs in Georgia in 2020 and was responsible for the Senate Democratic majority that resulted from that election. I think that’s giving Trump a bit too much credit/blame, but it’s certainly a possibility that he contributed to the GOP candidates’ defeat in those runoffs. Here’s what I’m talking about:
With control of the Senate at stake in the state’s two races, the president chose to spend weeks peddling baseless claims that Georgia’s electoral system was rigged, fueling an online movement to boycott Tuesday’s election. He demonized the state’s Republican leaders and fractured the local GOP. He ignored calls from his allies to rally in the state sooner. His support for Sens. Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue mainly came in the form of the occasional tweet and two rallies, including one on Monday…
“Trump is the cause of this, lock, stock and barrel,” said one Republican strategist. “But when you’re relying on someone to win you a Senate race that also lost statewide eight weeks prior, you’re not in a position of strength.”…
When asked why Republicans didn’t prevail on Tuesday, a senior Senate Republican aide simply said: “Donald J. Trump.”…
Even at a Monday rally designed to drum up voting for Loeffler and Perdue, the president obsessed over his own political grievances, swiping at lawmakers from his own party, including Georgia Republican Gov. Brian Kemp…
“He is the Dems’ best base animator,” said one GOP strategist involved in the Georgia races.
That’s certainly the truth – Trump is the Democrats’ best base animator – and they used that strategy to their advantage this election cycle. It was no mystery why they kept talking about Trump, Trump, Trump. They know their audience.