Eric is so kind to compare Biden to a baseball pitcher. Right now, he looks closer to a crybaby/dictator. But he could also be playing "dumb like a fox".....If he acts like he's staying in and drops out at the convention and allows the convention to become an "open convention". Right now, with the Trump assignation attempt and the Republican convention going on Trump is in the spotlight, something he doesn't give back and something he is actually good at keeping on himself. But imagine an open convention where the Democrats pick a new Presidental and Vice Presidental candidate and they start to hog the spotlight and maybe not give it back. So when the new candidates run, they can point out Trumps problems, but they can also point out all of Bidens problems too, because he/she is not either of them. Because I believe a great percentage of the country doesn't like either of them. Then in the end if the Democrats lose at least they went out swinging. And in politics, from now to November is a long time, many things can happen. And I believe Trump is beatable.
I would be for someone who calls out the entire Biden administration for pulling this on-going stunt, and runs on replacing them all. Definitely NOT Harris.
To extend the baseball analogy, our bullpen is not exactly full of aces. Kamala Harris is losing in hypothetical matchups in swing states just about as badly as Biden. We are already down 5 runs and barring some miraculous late hitting we'll lose regardless of who's on the mound. It's Trump versus "not Trump" and Trump is firmly in the lead. Sure, let's put Kamala in there, at least we'll be able to say we tried it, the debate over the switch has already done the damage.
I'm not a Biden fanboy, I only wish our side was as united and focused as theirs. The widow of the firefighter killed at the rally said how he was a "devout Republican" and I thought that was a very telling choice of words - they are a religious movement, fully committed, a disciplined, unquestioning, holy army. While we'll be bickering among ourselves as we're marched to reeducation camps.
The race and gender fixations that (too) many Democrats hold are actually very religious tenets. Read John McWhorter’s Woke Racism for further elucidation.
One flaw in the analogy is that there really is no manager to take the ball from Joe. Joe is more of a player-coach. All the calls for him to step down are coming from his teammates and fans in the stands. Imagine trying to pitch while your shortstop and second baseman are yelling at you from behind "Come on Joe, you know you can't do it no more, let Kamala have a go at it". It looks like he's going to have to. Kamala really needs to win, otherwise the team may be sold and moved out of the city.
I use Threads - read it more than post, but that was my habit on "The Twitter" as well. Almost everyone I followed on Twitter is on Threads now so I don't feel like I'm missing much being there instead of Musk's Folly.
Captain Obvious is joining us today. Of course, voucher programs cost too much money. Of course, it is mostly the people that can already afford tuition using them. They do nothing to help improve public education, which is still dependent on public funding and has the students left over after many of the top students leave. Inner city schools still have trouble attacking enough teachers much less the quality teachers attracted by suburban salaries. These qualities are apparent in Chicago which also has to deal with a teacher's union which thinks the solution to everything is more taxes to be given to them. Vouchers were never intended to improve public education. They add to class warfare by encouraging families to separate themselves from a multicultural environment which many were going to do anyway, with or without vouchers.
Hey Laurence - not surprisingly, we hold very different opinions on this. Public education was always supposed to be the great equalizer in our society wherein children born into families with limited resources had the opportunity to prepare themselves for a better future for them and their children. But in Chicago and many large cities, inner city children from poor families are enslaved to terrible failing schools that do not offer them a real opportunity for a good education and a good future. (And of course there can be much debate as to why that is, but perhaps best to put that aside for now and just agree that the inner city schools are terrible.) But this situation only perpetuates multigenerational cycles of disadvantaged people and poverty.
A voucher program would allow parents of inner-city students to avoid these educational failure factories and send their children to a decent school to get a good education and a better chance at life. Would you be favorable to a voucher program that is limited to families living in or near the poverty level? This would seem to target the relief to the people who truly need it most.
Of course, CTU would fight any type of voucher program ferociously just as they are on the attack against charter and magnet schools. But education should be first and foremost about the kids, not for the primary benefit of the teacher's union.
I'll look forward to your thoughts on this. Have a great day!
Sorry, David- not buying. It has been more than proven that poor families are not the ones using the vouchers. It was thought that competition would improve the public schools. But vouchers don't help the conditions that make the public schools what they are. It only makes it possible for students to leave that would have left anyway. If vouchers would have worked, why have so many minority families abandoned the city entirely rather than simply move their children to private schools? Could it be that there are other conditions that persuade families to move? If public schools are the issue, then why are the selective schools, such as Whitney Young doing so well? You're giving me theory, David. The actual evidence says otherwise.
Thanks for your reply Laurence. So you would still be opposed to vouchers even if they were restricted to poor families living in distressed areas?
I'm not trying to debate with you, but just exploring if we may have a middle ground if they were limited to poor families who have no other options available to them. Absent that, I fear that poor inner city children will not ever have the educational opportunity they need to help them break out of the cycle of poverty.
We were privileged to mentor a black inner city young man who was afforded the opportunity to attend a private school through the Boys Hope program, and then see him earn a full scholarship to Drake University and go on to be the very first college graduate ever in his family. That educational opportunity immensely changed his life that would never have occurred without it. The Boys Hope program is privately funded, but a targeted voucher program would make this opportunity possible for many more disadvantaged children. Thanks
I understand your point. I have seen all sides of the issue personally in one way or another. I attended Chicago Public Schools through tenth grade. I consider myself educated after graduate school and over 40 years of teaching. Public schools can work when done right. Actually there is a .such simpler example. Look at the difference between city and suburban schools. When students leave suburban public schools, it isn't because of failure. It might be athletics. It might be family tradition. It might be religion. There are many reasons, but it is not for lack of academics. No, families should not be forced to keep their children in failing schools. But the answer is to improve the schools. Can all families leave public schools? Is there enough room in private schools for everyone? One way or another, public schools need fixing.
Laurence - I was not aware of your extensive background in education, and thank you for your service to the kids! I agree with you that the ideal solution is to improve our public schools. The problem is there does not appear to be any clear pathway to doing so, at least in the foreseeable future. It does not appear to be a matter of funding as CPS are funded among the very best in the country. So until that would ever get fixed whenever that may be, the poor inner city kids are being left out of a pathway to a better life and that is a tragedy.
I am not in favor of private school funding. How about developing a system that allows parents to choose among public schools. Not perfect, but better than being consigned to an underperforming school. That would also identify unwanted schools that could be remedied or closed.
Interesting you should say that. You'll have lots of suburban conservatives banging on and an on about school choice, but if you suggest to them that we should do away with ALL public school district boundaries and let disadvantaged urban students enroll in their schools, suddenly it's no, no, no!
I don’t know if that is a “conservative” or “disadvantaged urban” thing. I think it’s more logistics. OPRF , for instance, would be severely overcrowded, understaffed, and underfunded. That might upset an OPRF liberal, too… But I’m sure the city and the CTU would be happy to send their per student cost over to other school districts for every student who relocates.
the way it works in Mich is that transfers in to a school in another district are only allowed up to some agreed-upon limit [i don't know the formula] for attendance in the receiving school.
Actually, I was going to make several of your points in my reply. It's complicated, maybe too complicated. Not even all suburban or private schools are equal. Remember the push a few years back to ger city kids into New Trier, one of the best of the entire country? It was a logistical nightmare. In theory, it sounds great. But there are issues of getting kids from one place to another. You still need to figure out the funding logistics. You will have adults in some places that won't want their kids mixing with less advantaged kids. You will have parents that will complain they specifically moved themselves and their kids from one area to another to avoid problems. People with economic advantages will remind us they also have the right to move where they want and associate with whom they want. Attempts have been made in the past to do such things, such as buying for integration. The complaints came from both sides whether it be parents that didn't want their kids at lower performing schools or parents that wanted to keep their kids at neighborhood schools. Let us never forget that good old American war cry of "SOCiALISM"! Ken, you talk about choice. It sounds humane. Just remember it includes the right for people to make choices which you and I might not like.
Interesting. Actually, there people in this forum more versed than I in linguistic nuances. So I looked it up. You are correct with bussing in the American sense. In England I would have had it correctly. Should I relocate?
spot on, EZ. true school choice, which i support, would allow children from any district within a state to attend any school, in any district in that state, with available space. the state of IL shd make that a condition of state funding.
The school vouchers fiscal impact in Arizona is no surprise. The Right's sole purpose of introducing them has been to gut public funding for public schools, and in turn, make teachers' unions less tenable. If you want to send your kids to parochial or other religious-based schools, do it on your own (and the not the taxpayers') dime.
EZ - I agree with you. Biden has to go. Even more so now after the assassination attempt on Trump. Trump appears to be very afraid of Kamala Harris - I think his team is as well. JD Vance is an utterly unprincipled (and very dangerous) jackass.
“Trump is so confident of victory that he didn’t feel the need to balance out his ticket with a woman and/or minority running mate”
I think that this is another example of Trump being better attuned to the impulses of voters than the liberal cognoscenti are. Identity politics may be a fetish of political progressives (“religion” is probably more accurate), but it isn’t something that anyone else, regardless of race or gender, cares much about. Not any undecided voters, anyway. Most black people that I know consider it to be transparent pandering, and are unimpressed by it. I suspect Trump understands this, and is why he knew that picking Vance wouldn’t hurt.
Let’s also not forget that our current Vice President was hand picked by Biden specifically because of her race and gender, and most would consider her to be a liability.
Identity politics is indeed important to progressives, as I just pointed out (too important, I would suggest). But progressives are already voting for Biden, so again, I don’t see how the selection of Vance hurts Trump in this area.
Now recall that four years ago, Biden proudly declared, unequivocally, that his running mate’s singular qualification would be their race and/or gender, and he proceeded to make good on that promise. Do you think that that decision is helping or hurting the Democrats right now?
First of all, Biden did not say that his running mate’s “singular” qualification would be their race or gender. I think he said something to the effect that he would choose a woman or member of a minority group to be his Vice President. And I don’t think that statement by Biden is having any negative effect on the electability of the Democratic nominee. There are usually hundreds or thousands of qualified people who could ably fill any particular position. The idea that there is one “best candidate” for any particular position is just not true. It’s an anti-affirmative action talking point. I’m thinking now of the Supreme Court vacancy created by the retirement of Stephen Breyer. There are a lot of people, me included, who are glad that Biden finally nominated a woman of color to be on the Supreme Court.
I remember when Bill Clinton of Arkansas chose Al Gore of Tennessee for a running mate, and the pundit class was startled. What? Another youngish white male from a quasi-southern state? But it worked, and it might work here.
You consider VP Harris a liablity. I and many others do not, especialy in comparison with Vance the phony hillbilly techbro millionaire who is as authentic as a $3 bill. I read Hillbilly Elegy and was struck most of all by thecmplete absence of the Black poor and his sneering contempt for the people he left behind to make money money-changing and sucking up to Agent Orange. He has voted agianst many measures that would assuage the plight of the people (especially children) he claimed to care about (the white ones). The perfect embodiment of the MAGA faith--an unprincipled bearded Pillsbury Doughboy.
You don’t think Harris is a liability? So you think that she is strengthening the ticket and increasing Biden’s chances for reelection? Uh, ok.
I think that you’re confusing your own affinity for Harris with her electability. Not at all the same thing. She may well be perfectly capable of carrying out the duties of the Presidency, but it doesn’t exactly inspire ironclad confidence when your boss announces to the whole world that your skin color and gender were the sole reasons that he hired you for the job.
As for that $3 bill phoniness that you’re so fond of pointing out in Vance, remind me now, who was it that used her time at the podium during the Democratic primary debates in 2019 to relentlessly attack Biden, painting him as a virulent racist who was better suited to be Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan than President of the United States, only to abruptly change her tune and kiss his ring the moment that he consulted his color chart, saw that she qualified under his unique guidelines, then offered her the job of running mate. Hmm, who was that now?
Perhaps like another right-wing correspondent in Zornland, you find VP Harris "annoying" and "inauthentically Black" (a staggeringly arrogant and stupid statement from anyone but more so from what I assume is a white man). I do not think she is a liability but I can see that an articulate accomplished ambitious Black woman might be perceived as such by some.
Your characterisation of VP Harris' statements in the primary debates is absurd. She called President Biden no such things, but articulated her disagreement with his stance on busing (everyone makes mistakes in the course of a long political career). The references to "identity politics" and "color charts" are offensive and uncalled for. The right wing is obsessed with DEI initiatives and any attemts to redress historic injustices that might threaten white hegemony.
Is "Uh, OK" code for something in slacker teen slang?
You seem like an intelligent man Michael, so I don’t know why you have this strange habit of imagining that I have written -or implied- things that I have not. Who said anything about Harris being “annoying” or “inauthentically black”? Not me. I think that she’d probably be perfectly capable and competent as President, but that isn’t the point. What is the point is how she is perceived by the vast swaths of undecided voters, and that perception is not something that inspires confidence. Blame it on racism and sexism all you like, but racism and sexism are not what caused her to drop the ball on the border crisis, nor are they responsible for Harris’s tendency to speak in weird, phantasmagorical soliloquies (the priceless Kathleen Parker nailed it when she wrote that Harris often speaks as if she is conducting a seance). They’re also not to blame when the man who hired you shouts from the mountain top that your hiring was a racial/gender set aside.
If you find the words “identity politics” and “color charts” to be offensive, well, I just don’t know what to tell you. I try to be polite, but I’m simply unable to keep track of which words have suddenly become pejoratively toxic. I’m sorry.
“Uh, ok” is not code for anything, in teen slacker, or anything else. It’s….uh, never mind.
I did not say you did say those things. Howver, since you do not like the way VP Harris speaks (i.e., find it annoying) and blame her for the border crisis (when I assume you know that Trump scuppered the bi-partisan measures that VP Harris played a part in creating), I assume you have no other criteria for thinking she is a liability. I think it is offensive to ascribe VP Harris' position (or Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's) to President Biden consulting "color charts" and not to his laudable desire to choose qualified people belonging to groups that have been woefully underrepresented.
Did Trump consult a color chart to pick Vance? Seems like it.
Trump may well have consulted a color chart, but at least he had the presence of mind not to proclaim to the whole world that that was his whole reason for picking Vance.
Steven K, Biden never said that Kamala Harris’s skin color and gender were the sole reasons that he picked her as his Vice President, and the fact that you keep insisting that Biden did say that tells more about you than it does about Biden or Harris.
Steven K, you say that gender and race should not have been considered when Biden was selecting a Vice President. Why not? There are usually hundreds or thousands of qualified people who could ably fill any particular position. The idea that there is one “best candidate” for any particular position is just not true. It’s a Republican anti-affirmative action talking point. I’m thinking now of the Supreme Court vacancy created by the retirement of Stephen Breyer. There are a lot of people, me included, who are glad that Biden finally nominated a woman of color.
There is no one “best candidate”, but there are certainly ones that are a lot better than others.
I think that the country would be in capable hands with Harris in the oval office, and will vote for her if she becomes the nominee. The problem is that I’m not everyone, and to too many other people that vote, rightly or wrongly, she is not popular.
Hey Steven - I completely agree with your sentiments about identity politics as these simply tribalize our citizenry instead of encouraging a unified sense of being Americans. But after learning more about Vance's background and hearing him speak last evening, I believe that Trump believes that he will resonate with younger voters and also blue collar workers, particularly in the rust belt battleground states where he came from in a family afflicted with poverty and drug addiction. I was initially not favorable to his selection as I was hoping that a miracle would occur that Trump would add Nikki Haley to the ticket, but after learning more about him and hearing him speak I am more comfortable with Vance as the VP candidate.
Hey Ken - I share your concern about the position of both Trump and Vance on Ukraine. Many years ago I served in NATO command, and I believe that Putin's military aggression in Ukraine against a sovereign nation represents the same existential threat to the free world that the Soviets did during the cold war. I believe it is both a moral imperative and in US geopolitical interests to support Ukraine's efforts to defend their homeland and families in every way we can. I am indeed concerned that a Trump election will result in pressure on Ukraine to cede territory to Putin as the endpoint of the war. The problem is that any aggression by Putin that is rewarded is only going to encourage further aggression in neighboring countries. Keep in mind that Russia still occupies areas of the Republic of Georgia which it invaded in 2008. So I am in agreement with you on Ukraine for sure.
david, you had me nodding my head in agmt ... until the concluding phrase in your final sentence. everything about vance is illiberal - and i'm not talking american, left wing liberal - i'm talking free minds/free markets/ free speech/limited govt liberal.
i won't assess him by each of his policy positions, which align neatly w- trump's. but his economic and domestic policy preferences [high tariffs, mass deportation of the undocumented] will surely stoke inflation, and harm the poor and working class far more than the upper middle and upper classes.
and vance is part of/one of the elites [yale law school; married to yale law school summa cum laude]. bye-bye, appalachia - hello living on the taxpayers' $ and eating at the publicly-funded trough.
his obsequiousness to trump, after once referring to him as the 'American Hitler', along with other demeaning characterizations, would be breathtaking, if it weren't so obsequious and sniveling.
trump finally found someone craven enough - tho there were plenty of others in waiting - and callow enough to take the job offer, after how he treated his prior [loyal] VP. good luck, JD - you're gonna need it when the MAGA lynch mob comes after you.
Hey Bob - I agree with you that one of Trump's huge blind spots is that he evaluates people's fitness largely upon their loyalty and even obsequiousness to him. To that end, electorally I thought Nikki Haley would have been a homerun pick for the VP spot, but I don't think Trump is ready to let go of the fact that she dared to challenge him in the primaries, even though she has now given him her endorsement. But I do find Vance's life story compelling growing up an abject poverty with an absent father and a mother in the throes of drug addiction as to where he has come today, and of course is a fellow veteran I respect his service to our country. Have a great day!
david - i enjoy reading your comments, because you temper your political leanings with equanimity, an effort to understand contrary opinions without making a difference of opinion into a struggle over a 'fixed pie' - ie, we can 'grow the pie', understand that there is room for at least 'partial rightness' in 2 [or more] otherwise contrary opinions.
several people have been urging me to read Demon Copperhead by barbara kingsolver, a related but different [fiction] description of life in appalachia, incl'g the sad tales of drug addition. vance has been shaped by that childhood - perhaps similarly to how bill clinton was shaped by an upbringing in poverty in the ozarks. both highly intelligent guys, raised in rural poverty, who later attended and excelled at ivy league schools, and became high level politicians in the USA - yet espoused very different politicla philosophies. different strokes.
Bob - Thank you for your very kind comments. (Particularly when I read my post and see that it had all kinds of incorrect words, royalty instead of loyalty, unsequiousness instead of obsequiousness, and federal instead of fellow - have to proofread before I hit post!)
Most people do not agree on everything, not only would that be boring, but it would never allow anyone to consider other perspectives and possibilities. The trick is, and I fear our society is doing this less and less these days, is trying to work hard to find common ground where we can come up with something we can both agree upon.
I have always respected Eric for his willingness to do this, and that is why I am a subscriber for that interaction with him, you and others here. Thanks again!
Eric, I think your contrasting of the Streeterville incident and the battery of Kimberly Foxx was unfair. The reason the Streeterville incident was not upgraded in felony review was that the victims did not want the case to continue. If Foxx had not wanted her battery case to continue, I am sure it would have been dropped as well.
The initial police decision was misdemeanor charges only in that streeterville case, and I think it does strike an interesting contrast to the initial felony charges in the Foxx case.
In my experience, police don’t often use the “public way” aggravating factor to turn a battery into a felony. And, I imagine the police filed the original charges in the Streeterville case. I’d be interested to know whether or not the Foxx case was originally charged by the police, or if the case was initiated by the Attorney General’s office.
The other thing to consider is that, when the police charged the Streeterville case, they probably didn’t know that the battery ended the victim’s pregnancy.
When my late wife's neurological disease continued to progress, I had to make the decision that she could no longer drive. Let me state this differently, I told her that I would not allow her to drive. The situation was not only dangerous for her, but for others on the roads. She was hesitant for a few days, but realized that this was in both of our best interests.
Her cognition was fine, but slowing down. This was my duty as a husband and spouse. I was her caregiver for 10-years as she declined. There was no stopping the progression of this disease.
I do not think that Jill Biden is doing her husband and our country any favors by proclaiming that Joe is present, has energy, etc. The images of her husband clearly show a steady decline. Joe is different than he was even 6-months ago. The progression is obvious to those of us who have had this experience.
Thank you for the great analogy DB. Anyone who has gone through the drill knows how incredibly personally painful it is to assume the parental role and take the car keys away from someone with diminished driving capacity. Politics completely aside, I think this is proving to be similarly personally very painful for Biden and his family to reckon with.
I think Jill Biden is supporting her husband the best way she can as a wife, not a politician. We don't know of their private conversations, and like other first ladies before, she is also very protective of his image. If he decides to drop out, she will support that decision as well.
I think that she’s actually making the decision, and that in her current Tammy Wynette position, she’s ensuring that Trump will be elected in November. If she tells Joe to drop out, he’ll do it.
Thanks for posting Mary Schmich's comments about Chicago thunderstorms. I lived in Chicago for 40 years before moving to Seattle 11 year ago. Those wonderful, fierce, fast, summer thunderstorms are among the things I miss most about Chicago. Here in Seattle we are lucky if we get one or two milquetoast versions a year. It has to be said, though, that is the ONLY aspect of Chicago weather that I miss!
They are nice except for when the wind causes a big section of a tree to break and fall to damage your house. OTOH, that incident motivated me to replace a deck with a much better one.
Hah! Same thing happened to me years ago. $1500 I got for deck damage barely dented what I spent for my 3 season porch, but my family is out there all the time. My favorite room!
There’s an interesting difference between a manager yanking the starter against his wishes, and someone? yanking the elected president and primary winner. Who has the authority to yank Biden if he won’t back down?
Aren’t the delegates at the Democratic National Convention free to vote for someone other than Biden if, “in all good conscience,” they cannot vote for Biden?
That would be a reasonably democratic way to do it, as the delegates are at this point the voice of the voters. But I don't know if they are free to vote for someone else. And does that someone else need to be identified first?
Another actually established mechanism is to use the 25th Amendment now, remove Biden and elevate Harris. But even then, I don't know if the primary voting / nomination process changes if Biden is no longer the president but still wants to run.
If the party bosses were to force an election do-over based on new polling after their "secret" was revealed, that seems like the voters are not in charge. Which really isn't news with the DNC and their super-delegates, etc.
Here’s an article on the “in all good conscience” provision. And I don’t think it would be a stretch for a Biden delegate to take the position that he or she could not, “in all good conscience,” vote for Biden at this point.
Thanks for the article. The key will be how the delegates change their votes. If the delegates come to their own conclusion that they can’t vote for Biden, and begin debating replacements, that’s a good democratic outcome. If the powers that be can force a vote between Biden and whoever their new favorite is, that disturbs me. It would be a type of coup.
Thanks for that article. When you look at the language, it seems even more amenable to voting against Biden than a general "conscience" clause. It says, “All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”
The sentiments of those who elected them are now, pretty clearly and decisively, that Biden should not be the candidate.
They still need to vote for someone, not just against Biden. Is this person clearly and decisively identified among the voters?
Once the electors fail to nominate someone, then I believe the need to follow the voters’ sentiments is gone. I just don’t understand the path that lets them determine alternatives on the first ballot. Maybe if the DNC or others can show that the voters now have someone else in mind. Or maybe widespread “not Biden” sentiment is enough to license the electors to change their vows on the first ballot.
If/when it happens, the mechanics will be clearer, though not necessarily legitimate.
It's a good question. I don't know whether they could simply vote "present" or something and thus deprive Biden of a majority of delegates, or whether they would have to vote for someone else. They could all vote for themselves if it's just a matter of buying time.
More broadly, I see two basic possibilities for how to proceed. Biden steps down, endorses Kamala, and everyone coalesces around her. Delegates would then vote for her, either virtually or at the convention, and that's that.
Option two would be some sort of audition process. James Carville has suggested that former Democratic presidents pick eight names (to keep it manageable), including Kamala, and proceed to moderate a series of town halls with those eight in advance of the convention. He envisions four such town halls, one in each region of the country. Then, at the convention, the delegates, informed by the presumably well-viewed town halls as well as public reaction to the candidates' "auditions," would vote for the ticket, and the usual rules would apply: a majority is necessary and they keep voting successively until they reach one.
Jonathan Alter has suggested a similar audition process. He leans heavily in favor of Harris but thinks there should be town halls and TV appearances that allow Harris to shine and that avoid a sense that she's being crowned. At the same time, if some other candidate outshines her, delegates could consider them. He wants Democrats to coalesce around someone before the convention, because he thinks an open convention would deprive Democrats of a chance to sell their new ticket at the convention.
There is about a month to do these "auditions," which I guess is doable, just, but it becomes less so the longer Biden dithers and holds out. In that case, it seems likely that it will be handed to Kamala.
One dramatic possibility would be for Biden to not only withdraw from the race but resign the presidency because of declining health, thus elevating Kamala to President Harris immediately, and offering her the chance to show herself up to the job in the time remaining before the election.
I'm personally torn on all this. I want the best candidate and the best chance of winning. I'm not sure what does that. I get that Harris makes a certain sort of sense and avoids a nomination fight, but she is a so-so communicator who is also saddled with a reputation for progressive excess. I've toyed with Newsom, who is an outstanding communicator, but he would be dealing with California woke big-time. I've toyed with Shapiro, an articulate governor of must-win, R-leaning Pennsylvania, but I don't know how he, or any of the others on the list, would fare under the unique spotlight of presidential politics. That's why I lean toward *some* sort of audition process.
I echo Eric's dismay at Illinois's classic but unsatisfying delineation of battery and aggravated battery. Putting aside all the enhancements for where the attack happened (e.g., on a public way) and/or against whom (e.g., a teacher on school grounds), the "great bodily harm" standard seems too tough to satisfy, rendering serious attacks mere misdemeanors, punishable by no more than a year in prison.
I would think that the loss of a fetus should count as great bodily harm, for example, and that the perpetrator should not have to know that the victim is pregnant -- any force ordinarily capable of causing that result should suffice. I would likewise think that any attack that in context places someone in reasonable fear for their life or great bodily harm, even if the attack results in mere bumps and bruises and no more serious injury, should count.
This summary from a law office's website sounds like a credible summary of the law on "great bodily harm." Do we like it?
llinois law requires some sort of physical pain or injury to a person’s body, such as lacerations, bruises, or abrasions, in order to find a defendant guilty of one kind of simple [misdemeanor] battery. These kinds of injuries are what constitute bodily harm. (People v. Mays, 91 Ill. 2d 251, 256 (1982)).
It therefore follows that for a conviction of great bodily harm, the victim needs to have sustained greater injuries than these. The injuries may be temporary or permanent; just because an injury is temporary does not mean that it does not rise to the severity needed for an aggravated battery charge. Only a judge or a jury can decide, based on looking at the victim’s injuries in a particular case, whether the standard of great bodily harm has been met.
Injuries that have been found to constitute great bodily harm in some Illinois cases have included the following: multiple bruises all over the victim’s body, combined with cuts and lacerations, and a diagnosis from the victim’s doctor that the victim suffered multiple contusions, a closed head injury, and leg abrasions. Injuries including broken bones and loss of teeth have also been found be great bodily harm. Note however, in one case, a single stab wound to the victim’s shoulder was not found to be sufficient for an aggravated battery charge, and was instead a battery. In re J.A., 336 Ill. App. 3d 814, 815 (2003).
May as well call them the MEME of the week/Visual MEME of the week.
Eric is so kind to compare Biden to a baseball pitcher. Right now, he looks closer to a crybaby/dictator. But he could also be playing "dumb like a fox".....If he acts like he's staying in and drops out at the convention and allows the convention to become an "open convention". Right now, with the Trump assignation attempt and the Republican convention going on Trump is in the spotlight, something he doesn't give back and something he is actually good at keeping on himself. But imagine an open convention where the Democrats pick a new Presidental and Vice Presidental candidate and they start to hog the spotlight and maybe not give it back. So when the new candidates run, they can point out Trumps problems, but they can also point out all of Bidens problems too, because he/she is not either of them. Because I believe a great percentage of the country doesn't like either of them. Then in the end if the Democrats lose at least they went out swinging. And in politics, from now to November is a long time, many things can happen. And I believe Trump is beatable.
I would be for someone who calls out the entire Biden administration for pulling this on-going stunt, and runs on replacing them all. Definitely NOT Harris.
To extend the baseball analogy, our bullpen is not exactly full of aces. Kamala Harris is losing in hypothetical matchups in swing states just about as badly as Biden. We are already down 5 runs and barring some miraculous late hitting we'll lose regardless of who's on the mound. It's Trump versus "not Trump" and Trump is firmly in the lead. Sure, let's put Kamala in there, at least we'll be able to say we tried it, the debate over the switch has already done the damage.
I'm not a Biden fanboy, I only wish our side was as united and focused as theirs. The widow of the firefighter killed at the rally said how he was a "devout Republican" and I thought that was a very telling choice of words - they are a religious movement, fully committed, a disciplined, unquestioning, holy army. While we'll be bickering among ourselves as we're marched to reeducation camps.
The race and gender fixations that (too) many Democrats hold are actually very religious tenets. Read John McWhorter’s Woke Racism for further elucidation.
Great analogy. I suppose many starting pitchers (on the Sox and Cubs for example) think that if they are taken out the team will lose for sure.
One flaw in the analogy is that there really is no manager to take the ball from Joe. Joe is more of a player-coach. All the calls for him to step down are coming from his teammates and fans in the stands. Imagine trying to pitch while your shortstop and second baseman are yelling at you from behind "Come on Joe, you know you can't do it no more, let Kamala have a go at it". It looks like he's going to have to. Kamala really needs to win, otherwise the team may be sold and moved out of the city.
Does anyone actually use Threads or BlueSky?
I use Threads - read it more than post, but that was my habit on "The Twitter" as well. Almost everyone I followed on Twitter is on Threads now so I don't feel like I'm missing much being there instead of Musk's Folly.
If the Canada geese quip doesn't win, you need to save it for a runner-up poll.
I liked that one, too, but it is not doing too well . . . .
“I just bought four pounds of cherries like I’m … some fucking math problem.” When I read this, I left out the “in” and it was much funnier.
I voted for the four pounds of cherries entry.
Captain Obvious is joining us today. Of course, voucher programs cost too much money. Of course, it is mostly the people that can already afford tuition using them. They do nothing to help improve public education, which is still dependent on public funding and has the students left over after many of the top students leave. Inner city schools still have trouble attacking enough teachers much less the quality teachers attracted by suburban salaries. These qualities are apparent in Chicago which also has to deal with a teacher's union which thinks the solution to everything is more taxes to be given to them. Vouchers were never intended to improve public education. They add to class warfare by encouraging families to separate themselves from a multicultural environment which many were going to do anyway, with or without vouchers.
Hey Laurence - not surprisingly, we hold very different opinions on this. Public education was always supposed to be the great equalizer in our society wherein children born into families with limited resources had the opportunity to prepare themselves for a better future for them and their children. But in Chicago and many large cities, inner city children from poor families are enslaved to terrible failing schools that do not offer them a real opportunity for a good education and a good future. (And of course there can be much debate as to why that is, but perhaps best to put that aside for now and just agree that the inner city schools are terrible.) But this situation only perpetuates multigenerational cycles of disadvantaged people and poverty.
A voucher program would allow parents of inner-city students to avoid these educational failure factories and send their children to a decent school to get a good education and a better chance at life. Would you be favorable to a voucher program that is limited to families living in or near the poverty level? This would seem to target the relief to the people who truly need it most.
Of course, CTU would fight any type of voucher program ferociously just as they are on the attack against charter and magnet schools. But education should be first and foremost about the kids, not for the primary benefit of the teacher's union.
I'll look forward to your thoughts on this. Have a great day!
Sorry, David- not buying. It has been more than proven that poor families are not the ones using the vouchers. It was thought that competition would improve the public schools. But vouchers don't help the conditions that make the public schools what they are. It only makes it possible for students to leave that would have left anyway. If vouchers would have worked, why have so many minority families abandoned the city entirely rather than simply move their children to private schools? Could it be that there are other conditions that persuade families to move? If public schools are the issue, then why are the selective schools, such as Whitney Young doing so well? You're giving me theory, David. The actual evidence says otherwise.
Thanks for your reply Laurence. So you would still be opposed to vouchers even if they were restricted to poor families living in distressed areas?
I'm not trying to debate with you, but just exploring if we may have a middle ground if they were limited to poor families who have no other options available to them. Absent that, I fear that poor inner city children will not ever have the educational opportunity they need to help them break out of the cycle of poverty.
We were privileged to mentor a black inner city young man who was afforded the opportunity to attend a private school through the Boys Hope program, and then see him earn a full scholarship to Drake University and go on to be the very first college graduate ever in his family. That educational opportunity immensely changed his life that would never have occurred without it. The Boys Hope program is privately funded, but a targeted voucher program would make this opportunity possible for many more disadvantaged children. Thanks
I understand your point. I have seen all sides of the issue personally in one way or another. I attended Chicago Public Schools through tenth grade. I consider myself educated after graduate school and over 40 years of teaching. Public schools can work when done right. Actually there is a .such simpler example. Look at the difference between city and suburban schools. When students leave suburban public schools, it isn't because of failure. It might be athletics. It might be family tradition. It might be religion. There are many reasons, but it is not for lack of academics. No, families should not be forced to keep their children in failing schools. But the answer is to improve the schools. Can all families leave public schools? Is there enough room in private schools for everyone? One way or another, public schools need fixing.
Laurence - I was not aware of your extensive background in education, and thank you for your service to the kids! I agree with you that the ideal solution is to improve our public schools. The problem is there does not appear to be any clear pathway to doing so, at least in the foreseeable future. It does not appear to be a matter of funding as CPS are funded among the very best in the country. So until that would ever get fixed whenever that may be, the poor inner city kids are being left out of a pathway to a better life and that is a tragedy.
I am not in favor of private school funding. How about developing a system that allows parents to choose among public schools. Not perfect, but better than being consigned to an underperforming school. That would also identify unwanted schools that could be remedied or closed.
Interesting you should say that. You'll have lots of suburban conservatives banging on and an on about school choice, but if you suggest to them that we should do away with ALL public school district boundaries and let disadvantaged urban students enroll in their schools, suddenly it's no, no, no!
I don’t know if that is a “conservative” or “disadvantaged urban” thing. I think it’s more logistics. OPRF , for instance, would be severely overcrowded, understaffed, and underfunded. That might upset an OPRF liberal, too… But I’m sure the city and the CTU would be happy to send their per student cost over to other school districts for every student who relocates.
the way it works in Mich is that transfers in to a school in another district are only allowed up to some agreed-upon limit [i don't know the formula] for attendance in the receiving school.
Actually, I was going to make several of your points in my reply. It's complicated, maybe too complicated. Not even all suburban or private schools are equal. Remember the push a few years back to ger city kids into New Trier, one of the best of the entire country? It was a logistical nightmare. In theory, it sounds great. But there are issues of getting kids from one place to another. You still need to figure out the funding logistics. You will have adults in some places that won't want their kids mixing with less advantaged kids. You will have parents that will complain they specifically moved themselves and their kids from one area to another to avoid problems. People with economic advantages will remind us they also have the right to move where they want and associate with whom they want. Attempts have been made in the past to do such things, such as buying for integration. The complaints came from both sides whether it be parents that didn't want their kids at lower performing schools or parents that wanted to keep their kids at neighborhood schools. Let us never forget that good old American war cry of "SOCiALISM"! Ken, you talk about choice. It sounds humane. Just remember it includes the right for people to make choices which you and I might not like.
Typing again. "BUSING" not buying.
Slightly off topic, but why is it spelled “busing”? That makes it look like it should be pronounced BYOOsing. It should be spelled “bussing”.
Interesting. Actually, there people in this forum more versed than I in linguistic nuances. So I looked it up. You are correct with bussing in the American sense. In England I would have had it correctly. Should I relocate?
spot on, EZ. true school choice, which i support, would allow children from any district within a state to attend any school, in any district in that state, with available space. the state of IL shd make that a condition of state funding.
'Inner city schools still have trouble attacking enough teachers ...' i'm guessing you meant 'attracting'?
I have previously stated that both my typing and proofreading need work. Besides, based on media reports, my comment is inaccurate.
Like Comiskey Park and the Sears Tower, they'll still be Tweets.
And the Hancock Center (which is now officially named 875 North Michigan Ave, I understand).
The school vouchers fiscal impact in Arizona is no surprise. The Right's sole purpose of introducing them has been to gut public funding for public schools, and in turn, make teachers' unions less tenable. If you want to send your kids to parochial or other religious-based schools, do it on your own (and the not the taxpayers') dime.
EZ - I agree with you. Biden has to go. Even more so now after the assassination attempt on Trump. Trump appears to be very afraid of Kamala Harris - I think his team is as well. JD Vance is an utterly unprincipled (and very dangerous) jackass.
“Trump is so confident of victory that he didn’t feel the need to balance out his ticket with a woman and/or minority running mate”
I think that this is another example of Trump being better attuned to the impulses of voters than the liberal cognoscenti are. Identity politics may be a fetish of political progressives (“religion” is probably more accurate), but it isn’t something that anyone else, regardless of race or gender, cares much about. Not any undecided voters, anyway. Most black people that I know consider it to be transparent pandering, and are unimpressed by it. I suspect Trump understands this, and is why he knew that picking Vance wouldn’t hurt.
Let’s also not forget that our current Vice President was hand picked by Biden specifically because of her race and gender, and most would consider her to be a liability.
Identity politics is important to progressives, and being “anti-woke” is a fetish to political fascists. Rhetoric is so much fun, isn’t it?
Identity politics is indeed important to progressives, as I just pointed out (too important, I would suggest). But progressives are already voting for Biden, so again, I don’t see how the selection of Vance hurts Trump in this area.
Now recall that four years ago, Biden proudly declared, unequivocally, that his running mate’s singular qualification would be their race and/or gender, and he proceeded to make good on that promise. Do you think that that decision is helping or hurting the Democrats right now?
First of all, Biden did not say that his running mate’s “singular” qualification would be their race or gender. I think he said something to the effect that he would choose a woman or member of a minority group to be his Vice President. And I don’t think that statement by Biden is having any negative effect on the electability of the Democratic nominee. There are usually hundreds or thousands of qualified people who could ably fill any particular position. The idea that there is one “best candidate” for any particular position is just not true. It’s an anti-affirmative action talking point. I’m thinking now of the Supreme Court vacancy created by the retirement of Stephen Breyer. There are a lot of people, me included, who are glad that Biden finally nominated a woman of color to be on the Supreme Court.
I remember when Bill Clinton of Arkansas chose Al Gore of Tennessee for a running mate, and the pundit class was startled. What? Another youngish white male from a quasi-southern state? But it worked, and it might work here.
You consider VP Harris a liablity. I and many others do not, especialy in comparison with Vance the phony hillbilly techbro millionaire who is as authentic as a $3 bill. I read Hillbilly Elegy and was struck most of all by thecmplete absence of the Black poor and his sneering contempt for the people he left behind to make money money-changing and sucking up to Agent Orange. He has voted agianst many measures that would assuage the plight of the people (especially children) he claimed to care about (the white ones). The perfect embodiment of the MAGA faith--an unprincipled bearded Pillsbury Doughboy.
You don’t think Harris is a liability? So you think that she is strengthening the ticket and increasing Biden’s chances for reelection? Uh, ok.
I think that you’re confusing your own affinity for Harris with her electability. Not at all the same thing. She may well be perfectly capable of carrying out the duties of the Presidency, but it doesn’t exactly inspire ironclad confidence when your boss announces to the whole world that your skin color and gender were the sole reasons that he hired you for the job.
As for that $3 bill phoniness that you’re so fond of pointing out in Vance, remind me now, who was it that used her time at the podium during the Democratic primary debates in 2019 to relentlessly attack Biden, painting him as a virulent racist who was better suited to be Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan than President of the United States, only to abruptly change her tune and kiss his ring the moment that he consulted his color chart, saw that she qualified under his unique guidelines, then offered her the job of running mate. Hmm, who was that now?
Perhaps like another right-wing correspondent in Zornland, you find VP Harris "annoying" and "inauthentically Black" (a staggeringly arrogant and stupid statement from anyone but more so from what I assume is a white man). I do not think she is a liability but I can see that an articulate accomplished ambitious Black woman might be perceived as such by some.
Your characterisation of VP Harris' statements in the primary debates is absurd. She called President Biden no such things, but articulated her disagreement with his stance on busing (everyone makes mistakes in the course of a long political career). The references to "identity politics" and "color charts" are offensive and uncalled for. The right wing is obsessed with DEI initiatives and any attemts to redress historic injustices that might threaten white hegemony.
Is "Uh, OK" code for something in slacker teen slang?
You seem like an intelligent man Michael, so I don’t know why you have this strange habit of imagining that I have written -or implied- things that I have not. Who said anything about Harris being “annoying” or “inauthentically black”? Not me. I think that she’d probably be perfectly capable and competent as President, but that isn’t the point. What is the point is how she is perceived by the vast swaths of undecided voters, and that perception is not something that inspires confidence. Blame it on racism and sexism all you like, but racism and sexism are not what caused her to drop the ball on the border crisis, nor are they responsible for Harris’s tendency to speak in weird, phantasmagorical soliloquies (the priceless Kathleen Parker nailed it when she wrote that Harris often speaks as if she is conducting a seance). They’re also not to blame when the man who hired you shouts from the mountain top that your hiring was a racial/gender set aside.
If you find the words “identity politics” and “color charts” to be offensive, well, I just don’t know what to tell you. I try to be polite, but I’m simply unable to keep track of which words have suddenly become pejoratively toxic. I’m sorry.
“Uh, ok” is not code for anything, in teen slacker, or anything else. It’s….uh, never mind.
I did not say you did say those things. Howver, since you do not like the way VP Harris speaks (i.e., find it annoying) and blame her for the border crisis (when I assume you know that Trump scuppered the bi-partisan measures that VP Harris played a part in creating), I assume you have no other criteria for thinking she is a liability. I think it is offensive to ascribe VP Harris' position (or Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's) to President Biden consulting "color charts" and not to his laudable desire to choose qualified people belonging to groups that have been woefully underrepresented.
Did Trump consult a color chart to pick Vance? Seems like it.
Trump may well have consulted a color chart, but at least he had the presence of mind not to proclaim to the whole world that that was his whole reason for picking Vance.
Steven K, Biden never said that Kamala Harris’s skin color and gender were the sole reasons that he picked her as his Vice President, and the fact that you keep insisting that Biden did say that tells more about you than it does about Biden or Harris.
They may not have been the sole reasons, but they certainly were reasons, which they should not have been.
Steven K, you say that gender and race should not have been considered when Biden was selecting a Vice President. Why not? There are usually hundreds or thousands of qualified people who could ably fill any particular position. The idea that there is one “best candidate” for any particular position is just not true. It’s a Republican anti-affirmative action talking point. I’m thinking now of the Supreme Court vacancy created by the retirement of Stephen Breyer. There are a lot of people, me included, who are glad that Biden finally nominated a woman of color.
There is no one “best candidate”, but there are certainly ones that are a lot better than others.
I think that the country would be in capable hands with Harris in the oval office, and will vote for her if she becomes the nominee. The problem is that I’m not everyone, and to too many other people that vote, rightly or wrongly, she is not popular.
Hey Steven - I completely agree with your sentiments about identity politics as these simply tribalize our citizenry instead of encouraging a unified sense of being Americans. But after learning more about Vance's background and hearing him speak last evening, I believe that Trump believes that he will resonate with younger voters and also blue collar workers, particularly in the rust belt battleground states where he came from in a family afflicted with poverty and drug addiction. I was initially not favorable to his selection as I was hoping that a miracle would occur that Trump would add Nikki Haley to the ticket, but after learning more about him and hearing him speak I am more comfortable with Vance as the VP candidate.
I oppose Vance for the same reasons I oppose Trump: anti- abortion, pro Russia/anti Ukraine, extended and distorted high end tax cuts, anti - NATO.
Hey Ken - I share your concern about the position of both Trump and Vance on Ukraine. Many years ago I served in NATO command, and I believe that Putin's military aggression in Ukraine against a sovereign nation represents the same existential threat to the free world that the Soviets did during the cold war. I believe it is both a moral imperative and in US geopolitical interests to support Ukraine's efforts to defend their homeland and families in every way we can. I am indeed concerned that a Trump election will result in pressure on Ukraine to cede territory to Putin as the endpoint of the war. The problem is that any aggression by Putin that is rewarded is only going to encourage further aggression in neighboring countries. Keep in mind that Russia still occupies areas of the Republic of Georgia which it invaded in 2008. So I am in agreement with you on Ukraine for sure.
david, you had me nodding my head in agmt ... until the concluding phrase in your final sentence. everything about vance is illiberal - and i'm not talking american, left wing liberal - i'm talking free minds/free markets/ free speech/limited govt liberal.
i won't assess him by each of his policy positions, which align neatly w- trump's. but his economic and domestic policy preferences [high tariffs, mass deportation of the undocumented] will surely stoke inflation, and harm the poor and working class far more than the upper middle and upper classes.
and vance is part of/one of the elites [yale law school; married to yale law school summa cum laude]. bye-bye, appalachia - hello living on the taxpayers' $ and eating at the publicly-funded trough.
his obsequiousness to trump, after once referring to him as the 'American Hitler', along with other demeaning characterizations, would be breathtaking, if it weren't so obsequious and sniveling.
trump finally found someone craven enough - tho there were plenty of others in waiting - and callow enough to take the job offer, after how he treated his prior [loyal] VP. good luck, JD - you're gonna need it when the MAGA lynch mob comes after you.
Hey Bob - I agree with you that one of Trump's huge blind spots is that he evaluates people's fitness largely upon their loyalty and even obsequiousness to him. To that end, electorally I thought Nikki Haley would have been a homerun pick for the VP spot, but I don't think Trump is ready to let go of the fact that she dared to challenge him in the primaries, even though she has now given him her endorsement. But I do find Vance's life story compelling growing up an abject poverty with an absent father and a mother in the throes of drug addiction as to where he has come today, and of course is a fellow veteran I respect his service to our country. Have a great day!
david - i enjoy reading your comments, because you temper your political leanings with equanimity, an effort to understand contrary opinions without making a difference of opinion into a struggle over a 'fixed pie' - ie, we can 'grow the pie', understand that there is room for at least 'partial rightness' in 2 [or more] otherwise contrary opinions.
several people have been urging me to read Demon Copperhead by barbara kingsolver, a related but different [fiction] description of life in appalachia, incl'g the sad tales of drug addition. vance has been shaped by that childhood - perhaps similarly to how bill clinton was shaped by an upbringing in poverty in the ozarks. both highly intelligent guys, raised in rural poverty, who later attended and excelled at ivy league schools, and became high level politicians in the USA - yet espoused very different politicla philosophies. different strokes.
Bob - Thank you for your very kind comments. (Particularly when I read my post and see that it had all kinds of incorrect words, royalty instead of loyalty, unsequiousness instead of obsequiousness, and federal instead of fellow - have to proofread before I hit post!)
Most people do not agree on everything, not only would that be boring, but it would never allow anyone to consider other perspectives and possibilities. The trick is, and I fear our society is doing this less and less these days, is trying to work hard to find common ground where we can come up with something we can both agree upon.
I have always respected Eric for his willingness to do this, and that is why I am a subscriber for that interaction with him, you and others here. Thanks again!
Eric, I think your contrasting of the Streeterville incident and the battery of Kimberly Foxx was unfair. The reason the Streeterville incident was not upgraded in felony review was that the victims did not want the case to continue. If Foxx had not wanted her battery case to continue, I am sure it would have been dropped as well.
The initial police decision was misdemeanor charges only in that streeterville case, and I think it does strike an interesting contrast to the initial felony charges in the Foxx case.
In my experience, police don’t often use the “public way” aggravating factor to turn a battery into a felony. And, I imagine the police filed the original charges in the Streeterville case. I’d be interested to know whether or not the Foxx case was originally charged by the police, or if the case was initiated by the Attorney General’s office.
The other thing to consider is that, when the police charged the Streeterville case, they probably didn’t know that the battery ended the victim’s pregnancy.
When my late wife's neurological disease continued to progress, I had to make the decision that she could no longer drive. Let me state this differently, I told her that I would not allow her to drive. The situation was not only dangerous for her, but for others on the roads. She was hesitant for a few days, but realized that this was in both of our best interests.
Her cognition was fine, but slowing down. This was my duty as a husband and spouse. I was her caregiver for 10-years as she declined. There was no stopping the progression of this disease.
I do not think that Jill Biden is doing her husband and our country any favors by proclaiming that Joe is present, has energy, etc. The images of her husband clearly show a steady decline. Joe is different than he was even 6-months ago. The progression is obvious to those of us who have had this experience.
Thank you for the great analogy DB. Anyone who has gone through the drill knows how incredibly personally painful it is to assume the parental role and take the car keys away from someone with diminished driving capacity. Politics completely aside, I think this is proving to be similarly personally very painful for Biden and his family to reckon with.
I think Jill Biden is supporting her husband the best way she can as a wife, not a politician. We don't know of their private conversations, and like other first ladies before, she is also very protective of his image. If he decides to drop out, she will support that decision as well.
I think that she’s actually making the decision, and that in her current Tammy Wynette position, she’s ensuring that Trump will be elected in November. If she tells Joe to drop out, he’ll do it.
Thanks for posting Mary Schmich's comments about Chicago thunderstorms. I lived in Chicago for 40 years before moving to Seattle 11 year ago. Those wonderful, fierce, fast, summer thunderstorms are among the things I miss most about Chicago. Here in Seattle we are lucky if we get one or two milquetoast versions a year. It has to be said, though, that is the ONLY aspect of Chicago weather that I miss!
They are nice except for when the wind causes a big section of a tree to break and fall to damage your house. OTOH, that incident motivated me to replace a deck with a much better one.
Hah! Same thing happened to me years ago. $1500 I got for deck damage barely dented what I spent for my 3 season porch, but my family is out there all the time. My favorite room!
There’s an interesting difference between a manager yanking the starter against his wishes, and someone? yanking the elected president and primary winner. Who has the authority to yank Biden if he won’t back down?
Aren’t the delegates at the Democratic National Convention free to vote for someone other than Biden if, “in all good conscience,” they cannot vote for Biden?
That would be a reasonably democratic way to do it, as the delegates are at this point the voice of the voters. But I don't know if they are free to vote for someone else. And does that someone else need to be identified first?
Another actually established mechanism is to use the 25th Amendment now, remove Biden and elevate Harris. But even then, I don't know if the primary voting / nomination process changes if Biden is no longer the president but still wants to run.
If the party bosses were to force an election do-over based on new polling after their "secret" was revealed, that seems like the voters are not in charge. Which really isn't news with the DNC and their super-delegates, etc.
Here’s an article on the “in all good conscience” provision. And I don’t think it would be a stretch for a Biden delegate to take the position that he or she could not, “in all good conscience,” vote for Biden at this point.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-delegates-good-conscience-convention-79d532219da1bdf0981ff5ff98e84002
Thanks for the article. The key will be how the delegates change their votes. If the delegates come to their own conclusion that they can’t vote for Biden, and begin debating replacements, that’s a good democratic outcome. If the powers that be can force a vote between Biden and whoever their new favorite is, that disturbs me. It would be a type of coup.
Thanks for that article. When you look at the language, it seems even more amenable to voting against Biden than a general "conscience" clause. It says, “All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”
The sentiments of those who elected them are now, pretty clearly and decisively, that Biden should not be the candidate.
https://apnews.com/article/biden-trump-poll-drop-out-debate-democrats-59eebaca6989985c2bfbf4f72bdfa112
They still need to vote for someone, not just against Biden. Is this person clearly and decisively identified among the voters?
Once the electors fail to nominate someone, then I believe the need to follow the voters’ sentiments is gone. I just don’t understand the path that lets them determine alternatives on the first ballot. Maybe if the DNC or others can show that the voters now have someone else in mind. Or maybe widespread “not Biden” sentiment is enough to license the electors to change their vows on the first ballot.
If/when it happens, the mechanics will be clearer, though not necessarily legitimate.
It's a good question. I don't know whether they could simply vote "present" or something and thus deprive Biden of a majority of delegates, or whether they would have to vote for someone else. They could all vote for themselves if it's just a matter of buying time.
More broadly, I see two basic possibilities for how to proceed. Biden steps down, endorses Kamala, and everyone coalesces around her. Delegates would then vote for her, either virtually or at the convention, and that's that.
Option two would be some sort of audition process. James Carville has suggested that former Democratic presidents pick eight names (to keep it manageable), including Kamala, and proceed to moderate a series of town halls with those eight in advance of the convention. He envisions four such town halls, one in each region of the country. Then, at the convention, the delegates, informed by the presumably well-viewed town halls as well as public reaction to the candidates' "auditions," would vote for the ticket, and the usual rules would apply: a majority is necessary and they keep voting successively until they reach one.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/opinion/biden-democratic-nominee.html
Jonathan Alter has suggested a similar audition process. He leans heavily in favor of Harris but thinks there should be town halls and TV appearances that allow Harris to shine and that avoid a sense that she's being crowned. At the same time, if some other candidate outshines her, delegates could consider them. He wants Democrats to coalesce around someone before the convention, because he thinks an open convention would deprive Democrats of a chance to sell their new ticket at the convention.
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/07/09/opinion/thepoint/democrats-convention-new-nominee?smid=url-share
There is about a month to do these "auditions," which I guess is doable, just, but it becomes less so the longer Biden dithers and holds out. In that case, it seems likely that it will be handed to Kamala.
One dramatic possibility would be for Biden to not only withdraw from the race but resign the presidency because of declining health, thus elevating Kamala to President Harris immediately, and offering her the chance to show herself up to the job in the time remaining before the election.
I'm personally torn on all this. I want the best candidate and the best chance of winning. I'm not sure what does that. I get that Harris makes a certain sort of sense and avoids a nomination fight, but she is a so-so communicator who is also saddled with a reputation for progressive excess. I've toyed with Newsom, who is an outstanding communicator, but he would be dealing with California woke big-time. I've toyed with Shapiro, an articulate governor of must-win, R-leaning Pennsylvania, but I don't know how he, or any of the others on the list, would fare under the unique spotlight of presidential politics. That's why I lean toward *some* sort of audition process.
I like “spox,” except for autocorrect relentlessly changing it to “spicy.”
how about 'spokes' instead? EZ now refers to the former aldermen/alderpersons as 'alders' - works for me.
Hard to imagine anyone remembering Mayor Lightfoot “fondly.”
I echo Eric's dismay at Illinois's classic but unsatisfying delineation of battery and aggravated battery. Putting aside all the enhancements for where the attack happened (e.g., on a public way) and/or against whom (e.g., a teacher on school grounds), the "great bodily harm" standard seems too tough to satisfy, rendering serious attacks mere misdemeanors, punishable by no more than a year in prison.
I would think that the loss of a fetus should count as great bodily harm, for example, and that the perpetrator should not have to know that the victim is pregnant -- any force ordinarily capable of causing that result should suffice. I would likewise think that any attack that in context places someone in reasonable fear for their life or great bodily harm, even if the attack results in mere bumps and bruises and no more serious injury, should count.
This summary from a law office's website sounds like a credible summary of the law on "great bodily harm." Do we like it?
llinois law requires some sort of physical pain or injury to a person’s body, such as lacerations, bruises, or abrasions, in order to find a defendant guilty of one kind of simple [misdemeanor] battery. These kinds of injuries are what constitute bodily harm. (People v. Mays, 91 Ill. 2d 251, 256 (1982)).
It therefore follows that for a conviction of great bodily harm, the victim needs to have sustained greater injuries than these. The injuries may be temporary or permanent; just because an injury is temporary does not mean that it does not rise to the severity needed for an aggravated battery charge. Only a judge or a jury can decide, based on looking at the victim’s injuries in a particular case, whether the standard of great bodily harm has been met.
Injuries that have been found to constitute great bodily harm in some Illinois cases have included the following: multiple bruises all over the victim’s body, combined with cuts and lacerations, and a diagnosis from the victim’s doctor that the victim suffered multiple contusions, a closed head injury, and leg abrasions. Injuries including broken bones and loss of teeth have also been found be great bodily harm. Note however, in one case, a single stab wound to the victim’s shoulder was not found to be sufficient for an aggravated battery charge, and was instead a battery. In re J.A., 336 Ill. App. 3d 814, 815 (2003).
https://www.criminallawyer-chicago.com/aggravated-battery-great-bodily-harm/#:~:text=Injuries%20including%20broken%20bones%20and,App.