USA

Friday January 6, 2023

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday January 6, 2023

Canada and the U.S. both have House Speakers. For one of them, the stakes are a lot higher

It’s being called the “battle for the gavel,” a historic fight in the U.S. over who will hold the title of Speaker, the presiding member of the House of Representatives.

Angry Washington – available at the boutique.

For nearly two full days, bitter partisanship within the Republican party, now the majority in the House, has turned what’s normally a swift affair into a protracted stalemate over who from their ranks ought to hold the job.

Multiple rounds of voting so far haven’t meaningfully moved the needle, and it is holding up the start of the next Congress for the first time in 100 years.

“The rest of the world is looking,” said U.S. President Joe Biden on Wednesday of the chaos.

“They’re looking at, you know, can we get our act together?”

By contrast, the drama that’s attached to what might be called the “race for the mace” in Canada — the election of a Speaker for the House of Commons — pales in comparison.

The job of Speaker hearkens back over 600 years to the formative Parliaments in Britain, and an agreed-upon need for someone to oversee and guide the work of the legislature.

That a Speaker is required for Congress as well as for the House of Commons and Senate is part of the constitutions of both countries.

Still, with the two countries having different systems of government, the jobs have developed differently over time and with contrasting political dynamics.

December 16, 2020

In the U.S, the evolution has given the House Speaker a number of powers which — depending on the makeup of Congress — can allow a Speaker to derail a president’s agenda, drive their own party’s legislative goals and reward or punish fellow elected representatives with plum committee posts.

That makes the person in the job — normally chosen from the majority party — exceptionally influential; among other things, should the president not be able to fulfil their duties, nor the vice-president, it is the House Speaker who is on deck.

Former House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer used a sports analogy to describe the difference between the post in Canada versus that in the U.S.

“In Canada, it’s far more of a referee, where in the U.S. it is more like a quarterback,” he said when reached by the Star on Tuesday.

What Speakers referee is the House of Commons itself, ensuring the rights and privileges of MPs are respected as is the decorum and work of Parliament — there’s rarely a day, for example, where the Speaker doesn’t intervene to ask MPs to mind their manners as they joust.

They do it from a largely neutral position as the job is understood by all parties to place the business of Parliament above that of partisanship. Speakers only cast a vote in the event of a tie, don’t participate in debates, stay away from partisan party caucus meetings and even have to watch their words when they campaign for seats during general elections. (The Toronto Star) 

rom sketch to finish, in 30 seconds, see the current way Graeme completes an editorial cartoon using an iPencil, the Procreate app, and a couple of cheats on an iPad Pro … These sped up clips are posted to encourage others to be creative, to take advantage of the technology many of us already have and to use it to produce satire. Comfort the afflicted. Afflict the comforted.

 

Wednesday December 21, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday December 21, 2022

Impeachments, Criminal Referrals, and Trading Cards

The criminal referral of Donald Trump to the Department of Justice by a House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack is largely symbolic – the panel itself has no power to prosecute any individual.

February 11, 2021

Nonetheless, the recommendation that Trump be investigated for four potential crimes – obstructing an official proceeding; conspiracy to defraud the United States; conspiracy to make a false statement; and inciting, assisting or aiding or comforting an insurrection – raises the prospect of an indictment, or even a conviction, of the former president.

It also poses serious ethical questions, given that Trump has already announced a 2024 run for the presidency, especially in regards to the referral over his alleged inciting or assisting an insurrection. Indeed, a Department of Justice investigation over Trump’s activities during the insurrection is already under way.

But would an indictment – or even a felony conviction – prevent a presidential candidate from running or serving in office?

The short answer is no. Here’s why:

The U.S. Constitution specifies in clear language the qualifications required to hold the office of the presidency. In Section 1, Clause 5 of Article II, it states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

These three requirements – natural-born citizenship, age and residency – are the only specifications set forth in the United States’ founding document.

January 8, 2021

But in case of insurrection, the Constitution includes no qualification regarding those conditions – with one significant exception. Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies any person from holding federal office “who, having previously taken an oath … to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

The reason why this matters is the Department of Justice is currently investigating Trump for his activities related to the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol. And one of the four criminal referrals made by the Jan. 6 House committee was over Trump’s alleged role in inciting, assisting or aiding and comforting an insurrection.

Even in the case of conviction and incarceration, a presidential candidate would not be prevented from continuing their campaign – even if, as a felon, they might not be able to vote for themselves.

History is dotted with instances of candidates for federal office running – and even being elected – while in prison. As early as 1798 – some 79 years before the 14th Amendment – House member Matthew Lyon was elected to Congress from a prison cell, where he was serving a sentence for sedition for speaking out against the Federalist Adams administration.

Eugene Debs, founder of the Socialist Party of America, ran for president in 1920 while serving a prison sentence for sedition. Although he lost the election, he nevertheless won 913,693 votes. Debs promised to pardon himself if he were elected.

And controversial politician and conspiracy theorist Lyndon Larouche also ran for president from a jail cell in 1992. (The Conversation) 

 

Thursday December 8, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday December 8, 2022

Red states and blue states; the coming 2024 U.S. Presidential Election

November 17, 2022

Donald J. Trump’s unusually early announcement of a third presidential campaign was aimed in part at clearing the Republican field for 2024, but his first three weeks as a candidate have undercut that goal, highlighting his vulnerabilities and giving considerable ammunition to those in the G.O.P. arguing to turn the page on him.

Since emerging from the November election with a string of humiliating losses to show for his pretensions to be a midterm kingmaker, Mr. Trump has entertained a leading white supremacist and a celebrity antisemite at his South Florida mansion.

He has suggested terminating the Constitution — the one that a president swears to preserve, protect and defend — in furtherance of his long-running lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him.

Thursday November 17, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Thursday November 17, 2022

Trump’s 2024 Announcement Was Totally ‘Sad!’

July 18, 2016

The first time Donald Trump announced he was running for president, he cruised down an escalator to Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World,” bragged about his net worth, mused about whether his family actually likes him, and called Mexicans “rapists.” There was no way Trump’s 2024 campaign announcement on Tuesday night at 9pm EST was going to beat 2015’s iconic, racist spectacle, but the event failed to meet even significantly lowered expectations. His 65-minute speech in the Mar-a-Lago ballroom was widely derided as “low energy,” and the biggest actual news to come out of the event was his daughter Ivanka Trump’s announcement that she won’t be involved in his political operation going forward. Here are some weak, weird moments that Donald Trump would certainly be mocking if this were any other candidate’s campaign rollout (and he still had a Twitter account).

July 22, 2016

Ivanka’s absence made headlines, but she wasn’t the only Trump who bailed on him. The former president couldn’t even get a majority of his children to attend the event. Per the New York Times:

In the audience were his sons Barron and Eric (whom Mr. Trump perhaps unwittingly compared to Al Capone and Jesse James in his speech), along with Eric’s wife, Lara. Also his son-in-law Jared Kushner but not Ivanka, who played a starring role during Mr. Trump’s term in office but has announced via an Instagram story that she is bowing out of Season 2. And not Don Jr., though his fiancée, Kimberly Guilfoyle, was there. As for Tiffany, she was presumably on her honeymoon after her marriage last weekend.

February 3, 2017

It’s not every day that a defeated president makes a comeback attempt, but the cable news networks didn’t feel the need to air his remarks in full. MSNBC didn’t air the primetime speech at all, while Fox and CNN cut away from the more-than-hour-long address after Trump verbally announced his candidacy. Fox cut away about 15 minutes later than CNN, and switched back to Trump for an additional few minutes after showing commentary from guests. And the major broadcast networks deemed Trump’s announcement less important than a spinoff of The Bachelor. ABC, NBC and CBS all decided to stick with previously scheduled entertainment programming — reality show “Bachelor in Paradise” on ABC, science fiction drama “La Brea” on NBC and a fictionalized show about the FBI on CBS.

August 7, 2020

Naturally, Trump’s speech was chock-full of false and misleading claims. But there were also plenty of simple mistakes. As The Independent noted, Trump referred to the lower chamber of Congress as “the House of Representators”; he promised to “ensure that Joe Biden does not receive four more years in 2020”; and he bragged that he “went decades with no wars” during his four years as president.

Security wouldn’t let people leave. He literally had a captive audience.

Former Trump officials bashed him on-air. When CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked former Trump chief of staff Mick Mulvaney if he thought the announcement was good for the GOP, he said, “No, I don’t, because I think he’s the only Republican who could lose.”

July 20, 2021

Mulvaney added that if Trump wins the GOP nomination in 2024, the general election will be another referendum on him: That means the 2024 race is not about Joe Biden or whatever Democrat is on the ticket, not about inflation, not about world events, not about abortion. It will be about Donald Trump, the same thing we saw in 2020. No one voted for Joe Biden. Everybody voted for or against Donald Trump. It was a referendum on him. That’s what we’re hurtling toward in 2024. And I don’t see the outcome being any different two years from now than it was two years ago.

Later on CNN, Sarah Matthews, who served as Trump’s deputy press secretary, described the speech as “uninspiring,” “boring,” and “a rambling mess.”

The Post added credence to a report that owner Rupert Murdoch is done with Trump, following up last week’s “TRUMPTY DUMPTY” postelection cover with this absolutely brutal write-up. (NY Magazine) 

From sketch to finish, see the current way Graeme completes an editorial cartoon using an iPencil, the Procreate app, and a couple of cheats on an iPad Pro … These sped up clips are posted to encourage others to be creative, to take advantage of the technology many of us already have and to use it to produce satire. Comfort the afflicted. Afflict the comforted.

 

Friday November 11, 2022

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday November 11, 2022

Greene’s call for ending U.S. aid to Ukraine isn’t about the money

December 20, 2016

Speeches presented at Donald Trump’s rallies are not renowned for their detailed presentations of carefully considered policy proposals. That’s not why people go to rallies in general, of course, much less this specific genre of rally. Attendees show up to show their support for Republican candidates — and to hear excoriations of the political left.

That’s the context in which we should consider the contribution by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) to a rally Thursday in Iowa: Her arguments about funding for the war in Ukraine were political rhetoric, not considered analysis. The question, instead, is what political aim she intended to advance.

Greene’s mention of Ukraine stemmed from a riff about the border. Greene accused Democrats and the news media of ignoring an alleged “crime spree” involving undocumented immigrants, including that there are “drugs flooding across our border, with fentanyl poisonings every single day.” One reason you’re hearing about fentanyl so much this year is that overdose deaths have increased, as the media have reported. Another reason is that Republicans are using the fear of fentanyl as a way to bash Democrats on border policies — although most fentanyl is smuggled in through existing border checkpoints, often by U.S. citizens.

June 18, 2022

Regardless, that was the setup for her comments about U.S. spending to help Ukraine.

“Democrats have ripped our border wide open,” she said in Iowa. “But the only border they care about is Ukraine, not America’s southern border. Under Republicans, not another penny will go to Ukraine. Our country comes first.”

See the logical jump there? From “Democrats care too much about Ukraine’s border” to “we shouldn’t spend on Ukraine at all.” It’s not clear how one follows from the other, but consistency on such things is not how Greene has built her political reputation.

June 15, 2021

While not the official position of the GOP, Greene’s “not another penny” line met with some applause. That’s not surprising, given that polling has shown increasing Republican skepticism about providing aid to Ukraine in its war against Russian invaders. As The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake noted Thursday, nearly half of Republicans now think the United States is doing too much in support of Ukraine.

But the United States is doing relatively little — particularly when considering the historical context of its effort to contain Russian aggression.

May 5, 2000

U.S. defense spending has increased dramatically since the end of the Cold War, the period in which U.S. opposition to Russian strength was most overt. That’s largely because of the increase in spending that followed the 9/11 attacks, including for the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But it’s also because spending has increased broadly and because of inflation. Relative to total government spending, defense spending (here meaning Department of Defense outlays) has been fairly flat. (The Washington Post)