Nancy Pelosi

DNC2024 – Night Three

Illustration by Graeme MacKay, Wednesday August 21, 2024

The Nomination of VP Running Mate Tim Walz 

Introduction of Tim Walz as Vice-Presidential Nominee: Minnesota Governor Tim Walz officially accepted the Democratic nomination for vice president, delivering a speech that emphasized humility, neighbourly values, and support for middle-class families. Walz, a former high school football coach, leaned into his background as a teacher and coach, presenting himself as a relatable and down-to-earth candidate. He highlighted his personal story, including his and his wife’s struggle with infertility, to connect with voters on a human level. “You look out for them, and they look out for you,” Walz said, stressing the importance of community and mutual respect. His message focused on the Democrats’ commitment to freedom, middle-class support, and reproductive rights, signalling a clear contrast with the Republicans.

Bill Clinton’s Message of Generational Change: Former President Bill Clinton played the role of a seasoned elder statesman, emphasizing the importance of generational change within the Democratic Party. “Lord, I’m getting old,” he admitted, before passing the baton to the next generation, symbolized by Kamala Harris and rising stars like Pete Buttigieg, Josh Shapiro, and Wes Moore. Clinton highlighted the self-centred nature of Donald Trump, noting, “The next time you hear him, don’t count the lies. Count the ‘I’s,” contrasting it with Harris’s focus on the American people. He urged Democrats to engage in respectful debates with political opponents rather than dismissing them as enemies, recalling Hillary Clinton’s infamous “basket of deplorables” comment and emphasizing that “they are your neighbours.”

Oprah Winfrey’s Emotional Appeal: Oprah Winfrey’s surprise appearance stole the show, captivating the audience with a message of common sense, decency, and unity. Winfrey, a powerful figure in American culture, highlighted Kamala Harris’s background as the daughter of immigrants, framing her candidacy as a testament to the American Dream. “We are not so different from our neighbors,” Winfrey said, stressing the shared humanity across political divides. She passionately called for voters to embrace the “Freedom” message of the Harris-Walz campaign, declaring, “And let us choose the sweet promise of tomorrow over the bitter return to yesterday.”

Emphasis on Neighbourly Values and Unity: Throughout the night, Democrats avoided divisive rhetoric and instead promoted a message of neighbourly respect and unity. Tim Walz and Oprah Winfrey, among others, emphasized that despite political differences, Americans should treat each other as neighbours. “That family down the road — they may not think like you do, they may not pray like you do, they may not love like you do, but they are your neighbours,” Walz remarked. This approach was a clear departure from past campaigns and aimed to avoid alienating Trump’s supporters.

Tribute to Minnesota and Cultural Highlights: The night also featured a tribute to Minnesota, celebrating its cultural icons like Prince, and included appearances by figures like Senator Amy Klobuchar. The atmosphere blended political seriousness with cultural pride, highlighting the importance of the state to the Democratic Party.

Acknowledgment of Challenges Ahead: Despite the upbeat tone, the evening was not without caution. Both Clinton and other speakers reminded the audience of the tough road ahead, warning against complacency in the face of a fierce opponent in Donald Trump. “This is a brutal, tough business,” Clinton observed, acknowledging the difficulties that lie ahead. The Harris-Walz campaign made it clear that while the night was celebratory, the real challenge lies in the upcoming election.

DNC2024:  Night 1  |  Night 2  |  Night 3  |  Night 4  |  2020

Sources: 

The Guardian: Walz, Bill Clinton and surprise Oprah: Democratic convention day three key takeaways

The Washington Post: Toxic exes, saving childless ladies’ cats: Memorable lines from DNC Night 3

The NY Times:  Oprah, Football and Freedom: Highlights From the Democratic Convention

The Times of London (Contrarian View): Scratch the surface and Tim Walz is not so swell

Wednesday December 11, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday December 11, 2019

NAFTA, Impeachment: A Donald Trump doubleheader

“I want you to do us a favour,” said Donald Trump, and Nancy Pelosi complied on Tuesday, finally releasing the parking brake from a revised North American Free Trade Agreement and giving the president a glut of gloat-able, quotable material to use on the re-election trail about what an Artful Dealer he is.

July 27, 2018

Announcement of the replacement for what Trump often has called “the worst trade deal in the history of the world” came on the same morning of the same day that the same Madame Speaker – using the word “solemn” twice in her first sentence – announced the two specific, alleged “high crimes” for which the president will be tried and quickly acquitted by his cowed Republican allies in the U.S. Senate next month.

During any other presidency, such a contradiction would be considered dizzily discombobulating, but this is Trump. Adding to the vertigo, the president capped this bestest awfulest day by gaggling in the Oval Office with Sergei Victorovich Lavrov, the amiable foreign minister of Russia, which got America into this mess in the first place.

November 19, 2019

Known to the White House as the “US-Mexico-Canada Agreement” and the most significant legislative achievement of Trump’s presidency since his trillion-dollar tax cuts of Christmas, 2017, the tri-national treaty will impact the continent’s factories and farms long after Trump has passed from the scene, be it by a hostile Senate vote or defeat at the totally-rigged ballot boxes. Most of its last-second amendments relate to the enforcement of labour standards in Mexican factories.

“It could be perishable,” Pelosi told reporters at the Capitol Tuesday morning, explaining why she chose to move USMCA at the same hour that she has been labelling the president “a clear and present danger” to the survival of the republic.

November 16, 2019

That it was the “deranged Democrats” who actually forged the final rewrite of the new-NAFTA, colluding with union groups to get the Mexican government to agree to a quid pro quo of freer trade in exchange for higher wages and tighter environmental and enforcement causes, is unlikely to be a feature of Trump’s stump speech between now and November. The only clause that he is likely to invoke is himself as Santa, once again squeezing his bulk down the national chimney with jobs, jobs, jobs.

Meanwhile, the president blithely romped along the rim of constitutional death Tuesday, tweeting that his life-long nemesis, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler “just said that I ‘pressured Ukraine to interfere in our 2020 Election.’ Ridiculous, and he knows that is not true. Both the President & Foreign Minister of Ukraine said, many times, that there ‘WAS NO PRESSURE.’ Nadler and the Dems know this, but refuse to acknowledge!” 

Trump then flew to swing-state Pennsylvania for a rally with the deplored. (MacLean’s) 

Tuesday November 19, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Tuesday November 19, 2019

Pelosi hints that a USMCA deal might be near. It’s a wise move for Democrats

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suggested both that President Trump may be impeachable due to “bribery” and gave her strongest signal yet that the House Democratic leadership is close to a deal with the White House that would enable the passage of Mr. Trump’s update to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In fact, she said those two seemingly contradictory things within the same news conference. Politics is indeed a strange and wondrous business.

June 22, 2019

Thank goodness. Governability can no longer be taken for granted in Washington, much less actual legislation. The impeachment of Mr. Trump along what are so far highly partisan lines threatened to deepen the dysfunctionality, despite promises from Ms. Pelosi and other Democratic leaders that the House could “walk and chew gum at the same time.” Ms. Pelosi’s optimistic words regarding the NAFTA revision, which Mr. Trump calls the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), were clearly carefully chosen and confirm that she was serious about her pledge to continue attending to the people’s business while the hearings proceed. This is a tribute also to the several dozen moderate members of her caucus, many first-termers elected from swing districts, who recognize that it is in their interest — as well as the country’s — to preserve stability in the hemispheric economy.

December 4, 2018

Stability is the operative word. Though highly unpopular in many quarters, especially the (often Democratic-leaning) industrial heartland — where it was blamed for loss of jobs to lower-wage Mexico — NAFTA, for better or worse, legally defines the multitrillion-dollar economic relationship among the United States and its two neighbors. To blow it up and revert to the higher-tariff status quo ante, as Mr. Trump threatened to do both in his 2016 campaign and as president, would have been disastrous.

On the other hand, having gone into effect in 1994, NAFTA was due for modernization, particularly to take account of new developments in e-commerce. Therefore, when Mr. Trump agreed to engage with Mexico and Canada in a renegotiation of the deal, it was wise for Democrats not to dismiss the effort out of hand, even if it might mean ultimately having to share credit with a Republican president for an initiative they had long promised to mount themselves.

October 2, 2018

On the merits, Mr. Trump’s deal is a tweak to NAFTA, disproving his hyperbole about how bad the old agreement was and how good his new one will be. It does indeed improve e-commerce rules and crack Canadian dairy protectionism. For the most part, though, the USMCA deal is about managed trade, not free trade. Its key provisions would set minimum autoworker wages in Mexico and guarantee higher North American content for cars and trucks made in the three signatory countries, so as to protect U.S. Jobs.

The realistic alternative, though, is a rupture with Mexico and Canada, which is why Ms. Pelosi and the moderates in her caucus are right to work with Mr. Trump, and why we hope they will see the USMCA through to House passage, send it to the GOP Senate for likely approval — and then move on to other business, impeachment included. (Washington Post)  

 

Saturday November 2, 2019

By Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday November 2, 2019

Impeach Trump. Then Move On.

Is it possible that more than 20 Republican senators will vote to convict Donald Trump of articles of impeachment? When you hang around Washington you get the sense that it could happen.

September 27, 2019

The evidence against Trump is overwhelming. This Ukraine quid pro quo wasn’t just a single reckless phone call. It was a multiprong several-month campaign to use the levers of American power to destroy a political rival.

Republican legislators are being bludgeoned with this truth in testimony after testimony. They know in their hearts that Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses. It’s evident in the way they stare glumly at their desks during hearings; the way they flee reporters seeking comment; the way they slag the White House off the record. It’ll be hard for them to vote to acquit if they can’t even come up with a non-ludicrous rationale.

And yet when you get outside Washington it’s hard to imagine more than one or two G.O.P. senators voting to convict.

In the first place, Democrats have not won widespread public support. Nancy Pelosi always said impeachment works only if there’s a bipartisan groundswell, and so far there is not. Trump’s job approval numbers have been largely unaffected by the impeachment inquiry. Support for impeachment breaks down on conventional pro-Trump/anti-Trump lines. Roughly 90 percent of Republican voters oppose it. Republican senators will never vote to convict in the face of that.

August 23, 2018

Second, Democrats have not won over the most important voters — moderates in swing states. A New York Times/Siena College survey of voters in Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin found that just 43 percent want to impeach and remove Trump from office, while 53 percent do not. Pushing impeachment makes Democrats vulnerable in precisely the states they cannot afford to lose in 2020.

Third, there is little prospect these numbers will turn around, even after a series of high-profile hearings.

I’ve been traveling pretty constantly since this impeachment thing got going. I’ve been to a bunch of blue states and a bunch of red states (including Kansas, Missouri, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Utah). In coastal blue states, impeachment comes up in conversation all the time. In red states, it never comes up; ask people in red states if they’ve been talking about it with their friends, they shrug and reply no, not really. 

Prof. Paul Sracic of Youngstown State University in Ohio told Ken Stern from Vanity Fair that when he asked his class of 80 students if they’d heard any conversation about impeachment, only two said they had. When he asked if impeachment interested them, all 80 said it did not.

Fourth, it’s a lot harder to do impeachment in an age of cynicism, exhaustion and distrust. During Watergate, voters trusted federal institutions and granted the impeachment process a measure of legitimacy. Today’s voters do not share that trust and will not regard an intra-Washington process as legitimate.

Many Americans don’t care about impeachment because they take it as a given that this is the kind of corruption that politicians of all stripes have been doing all along. Many don’t care because it looks like the same partisan warfare that’s been going on forever, just with a different name.

Fifth, it’s harder to do impeachment when politics is seen as an existential war for the future of the country. Many Republicans know Trump is guilty, but they can’t afford to hand power to Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.

March 31, 2017

Progressives, let me ask you a question: If Trump-style Republicans were trying to impeach a President Biden, Warren or Sanders, and there was evidence of guilt, would you vote to convict? Answer honestly.

I get that Democrats feel they have to proceed with impeachment to protect the Constitution and the rule of law. But there is little chance they will come close to ousting the president. So I hope they set a Thanksgiving deadline. Play the impeachment card through November, have the House vote and then move on to other things. The Senate can quickly dispose of the matter and Democratic candidates can make their best pitches for denying Trump re-election.

Elizabeth Bruenig of The Washington Post put her finger on something important in a recent essay on Trump’s evangelical voters: the assumption of decline. Many Trump voters take it as a matter of course that for the rest of their lives things are going to get worse for them — economically, spiritually, politically and culturally. They are not the only voters who think this way. Many young voters in their OK Boomer T-shirts feel exactly the same, except about climate change, employment prospects and debt.

This sense of elite negligence in the face of national decline is the core issue right now. Impeachment is a distraction from that. As quickly as possible, it’s time to move on. (David Brooks, NYTimes)  

 

Friday August 30, 2019

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday August 30, 2019

Trump floated the idea of using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes headed for US

President Donald Trump has floated multiple times the idea of thwarting hurricanes headed for the US by bombing them, including by dropping nuclear bombs on hurricanes to disrupt their course, Axios reported Sunday, citing conversations with sources who heard Trump’s comments and were briefed on a National Security Council memo that recorded the comments.

September 23, 2005

In an early Monday tweet, Trump denied the Axios’ report, claiming that he “never said” what was in it. CNN has not been able to independently verify the report.

According to Axios, the President has suggested the idea several times to senior Homeland Security and national security officials that they look into the idea of using nuclear bombs to stop hurricanes from hitting the US. A source who was at a hurricane briefing at the White House told the outlet that the President once said of hurricanes, “I got it. I got it. Why don’t we nuke them?”

The source, who paraphrased Trump’s remarks to Axios, said that the President said, “They start forming off the coast of Africa, as they’re moving across the Atlantic, we drop a bomb inside the eye of the hurricane and it disrupts it. Why can’t we do that?” Asked by Axios how the briefer responded to the President’s suggestion, the source said he “said something to the effect of, ‘Sir, we’ll look into that.’”

April 6, 2017

The President then asked how many hurricanes the US may be able to stop and reiterated his suggestions, according to the source, which caused the briefer to be “knocked back on his heels.”

“You could hear a gnat fart in that meeting. People were astonished. After the meeting ended, we thought, ‘What the f—? What do we do with this?'” the source told Axios.

According to the outlet, Trump also raised the idea of using bombs to stop hurricanes during a 2017 conversation with a senior administration official. A source briefed on a NSC memo describing that conversation told Axios that the document does not contain the word “nuclear.” According to sources the outlet spoke to about that conversation, despite Trump’s interest in the idea, it “went nowhere and never entered a formal policy process.”

April 11, 2017

The idea of using nuclear bombs “to counteract convection currents” was floated during the Eisenhower administration, Axios reported, and has continued to resurface even though government scientists have said it will not work.

According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in an online fact sheet titled “Tropical Cyclone Myths Page, detonating a nuclear weapon over a hurricane “might not even alter the storm,” and the idea “neglects the problem that the released radioactive fallout would fairly quickly move with the tradewinds to affect land areas and cause devastating environmental problems.” (CNN)