There is one name that is taking over the conversation about who Biden will choose as his VP….that name is Susan Rice.
Susan Rice is suddenly the topic of a lot of speculation in Joe Biden’s running mate sweepstakes. The 55-year-old worked with Biden in the Obama administration as national security adviser and as ambassador to the UN, but she was also was embroiled in the controversy over the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi. Coverage:
Unorthodox:Politico puts her near the top of the shortlist in a lengthy story. It would be an “unorthodox” pick given that she has never run for public office and nearly all of her credentials revolve around foreign policy. Her powerful edge is that Biden has worked closely with her and knows her well; it also doesn’t hurt that she isn’t seen as a VP who would be eyeing a presidential run, as is the perception with Sen. Kamala Harris.
Simpatico: The New York Times also is out with a story, noting she was a Rhodes scholar at 21 and an assistant secretary of state at 32. “While she and Mr. Biden have had policy disagreements over the years, they share a deeply held view of the importance of diplomacy and international institutions, a concern for promoting democracy and human rights and a common pride in Obama-era achievements that they helped shape, like the Paris climate agreement and the Iran nuclear deal,” writes Alexander Burns. Her foreign policy chops would allow Biden to focus on the national crises of the pandemic and the economy.
Controversies: Rice’s surge up the list of potential running mates is giving some Democrats pause because she is such a lightning rod for critics on the right, reports the Daily Beast. Choosing her might “reinvigorate” the Trump campaign in some respects. One Democratic aide sums up: She “is extremely accomplished and experienced and would obviously help a President Biden tremendously on national security, but on the political side, unfortunately, she has been the target of crazy right-wing hate for years.”
Benghazi: Yes, wild conspiracy theories about the 2012 attack that left four Americans dead were debunked, but as the Times‘ Burns points out, “Rice ended up taking the political fall for appearing on the Sunday shows to deliver a set of flawed administration talking points describing it as an outburst of spontaneous violence rather than organized terrorism.” Expect the whole controversy to be raised anew if Rice is on the ticket.
In favor: At Washington Monthly, Jonathan Alter makes the case for Rice, discussing all of the above issues, along with another: Rice’s son, John Rice-Cameron, is a prominent Republican. But that might actually work in Rice’s favor. “Many voters with friends and relatives who are Trump supporters may find Rice’s situation with her son human and relatable.”
Top 6: Aaron Blake of the Washington Post has updated his list of top contenders. Here are the top six, in order: Sens. Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Tammy Duckworth; Rice; and Reps. Val Demings and Karen Bass.
My thought on this chance….NO! NO! NO!
“Susan Rice is right in the middle of the road, when you think about foreign policy hands in DC,” said John Glaser, director of foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, in an interview with The American Conservative. “She has a lot of high level experience in foreign policy, but I’ve never been able to detect a way she stands out as a unique thinker, in that she had something to say about the way she’d prefer the U.S. to go. She says things that are plastic, packaged to be right in the center of the foreign policy consensus in D.C. That’s how I see her: run of the mill, not an extraordinary pick … If she were VP, our foreign policy would not be different than what we’ve seen the past 30 years.”
Given that Biden is campaigning on a “return to normalcy,” the foreign policy of the last 30 years isn’t necessarily something that Biden views negatively.
A Biden-Rice presidency would seek a return to the Paris climate accords, the JCPOA Iran deal negotiated during Obama’s second term, and would expand and strengthen NATO. They would likely avoid engaging in any new ground wars like Libya or Syria. Biden and Rice would be more hawkish on Russia, and if Rice’s latest op-eds are any measure, they would likely be more assertive with China as well.
I have never been a fan of the American Civil War……I preferred to study on the time between 1760 and 1812……to me there was far more stuff happening that needs more study…..especially the years between 1800 and 1811…..
But the renewed situation with the statues and flag and a deeper issue of racism has got me to thinking about the whole ball of wax.
Especially the so-called “Lost Cause Myth” pertaining to the South……..
The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is an American pseudo-historical, negationist ideology which advocates the belief that the cause of the Confederate States during the American Civil War was a just and heroic one.
This is the so-called history that has been taught in the South for many decades. For those that cannot read or understand a couple of short videos can assist.
These statues that are just now coming down helps to explain the BS behind the Lost Cause Myth…..
For the most part, the statues, now being stashed in the back rooms of museums in the South, are anachronistic, leftover artifacts of a mythology that spread throughout Southern states in the early 20th Century, and which historians refer to as the “Mythology of the Lost Cause.”
The myth grew out of attempts by a few Confederate army officers to justify their failures and ultimately humiliating defeats in the Civil War. It holds that instead of a doomed insurgency launched by racists in order to prolong slavery, the Civil War was, in fact, a romantic tragedy similar to the Hollywood fable portrayed by Clark Gable and Vivien Leigh in Gone with the Wind.
The Confederacy, according to this fictional account, fought to defend itself against Northern aggression and to preserve the rights of the besieged Southern states. Proponents insist that the people kidnapped and forced into bondage in the 17th and 18th centuries were most likely better off than they would have been had they remained in Africa. Some may even have preferred slavery, they argue.
Now ask…how could a defeat been seen as something positive?
Well we can thank Woodrow Wilson for he made the Lost Cause Myth more palatable…..he started naming military bases after defeat Confederate generals…..but why?
Born and raised in Virginia, Wilson was the first American president to hail from the South since the Civil War. He was 8 years old when Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court House. Though Wilson grew up to become a northeastern Ivy League academic, the president of Princeton, and later governor of New Jersey, his southern political base saw him as a champion of the Lost Cause. And he didn’t let them down.
As president, Wilson imposed Jim Crow–style segregation on the federal civil service and the Navy, which had been integrated for the previous century, and when he hosted the first-ever screening of a feature film in the White House, the honor went to The Birth of a Nation. An adaptation of the Thomas Dixon Jr. novel The Clansman, the film brought the myth of the Lost Cause to the silver screen in a racist paean to the defeat of Reconstruction through the terrorist violence of the KKK.
Here for your education are some of the tenets of the “Lost Cause Myth”……
Confederate generals such as Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson represented the virtues of Southern nobility. This nobility was contrast most significantly in comparisons between U.S. Grant and Lee. The Northern generals, were characterized as men with low moral standards who engaged in vicious campaigns against Southern civilians such as Sherman’s March to the Sea and Philip Sheridan’s burning of the Shenandoah Valley in the Valley Campaigns of 1864.
Losses on the battlefield were inevitable and were blamed on Northern superiority in resources and manpower.
Losses were also the result of betrayal and incompetence on the part of certain subordinates of General Lee, such as General James Longstreet. Longstreet was the object of blame because of his association with Grant, conversion to the Republican Party, and other actions during Reconstruction.
While states’ rights was not emphasized in the declarations of secession, the Lost Cause focused on the defense of states’ rights, rather than preservation of slavery as the primary cause that led eleven Southern states to secede.
Secession was seen as a justifiable constitutional response to Northern cultural and economic aggressions against the Southern way of life.
Slavery was fictionally presented as a benign institution, and the slaves were treated well and cared for and loyal and faithful to their benevolent masters.
Recently Dem candidate Joe Biden has said that Trump was the first racist president…..
Joe Biden on Wednesday dubbed Donald Trump the nation’s “first” racist president. “The way he deals with people based on the color of their skin, their national origin, where they’re from, is absolutely sickening,” the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee said at a virtual town hall. “No sitting president has ever done this. Never, never, never. No Republican president has done this. No Democratic president. We’ve had racists, and they’ve existed. They’ve tried to get elected president. He’s the first one that has.” As the AP points out, “many presidents—including the nation’s first, George Washington—owned slaves.” The HuffPost put it more bluntly: “He’s wrong,” it declared on Biden. NBC News notes Biden’s campaign later issued a statement acknowledging, “There have been a number of racist American presidents, but Trump stands out—especially in modern history—because he made running on racism and division his calling card and won.”
In addition to the slave-owning presidents, the HuffPost points out that Andrew Jackson was responsible for forcing indigenous people off their native lands and onto the “Trail of Tears”; he also would order “harsh, even brutal punishment for enslaved people who disobeyed orders.” Ronald Reagan was caught on tape calling African UN delegates “monkeys,” Woodrow Wilson supported segregation and segregated several federal agencies, and Franklin D. Roosevelt had Japanese-Americans placed in internment camps.
Come on Joe!
To my mind the first was Woodrow Wilson…..
He may have been the only president with a PhD……but he was also a supporter of the KKK and tried to roll back the progress Blacks had made since the Civil War.
Wilson was also a segregationist who wrote a history textbook praising the Confederacy and, in particular, the Ku Klux Klan. As president, he rolled back hard-fought economic progress for Black Americans, overseeing the segregation of multiple agencies of the federal government.
Wilson is often associated with the state of New Jersey because that’s where he served as governor and as president of Princeton University. But he was born in antebellum Virginia in 1856 and lived in Georgia during the Civil War. His parents supported the Confederacy, and Wilson’s five-volume history textbook, A History Of The American People, echoes those attitudes. The book adheres to what historians call the “Lost Cause” narrative, a non-factual view of history that romanticizes the Confederacy, describes the institution of slavery as a gentle patrician affair, recasts the Civil War as being about states’ rights instead of slavery and demonizes Reconstruction-era efforts to improve the lives of the formerly enslaved.
There is lots of talk about the polls showing Biden a big league in most contest in November…..but is it really that big of a lead?
Sorry voters but if you can think back to the Dark Ages, 2016, Clinton had a commanding lead in the polls and she had her ass handed to her…..so the moral of this story is do not believe the bullshit spread by the media.
Here is a couple of things about the upcoming election……
This article in the American Spectator (too conserv for my liking)……about Trump’s so-called Silent Majority…..
When President Trump insisted last month that his supporters included a substantial silent majority that isn’t represented in the polls, the Democrats and the corporate media devoted a surprisingly large amount of energy to “debunking” the claim. Indeed, their reaction was so shrill and ubiquitous that they seemed, to paraphrase Hamlet’s hapless mother, to be protesting too much. A new poll released Wednesday by the Cato Institute suggests a reason for this frantic reaction to Trump’s assertion. The survey of 2,000 Americans 18 years of age and older unambiguously indicates that the reluctance of moderates and conservatives to share their political views has increased significantly since 2017.
According to the poll, conducted on Cato’s behalf by YouGov, “The share of moderates who self‐censor increased 7 points from 57% to 64%, and the share of conservatives rose from 70% to 77%, also a 7‐point increase.” Perhaps more significantly, strong liberals constituted the only ideological cohort that indicated more freedom to express their political opinions. Only 42 percent indicate that they self-censor. A majority of committed liberals (58 percent) feel free to say what they think. This is why those with left-leaning political views seem to dominate the political discourse. They are doing most of the talking while moderates and conservatives keep their own counsel and wait patiently for Election Day.
Personally, I think that is “putting lipstick on a pig”…….
But Sen Mitt Romney has a few thoughts……
Mitt Romney is one of Donald Trump’s biggest Republican critics on Capitol Hill. He’s the only GOP senator who voted to convict the president for abuse of power earlier this year, and he regularly calls Trump out on policy and personal conduct.
Yet the Utah lawmaker, who was his party’s presidential standard-bearer in 2012, believes Trump is likely to win reelection this November.
Asked why he foresees that outcome, especially with most public polls showing Trump trailing badly behind presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden, Romney offered three reasons.
I cannot end on a note like that….so here is a thought of what Trump is doing to the GOP…….
Before beginning this assessment of Donald Trump’s campaign and the impact that it’s having on the Republican Party, it’s important to state that the only poll that matters is the one on Election Day. However, it cannot be ignored that the signs aren’t good for the President.
In 2016, at this stage of the campaign, polls showed that Hillary Clinton had a narrow lead, sometimes within the margin of error. Four years later, polls regularly show Joe Biden with a more substantial lead of 10% or more. This is supported by the state-by-state polls that give a greater insight into what’s happening on the ground in key battleground states, including places that Republicans once considered safe. The reality is that Donald Trump’s campaign is a sinking ship and he is taking the rest of the Republican Party with him.
Some are predicting the election of 2020 will be a major clusterf*ck…….
People often deploy the “perfect storm” metaphor incorrectly, using it to describe a surprise collision of events that catches its victims off guard. But that’s not how perfect storms really work: In Sebastian Junger’s book about a deadly Atlantic Ocean gale that popularized the term, the storm was a well-foreseen event, with serious warnings, that people saw coming and chose instead to ignore—until it was too late, and the waves overwhelmed them. That’s how this election is starting to look to experts.
What’s likely to go wrong, and is there any way to head it off?
Conversations with election specialists and security officials, plus analysis of recent government reports, make clear that there are eight distinct but connected challenges. At the technical end are the uncertain new voting technologies and processes put in place for the pandemic; on the geopolitical end, we face foreign adversaries energized by their success sowing confusion in 2016. And at the center is the unprecedented human factor: The dislocations and risks associated with voting in an uncontrolled viral outbreak.