Showing posts with label Biden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Biden. Show all posts

Friday, October 2, 2020

Donald Is Sick - Updated

This is a developing story this morning and who knows what twists and turns lie ahead. I'll post interesting things as I see them, starting with this: 

At about 9:15 this morning, the CNN bottom-of-screen crawler said this: 

National Security Council ordered masks for White House grounds back in February, but was met with sharp directive that masks were not "a good look," multiple officials tell CNN. "If you have the whole west wing running around wearing masks, it wasn't a good look," one admin official recalls of [the] directive that came down after some NSC staffers were told to wear masks. [The] west wing wanted to "portray confidence and make the public believe there was absolutely nothing to worry about," the official says, revealing for [the] first time the image-conscious reason for early opposition to masks within [the] White House. In late January when [the] U.S. confirmed several coronavirus cases, west wing staff often told others in the administration that this was nothing to worry about, one former official says; staffers were repeatedly told in internal White House meetings that the virus had been "contained" because there were only 15 cases at the time. One former admin official laments setbacks the early masks opposition dealt U.S. coronavirus response, telling CNN "we lost so much time... this could have been so different."

Several minutes later, there was this: 

Trump has several risk factors for more severe Covid-19 symptoms. He is 74, falling in [the] age range that faces five times greater risk of hospitalization and 90 times greater risk of death from the virus compared to young adults, [the] CDC says. Men are also more likely to die from coronavirus, and Trump is considered obese, which triples risk of hospitalization from Covid-19, CDC says. In 2018, one test indicated Trump had moderate heart disease. Not everything about Trump's health is known: [the] president made [a] relatively secret visit to Walter Reed National Military Medical Center last November, though [the] White House press secretary said the unannounced trip was to begin portions of his routine annual physical exam.

It's going to be an interesting day.

Update: Speaking of twists and turns, several people in my Twitter timeline were pointing out that Donald's illness is a distraction from the "Kimberly" situation. I assumed that meant Kimberly Guilfoyle, a.k.a. Don Jr.'s girlfriend, but I hadn't heard anything specific about her since her weird speech at the Republican convention a few weeks ago. A quick Google search turned up this, from Jane Meyer, writing at The New Yorker: 

As President Donald Trump heads into the 2020 elections, he faces a daunting gender gap: according to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, he trails Joe Biden by thirty percentage points among female voters. As part of his campaign, Trump has been doing all he can to showcase female stars in the Republican Party, from nominating Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court to naming Kimberly Guilfoyle, the former Fox News host and legal analyst, his campaign’s finance chair. Guilfoyle, however, may not be an ideal emissary. In November, 2018, a young woman who had been one of Guilfoyle’s assistants at Fox News sent company executives a confidential, forty-two-page draft complaint that accused Guilfoyle of repeated sexual harassment, and demanded monetary relief. The document, which resulted in a multimillion-dollar out-of-court settlement, raises serious questions about Guilfoyle’s fitness as a character witness for Trump, let alone as a top campaign official.

In the 2020 campaign, Trump has spotlighted no woman more brightly than Guilfoyle. She was given an opening-night speaking slot at the Republican National Convention. And this fall Guilfoyle, who is Donald Trump, Jr.,’s girlfriend, has been crisscrossing the country as a Trump surrogate, on what is billed as the “Four More Tour.” At a recent “Women for Trump” rally in Pennsylvania, Guilfoyle claimed that the President was creating “eighteen hundred new female-owned businesses in the United States a day,” and praised Trump for promoting school choice, which, she said, was supported by “single mothers like myself.”

Guilfoyle has maintained that her decision to move from television news to a political campaign was entirely voluntary. In fact, Fox News forced her out in July, 2018—several years before her contract’s expiration date. At the time, she was a co-host of the political chat show “The Five.” Media reports suggested that she had been accused of workplace impropriety, including displaying lewd pictures of male genitalia to colleagues, but few additional details of misbehavior emerged. Guilfoyle publicly denied any wrongdoing, and last year a lawyer representing her told The New Yorker that “any suggestion” she had “engaged in misconduct at Fox is patently false.” But, as I reported at the time, shortly after Guilfoyle left her job, Fox secretly paid an undisclosed sum to the assistant, who no longer works at the company. Recently, two well-informed sources told me that Fox, in order to avoid going to trial, had agreed to pay the woman upward of four million dollars.

Until now, the specific accusations against Guilfoyle have remained largely hidden. The draft complaint, which was never filed in court, is covered by a nondisclosure agreement. The former assistant has not been publicly identified, and, out of respect for the rights of alleged victims of sexual harassment, The New Yorker is honoring her confidentiality. Reached for comment, she said, “I wish you well. But I have nothing to say.”

and last year a lawyer representing her told The New Yorker that “any suggestion” she had “engaged in misconduct at Fox is patently false.” But, as I reported at the time, shortly after Guilfoyle left her job, Fox secretly paid an undisclosed sum to the assistant, who no longer works at the company. Recently, two well-informed sources told me that Fox, in order to avoid going to trial, had agreed to pay the woman upward of four million dollars.

Until now, the specific accusations against Guilfoyle have remained largely hidden. The draft complaint, which was never filed in court, is covered by a nondisclosure agreement. The former assistant has not been publicly identified, and, out of respect for the rights of alleged victims of sexual harassment, The New Yorker is honoring her confidentiality. Reached for comment, she said, “I wish you well. But I have nothing to say.”

As serious as the draft complaint’s sexual-harassment allegations were, equally disturbing was what the assistant described as a coverup attempt by Guilfoyle, whose conduct was about to come under investigation by a team of outside lawyers. In July, 2016, the network had hired the New York-based law firm Paul, Weiss to investigate sexual misconduct at the company, which, under the leadership of Roger Ailes, had a long history of flagrant harassment and gender discrimination. According to those familiar with the assistant’s draft complaint, during a phone call on August 6, 2017, she alleged that Guilfoyle tried to buy her silence, offering to arrange a payment to her if she agreed to lie to the Paul, Weiss lawyers about her experiences. The alleged offering of hush money brings to mind Trump’s payments to the porn star Stormy Daniels, in order to cover up his sexual impropriety.
(Read the entire article here.)

Update #2: Josh Marshall, writing at Talking Points Memo, ponders the timeline of events:

The timeline of events leading up to the disclosure of President Trump’s diagnosis point overwhelmingly to some mix of a coverup and gross negligence and likely both.

Let’s review some key facts, as far as we presently know them.

The New Jersey Trip

Yesterday morning Hope Hicks received test results showing she was COVID positive. It’s not clear when the test was administered (we’ll get to that in a moment). But she received the confirmed positive test yesterday morning before Trump left for a campaign/fundraiser trip to New Jersey. On that trip Trump was frequently observed unmasked, including in an indoor roundtable meeting. He appears to have exposed dozens of people during that trip.

It is clear that the President’s medical staff and top staff (and almost certainly the President himself) knew before leaving on that trip that he had been exposed to COVID. But he went anyway and exposed dozens more.

That was at a minimum an act of gross irresponsibility.

As I’ll note in a moment it also suggests the strong possibility that the White House tried to keep the whole situation secret.

Who Infected Who and When?

Most people are assuming that Hicks infected President Trump. But based on what we know that’s not the only or even the most likely scenario. Indeed, their infections being discovered so close in time makes it probably more likely that some other person or persons infected both of them. But there are details here that don’t add up.

We’ve been led to believe that the President and the people around him are tested either daily or close to daily. The White House medical staff have both the rapid saliva tests which take on the order of 15 minutes or so and the PCR tests which a dedicated lab can turn around in something like an hour and a half. If these tests are being done that frequently there should never been more than hours between someone becoming virus positive (and thus infectious) and tripping off a test.

We know that you can be infectious before becoming symptomatic. Indeed there’s significant evidence that you’re more infectious before developing symptoms. But your infectiousness is about your viral load. A significant viral load should trip off a test.

But here’s the problem. We don’t just know Trump, Melania Trump and Hicks are COVID-positive. They all appear to be actively symptomatic, sick. Presumably their symptoms are currently mild. But it is unlikely that all three people reached viral levels capable of testing positive and became actively sick on the same day.

This throws into some question whether the top people at the White House, including the President, are actually being tested on a daily basis. It also suggests that these three and likely others have been infectious and possibly actively sick for a significant period of time. There’s some mix of failed surveillance and/or secrecy about what the surveillance has found.

Were They Keeping It a Secret?

A critical part of this equation is that the White House didn’t come forward with any of this. Jennifer Jacobs of Bloomberg News learned that Hicks had tested positive and reported that last night. That immediately focused attention on the President’s exposure and forced the overnight disclosure of his illness. Were they planning on disclosing that Hicks had tested positive? That is at best unclear. They hadn’t disclosed that Ronna McDaniel, the head of the RNC who met with Trump last week, tested positive. We just found that out this morning. And what about Trump himself? Trump had repeatedly traveled with Hicks. Her diagnosis Thursday morning should have led to President Trump’s being immediately tested and possibly diagnosed yesterday morning or at the latest in the afternoon. But news reports last night suggested – though without saying so directly – that they were being tested and waiting on results last night.

This timeline has serious holes in it.

This is a crisis situation. Things can get confused. And because it is a crisis situation we can’t assume that all the reporting we have is complete or entirely accurate. We can’t point with total confidence to the contradiction between two apparent facts. Because none of them are that certain. But there are lots of indications that the White House was trying to keep this information under wraps and possibly endangered the lives of numerous people in doing so, including that of the President himself and possibly his challenger Vice President Biden
. (This is the article in its entirety.) 

Some good news: It has now been announced that Joe and Jill Biden have both tested negative. 

Update #3: This is from Vanity Fair; apparently Hope Hicks is "frustrated" with Donald for his cavalier approach to the virus:  

Trumpworld is gripped by fear and panic this morning as the country absorbs the news that Donald Trump, Melania, and Hope Hicks tested positive for COVID-19. “There are so many threads to pull. No one knows where this is going to go,” a stunned former West Wing official told me.

The biggest unknown is the state of the president’s health. This morning the New York Times reported that Trump is exhibiting “coldlike symptoms.” Two Republicans in close contact with the White House told me that Trump’s symptoms have included a cough and fever. Melania is said to be asymptomatic. “They are worried about the president because of his age,” one of the sources said. Sources said Trump will likely want to be seen in public as soon as possible to blunt the narrative that he is sidelined by the virus he’s spent the last six months downplaying. “He’s going to want to get out there a lot sooner than people think,” the former official said. “But it will be hard to hide if he’s sick. Also, who will want to be in a room with him?” The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Campaign advisers are also gaming out how Trump’s COVID diagnosis will play out with only 32 days left until the election. Sources I spoke with are doubtful the next two debates will happen. “There really can be nothing for 14 days. It’s as if the campaign ended yesterday,” a second former West Wing official told me. Republicans close to Trump are discussing what kind of message Trump should put out that might limit the political damage. “He could come out and say, ‘Look, I had COVID and it wasn’t that bad. It just shows that I’m strong and we should open up the country,’” the former West Wing official said. “He could make a mockery of it.”

Meanwhile, Hicks has experienced more pronounced symptoms than the president. Two sources said she has had a high fever and a cough, with one source adding she lost her sense of smell. Hicks is said to be frustrated with Trump for taking such a cavalier approach to the virus. She was one of the few West Wing staffers to wear a mask in meetings, which her colleagues chided her for. “She was made fun of because she wore a mask,” a friend said. Sources told me Hicks is also upset that news coverage has made it appear that she gave Trump the virus, when in fact no one knows where he got it. “It’s so unfair she’s sort of being blamed,” the friend told me.

Hicks did not respond to a request for comment.
(This is the article in its entirety.)

Note: Apparently the fundraising message I posted was not authentic. Apologies, I've deleted it. 

Monday, September 28, 2020

Republicans For Biden

When Republican General Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama in October, 2008, Tina Brown wrote this at The Daily Beast:

"If one more Republican grandee or neoconservative bigwig endorses Obama, his campaign will collapse under the weight of counterintuitive adoration."

I've thought of that comment many times in the last few weeks as several groups of Republicans, and some now-former Republicans, have joined together to defeat Donald Trump. There are groups:

The Lincoln Project

Republican Voters Against Trump

43 Alumni For Biden (These are people who worked for President George W. Bush)

Republicans and Independents for Biden


... and there are individual Republicans, including John Kasich, Carly Fiorina and yes, Colin Powell, who have also endorsed Biden. Yesterday former Pennsyvania governor and Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge endorsed Biden, and this morning it's been announced that John McCain's widow Cindy has joined Biden's transition team. 

Will any of this have an impact on the election? Political scientist Jonathan Bernstein says it can:

Former Michigan Governor Rick Snyder endorsed Joe Biden late last week, part of a somewhat impressive group of Republican supporters that the former vice president’s campaign has rolled out recently. The obvious question: Does it matter?

We should expect minimal direct effects. Even in Michigan, there are very few voters who will hear from Snyder and switch from President Donald Trump to Biden. And Snyder is Biden’s biggest catch so far; many of his other Republicans supporters either have been out of office for a long time or were moderates to begin with and no longer really fit in the party. For example, Bill Weld was governor of Massachusetts in the 1990s; former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman has been out of office for nearly 20 years. It’s unlikely that many undecided voters even know who they are, let alone care about their voting advice. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell is better known — but it’s been a while since he supported a Republican for president.

And if those politicians are unlikely to directly bring many votes with them, it’s even less likely that any undecided voters care what former staffers for John McCain and Mitt Romney think.

There’s more to elections, however, than direct effects.

At the most basic level, these endorsements are newsworthy — which just means that cross-party endorsements are unusual enough to be worth reporting (note that the Republican convention featured one Democratic state legislator who supports Trump, which got some coverage as well). The more defections, the more stories. And each of them is a good-news-for-Biden story that crowds out, in part, whatever it is that the Trump campaign wants reported. Voters may not care about what some obscure politician thinks, but if they see a steady stream of stories that are positive for Biden and negative for Trump, that may have some influence on them.

There’s also a more indirect effect. Voters don’t pay much attention to endorsements, but political actors — including the media — certainly do. The more (and the more weighty) cross-party endorsements that a candidate There’s also a more indirect effect. Voters don’t pay much attention to endorsements, but political actors — including the media — certainly do. The more (and the more weighty) cross-party endorsements that a candidate receives, the better his or her claim to the mainstream; the more defections a candidate suffers, the more likely that the media will treat her as out of the mainstream or unusually troubled. That’s especially true for a sitting president, who shouldn’t have much difficulty keeping the party on board. Of course, endorsements aren’t the only evidence that can change how a candidate is treated; policy positions matter too, as do actions and words. But endorsements have the advantage of being relatively objective, and the neutral media tends to like objective facts that they can lean on when they want to say things that they think are true — that a Barry Goldwater or a George McGovern is ideologically extreme, or that a Jimmy Carter or a Donald Trump isn’t up to the job. (Note that these are examples of what reporters believed, not what was necessarily true.)

The mistake some make is to expect all or nothing, when all of this operates at the margins. After all, more than 80% of voters are going to be loyal to their party almost no matter what. Yes, turnout may complicate this picture a bit, but even then most people are either habitual voters or habitual nonvoters. And most swing voters — either the kind who might support either candidate or the kind who will vote for one party or stay home — don’t pay much attention to politics anyway. Still, they do tune in a bit when an election is near, and they may well be influenced by the information environment, which in turn is influenced to some extent by things such as cross-party endorsements.

And by the way: That’s how most news stories affect elections. The idea that a significant number of voters would desert their party’s presidential nominee based on any single news story is just not how things work. But that doesn’t mean something such as the Atlantic’s recent story about Trump’s lack of respect for military service (and follow-ups verifying and sometimes expanding on the key details) is irrelevant. Instead, it means that there’s a lot of negative Trump news out there at the moment, and it helps shape how the president will be portrayed going forward. For those voters who may be cross-pressured or just haven't given any of it much thought, such coverage tends to push them toward some candidates and against others.

Which is, to tell the truth, a pretty healthy process when done correctly.
(This is the column in its entirety. Note that it was posted on September 8, before Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, opening up a Supreme Court seat, and before the new New York Times bombshell story about Donald's taxes.) 

Tuesday, August 25, 2020

This Day In History, 2018: John McCain Died













Friday, August 21, 2020

No Words




Well, maybe a few words: Brayden's segment last night, then seeing this video of when he first met Joe Biden, moved me more than anything else all week.







Saturday, July 18, 2020

2024: Time For A List - Updated

Is it too early for a list of possible Republican candidates for president in 2024? Apparently not:


I'm intrigued by the fact that Rothkopf doesn't include the current Vice President. Too damaged by his slobbering, ass-kissing sycophancy towards Donald? Too afraid Donald will boot him off the ticket this year if he appears to be looking ahead? Probably to both, but I'm putting him on my list anyway.

2024 Potential Republican Candidates
  1. Liz Cheney (Representative from Wyoming, daughter of former VP Dick Cheney)
  2. Tom Cotton (Senator from Arkansas)
  3. Nikki Haley (former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. and former Governor of South Carolina)
  4. Larry Hogan (Governor of Maryland)
  5. Mike Pence (Current VP, former Governor of Indiana)
  6. Mike Pompeo (Current Sec. of State, former representative from Kansas and former director of the CIA)
  7. Mitt Romney (Senator from Utah, former governor of Massachusetts, 2012 Republican nominee for president)

And for a fun blast from the past, can you name all 17 Republicans who were declared candidates in 2016? No? Here's that list:

Declared 2016 GOP Candidates, in order of their official announcement (in 2015):
  1. Ted Cruz (March 23)
  2. Rand Paul (April 7)
  3. Marco Rubio (April 14)
  4. Dr. Ben Carson (May 3)
  5. Carly Fiorina (May 4)
  6. Mike Huckabee (May 5)
  7. Rick Santorum (May 27)
  8. George Pataki (May 28)
  9. Lindsey Graham (June 1)
  10. Rick Perry (June 4)
  11. Jeb Bush (June 15)
  12. Donald Trump (June 16)
  13. Bobby Jindal (June 24)
  14. Chris Christie (June 30)
  15. Scott Walker (July 13)
  16. John Kasich (July 21)
  17. Jim Gilmore (July 30)
Four of these distinguished statesmen are still in the Senate (Cruz, Paul, Rubio and Graham,) two are cabinet secretaries, current (Carson) and former (Perry,) and the rest are out of government. Except for Donald, of course, but hopefully his destiny changes in 108 days. Of the "also rans," my guess is that Cruz and Rubio are pondering another run.

Update: Maryland governor Larry Hogan is another name I'm seeing mentioned as a possible 2024 candidate. I've added him to the list above.

And one more thing. Two of the 2016 candidates, Carly Fiorina and John Kasich, have announced that they support and will vote for Joe Biden.

Days until the election (from Monday 7/20) 106

Friday, June 26, 2020

A Republican Speaks: "I'm Voting For Joe Biden"

In Darby, Pennsylvania, on June 17, 2020.
photo credit: Matt Slocum/AP

Stuart Stevens is a Republican political consultant and a senior advisor to The Lincoln Project. In a USA Today opinion piece titled "2020 Election: If Republicans care about America, they should vote for Joe Biden," he explains why:

I’ve worked in five Republican presidential campaigns. Four won the nomination and two won the White House. It’s a presidential election summer but I am trying to do everything I can to help elect a Democrat: Joe Biden.

Another four years of Donald Trump would be a disaster for America and the world. They would also be a disaster, and likely fatal, for the Republican Party. The reality is that President Trump is a symptom, not the source, of the disease that is ravaging the Republican Party. Only by confronting that sickness can there be a possibility of a cure.

The Republican Party has lost its way

In 1956, Dwight Eisenhower got 36% of the African American vote. In 1964, that number fell to 6% for Barry Goldwater. One could have argued that once the Civil Rights bill, which Goldwater opposed, became law, many of those former Republican African Americans would return to the party. But it never happened, and Republicans have never come to grips with the reasons.

For decades, Republicans told themselves that African Americans would be drawn back to the party if only Republicans understood how to communicate with Black voters.

This launched a cottage industry of Black Republican consultants hired by the RNC to help white Republican candidates and campaigns deliver their message to non-white voters. “If you talk about ‘good’ jobs not just jobs, African Americans will hear you,” was a standard of these lessons.

It was all nonsense. African Americans heard Republicans clearly; they just didn’t like what they were hearing. The party that revered Ronald Reagan’s line, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are ‘I’m from the government and I'm here to help,’” never realized that to many African Americans and lower income whites, the federal government was the last best hope for a better life.

After the 2012 election, Republican Party Chairman Reince Priebus commissioned a so-called “autopsy” to analyze the reasons the party had only won the popular vote once since 1988. The need to reach out to non-white voters, to appeal to younger voters and women was presented not just as a political necessity but a moral mandate for a governing party.

All of that was thrown aside a few years later when the party embraced the white grievance candidacy of Donald Trump. Trump didn’t bend the party to his will, he gave the party an excuse to quit pretending it really cared about anything but power.

Biden is right choice for Republicans

I’ve helped elect Republican governors or senators in over half the country, and I have given up any hope that there is some line Trump can cross to make more than a few Republicans in Congress stand for the principles they all swore to believe. The only way to save the Republican Party is to crush Trump and Trumpism and rebuild. It’s why I say, when I am asked what to do about the party I worked in for so long, “Burn it to the ground and start over.”

That starts with electing Joe Biden. Most importantly, Biden is a decent man with a seriousness of purpose that is totally lacking in the Trump administration. The alternative is four more years of a Republican Party that endorsed Roy Moore and stands silently by as Attorney General Bill Barr shreds the rule of law.

It is possible the party can squeeze out enough white voters and suppress enough non-white voters to eke out a victory for Trump. But it is impossible for that party to grow and prosper beyond November 3rd.

Today in America over half of those 15 and under are non-white. There is good reason to believe that when they turn 18 they’ll register as Democrats. That is a stage four cancer warning for the Republican Party. Had George Wallace won the Democratic nomination and been embraced by the Democratic establishment, what would that have meant for the future of the party?

So it is with Republicans and Trump. We have a president and vice president who refuse to say the words “black lives matter” and seem more determined to defend Confederate statues than the Constitution.

I spent years working to defeat Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama. In those battles, I passionately believed Bob Dole, George W. Bush and Mitt Romney would make better presidents, but I never feared for the country if a Democrat won. That’s how a civil society must function. But today I do desperately fear for the country if Trump wins, again. History tells us that once hate is unleashed and legitimized by a major political party, it is difficult to stop. History will judge each of us on what we did to defend America in this tenuous moment.

America or Donald Trump? That’s how this Republican sees the November choice. I say to my Republican friends: I know what side I’m on, do you?

Stuart Stevens is a Republican consultant, writer and currently serves as a senior advisor to The Lincoln Project. His book, "It Was All A Lie: How The Republican Party Became Donald Trump," will be published in August. Follow him on Twitter: @stuartpstevens.

Leadership (And Singing) - Updated

Thoughts about leadership from The Lincoln Project:

June 24, 2020 - The Lincoln Project’s latest video, “Leadership,” released today, illustrates how a true President leads in a time of crisis and juxtaposes it with the sorry excuse for honorable leadership under Donald J. Trump the past four years.

The spot begins airing today in the critical swing states of Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

“Joe Biden is a strong, caring leader who can guide us out of the hell Americans find ourselves in,” said John Weaver, co-founder of The Lincoln Project. “It’s imperative Joe Biden wins this November.”

Reed Galen, a co-founder of The Lincoln Project, said, “Joe Biden is the clear choice when it comes to compassionate and decent leadership. In a battle of heart, mind, and character Joe Biden wins by a landslide. We need to ensure that’s reflected in the vote this November.”

No American should live in fear due to a lack of honest leadership. Thankfully, Joe Biden will be elected on November 3rd and with that the healing of our country will begin. The work doesn’t stop there, The Lincoln Project will work tirelessly to make sure Joe Biden is sworn in come January.

The Lincoln Project is a group of prominent Republicans and former Republicans working to defeat the re-election of Donald J. Trump and those who support him.






And how beautiful is this:


Click here to read more about The Lincoln Project.

Update on Saturday morning. Donald makes a big fuss about respecting the 
National Anthem, as if kneeling can take anything away from what our anthem stands for. But have you seen him when he thinks no one is looking? Consider this, taken during a Super Bowl party at Mar-a-Lago:




Demi Lavato is singing the anthem on television in the background; Melania and Barron are on either side of Donald, standing respectfully with their hands over their hearts. How much respect for the anthem is Donald showing? 

Saturday, June 13, 2020

Lindsey Loves Joe



Lindsey's line about Joe Biden rang a bell and then I remembered where I had heard it before. President Obama quoted it when he awarded Vice President Biden the Presidential Medal of Freedom With Distinction:




 The Graham quote is at the 13.00 minute mark.

Update: It's not just Lindsey. Many Republicans were against Donald before they were for him:



Kellyanne Conway is a top-level staffer for Donald; I confess I had forgotten, but Rick Perry also works for the president. He doesn't get much attention, or to put it another way, he hasn't had any big scandals and has mostly stayed out of trouble, but he's still the Secretary of Energy.

Ted Cruz doesn't like Donald either:



Thursday, April 9, 2020

It's Joe Biden

Bernie Sanders dropped out of the presidential campaign yesterday, and Tulsi Gabbard withdrew some time ago, leaving Joe Biden as the presumptive Democratic nominee. In an article titled "After 32 Years of Running For President Biden Clinches it," Jonathan Bernstein ponders Biden's long path to becoming the Democratic nominee for president:

Former Vice President Joe Biden has gone from what political scientist Josh Putnam has called the presumptive presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to being the just plain presumptive Democratic nominee.

Bernie Sanders finally saw that there was no realistic chance of winning the nomination, and that dropping out now was the way to maximize his influence. Surely his decision to suspend his campaign was due in part to the coronavirus lockdown, and the halt to normal campaigning.


Still, the Vermont senator probably lost the Wisconsin primary this week (although the results won’t be in until next week), and he might well have lost mail-in primaries in Alaska, Wyoming and Ohio later this month and another few states with primaries scheduled in May. It’s probably better to get out now and be perceived as a team player than to demonstrate the limits of his appeal in state after state over the next two months.

Whether Sanders stuck around until June was going to be irrelevant to Biden and the fall campaign; if anything, a steady stream of big wins might have helped the former vice president’s image, but the nomination has been his for some time now. What is more relevant is whether Sanders will succeed in persuading his strongest supporters to back the Democratic ticket. We won’t know that for a while.

Think about it. Joe Biden, who has been more or less running for president at least since the 1988 cycle, has at long last won a Democratic presidential nomination. His triumph relied quite a bit on Barack Obama’s selection of him as his running mate in 2008, and he did a solid job as vice president. Biden also benefited from quite a bit of luck.

I do think, however, that he demonstrated three qualities that could help him in the White House, should he win in November.

Coalition building: Biden had enough supporters early on that he was the plurality leader in endorsements throughout the campaign. His real strength, however, was that a whole lot of Democratic Party actors who had different first choices — and in many cases different second, third, fourth and fifth and more choices — seemed to find him acceptable.

Biden may never have had wild enthusiasm from a lot of the party, but there never seemed to be a Stop Biden movement at any point. Part of the reason for that was his knack of positioning himself right in the center of the Democratic Party. His long-term success in personal appeals to party actors also played a role. Coalition-building skills are highly useful to presidents.

Perseverance: Biden made two choices that risked his reputation. The first was to run at all, given his long-term failure in presidential politics. He could easily have retired as a successful senator and vice president, and his presidential campaigns would have been a minor footnote in his political biography. Another late-career flop would have turned him into a joke. And then he chose to carry on after miserable finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire, risking further humiliation if he couldn’t turn things around.

Long-term thinking: One of Barack Obama’s biggest strengths as a candidate and as president was worrying very little about winning every news cycle; one of Donald Trump's weaknesses as president is his focus on winning news cycles. 1 Biden seems to have learned from Obama. When things were going badly for his campaign, he mostly didn’t panic. He did shake up his campaign a little after Iowa, but for the most part over the length of the process he was slow and steady, even though in the past steadiness was never really one of Biden’s defining characteristics. 2 If he’s added that to his skill set over the years, it will serve him well if he becomes president.

The balance of the findings from political scientists is that the out-party candidates just don’t make much of a difference if there’s an incumbent president on the ballot. The election is a referendum on the incumbent. That's likely more true with Trump in particular, and the circumstances of the pandemic and the pandemic-caused recession. So while I do think Biden enters the general election somewhat underrated as a candidate, it probably just doesn’t matter much. 3

Still, winning a presidential nomination is always an impressive accomplishment, and Biden has shown some signs he will be an OK candidate this fall and will have pretty good skills to use as president if he wins.

(1) That's especially obvious during the pandemic. One example: Trump tried to get states to keep new unemployment filing data quiet at one point early on, even though the same numbers are released nationally every Thursday -- so he was only putting off inevitable bad news. Of course, more broadly, there's evidence that Trump's slow response to the pandemic in February may have been a case of trying to win news cycles then, even at the cost of seeing larger damage later on (although whether it made a difference is less clear).

(2) The best portrait of mid-career Biden remains Richard Ben Cramer's "What It Takes," the masterpiece of reporting on six of the candidates from the 1988 cycle.

(3) Some, in fact, badly underrate him. A lot of people have seen selective and even doctored clips too many times and concluded that Biden is barely functional. He has aged, and I for one think parties should avoid selecting presidential candidates as old as Biden -- or Trump. But beyond that? His lifetime stutter is less controlled than it was 30 years ago, but otherwise? I've watched him in every debate through this cycle, in numerous town-hall-type appearances and in plenty of interviews, and he's perfectly coherent. Everyone sometimes reaches for a word, gets some basic fact wrong, or otherwise looks silly, and so it's easy to use even perfectly in-context clips to make anyone who is in the news constantly look incoherent. Democrats have done that to Trump; Republicans did it to Obama.
(This is the article in entirety.)

I've updated my lists for the final time. Just shy of a year from the day he announced, and as Bernstein says, 32 years after Joe's first presidential campaign, he is now the (presumptive) nominee and the last person standing on my I'm Running list: 

I'm Running Declared Democratic candidates, in order of their announcement.

Joe Biden (4/25/19)

I'm Not Running Anymore Declared candidates who have dropped out:
  1. Richard Ojeda (1/25/19)
  2. Eric Swalwell (7/8/19)
  3. John Hickenlooper (8/15/19)
  4. Jay Inslee (8/21/19)
  5. Seth Moulton (8/23/19)
  6. Kirsten Gillibrand (8/28/19)
  7. Howard Schultz (9/6/19) * Ran as an Independent
  8. Bill de Blasio (9/20/19)
  9. Tim Ryan (10/24/19)
  10. Beto O'Rourke (11/1/19)
  11. Wayne Messam (11/20/19)
  12. Joe Sestak (12/1/19)
  13. Steve Bullock (12/2/19)
  14. Kamala Harris (12/3/19)
  15. Julián Castro (1/2/20)
  16. Marianne Williamson (1/10/20)
  17. Cory Booker (1/13/20)
  18. John Delaney (1/31/20)
  19. Andrew Yang (2/11/20)
  20. Michael Bennet (2/11/20)
  21. Deval Patrick (2/12/20)
  22. Tom Steyer (3/1/20)
  23. Pete Buttigieg (3/1/20)
  24. Amy Klobuchar (3/2/20)
  25. Michael Bloomberg (3/4/20)
  26. Elizabeth Warren (3/5/20)
  27. Tulsi Gabbard (3/19/20)
  28. Bernie Sanders (3/8/20)
Days until the election: 207

Wednesday, March 4, 2020

After Super Tuesday - Updated

It was a great night for Joe Biden and a terrible night for Michael Bloomberg, who has now dropped out and endorsed Biden. I never really warmed to the thought of Mr. Bloomberg as president, although he would be better than Donald. What you may have forgotten is that one year ago tomorrow Bloomberg said he wouldn't run:



He changed his mind in November, apparently believing that if he threw as
much money as humanly possible into the race he could buy himself the job.
Truthfully I'm glad that didn't work; I'm also glad he's still committed to
defeating Donald Trump and will hopefully put more of his money towards
that goal:  

 


In other news, Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo ponders Bernie Sanders' place in all this:

I’ve written a few times that my greatest fear of a Sanders general election campaign is that it would be one half against Donald Trump and one half against the Democratic party itself. The results last night help us understand some of these liabilities and dynamics. Insurgent candidacies and movements have certain enduring, inherent qualities. The simplest is the belief that there’s something wrong, outdated or corrupt about the organizational leadership you’re trying to overthrow. That’s obvious. Otherwise, why are you an insurgent?

Sanders is a twofold political figure. He’s been a federal legislator for a quarter century operating within the conventional political system. He’s also been a left activist for almost 60 years. That oppositionist mentality is deep in his political DNA and that of his campaign. It’s one of its core strengths. It’s magnified among his most vocal supporters.

We’ve had debates here about what Sanders means by the ‘party establishment’ or ‘party elites’ or the ‘donor class’. But there’s a conflation of party power structures and elite leadership and much of the party itself. And by this I mean the mass of voters and activists who constitute the party itself outside the faction that he leads. A key part of Sanders’ message (and again, greatly amplified by his most vocal backers) is that that those other people, who collectively make up much of the party are either wrong on the key issues, hypocritical on policy or even corrupt. Calling them “the establishment” makes that easier to say. But 60% or 70% of Democratic primary voters by definition can’t be the establishment.

If you’re bidding to take over management of a political party and your politics, campaign or supporters have defined that party as in real ways the enemy or the problem that’s going to be a tough sell. I mean, this is obvious.

Here’s where we get into that question I discussed with that longtime reader about what really constitutes “the establishment.” The Sanders campaign often talks as though it’s only talking about an establishment of insiders and power brokers. But that just leaves millions of activists and voters erased from the picture entirely. The last 72 hours is a case in point. To hear many Sanders surrogates describe it, the establishment and power brokers closed ranks and pushed Biden into the lead. But again, this just pretends like millions of voters don’t exist, or function as pawns of party elites. So you have one theory of political agency for Sanders supporters and another for everyone else. This stands no kind of political scrutiny.

Did key endorsements, especially from Jim Clyburn but also from Klobuchar, Buttigieg and O’Rourke, have an effect? Of course. But focusing only on those ignores what was a parallel reaction among numerous ordinary Democratic voters to the events of the last ten days. The interplay between these two developments is key.

Here we get to a critical, distinct dynamic of this race. Sanders was dominating the primary race with about 25% support. If you won’t or can’t expand your coalition beyond that number you’re in a highly vulnerable position, particularly if you’ve created a confrontational or antipathetic relationship with other factions within the party.

This is not to say the Sanders faction of the party is the only one that faces coalitional problems. Far from it. It will be critical for whoever wins the nomination to craft a story to let the supporters of the losing candidates come on board. That is work every Democrat and really everyone who wants to unseat Donald Trump has in front of them.
(This is the article in its entirety.)

Two other interesting Super Tuesday tidbits, both from Texas: Pierce Bush, a grandson of George H.W. Bush, was running for a House seat representing a section of Houston and lost in the primary. It's the first time someone named Bush has lost in Texas in 40 years. And Dr. Ronny Jackson, Donald's former official physician ("he could live for 200 years...") also running for a House seat, will advance to a run-off:

A former White House physician whose nomination by President Donald Trump to lead the Department of Veterans Affairs was derailed by allegations of drinking on the job and over-prescribing drugs has advanced to a Republican runoff for a rural Texas congressional seat.

Former Rear Adm. Ronny Jackson emerged Tuesday from a crowded GOP primary as one of the top candidates in a comfortably Republican district that covers much of North Texas and the Panhandle. Jackson will face agriculture advocate Josh Winegarner in the May runoff.
(From the Washington Post; read more here.)

I've updated my lists:

I'm Running Declared Democratic candidates, in order of their announcement:
  1. Tulsi Gabbard (1/11/19)
  2. Bernie Sanders (2/19/19)
  3. Joe Biden (4/25/19)

I'm Not Running Anymore Declared candidates who have dropped out:
  1. Richard Ojeda (1/25/19)
  2. Eric Swalwell (7/8/19)
  3. John Hickenlooper (8/15/19)
  4. Jay Inslee  (8/21/19)
  5. Seth Moulton (8/23/19)
  6. Kirsten Gillibrand (8/28/19)
  7. Howard Schultz (9/6/19) * Ran as an Independent   
  8. Bill de Blasio (9/20/19)
  9. Tim Ryan (10/24/19)
  10. Beto O'Rourke (11/1/19)
  11. Wayne Messam (11/20/19)
  12. Joe Sestak (12/1/19)
  13. Steve Bullock (12/2/19)
  14. Kamala Harris (12/3/19)
  15. Julián Castro (1/2/20)
  16. Marianne Williamson (1/10/20)
  17. Cory Booker (1/13/20)
  18. John Delaney (1/31/20) 
  19. Andrew Yang (2/11/20) 
  20. Michael Bennet (2/11/20)
  21. Deval Patrick (2/12/20)
  22. Tom Steyer (3/1/20)
  23. Pete Buttigieg (3/1/20)
  24. Amy Klobuchar (3/2/20)
  25. Michael Bloomberg (3/4/20) 
  26. Elizabeth Warren (3/5/20)

    Days until the election: 243

    Update on Friday morning: Elizabeth Warren has dropped out too, leaving Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders to duke it out. Yes, Tulsi Gabbard is still technically a declared candidate, but she doesn't appear to be doing any of the things candidates generally do and she's obviously not going to be the nominee. I've updated the lists above.

    And mark your calendar, here are the dates for the conventions and the general election debates:
     
    July 13-16 Democratic Convention, in Milwaukee

    August 24-27 Republican Convention, in Charlotte

    September 29 First Presidential Debate, in South Bend

    October 7 Vice Presidential Debate, in Salt Lake City

    October 15 Second Presidential Debate, in Ann Arbor

    October 22 Final Presidential Debate, in Nashville

    November 3 Election Day

    Concerning the debates, I'm wondering if Donald will agree to debate at all. Given his observable deterioration, in particular his growing inability to speak clearly, it wouldn't surprise me if he announces that he just doesn't feel like debating Joe or Bernie.

    And one more thing. The Week has published the first article I've seen this time around with the word "veepstakes" in its title. In their "if Biden's the nominee" scenario they ponder five names I've seen on other such lists, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and Stacey Abrams. Then they mention a "true dark horse," Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico. (She was in 10th place on a VP list the Washington Post published in December. Read more here.) Why Governor Lujan Grisham? This is why:

    That leaves the person who might be the best choice of all — and a true dark horse in the competition to become second in line to the most powerful job on the planet: Sixty-year-old Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico. A lawyer and former member of the House of Representatives, where she served as chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Lujan Grisham became the first Democratic Latina governor in the country in 2018. Along the way, she's also served as New Mexico's secretary of health. On the personal side, she shares with Biden a family history marked by tragedy: Her sister was diagnosed with a brain tumor as a child and died at age 21, while her husband (with whom she had two children) died of a brain aneurysm in 2004.

    Solid experience as a legislator and chief executive, the potential to woo Hispanic voters to the polls, a compelling and relatable biography — in all of these ways, Lujan Grisham could well prove to be the perfect choice to serve as Joe Biden's running mate and potential VP. (Read the entire article here.)

    Sunday, March 1, 2020

    After South Carolina - Updated

    After disappointing finishes in yesterday's South Carolina primary, Tom Steyer and Pete Buttigieg have ended their campaigns. Keep an eye on Buttigieg, in particular, because I'm certain we'll be hearing from him again. (Pete could wait and run for president in 2056 and he'd still be younger than Bernie Sanders is right now.) Tulsi Gabbard hasn't formally dropped out, as far as I know, but she doesn't appear to be really in, either, leaving Warren, Klobuchar, Sanders, Biden and Bloomberg still active in the race. Here in Illinois we don't vote until March 17; early voting has started, which I usually do, but I'm waiting to vote until I know for sure who's still in the race after Super Tuesday. 

    I've updated the lists below.

    I'm Running Declared Democratic candidates, in order of their announcement:
    1. Elizabeth Warren (12/31/18)
    2. Tulsi Gabbard (1/11/19)
    3. Bernie Sanders (2/19/19)
    4. Joe Biden (4/25/19)
    5. Michael Bloomberg (11/24/19)

    I'm Not Running Anymore Declared candidates who have dropped out:
    1. Richard Ojeda (1/25/19)
    2. Eric Swalwell (7/8/19)
    3. John Hickenlooper (8/15/19)
    4. Jay Inslee  (8/21/19)
    5. Seth Moulton (8/23/19)
    6. Kirsten Gillibrand (8/28/19)
    7. Howard Schultz (9/6/19) * Ran as an Independent   
    8. Bill de Blasio (9/20/19)
    9. Tim Ryan (10/24/19)
    10. Beto O'Rourke (11/1/19)
    11. Wayne Messam (11/20/19)
    12. Joe Sestak (12/1/19)
    13. Steve Bullock (12/2/19)
    14. Kamala Harris (12/3/19)
    15. Julián Castro (1/2/20)
    16. Marianne Williamson (1/10/20)
    17. Cory Booker (1/13/20)
    18. John Delaney (1/31/20) 
    19. Andrew Yang (2/11/20) 
    20. Michael Bennet (2/11/20)
    21. Deval Patrick (2/12/20)
    22. Tom Steyer (3/1/20)
    23. Pete Buttigieg (3/1/20)
    24. Amy Klobuchar (3/2/20)

    Days until the election: 246

    Update on Monday afternoon: Senator Amy Klobuchar has also dropped out and has endorsed Joe Biden. Pete Buttigieg is expected to do the same this evening. I've updated the lists above. 

    Thursday, June 20, 2019

    More Trouble For Hunter Biden - Updated

    It's now been a week since Hunter's quickie marriage became public and the bride and groom have been staying out of the spotlight. I've googled them a couple of times, out of curiosity, wondering, for example, where will they live? Is there a picture of them together? Has Melissa met Joe and Jill yet? There's been no info on any of that, but things might be getting more complicated for Hunter. The following was posted by Page Six a couple of hours ago, under a headline that says "Hunter Biden accused of fathering child with Arkansas woman:"

    An Arkansas woman claims Hunter Biden is the father of her child — and she’s suing to prove it.

    Lunden Alexis Roberts, 28, filed a petition for paternity and child support against Joe Biden’s lawyer son, saying she gave birth to his kid, “Baby Doe,” in August 2018, according to court papers.

    The two-page suit was filed in Independence County, Arkansas, on May 28 — nearly two weeks after Hunter tied the knot with a South African woman named Melissa Cohen.

    Roberts wants a court to establish that the 49-year-old father of three is her baby’s biological dad. She is also seeking child support and for him to provide health insurance for the now-10-month-old infant. All out-of-pocket expenses would be split between the two parents, the filing said.

    The petition does not say how Roberts and Hunter met or how long they were together.

    But the birth of the child came while Hunter was in a relationship with Hallie Biden, his late brother Beau’s wife. The former in-laws started dating in 2017 and split in April, Page Six exclusively reported.

    Roberts’ attorney Clint Lancaster said his client “values her privacy.”

    “She really does not want this to be a media spectacle. She does not want this to affect Joe Biden’s campaign,” Lancaster told the Arkansas Democrat Gazette. “She just wants this baby to get financial support from the baby’s father.”

    The lawyer said they haven’t been able to serve Hunter with the legal papers so far.

    “We have been in contact with Hunter Biden’s attorney. We have attempted to work with Hunter and his attorney to settle this issue but that has not been successful,” Lancaster said. “We are attempting to serve Mr. Biden.”

    Hunter could not be immediately reached.
    (This is the article in its entirety.)

    Sounds like Hunter Biden has a DNA test in his future. Can this story be true? Maybe. A posting at the website of a newspaper called the Arkansas Democrat Gazette has more details, read it here. You can read my post about Hunter's recent marriage here.

    Update: I admit I had been wondering if Hunter Biden had really had a relationship with a woman living in Arkansas. Then I saw an article titled "Lunden Roberts: Five Fast Facts You Need To Know," which included this:

    Roberts was living in Washington D.C. two years ago studying crime scene investigation in graduate school and working with the FBI, according to a family member’s Facebook post. It is not clear what school she was attending to get her master’s degree. Public records show she was living in D.C. and Virginia from 2015 to 2018. (Read the article here.)

    The petition for paternity and child support includes an August, 2018 birth date for the baby, meaning conception happened sometime in November-December, 2017, when Roberts was living in the D.C./Virginia area, which also happens to be where Hunter Biden lives. Now things look a bit clearer. In an article last week reporting on Hunter's secret May marriage, the Washington Post referred to his "messy personal life." Things just got a lot messier. 

    Thursday, June 13, 2019

    Hunter Biden's Messy Personal Life - Updated

    When I watched the funeral of then-Vice President Joe Biden's first born son, Beau, in 2015, I found myself feeling some sympathy for second son Hunter. Beau was eulogized, by President Obama and others, as a paragon among men, probably the next governor of Delaware and possibly a future president. I remember thinking that it couldn't be easy to be the younger brother of such a man, especially when Hunter's life had been far less successful than Beau's.

    For example, in a particularly public screw-up, Hunter was given an "administrative" discharge from the Naval Reserves in 2013 after testing positive for cocaine. I remember reading about it at the time but given that his father was the VP, the story didn't get as much news coverage as I would have expected. This is how CNN covered it:

    The Navy Reserve discharged Vice President Joe Biden's son Hunter this year after he tested positive for cocaine, U.S. officials confirmed.

    The discharge of Biden, a 44-year-old lawyer and managing partner at an investment firm, was first reported by the Wall Street Journal on Thursday. He confirmed the report in a statement to CNN.


    "It was the honor of my life to serve in the U.S. Navy, and I deeply regret and am embarrassed that my actions led to my administrative discharge. I respect the Navy's decision. With the love and support of my family, I'm moving forward," he said.
    (Read more here.) 

    Then the funeral was over and I didn't think about Hunter for a couple of years, until I saw a news report saying that he was going through a contentious divorce and oh, by-the-way, he was now romantically involved with his former sister-in-law, Beau's widow Hallie. (I wonder what a good shrink would have said about that.) That was in 2017 and apparently Hunter and Hallie were together until just a few weeks ago:

    Hunter Biden has split from Hallie Biden — the widow of his late brother, Beau — Page Six has exclusively learned. The breakup comes two years after we first reported that the former in-laws were dating in 2017.

    The son of presidential candidate Joe Biden, Hunter found love with Hallie following Beau’s tragic death from brain cancer at age 46 in 2015. However, it is believed they have now broken up. When contacted, Hallie told us, “No comment.” A source close to the family said it’s a private matter. It’s unclear why the pair parted ways, but sources further told us that the situation is “amicable.”
    (From Page Six in an article dated April 30, 2019, read it here.) 

    Now Hunter is back in the news again, having tied the knot with a women he barely knows. (Page Six says they knew each other for 10 days before getting married, read that here.) In a story headlined "Hunter Biden's messy personal lie is back in the news. Will it cause political headaches for his dad?" and dated yesterday, the Washington Post said this: 

    Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s son Hunter recently married a Los Angeles woman, according to the bride’s mother. Hunter’s surprise marriage to Melissa Cohen, who has South African roots, once again landed him in gossip columns and reinforced his reputation as an unpredictable character in father’s political narrative.

    TMZ and Page Six on Wednesday revealed the unexpected nuptials of 49-year-old Hunter, whose love life has previously been the subject of tabloid-worthy drama: In 2017 he divorced his wife of more than 20 years, Kathleen Biden, after a messy split in which she accused him of blowing money on drugs and strip clubs.

    Hunter had long lived in the shadow of his older brother, Beau, who was attorney general of Delaware, a military veteran and encouraged to run for higher office. Hunter, an attorney, was discharged from the Navy in 2014 after failing a drug test.

    Following a battle with brain cancer, Beau died in 2015 at age 46 — leaving his family devastated. His grieving father wrestled with whether to run for president in 2016, ultimately deciding to wait out the race. The former vice president has cited Beau as an inspiration for his 2020 bid.

    At the same time, Hunter’s tumultuous personal life has played out in public. Following his divorce from Kathleen, with whom he has three daughters, the Biden family acknowledged he was dating Hallie Biden, Beau’s widow and mother of Hunter’s niece and nephew.

    Joe and Jill Biden maintained a unified front with Hunter in light of questions about the unusual romance, releasing a supportive statement to Page Six in 2017: “We are all lucky that Hunter and Hallie found each other as they were putting their lives together again after such sadness. They have mine and Jill’s full and complete support and we are happy for them.”
    (Read the story here.) 

    TMZ says the wedding took place on May 16, read that story here. Hunter's youngest daughter Maisy graduated from high school Sunday, there was no sign of the new Mrs. Biden in pictures posted by Jill Biden the next day:



    Did Hunter's parents know, when these pictures were taken, that their son was newly married? Did his daughters know?

    Hunter Biden is a private citizen and he can do whatever he wants. From a common sense point of view, however, marrying a woman you've known for approximately two weeks, very shortly after breaking up with your previous partner, who just happened to be your brother's widow, is almost certainly not a recipe for marital stability.

    When Kim Kardashian and Kanye West got married in 2014 I gave it two years. I've now been proven wrong about that. Five years later Kimye is still a thing. Will Hunter Biden and Melissa Cohen be together in 2024? Almost certainly not. I give it two years.

    Update: Hunter's not the only one whose personal life is messy. Page Six just posted an article that starts with this:

    Pals of Melissa Cohen were stunned that she married Hunter Biden — because they said she was in a long-term relationship with someone else just weeks earlier.

    We’re told that South African beauty started dating Malibu real estate developer Rob Mendez on July 4, 2017, and that they were living together until April of this year. After they split, the pair continued to “hang out” into May.

    So when the news about her wedding to Biden broke, there was a flurry of emails between friends of the former couple, sharing the story. “Wow,” said one, “She just broke up with Rob!” They added, “So I’m quite shocked by this being so sudden after their breakup.”

    Biden — the son of 2020 Democrat frontrunning, [sic] Joe Biden — was, until recently, dating his brother Beau’s widow, Hallie. Cohen was also previously married in 2011.

    Cohen and Hunter married on May 16 after knowing each other for 10 days.
    (Read the article here.) 

    This story is getting stranger by the minute. The more I learn the more convinced I am that happily ever after is not in the cards for Hunter and Melissa. 

    Update #2 on Friday morning. Hunter Biden's new father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law, a.k.a. the bride's father, mother and brother, have all commented positively about the marriage. (Read about it here and here.) On the other hand, other than one word, "yes," from Joe Biden in answer to the obvious question (see video below,) there's been no comment from anyone in the Biden family. No good wishes, nothing warm and pleasant about their new daughter-in-law, no "we can't wait to meet her," etc. Is it possible Joe and Jill are not thrilled about Hunter's quickie marriage? My guess? Yes.



    Update #3 on Saturday morning. Confession: I'm still thinking about Hunter Biden and his strange, secret marriage. I tried to be tactful when I wrote the original post above; here's what I really think: Marrying a woman you've known for two weeks is a really stupid thing to do, signaling a lack of emotional maturity and extremely poor judgment. (It's also a clear example of bad decision-making by an addict, which by his own admission, Hunter Biden is.) In addition, at the age of 32, the bride is 17 years younger than the groom and only 8 years older than his oldest daughter. A 17-year age gap isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, but in this situation I'd say it's a red flag.

    I can't help wondering, what was the rush? Why not just date for a while? (If I was in a position to talk to someone considering getting married after two weeks, this is what I'd say: "What are you afraid of? What do you think will happen if you don't get married right away?") I'm also struck by the on-going silence from the Biden family. I'm now convinced of two things. One, there's more to this story, and two, the marriage won't last. I said above that I give it two years, but that was probably too optimistic. Frankly, I'd be surprised if Hunter and Melissa are still together at Christmas.