Apocalypse Now: July 13, 2020

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

I can’t help but to think about the Democrat Convention this summer. I might be wrong but I believe that there has been another paradigm shift in the electorate. I predicted one before, and I’m predicting another one now: the candidate of choice is going to be based on emotions, feelings and about who can beat Trump – but not qualifications.

I predicted in an earlier writing that neither Biden nor Sanders would get the nomination. This was based on Biden’s performance and Sanders – always the bridesmaid with his socialist programs. Further, I predicted that two women may head the ticket. While this may still come to pass (I believe that Elizabeth Warren will lose consideration because of her untruthfulness), I’m going to propose a different scenario for consideration: a brokered convention. While this hasn’t happened in either party since 1952 and despite all of the rewrite of the rules, the Democrat party may have no choice but to wrest its way through one this summer. The hatred of Trump is overwhelming.

The old monkey wrench seems to be the Democrat establishment; despite the popularity of Bernie, they do not feel his progressive socialism will win the hearts and minds of the people – therefore, he’s got to go. And poor old Joe, he’s caught up in a maelstrom of family problems and political gaffes. Plus: “Here’s something ‘everybody knows' that is almost certainly true. The two most widely respected figures in the Democratic Party — Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi — are worried that a Sanders nomination could be disastrous for the party in the fall, increasing the likelihood that Trump is reelected or that enough marginal House Democrats lose their seats to turn congressional control back to the GOP. Of course, the reason an outsider like Trump took over the Republican Party is the same reason a socialist like Sanders might take over the Democratic Party: Party leaders simply do not wield the same levers of power in an era of online ideological movements. But that doesn’t mean they have no leverage.” https://www.politico.com/news/2020/02/25/why-bernie-sanders-might-not-lock-democratic-nomination-117339

“Imagine that Sanders comes into the convention with a weak plurality, far short of 1,991 delegates. When he asserts that the candidate with the most delegates should be awarded the delegation, and rails against the establishment, he is confronted with his comments from 2016 like this one.

“The responsibility that superdelegates have is to decide what is best for this country and what is best for the Democratic Party,” Sanders said. “And if those superdelegates conclude that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate, the strongest candidate to defeat Trump and anybody else, yes, I would very much welcome their support.”

“His brand is suddenly tarnished – he looks like every other self-serving politician.” (Ibid) Oops! So, everybody has to consider what other likely strategies could come from this.

Remember: this is an emotional election and not a qualification election. So, qualifications aside what would be the most popular ticket (it is evident that one candidate alone is not going to shift this).

In a previous article that I wrote, I predicted that Michelle Obama would run for the presidency in 2024 – and that the interim time period would be spent grooming her for that event. What if the establishment proposed a ticket that had her as the vice president and the next most eligible candidate at this time for president? Bloomberg and Obama? Or how about Buttigieg and Obama? 

Even more outrageous – despite her record – could be Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama be the most reasonable compromise at this time? I believe that any ticket like this basically decided by the superdelegates could possibly cause Trump a problem especially if it were presented with an outstanding cabinet of people – perhaps, those no-Trumpers that have recently received the boot from the Trump administration.

This action by the establishment would obviously all but destroy the Democrat party. It would be a political calculation of how many of Bernie’s people would leave the party and how many would rejoin the party because of the excitement generated with this ticket. I have not seen any polls that have attempted to project these numbers – either coming or going. But over the long run, if the strategy were successful, I think the Democrat party would heal very quickly. I’m sure as part of this deal, all horse-trading aside, Bernie would be taken care of with some type of a political plum and indebtedness from the party leaders for his part in taking down Trump – however indirectly this may have occurred.

Now to return to the part about this being an emotional election. The Democrat party is going to have a hard time dislodging an incumbent president whose accomplishments and current popularity are so high. 

“Americans are more positive about the state of the nation than they have been in over a decade, and Trump and the GOP appear to be benefiting. Still, in this era of extreme party polarization, that puts his approval rating at 49%, as Republicans' already high ratings have risen further while Democrats' negative opinions of him aren't budging. Independents' ratings of Trump have improved, but they are still more likely to disapprove than approve of the job he is doing.

“The significance of the trend is clear. An approval rating near 50% greatly increases Trump's chances of being re-elected, a prospect that seemed unlikely with his approval stuck near 40% for most of his term.” https://news.gallup.com/poll/286280/trump-job-approval-steady.aspx 

There was one other poll taken recently that maybe speaks volumes to Trump’s reelection prospects: “New High of 90% of Americans Satisfied With Personal Life” https://news.gallup.com/poll/284285/new-high-americans-satisfied-personal-life.aspx When you examine the individual cohorts of this poll, the Democrat party faces a daunting task indeed! 

This will be an interesting election to see which matters most to the American people: emotions or results!

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.

THE LEFT’s FINAL SOLUTION

[Also Published on Newsmax]

Leftists have launched their final assault on America.

Their goal is to obliterate America’s memory and sow the seeds for future generations to revile and reject everything that is good and noble in our country.

They intend to fundamentally change America’s historical narrative away from events and circumstances that made our country the world’s beacon of hope for freedom and representative government.  They strive to replace well-documented reality with a false narrative of America being the scourge of the world, based on its enslaving and stealing from everyone to enrich and aggrandize the white ruling elite.

Their plan is called the “1619 Project”, an alternative history curriculum for American elementary and secondary students.  It was announced in July 2019 with a series of front-page stories in the New York Times, and other major newspapers, explaining its content and the need to:

“reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding, and placing the consequences of slavery and the contributions of black Americans at the very center of the story we tell ourselves about who we are.”

The 1619 premise is, “our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written”.  Everything that happened in American history flows from the “original sin” of slavery.  Every concept, document, and institution that shapes and guides America was designed to promote slavery and therefore must all be eradicated to atone for centuries of racial oppression.

1619 proponents declare that we must “make amends” for America’s crimes against humanity by eliminating monuments, the Electoral College, the Senate, appointed Supreme Court justices, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, federalism, capitalism, and all vestiges of white history and culture.  The 1619 Project is partnering with those who deem the American Flag, Pledge of Allegiance, and National Anthem as offensive vestiges of racism, slavery, and white privilege.

We could ignore the 1619 Project if it was just the ravings of a coddled leftist professor in some Ivy League sinecure.  It is not.

The New York Times leads an array of news media, academia, think tanks, and public officials who see the 1619 Project as the final solution for turning America against itself.  Once they indoctrinate the current generation of elementary and secondary school students with hatred for America, drowning out dissenting voices with charges of racism and white privilege, they will have free rein to establish a permanent socialist state.

The 1619 Project was embraced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when she led members of the Congressional Black Caucus to Ghana during the August Recess.  They wanted the 1619 narrative of the first African slaves arriving at Jamestown to upstage commemorating the first session of an elected government at Jamestown.

To succeed, the 1619 Project must ignore mountains of facts, and fabricate a mountain of lies.

The centerpiece of the 1619 Project is that slavery was a uniquely American crime, infecting everything and everybody it touched to the present day.

The capture and enslavement of defeated foes is as old as humankind.  Slavery was integral to establishing regional dominance for the Egyptian Pharaohs, Muslim Emirs, Roman Emperors, and countless other rulers.  The Western Hemisphere’s great civilizations of the Mayans, Incas, and Aztecs enslaved their subjugated people for labor and ritual sacrifice. African rulers trading their slaves to Europeans was born from new sailing technology and the need for forced labor.

The 1619 Project ignores the fact that only 9.7 percent of the Atlantic slave trade involved England’s American colonies.  90.3 percent of African slaves were shipped to South America and the Caribbean.

The 1619 Project ignores that while 12 million West Africans were shipped by Europeans to the Americas, over 17 million East Africans were shipped by Arabs into the Middle East.  The 1619 Project ignores that the American colonies began banning slave importation in 1778, during the Revolutionary War, leading to a formal ban for the entire United States in 1794.  England did not ban slavery in its colonies until 1807.  Conversely, the Arab slave trade in East Africa was not eradicated until England destroyed the last slave forts in Zanzibar in 1909.  Slavery remains active, if officially banned, in much of the Arab world today.

The year 1619 is important, not because slaves arrived in the new world, but because for the first time in the Western Hemisphere, a free people elected representatives to govern and be held accountable at subsequent elections.  This was the first step to America becoming the most exceptional civic culture in world history.

Americans must do all they can to stop the 1619 Project and stand-up for the greatest nation on earth, before it’s too late.

REPUBLICAN DEATH WISH - ELECTION 2018

Also published on Newsmax.

Campaign losses are more “suicides” than “homicides”.

The Republicans were poised to beat the odds during the 2018 “Mid-term” election, then everything went wrong. Trump’s last minute targeting of key Senate races recovered some, but not all, of the opportunities for Republican gains. The House was another matter.

History was on the Republicans’ side - Trump’s 2016 victory did not extend to House or Senate races. Democrats gained two Senate seats and six House seats. The absence of “coat tails” meant there was a dearth of “at risk” Congressional Republicans. At the same time, ten Democrat Senate incumbents, who had benefited from Obama’s 2012 trouncing of Romney, were potentially easy targets in states where Trump won handily.

Enter the Lemming Factor. 

It did not take long for media pundits and liberal pollsters to declare that Trump’s behavior and policies would generate a “Blue Wave” overwhelming Republicans in 2018. The prevailing wisdom was that dozens of Republican incumbents in Districts won by Hillary Clinton were going to be decimated. Easily spooked Republicans bought into this analysis. They overlooked the fact that the Republicans who won in 2016 Hillary Districts were the strongest, not the weakest going into 2018. 

Facts did not matter. On November 9, 2017, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, Chair of the House Judiciary Committee and an incumbent who consistently won re-election by over 60%, announced his retirement. Other Republican incumbents soon opted to leave. By early 2018, 26 safe Republicans, who had weathered Hillary’s best effort, had retired, creating potential for Democrat gains. Surprisingly, more than enough for Democrats to retake the House.

Republicans actually began losing the House in February 2017. Speaker Ryan and his leadership team determined their best course of action was to distance themselves from their new Republican President. 

Ryan missed the opportunity to coordinate with the Republican run Executive Branch to open and re-open investigations against Obama, Clinton, and all their minions. This could have included delivering the Comey Report on Hillary Clinton’s email abuses to a Grand Jury and inevitable indictments. Every witness who refused to testify under Obama could be forced to testify. Every document refused under Obama could be released. 

Aggressively exposing Obama/Clinton misdeeds 24/7 would have build the case for Republican government and crippled Democrat candidate recruitment and fundraising for 2018.

Ryan and his committee Chairs blew it, and paid the price. The Democrats caught their breath and rebounded from 2016. Unfortunately, starting in January 2018, House Democrats will show Republicans how total war is waged - 85 subpoenas are already being prepared. 

Trump also contributed to Congressional losses. He laid the ground work for defeat in March 2016 when his inner circle chose to ignore advice and offers for help from Reagan alumni. Trump and his team embraced Washington functionaries from Bush, Romney, and Never Trumper networks to plan and run his Presidential Transition. 

In 1981, the Reagan Transition and early White House relentlessly tracked down and removed every Carter operative and all Democrats who had careered into the bureaucracy. Every possible threat to Reagan’s revolution was marched out the door, stripped of their security clearances. By March 1981, Reagan had a clear path to greatness.

Thanks for bad, possibly malicious, advice Trump left large swaths of Obama/Clinton operatives in place, along with their security clearances and access. In the name of austerity, Trump’s slow, and in many cases nonexistent, insertion of loyalists into key Executive Branch positions left him open to being blindsided, undermined, and outmaneuvered. Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, filled White House and Agency slots with “RINOgators” from among his Republican National Committee associates. This meant countless opportunities were lost to make Trump’s revolution a lasting operational reality beyond Executive Orders.

Trump’s final error was not declassifying, unredacting, and releasing all documents relating to the bogus Russian collusion probe. Starting months before the election, Nunes and a small band of Congressional Trump loyalists, along with conservative pundits, pleaded for Trump to release these documents. Exposing “sources and methods” was not an issue. The “Deep State” wanted to avoid embarrassment and convinced Trump to do the wrong thing. 

The documents, as characterized by Nunes and others who had actually read them, would have destroyed the Democrats, the Mueller Probe, and the liberal media. A pre-election release would have eviscerated the opposition and possibly saved the House.

The one hope America has is that House Democrats will excel at “jumping the shark” and overreach well beyond the Senate Democrats’ fraudulent attacks on Justice Kavanaugh.

Democrats’ desire for investigation not legislation will not bring down Trump. Pursuing their revenge fantasies will only prove they are not ready to rationally govern. 

November 3, 2020 will be another day of reckoning.

Running On Empty

Congress is stumbling towards one of its longest summer recesses. The Republicans, for the first time since losing the 2006 elections, are finally acting like a viable opposition party. Their issue is forcing a vote on offshore drilling. Speaker Pelosi is stalling any real action until her pollsters and operatives find a way for Democrats to respond to consumer pain at the pump while not alienating environmentalists.

Once again Washington politicians want Americans to turn to them for leadership, but hope empty rhetoric will suffice. They top Marie Antoinette – it is now “let them eat symbols” instead of “let them eat cake”.

Policy avoidance would be enough for Americans to dislike and distrust Congress. However, members from both parties are also proving they have not lost their appetite for graft and corruption. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) is Chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee. He has admitted to raising $12.2 million from companies and individuals, associated with his committee, for the “Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service”. He has also used his power to earmark tax dollars for his Center. Many of the “gifts” look like back door donations that skirt federal election and tax laws. This sordid paper trail was even too much for The Washington Post, which launched its own investigation and has bluntly editorialized about the whole matter not passing “the smell test”.

Not to be outdone, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was indicted by a federal grand jury on seven counts of making false statements to conceal lobbyist gifts. It is the first criminal charges filed against a sitting Senator in fifteen years (when fellow Republican David Durenberger was indicted). This complex web of transactions and undocumented improvements to Stevens’ vacation home are part of a larger FBI probe into corruption within the Alaska state government. In 2006, the FBI raided the offices of six Republican state senators looking for evidence of bribes from the Veco Company. It is no wonder they attracted FBI attention. The six state senators had unfortunately called themselves the “Corrupt Bastards Club or Caucus” to the point of creating coffee mugs and baseball caps emblazoned with “CBC”. Equally unfortunate for Senator Stevens, his son, Ben Stevens was a member of the CBC.

Corruption, dysfunction, issue avoidance, and empty rhetoric have become the framework within which Congress operates. It is dismaying that the Democrat-led institution took less time to lose its way than when it was led by the Republicans. Americans deserve better. We have ninety-seven days before the November elections to demand better.

The Way to Keep the House

Published in the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/23/opinion/22faulkner.html?_r=0

CORRUPTION was widely considered a principal cause of Republican losses in November. Now that Democrats are preparing to take charge of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1994, they would do well to adopt a reform agenda that will help keep the new majority out of ethical trouble — and its members out of jail.

However, if the new Democratic majority functions anything like the old one, they — and we — are in for trouble. The Democrats’ previous administration of Congress was amazingly dysfunctional — an operation that allowed the least ethically inclined members to rob the place blind, as both the House Bank and Post Office scandals confirmed. Less heralded problems were perhaps even more telling.

In 1994, House operations were essentially designed to launder funds to support incumbents. Most member services, including printing, mailing and the photography studio, were hidden in large revolving accounts. There was no way to tell who was spending what. Those fees that were traceable were usually mere shadows of the true costs to taxpayers.

At the time, personal services to members and staff — beauty parlors, barbershops, shoeshine stands and gift shops — were all losing money. Members could buy office furniture for their personal use, paying one dollar for a leather chair or $1.75 for a mahogany executive desk. Incompetent managers permitted sordid abuses of patronage, including sinecures for mistresses and relatives.

None of this was revealed because accounting practices for the House’s nearly $1 billion annual budget were surreal. Most of the House’s expenditures could not even be documented. Figures were compiled on antiquated handwritten ledgers and were riddled with errors. District office leases were negotiated over the telephone with little or no paperwork.

There were no inventories of House furniture or equipment. A five-story warehouse in Washington, occupying a third of a city block, was stuffed with everything from 19th-century antique clocks to packing crates loaded with office supplies. Yet the warehouse was not even listed on the books.

House accounting practices were so wretched that when the first real independent audit of the House was attempted in 1995, auditors concluded that too little financial information existed for them to render judgment.

During the 104th Congress, from 1995 to 1997, a bipartisan reform effort cleaned up some of the worst abuses. Members reorganized House operations, placing a respected former Secret Service agent in charge of a revamped sergeant-at-arms office as well as naming me to the new position of chief administrative officer, in charge of overseeing management changes. Competitive job postings, an open and fair procurement process and other reforms replaced the traditional patchwork of patronage, cronyism and collusion.

Reform paid handsomely. In less than two years the House received a “clean” audit from Price Waterhouse and realized budget savings of $148 million. An additional $39 million in savings was reinvested in networked computers to bring the House into the information age. In addition, excess furniture was sold at auction, the mysterious warehouse was closed and member services actually began generating profits.

However, as revolutionary passion faded and incumbency extended, the Republican majority backed away from the ultimate reform: true transparency of House operations.

Democrats will soon be in a position to pick up the torch. For starters, they should publish House finances online and make them fully searchable. My office produced a prototype Web site for the Republicans in 1996 but they squashed it. Our intent was to develop reporting formats and explanatory notes understandable to everyone. But this was more disclosure than the leadership could stomach.

In addition, Democrats should make all House meetings viewable online. The House should install two digital cameras in every committee and subcommittee room, with one facing the rostrum and another facing the witness table. The Republicans rejected an earlier version of this proposal in 1995, saying, in effect, “Not that public!”

This expansion of public access would erode the power of K Street lobbyists who use “insider” information gleaned from committee meetings to justify their fees. If everyone can see the same thing at the same time, much of the lobbyists’ cachet will evaporate. And if Democrats truly want to exercise oversight of the executive branch, something we haven’t seen for a while, Web- and pod-casting will make sure Americans can watch oversight hearings in their entirety without news producers mediating the proceedings.

These fundamental reforms would reshape government to serve all Americans. They would improve democracy, rebuild faith in government and — are you listening, Democrats? — quite likely extend the majority status of any party that is open and honest enough to enact them.

Scot M. Faulkner was the chief administrative officer of the House of Representatives from 1995 to 1997.