Not since the time when officials outrageously gave the Soviet basketball team three chances to make the gold-medal-winning shot over the U.S. in 1972 has an Olympic medal decision been so brazenly unjust. There is, however, an argument to be made for a solution to satisfy all sides.

At issue is the already infamous back-and-forth about which athlete should get the bronze medal for the women’s gymnastics floor exercises at the Paris Olympics. The judges first awarded the medal to Romanian Ana Bărbosu, but upon an appeal by U.S. coaches, the judges gave it to American Jordan Chiles instead. Then, a higher bureaucracy, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, reversed the earlier reversal and demanded that Chiles give the medal back to Bărbosu. The arbitrators’ decision stinks like three-day-old roadkill.

I’m no gymnastics expert, but certain elements in this brouhaha appear to be incontrovertible. The first is that while there, of course, is at least some subjectivity in judging gymnastics, everybody officially stipulates that one of the largely objective parts of judging, a “degree of difficulty” calculation for specific elements of the routine, had been inaccurately recorded. If that’s the case, then Chiles deserved to have her original score recalculated upward. In terms of who actually earned the medal, then, Chiles was the winner. Period, case closed.

As Romanian Olympic legend Nadia Comaneci accurately noted, this was emotionally devastating, even unfair, to Bărbosu. On the other hand, it is, in essence, no different than an NFL final-play goal-line call being reversed upon video review, thus turning the apparent winners into losers. If the revised call upon review is correct, it’s correct, no matter how it hurts those who first were told incorrectly that they had won.

Then, the Court of Arbitration for Sport butted in. Somehow it claimed that while gymnastics rules require appeals of judges’ scores to be filed within a single minute, the American coach took 64 seconds, a mere four seconds too many, to appeal. The medal, it ruled, must go back to Bărbosu. On such a tiny technicality, it said that an objectively mistaken judges’ score should be reinstated.

Here’s where things get not just wrongheaded but morally corrupt. The U.S. coaches offered to submit video proof that they had filed the appeal not just within the one-minute allotment, but actually with 13 seconds to spare. Assuming that is true, then this should be case closed in Chiles’s favor. The officious arbitrators have no right, zero, to overturn a correct decision on the basis of a technicality that itself is inaccurate. Either the coaches violated the technicality or they didn’t, but if the arbitrators themselves are wrong about the technicality, there are no possible ethical grounds for them to apply that technicality. Arbitrators can’t say: “We were wrong about the coaches being wrong, but the coaches have to live with our mistake.” That’s insanity.

But that’s what the arbitrators are doing, and that’s what the International Olympic Committee is imposing. The arbitrators say that their own rulings, once made, cannot be changed — even if incorrect.

As it turns out, though, the “bad guys” here, or maybe the worse guys, are at the Federation for International Gymnastics, to whose decision the IOC is adhering. Not only did the court of arbitration fault the FIG’s original procedures for causing the confusion, but it also offered the FIG a way out: “equitable” principles. Because both athletes have been convincingly told, at different times, that each won the medal, with Bărbosu now having been told this twice, the arbitration court suggested that the FIG should provide bronze medals to both. That actually makes sense: At some point, sportsmanship should reign, rather than snooty officials trying to outdo each other in legalistic pretentiousness.

Chiles herself showed exalted, spontaneous sportsmanship, although at an ill-chosen time and place, by literally bowing to gold-medal winner Rebeca Andrade of Brazil during the medal ceremony.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Meanwhile, the principle of “equitable relief,” not to be confused with woke notions of economic “equity,” has a half-millennium-long history in both law and sport, allowing for obvious injustices to be mutually wiped away regardless of technicalities. In golf’s Presidents Cup in 2003, captains Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player agreed on the spot, without rules specifying their power to do so, that the overall international team match would end in a tie when darkness halted a playoff between stars Tiger Woods and Ernie Els. They were right to do so.

So far, though, the FIG has rejected this obvious solution. Instead, it has physically given a bronze medal to Bărbosu, while insisting that Chiles return the bronze medal that she actually won fair and square where it counts, in the actual arena. This is absurd. The FIG should allow both athletes to keep their medals that each had reason to believe she had earned through meritorious performance. Either way, no matter what the FIG puts in its records, Chiles should keep her medal and wear it proudly, rather than returning it. Tell the officious officials to buzz off. At some point, to slightly amend an old statement, possession is the law — especially when the possession was rightly won in the first place.

2024-08-16 20:42:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3124678%2Fchiles-should-not-relinquish-bronze-medal%2F?w=600&h=450, Not since the time when officials outrageously gave the Soviet basketball team three chances to make the gold-medal-winning shot over the U.S. in 1972 has an Olympic medal decision been so brazenly unjust. There is, however, an argument to be made for a solution to satisfy all sides. At issue is the already infamous back-and-forth,

Not since the time when officials outrageously gave the Soviet basketball team three chances to make the gold-medal-winning shot over the U.S. in 1972 has an Olympic medal decision been so brazenly unjust. There is, however, an argument to be made for a solution to satisfy all sides.

At issue is the already infamous back-and-forth about which athlete should get the bronze medal for the women’s gymnastics floor exercises at the Paris Olympics. The judges first awarded the medal to Romanian Ana Bărbosu, but upon an appeal by U.S. coaches, the judges gave it to American Jordan Chiles instead. Then, a higher bureaucracy, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, reversed the earlier reversal and demanded that Chiles give the medal back to Bărbosu. The arbitrators’ decision stinks like three-day-old roadkill.

I’m no gymnastics expert, but certain elements in this brouhaha appear to be incontrovertible. The first is that while there, of course, is at least some subjectivity in judging gymnastics, everybody officially stipulates that one of the largely objective parts of judging, a “degree of difficulty” calculation for specific elements of the routine, had been inaccurately recorded. If that’s the case, then Chiles deserved to have her original score recalculated upward. In terms of who actually earned the medal, then, Chiles was the winner. Period, case closed.

As Romanian Olympic legend Nadia Comaneci accurately noted, this was emotionally devastating, even unfair, to Bărbosu. On the other hand, it is, in essence, no different than an NFL final-play goal-line call being reversed upon video review, thus turning the apparent winners into losers. If the revised call upon review is correct, it’s correct, no matter how it hurts those who first were told incorrectly that they had won.

Then, the Court of Arbitration for Sport butted in. Somehow it claimed that while gymnastics rules require appeals of judges’ scores to be filed within a single minute, the American coach took 64 seconds, a mere four seconds too many, to appeal. The medal, it ruled, must go back to Bărbosu. On such a tiny technicality, it said that an objectively mistaken judges’ score should be reinstated.

Here’s where things get not just wrongheaded but morally corrupt. The U.S. coaches offered to submit video proof that they had filed the appeal not just within the one-minute allotment, but actually with 13 seconds to spare. Assuming that is true, then this should be case closed in Chiles’s favor. The officious arbitrators have no right, zero, to overturn a correct decision on the basis of a technicality that itself is inaccurate. Either the coaches violated the technicality or they didn’t, but if the arbitrators themselves are wrong about the technicality, there are no possible ethical grounds for them to apply that technicality. Arbitrators can’t say: “We were wrong about the coaches being wrong, but the coaches have to live with our mistake.” That’s insanity.

But that’s what the arbitrators are doing, and that’s what the International Olympic Committee is imposing. The arbitrators say that their own rulings, once made, cannot be changed — even if incorrect.

As it turns out, though, the “bad guys” here, or maybe the worse guys, are at the Federation for International Gymnastics, to whose decision the IOC is adhering. Not only did the court of arbitration fault the FIG’s original procedures for causing the confusion, but it also offered the FIG a way out: “equitable” principles. Because both athletes have been convincingly told, at different times, that each won the medal, with Bărbosu now having been told this twice, the arbitration court suggested that the FIG should provide bronze medals to both. That actually makes sense: At some point, sportsmanship should reign, rather than snooty officials trying to outdo each other in legalistic pretentiousness.

Chiles herself showed exalted, spontaneous sportsmanship, although at an ill-chosen time and place, by literally bowing to gold-medal winner Rebeca Andrade of Brazil during the medal ceremony.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Meanwhile, the principle of “equitable relief,” not to be confused with woke notions of economic “equity,” has a half-millennium-long history in both law and sport, allowing for obvious injustices to be mutually wiped away regardless of technicalities. In golf’s Presidents Cup in 2003, captains Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player agreed on the spot, without rules specifying their power to do so, that the overall international team match would end in a tie when darkness halted a playoff between stars Tiger Woods and Ernie Els. They were right to do so.

So far, though, the FIG has rejected this obvious solution. Instead, it has physically given a bronze medal to Bărbosu, while insisting that Chiles return the bronze medal that she actually won fair and square where it counts, in the actual arena. This is absurd. The FIG should allow both athletes to keep their medals that each had reason to believe she had earned through meritorious performance. Either way, no matter what the FIG puts in its records, Chiles should keep her medal and wear it proudly, rather than returning it. Tell the officious officials to buzz off. At some point, to slightly amend an old statement, possession is the law — especially when the possession was rightly won in the first place.

, Not since the time when officials outrageously gave the Soviet basketball team three chances to make the gold-medal-winning shot over the U.S. in 1972 has an Olympic medal decision been so brazenly unjust. There is, however, an argument to be made for a solution to satisfy all sides. At issue is the already infamous back-and-forth about which athlete should get the bronze medal for the women’s gymnastics floor exercises at the Paris Olympics. The judges first awarded the medal to Romanian Ana Bărbosu, but upon an appeal by U.S. coaches, the judges gave it to American Jordan Chiles instead. Then, a higher bureaucracy, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, reversed the earlier reversal and demanded that Chiles give the medal back to Bărbosu. The arbitrators’ decision stinks like three-day-old roadkill. I’m no gymnastics expert, but certain elements in this brouhaha appear to be incontrovertible. The first is that while there, of course, is at least some subjectivity in judging gymnastics, everybody officially stipulates that one of the largely objective parts of judging, a “degree of difficulty” calculation for specific elements of the routine, had been inaccurately recorded. If that’s the case, then Chiles deserved to have her original score recalculated upward. In terms of who actually earned the medal, then, Chiles was the winner. Period, case closed. As Romanian Olympic legend Nadia Comaneci accurately noted, this was emotionally devastating, even unfair, to Bărbosu. On the other hand, it is, in essence, no different than an NFL final-play goal-line call being reversed upon video review, thus turning the apparent winners into losers. If the revised call upon review is correct, it’s correct, no matter how it hurts those who first were told incorrectly that they had won. Then, the Court of Arbitration for Sport butted in. Somehow it claimed that while gymnastics rules require appeals of judges’ scores to be filed within a single minute, the American coach took 64 seconds, a mere four seconds too many, to appeal. The medal, it ruled, must go back to Bărbosu. On such a tiny technicality, it said that an objectively mistaken judges’ score should be reinstated. Here’s where things get not just wrongheaded but morally corrupt. The U.S. coaches offered to submit video proof that they had filed the appeal not just within the one-minute allotment, but actually with 13 seconds to spare. Assuming that is true, then this should be case closed in Chiles’s favor. The officious arbitrators have no right, zero, to overturn a correct decision on the basis of a technicality that itself is inaccurate. Either the coaches violated the technicality or they didn’t, but if the arbitrators themselves are wrong about the technicality, there are no possible ethical grounds for them to apply that technicality. Arbitrators can’t say: “We were wrong about the coaches being wrong, but the coaches have to live with our mistake.” That’s insanity. But that’s what the arbitrators are doing, and that’s what the International Olympic Committee is imposing. The arbitrators say that their own rulings, once made, cannot be changed — even if incorrect. As it turns out, though, the “bad guys” here, or maybe the worse guys, are at the Federation for International Gymnastics, to whose decision the IOC is adhering. Not only did the court of arbitration fault the FIG’s original procedures for causing the confusion, but it also offered the FIG a way out: “equitable” principles. Because both athletes have been convincingly told, at different times, that each won the medal, with Bărbosu now having been told this twice, the arbitration court suggested that the FIG should provide bronze medals to both. That actually makes sense: At some point, sportsmanship should reign, rather than snooty officials trying to outdo each other in legalistic pretentiousness. Chiles herself showed exalted, spontaneous sportsmanship, although at an ill-chosen time and place, by literally bowing to gold-medal winner Rebeca Andrade of Brazil during the medal ceremony. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Meanwhile, the principle of “equitable relief,” not to be confused with woke notions of economic “equity,” has a half-millennium-long history in both law and sport, allowing for obvious injustices to be mutually wiped away regardless of technicalities. In golf’s Presidents Cup in 2003, captains Jack Nicklaus and Gary Player agreed on the spot, without rules specifying their power to do so, that the overall international team match would end in a tie when darkness halted a playoff between stars Tiger Woods and Ernie Els. They were right to do so. So far, though, the FIG has rejected this obvious solution. Instead, it has physically given a bronze medal to Bărbosu, while insisting that Chiles return the bronze medal that she actually won fair and square where it counts, in the actual arena. This is absurd. The FIG should allow both athletes to keep their medals that each had reason to believe she had earned through meritorious performance. Either way, no matter what the FIG puts in its records, Chiles should keep her medal and wear it proudly, rather than returning it. Tell the officious officials to buzz off. At some point, to slightly amend an old statement, possession is the law — especially when the possession was rightly won in the first place., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Paris-Olympics_5655.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Quin Hillyer,

Let me take you back to another Aug. 15 so as to put to bed a meme prevalent on the Right today — namely, the idea that the only way to win politically is to be mean and to be willing to go low against opponents. The meme is claptrap.

When then-President Ronald Reagan approached the podium of the Republican National Convention 36 years ago, his vice president, the elder George Bush, trailed Democratic Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis by 17 points in the polls. Reagan’s address that night, his last-ever great political speech — he made good speeches afterward, but of a more unifying or elegiac nature — jump-started what had seemed like a moribund campaign. Bush ended up winning in a 426-111 Electoral College landslide.

The speechwriter and political consultant who worked with Reagan on that speech, Ken Khachigian, released last month a memoir of his time writing for both Reagan and former President Richard Nixon, but the Reagan chapters predominate. What comes across most clearly is that Reagan, the biggest political winner in modern American history, showed toughness and firm personal agency while still being a remarkably nice human being. Nixon repeatedly expressed worry to Khachigian that, in one iteration among several, he should “not let Reagan carry the nice guy thing so far,” but Reagan knew that bedrock toughness could easily co-exist with human decency.

In Behind Closed Doors: In the Room with Reagan and Nixon, one of Khachigian’s most fascinating accounts is about his meetings with both Ronald and Nancy Reagan in preparation for that 1988 speech. Nancy wanted the speech to be “visionary and emotional. … This is not the place of a hard political speech, but to play on the emotions of the day and to show a lot of love.” It was the president, though, who wanted something that drew sharper contrasts with the Democrats who were tearing down his administration’s accomplishments and belittling Bush.

Khachigian agreed: “I could write it either way, but it was contradictory to deliver a nonpolitical speech at a political convention, especially when the president clearly wanted a vigorous defense. … I didn’t invent Reagan the ‘tough guy.’ His indignation and combativeness for issues about which he cared” were “honed” for decades.

What emerged was a tour de force, combining Reagan the uniting visionary with Reagan the policy advocate and promoter of his vice president to finish the job. Whether sitting in the New Orleans Superdome that night, at least in the parts where the sound system wasn’t bad, or watching on TV, listeners were treated to a Reagan classic.

“Facts are stubborn things,” he kept repeating, striking sledgehammer blow after blow, with specificity, for his conservative results against the disasters under Democratic predecessor Jimmy Carter. Inflation was way down, employment way up, interest rates down, manufacturing up, tax rates down, bureaucratic red tape cut immensely, the Soviet Union in retreat, and international freedom on the march. Reagan limned it all quite brilliantly.

Yet amid all this, Reagan’s tone wasn’t harsh, nor was his mood of anger. He appealed not to his countrymen’s fears and resentments, but to their better selves.

“When our children turn the pages of our lives,” he said, “I hope they’ll see that we had a vision to pass forward a nation as nearly perfect as we could, where there’s decency, tolerance, generosity, honesty, courage, common sense, fairness, and piety.”

Also, there was the prototypically sweet Reaganite anecdote, about a letter he received from “a young boy” who wrote that he loves America “because you can join the Cub Scouts if you want to. You have a right to worship as you please. If you have the ability, you can try to be anything you want to be. And I also like America because we have about 200 flavors of ice cream.”

What’s amazing is that when sounding so charming, Reagan, the actor, was not just acting a part. As Khachigian details all his speechwriting episodes with Reagan, the Gipper comes across as a man both thoughtful and kind. In his diary after his very first week with Reagan, Khachigian writes “he’s genuinely a nice man.” Reagan usually made sure to thank Khachigian for his work, even in instances when Reagan himself rewrote much of it. When the rewrites were substantial, Reagan would offer words to “soften the blow” to Khachigian’s pride of authorship. And on one big occasion where Reagan had not done his usual major editing, and the speeches went wonderfully, Reagan made a special cross-continental phone call to Khachigian, the president’s voice like “sunshine traveling over a phone line” saying, “I want you to know how grateful I am for the help you gave with the speeches for the European trip.”

And Reagan was genuinely a sentimentalist, too. Two days before his first inauguration, he confessed that at a ceremony at the Lincoln Memorial, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang so beautifully that he was crying — and that he worried if he could “keep his eyes dry” during the inauguration itself.

Reagan also was unpretentious: When Khachigian and wife Meredith were at Camp David so the writer could work on a speech, the Reagans invited them to dinner, where Reagan happily chowed down on simple corned beef while telling a funny story about how he ruined the actress’s makeup the first time he had to execute a Hollywood screen kiss.

This was the man who stared down a seemingly all-powerful Soviet Union against decades-entrenched Democratic opposition at home that he defeated in two straight wipeout elections while leading the longest-lasting economic recovery in U.S. history.

Yet with this evidence of the biggest political winner of all being a kind and decent man, too many on the Right insist that anger and vicious tactics are a necessary political feature. The myth is that the main reason Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney lost in 2008 and 2012, respectively, was that they were “too nice.” Nonsense. McCain had a big heart in many ways, but he was wildly irascible and willing to play hardball against anyone. And every single major Republican opponent of Romney’s in 2008 or 2012 would agree that the Romney campaign was easily the most cutthroat operation in the primary field both times.

McCain lost largely because, with the polls dead even, he was hit with Republicans being blamed for the worst financial system crisis (short-term) since the Great Depression. Romney lost largely because his own healthcare policy in Massachusetts made him the only Republican in the field with no good way to argue against incumbent Barack Obama’s biggest Achilles’ heel, namely the Obamacare program that at the time was monumentally unpopular. Niceness had nothing to do with it.

Instead, what Reagan proved was that people are both tough-minded and aspirational. Yes, stirring up their angry inner ids can move votes at times, but successful appeals to nobler sentiments, if grounded in a practical reality where “facts are stubborn things,” can draw together much bigger majorities, vast in scope, and accomplish greater things.

In the closing paragraphs of that 1988 convention speech, Reagan described how “fed by passionate ideas and convictions … we’ve fought for causes we love. … Our freedom must be defended over and over again — and then again.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Then, he said, while he would retire to his ranch, “I’ll leave my phone number and address behind just in case you need a foot soldier. Just let me know, and I’ll be there, as long as words don’t leave me and as long as this sweet country strives to be special during its shining moment on Earth.”

That was Aug. 15, 1988. Today’s politics is missing that grandly generous spirit. We must revive it.

2024-08-15 20:32:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fbeltway-confidential%2F3123273%2Freagan-showed-nice-guys-finish-first%2F?w=600&h=450, Let me take you back to another Aug. 15 so as to put to bed a meme prevalent on the Right today — namely, the idea that the only way to win politically is to be mean and to be willing to go low against opponents. The meme is claptrap. When then-President Ronald Reagan approached,

Let me take you back to another Aug. 15 so as to put to bed a meme prevalent on the Right today — namely, the idea that the only way to win politically is to be mean and to be willing to go low against opponents. The meme is claptrap.

When then-President Ronald Reagan approached the podium of the Republican National Convention 36 years ago, his vice president, the elder George Bush, trailed Democratic Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis by 17 points in the polls. Reagan’s address that night, his last-ever great political speech — he made good speeches afterward, but of a more unifying or elegiac nature — jump-started what had seemed like a moribund campaign. Bush ended up winning in a 426-111 Electoral College landslide.

The speechwriter and political consultant who worked with Reagan on that speech, Ken Khachigian, released last month a memoir of his time writing for both Reagan and former President Richard Nixon, but the Reagan chapters predominate. What comes across most clearly is that Reagan, the biggest political winner in modern American history, showed toughness and firm personal agency while still being a remarkably nice human being. Nixon repeatedly expressed worry to Khachigian that, in one iteration among several, he should “not let Reagan carry the nice guy thing so far,” but Reagan knew that bedrock toughness could easily co-exist with human decency.

In Behind Closed Doors: In the Room with Reagan and Nixon, one of Khachigian’s most fascinating accounts is about his meetings with both Ronald and Nancy Reagan in preparation for that 1988 speech. Nancy wanted the speech to be “visionary and emotional. … This is not the place of a hard political speech, but to play on the emotions of the day and to show a lot of love.” It was the president, though, who wanted something that drew sharper contrasts with the Democrats who were tearing down his administration’s accomplishments and belittling Bush.

Khachigian agreed: “I could write it either way, but it was contradictory to deliver a nonpolitical speech at a political convention, especially when the president clearly wanted a vigorous defense. … I didn’t invent Reagan the ‘tough guy.’ His indignation and combativeness for issues about which he cared” were “honed” for decades.

What emerged was a tour de force, combining Reagan the uniting visionary with Reagan the policy advocate and promoter of his vice president to finish the job. Whether sitting in the New Orleans Superdome that night, at least in the parts where the sound system wasn’t bad, or watching on TV, listeners were treated to a Reagan classic.

“Facts are stubborn things,” he kept repeating, striking sledgehammer blow after blow, with specificity, for his conservative results against the disasters under Democratic predecessor Jimmy Carter. Inflation was way down, employment way up, interest rates down, manufacturing up, tax rates down, bureaucratic red tape cut immensely, the Soviet Union in retreat, and international freedom on the march. Reagan limned it all quite brilliantly.

Yet amid all this, Reagan’s tone wasn’t harsh, nor was his mood of anger. He appealed not to his countrymen’s fears and resentments, but to their better selves.

“When our children turn the pages of our lives,” he said, “I hope they’ll see that we had a vision to pass forward a nation as nearly perfect as we could, where there’s decency, tolerance, generosity, honesty, courage, common sense, fairness, and piety.”

Also, there was the prototypically sweet Reaganite anecdote, about a letter he received from “a young boy” who wrote that he loves America “because you can join the Cub Scouts if you want to. You have a right to worship as you please. If you have the ability, you can try to be anything you want to be. And I also like America because we have about 200 flavors of ice cream.”

What’s amazing is that when sounding so charming, Reagan, the actor, was not just acting a part. As Khachigian details all his speechwriting episodes with Reagan, the Gipper comes across as a man both thoughtful and kind. In his diary after his very first week with Reagan, Khachigian writes “he’s genuinely a nice man.” Reagan usually made sure to thank Khachigian for his work, even in instances when Reagan himself rewrote much of it. When the rewrites were substantial, Reagan would offer words to “soften the blow” to Khachigian’s pride of authorship. And on one big occasion where Reagan had not done his usual major editing, and the speeches went wonderfully, Reagan made a special cross-continental phone call to Khachigian, the president’s voice like “sunshine traveling over a phone line” saying, “I want you to know how grateful I am for the help you gave with the speeches for the European trip.”

And Reagan was genuinely a sentimentalist, too. Two days before his first inauguration, he confessed that at a ceremony at the Lincoln Memorial, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang so beautifully that he was crying — and that he worried if he could “keep his eyes dry” during the inauguration itself.

Reagan also was unpretentious: When Khachigian and wife Meredith were at Camp David so the writer could work on a speech, the Reagans invited them to dinner, where Reagan happily chowed down on simple corned beef while telling a funny story about how he ruined the actress’s makeup the first time he had to execute a Hollywood screen kiss.

This was the man who stared down a seemingly all-powerful Soviet Union against decades-entrenched Democratic opposition at home that he defeated in two straight wipeout elections while leading the longest-lasting economic recovery in U.S. history.

Yet with this evidence of the biggest political winner of all being a kind and decent man, too many on the Right insist that anger and vicious tactics are a necessary political feature. The myth is that the main reason Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney lost in 2008 and 2012, respectively, was that they were “too nice.” Nonsense. McCain had a big heart in many ways, but he was wildly irascible and willing to play hardball against anyone. And every single major Republican opponent of Romney’s in 2008 or 2012 would agree that the Romney campaign was easily the most cutthroat operation in the primary field both times.

McCain lost largely because, with the polls dead even, he was hit with Republicans being blamed for the worst financial system crisis (short-term) since the Great Depression. Romney lost largely because his own healthcare policy in Massachusetts made him the only Republican in the field with no good way to argue against incumbent Barack Obama’s biggest Achilles’ heel, namely the Obamacare program that at the time was monumentally unpopular. Niceness had nothing to do with it.

Instead, what Reagan proved was that people are both tough-minded and aspirational. Yes, stirring up their angry inner ids can move votes at times, but successful appeals to nobler sentiments, if grounded in a practical reality where “facts are stubborn things,” can draw together much bigger majorities, vast in scope, and accomplish greater things.

In the closing paragraphs of that 1988 convention speech, Reagan described how “fed by passionate ideas and convictions … we’ve fought for causes we love. … Our freedom must be defended over and over again — and then again.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Then, he said, while he would retire to his ranch, “I’ll leave my phone number and address behind just in case you need a foot soldier. Just let me know, and I’ll be there, as long as words don’t leave me and as long as this sweet country strives to be special during its shining moment on Earth.”

That was Aug. 15, 1988. Today’s politics is missing that grandly generous spirit. We must revive it.

, Let me take you back to another Aug. 15 so as to put to bed a meme prevalent on the Right today — namely, the idea that the only way to win politically is to be mean and to be willing to go low against opponents. The meme is claptrap. When then-President Ronald Reagan approached the podium of the Republican National Convention 36 years ago, his vice president, the elder George Bush, trailed Democratic Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis by 17 points in the polls. Reagan’s address that night, his last-ever great political speech — he made good speeches afterward, but of a more unifying or elegiac nature — jump-started what had seemed like a moribund campaign. Bush ended up winning in a 426-111 Electoral College landslide. The speechwriter and political consultant who worked with Reagan on that speech, Ken Khachigian, released last month a memoir of his time writing for both Reagan and former President Richard Nixon, but the Reagan chapters predominate. What comes across most clearly is that Reagan, the biggest political winner in modern American history, showed toughness and firm personal agency while still being a remarkably nice human being. Nixon repeatedly expressed worry to Khachigian that, in one iteration among several, he should “not let Reagan carry the nice guy thing so far,” but Reagan knew that bedrock toughness could easily co-exist with human decency. In Behind Closed Doors: In the Room with Reagan and Nixon, one of Khachigian’s most fascinating accounts is about his meetings with both Ronald and Nancy Reagan in preparation for that 1988 speech. Nancy wanted the speech to be “visionary and emotional. … This is not the place of a hard political speech, but to play on the emotions of the day and to show a lot of love.” It was the president, though, who wanted something that drew sharper contrasts with the Democrats who were tearing down his administration’s accomplishments and belittling Bush. Khachigian agreed: “I could write it either way, but it was contradictory to deliver a nonpolitical speech at a political convention, especially when the president clearly wanted a vigorous defense. … I didn’t invent Reagan the ‘tough guy.’ His indignation and combativeness for issues about which he cared” were “honed” for decades. What emerged was a tour de force, combining Reagan the uniting visionary with Reagan the policy advocate and promoter of his vice president to finish the job. Whether sitting in the New Orleans Superdome that night, at least in the parts where the sound system wasn’t bad, or watching on TV, listeners were treated to a Reagan classic. “Facts are stubborn things,” he kept repeating, striking sledgehammer blow after blow, with specificity, for his conservative results against the disasters under Democratic predecessor Jimmy Carter. Inflation was way down, employment way up, interest rates down, manufacturing up, tax rates down, bureaucratic red tape cut immensely, the Soviet Union in retreat, and international freedom on the march. Reagan limned it all quite brilliantly. Yet amid all this, Reagan’s tone wasn’t harsh, nor was his mood of anger. He appealed not to his countrymen’s fears and resentments, but to their better selves. “When our children turn the pages of our lives,” he said, “I hope they’ll see that we had a vision to pass forward a nation as nearly perfect as we could, where there’s decency, tolerance, generosity, honesty, courage, common sense, fairness, and piety.” Also, there was the prototypically sweet Reaganite anecdote, about a letter he received from “a young boy” who wrote that he loves America “because you can join the Cub Scouts if you want to. You have a right to worship as you please. If you have the ability, you can try to be anything you want to be. And I also like America because we have about 200 flavors of ice cream.” What’s amazing is that when sounding so charming, Reagan, the actor, was not just acting a part. As Khachigian details all his speechwriting episodes with Reagan, the Gipper comes across as a man both thoughtful and kind. In his diary after his very first week with Reagan, Khachigian writes “he’s genuinely a nice man.” Reagan usually made sure to thank Khachigian for his work, even in instances when Reagan himself rewrote much of it. When the rewrites were substantial, Reagan would offer words to “soften the blow” to Khachigian’s pride of authorship. And on one big occasion where Reagan had not done his usual major editing, and the speeches went wonderfully, Reagan made a special cross-continental phone call to Khachigian, the president’s voice like “sunshine traveling over a phone line” saying, “I want you to know how grateful I am for the help you gave with the speeches for the European trip.” And Reagan was genuinely a sentimentalist, too. Two days before his first inauguration, he confessed that at a ceremony at the Lincoln Memorial, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang so beautifully that he was crying — and that he worried if he could “keep his eyes dry” during the inauguration itself. Reagan also was unpretentious: When Khachigian and wife Meredith were at Camp David so the writer could work on a speech, the Reagans invited them to dinner, where Reagan happily chowed down on simple corned beef while telling a funny story about how he ruined the actress’s makeup the first time he had to execute a Hollywood screen kiss. This was the man who stared down a seemingly all-powerful Soviet Union against decades-entrenched Democratic opposition at home that he defeated in two straight wipeout elections while leading the longest-lasting economic recovery in U.S. history. Yet with this evidence of the biggest political winner of all being a kind and decent man, too many on the Right insist that anger and vicious tactics are a necessary political feature. The myth is that the main reason Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney lost in 2008 and 2012, respectively, was that they were “too nice.” Nonsense. McCain had a big heart in many ways, but he was wildly irascible and willing to play hardball against anyone. And every single major Republican opponent of Romney’s in 2008 or 2012 would agree that the Romney campaign was easily the most cutthroat operation in the primary field both times. McCain lost largely because, with the polls dead even, he was hit with Republicans being blamed for the worst financial system crisis (short-term) since the Great Depression. Romney lost largely because his own healthcare policy in Massachusetts made him the only Republican in the field with no good way to argue against incumbent Barack Obama’s biggest Achilles’ heel, namely the Obamacare program that at the time was monumentally unpopular. Niceness had nothing to do with it. Instead, what Reagan proved was that people are both tough-minded and aspirational. Yes, stirring up their angry inner ids can move votes at times, but successful appeals to nobler sentiments, if grounded in a practical reality where “facts are stubborn things,” can draw together much bigger majorities, vast in scope, and accomplish greater things. In the closing paragraphs of that 1988 convention speech, Reagan described how “fed by passionate ideas and convictions … we’ve fought for causes we love. … Our freedom must be defended over and over again — and then again.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Then, he said, while he would retire to his ranch, “I’ll leave my phone number and address behind just in case you need a foot soldier. Just let me know, and I’ll be there, as long as words don’t leave me and as long as this sweet country strives to be special during its shining moment on Earth.” That was Aug. 15, 1988. Today’s politics is missing that grandly generous spirit. We must revive it., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Reagan-Bush.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Quin Hillyer,

MOBILE, Alabama — Former President Donald Trump, vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, the Republican Party, and their entire political leadership team are guilty of campaign malpractice in the first degree.

Granted, running a campaign is hard work, with a ton of unpredictability and a significant amount of luck mixed in. Still, some factors are predictable, things for which plans obviously must be made, considerations that must be taken into account. Especially when time is ample, there’s no excuse for failing to be ready to handle these factors.

The GOP brain trust has failed at the biggest of these tasks so far. And even for those Trump-weary conservatives who are indifferent to the former president’s fate vs. Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, the thought of liberal Democratic victories in the House and Senate resulting from spinoff effects of this GOP incompetence, thus enabling Harris’s radicalism to have free rein, is palpably frightening.

Yet right now, Team Trump and the RNC are blowing things so badly that even once-promising congressional races are suddenly facing headwinds.

Trump’s brain trust was blessed with far, far more than the usual amount of time to prepare for this summer’s politics. The sole remaining challenger, Nikki Haley, dropped out of the nomination battle on March 6, and the race had been effectively over for weeks before that. That gave the Trump campaign well over four months to be ready for three key, utterly predictable developments and ready to meet one readily discernible challenge. The campaign failed at all four.

First, the campaign had more than four months to vet and choose a vice presidential nominee and to plan for how to counter any weaknesses easily accessible via social media. Second, it was patently obvious that there was a strong possibility, even a likelihood, that President Joe Biden would be replaced on the Democratic ticket. Third, if a Biden withdrawal occurred, the odds-on favorite, even if not absolutely sure thing, to be his replacement was Vice President Kamala Harris.

Finally, the overwhelmingly apparent challenge was that while Trump has an avid set of base voters, he is unusually unpopular outside of his base, with a special weakness among traditional suburbanites once described as “Yuppies,” who in non-Trump years lean Republican. Despite their aversion to Trump, they were persuadable away from Biden because he has governed as a leftist while scaring people with his obvious physical and mental decline.

It takes no genius to figure out that the best way to attract disaffected soccer moms and dads, and thus to finally exceed Trump’s 47% national vote ceiling, was to choose a vice president who could reassure them that the post-Trump party would be more stable, more experienced, less extremely MAGA-ish. The second best way was to run a convention that attracts, rather than repels, people not already on the MAGA bus.

Instead, the campaign played entirely to the already-solid MAGA base in both its awful choice of Vance, already measured as the least popular selection in polling history, as Trump’s running mate, and in a convention appalling in its lack of anything approaching decorum. I’m in Alabama, about as Trump-friendly a milieu as anywhere in the country, but again and again after the convention, I heard from people turned off by the spectacle of fake wrestlers tearing off their shirts; Satanist-complimenting, abortion-promoting, vulgar-lyrics-singing former strippers having prime speaking slots; and by the candidate’s future daughter-in-law shrieking from the podium while yelling that D-Day was a battle against communists. And then Trump himself rambled through the longest convention speech in history while bragging how popular he is with authoritarian and totalitarian dictators.

Then there’s Vance. At the very least, a campaign with four months to vet running mates should have responses ready to attacks on his social media embarrassments. Instead, the Trump campaign has been entirely helpless in explaining Vance’s repeated criticisms of childless adults, while Vance amazingly kept repeating them even after the earlier comments proved extremely unpopular. Vance hasn’t even walked back his 2021 suggestion that parents should get not just lower tax rates but actually more votes than non-parents.

How does a campaign let that happen? And how, once Trump himself opened a monumentally racial attack on Harris’s ancestry, does a campaign spend days echoing and celebrating the attack? Not only is this politically stupid, but it’s also morally reprehensible. So much so that it has pushed to the background Trump’s also-reprehensible promise to pardon even those Capitol rioters already convicted not just for trespassing but specifically for beating up police.

Meanwhile, the Trump campaign clearly was caught off guard by Biden’s withdrawal from the race. Even though rumors began at least as early as a year ago that Biden would be replaced, and although it became obvious after this summer’s debate that most of the party’s leaders were working to oust him, Team Trump had no cogent Plan B ready to go. So, so, so much ammunition is available to fire at Harris’s extremist record, yet even 12 days after Biden’s withdrawal, the Trump campaign hasn’t found a single way effectively to sully Harris’s sudden political honeymoon that has her 5 points ahead of Trump even in the ordinarily Republican-friendly Rasmussen survey.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Republicans can reverse the tide in two ways. First, put the same muzzle on Trump that seemed to be there in late spring and early summer when he stayed mostly silent, rather than spewing crazy insults and racial inanities, while Democrats stumbled. Second, and this one will be really difficult, find some deft way, some plausible excuse, to ease Vance off the ticket and replace him with somebody more of Team Normal, such as Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA).

Actually, polls suggest that replacing Trump himself would do even more good, but that’s well-nigh impossible. What isn’t impossible is for a campaign to actually try to appeal to people not already on the Trump train while breathing their own fumes.

2024-08-02 20:59:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Fbeltway-confidential%2F3109423%2Ftrump-campaign-must-stop-flailing%2F?w=600&h=450, MOBILE, Alabama — Former President Donald Trump, vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, the Republican Party, and their entire political leadership team are guilty of campaign malpractice in the first degree. Granted, running a campaign is hard work, with a ton of unpredictability and a significant amount of luck mixed in. Still, some factors are predictable,

MOBILE, Alabama — Former President Donald Trump, vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, the Republican Party, and their entire political leadership team are guilty of campaign malpractice in the first degree.

Granted, running a campaign is hard work, with a ton of unpredictability and a significant amount of luck mixed in. Still, some factors are predictable, things for which plans obviously must be made, considerations that must be taken into account. Especially when time is ample, there’s no excuse for failing to be ready to handle these factors.

The GOP brain trust has failed at the biggest of these tasks so far. And even for those Trump-weary conservatives who are indifferent to the former president’s fate vs. Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, the thought of liberal Democratic victories in the House and Senate resulting from spinoff effects of this GOP incompetence, thus enabling Harris’s radicalism to have free rein, is palpably frightening.

Yet right now, Team Trump and the RNC are blowing things so badly that even once-promising congressional races are suddenly facing headwinds.

Trump’s brain trust was blessed with far, far more than the usual amount of time to prepare for this summer’s politics. The sole remaining challenger, Nikki Haley, dropped out of the nomination battle on March 6, and the race had been effectively over for weeks before that. That gave the Trump campaign well over four months to be ready for three key, utterly predictable developments and ready to meet one readily discernible challenge. The campaign failed at all four.

First, the campaign had more than four months to vet and choose a vice presidential nominee and to plan for how to counter any weaknesses easily accessible via social media. Second, it was patently obvious that there was a strong possibility, even a likelihood, that President Joe Biden would be replaced on the Democratic ticket. Third, if a Biden withdrawal occurred, the odds-on favorite, even if not absolutely sure thing, to be his replacement was Vice President Kamala Harris.

Finally, the overwhelmingly apparent challenge was that while Trump has an avid set of base voters, he is unusually unpopular outside of his base, with a special weakness among traditional suburbanites once described as “Yuppies,” who in non-Trump years lean Republican. Despite their aversion to Trump, they were persuadable away from Biden because he has governed as a leftist while scaring people with his obvious physical and mental decline.

It takes no genius to figure out that the best way to attract disaffected soccer moms and dads, and thus to finally exceed Trump’s 47% national vote ceiling, was to choose a vice president who could reassure them that the post-Trump party would be more stable, more experienced, less extremely MAGA-ish. The second best way was to run a convention that attracts, rather than repels, people not already on the MAGA bus.

Instead, the campaign played entirely to the already-solid MAGA base in both its awful choice of Vance, already measured as the least popular selection in polling history, as Trump’s running mate, and in a convention appalling in its lack of anything approaching decorum. I’m in Alabama, about as Trump-friendly a milieu as anywhere in the country, but again and again after the convention, I heard from people turned off by the spectacle of fake wrestlers tearing off their shirts; Satanist-complimenting, abortion-promoting, vulgar-lyrics-singing former strippers having prime speaking slots; and by the candidate’s future daughter-in-law shrieking from the podium while yelling that D-Day was a battle against communists. And then Trump himself rambled through the longest convention speech in history while bragging how popular he is with authoritarian and totalitarian dictators.

Then there’s Vance. At the very least, a campaign with four months to vet running mates should have responses ready to attacks on his social media embarrassments. Instead, the Trump campaign has been entirely helpless in explaining Vance’s repeated criticisms of childless adults, while Vance amazingly kept repeating them even after the earlier comments proved extremely unpopular. Vance hasn’t even walked back his 2021 suggestion that parents should get not just lower tax rates but actually more votes than non-parents.

How does a campaign let that happen? And how, once Trump himself opened a monumentally racial attack on Harris’s ancestry, does a campaign spend days echoing and celebrating the attack? Not only is this politically stupid, but it’s also morally reprehensible. So much so that it has pushed to the background Trump’s also-reprehensible promise to pardon even those Capitol rioters already convicted not just for trespassing but specifically for beating up police.

Meanwhile, the Trump campaign clearly was caught off guard by Biden’s withdrawal from the race. Even though rumors began at least as early as a year ago that Biden would be replaced, and although it became obvious after this summer’s debate that most of the party’s leaders were working to oust him, Team Trump had no cogent Plan B ready to go. So, so, so much ammunition is available to fire at Harris’s extremist record, yet even 12 days after Biden’s withdrawal, the Trump campaign hasn’t found a single way effectively to sully Harris’s sudden political honeymoon that has her 5 points ahead of Trump even in the ordinarily Republican-friendly Rasmussen survey.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Republicans can reverse the tide in two ways. First, put the same muzzle on Trump that seemed to be there in late spring and early summer when he stayed mostly silent, rather than spewing crazy insults and racial inanities, while Democrats stumbled. Second, and this one will be really difficult, find some deft way, some plausible excuse, to ease Vance off the ticket and replace him with somebody more of Team Normal, such as Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA).

Actually, polls suggest that replacing Trump himself would do even more good, but that’s well-nigh impossible. What isn’t impossible is for a campaign to actually try to appeal to people not already on the Trump train while breathing their own fumes.

, MOBILE, Alabama — Former President Donald Trump, vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance, the Republican Party, and their entire political leadership team are guilty of campaign malpractice in the first degree. Granted, running a campaign is hard work, with a ton of unpredictability and a significant amount of luck mixed in. Still, some factors are predictable, things for which plans obviously must be made, considerations that must be taken into account. Especially when time is ample, there’s no excuse for failing to be ready to handle these factors. The GOP brain trust has failed at the biggest of these tasks so far. And even for those Trump-weary conservatives who are indifferent to the former president’s fate vs. Democratic nominee Kamala Harris, the thought of liberal Democratic victories in the House and Senate resulting from spinoff effects of this GOP incompetence, thus enabling Harris’s radicalism to have free rein, is palpably frightening. Yet right now, Team Trump and the RNC are blowing things so badly that even once-promising congressional races are suddenly facing headwinds. Trump’s brain trust was blessed with far, far more than the usual amount of time to prepare for this summer’s politics. The sole remaining challenger, Nikki Haley, dropped out of the nomination battle on March 6, and the race had been effectively over for weeks before that. That gave the Trump campaign well over four months to be ready for three key, utterly predictable developments and ready to meet one readily discernible challenge. The campaign failed at all four. First, the campaign had more than four months to vet and choose a vice presidential nominee and to plan for how to counter any weaknesses easily accessible via social media. Second, it was patently obvious that there was a strong possibility, even a likelihood, that President Joe Biden would be replaced on the Democratic ticket. Third, if a Biden withdrawal occurred, the odds-on favorite, even if not absolutely sure thing, to be his replacement was Vice President Kamala Harris. Finally, the overwhelmingly apparent challenge was that while Trump has an avid set of base voters, he is unusually unpopular outside of his base, with a special weakness among traditional suburbanites once described as “Yuppies,” who in non-Trump years lean Republican. Despite their aversion to Trump, they were persuadable away from Biden because he has governed as a leftist while scaring people with his obvious physical and mental decline. It takes no genius to figure out that the best way to attract disaffected soccer moms and dads, and thus to finally exceed Trump’s 47% national vote ceiling, was to choose a vice president who could reassure them that the post-Trump party would be more stable, more experienced, less extremely MAGA-ish. The second best way was to run a convention that attracts, rather than repels, people not already on the MAGA bus. Instead, the campaign played entirely to the already-solid MAGA base in both its awful choice of Vance, already measured as the least popular selection in polling history, as Trump’s running mate, and in a convention appalling in its lack of anything approaching decorum. I’m in Alabama, about as Trump-friendly a milieu as anywhere in the country, but again and again after the convention, I heard from people turned off by the spectacle of fake wrestlers tearing off their shirts; Satanist-complimenting, abortion-promoting, vulgar-lyrics-singing former strippers having prime speaking slots; and by the candidate’s future daughter-in-law shrieking from the podium while yelling that D-Day was a battle against communists. And then Trump himself rambled through the longest convention speech in history while bragging how popular he is with authoritarian and totalitarian dictators. Then there’s Vance. At the very least, a campaign with four months to vet running mates should have responses ready to attacks on his social media embarrassments. Instead, the Trump campaign has been entirely helpless in explaining Vance’s repeated criticisms of childless adults, while Vance amazingly kept repeating them even after the earlier comments proved extremely unpopular. Vance hasn’t even walked back his 2021 suggestion that parents should get not just lower tax rates but actually more votes than non-parents. How does a campaign let that happen? And how, once Trump himself opened a monumentally racial attack on Harris’s ancestry, does a campaign spend days echoing and celebrating the attack? Not only is this politically stupid, but it’s also morally reprehensible. So much so that it has pushed to the background Trump’s also-reprehensible promise to pardon even those Capitol rioters already convicted not just for trespassing but specifically for beating up police. Meanwhile, the Trump campaign clearly was caught off guard by Biden’s withdrawal from the race. Even though rumors began at least as early as a year ago that Biden would be replaced, and although it became obvious after this summer’s debate that most of the party’s leaders were working to oust him, Team Trump had no cogent Plan B ready to go. So, so, so much ammunition is available to fire at Harris’s extremist record, yet even 12 days after Biden’s withdrawal, the Trump campaign hasn’t found a single way effectively to sully Harris’s sudden political honeymoon that has her 5 points ahead of Trump even in the ordinarily Republican-friendly Rasmussen survey. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Republicans can reverse the tide in two ways. First, put the same muzzle on Trump that seemed to be there in late spring and early summer when he stayed mostly silent, rather than spewing crazy insults and racial inanities, while Democrats stumbled. Second, and this one will be really difficult, find some deft way, some plausible excuse, to ease Vance off the ticket and replace him with somebody more of Team Normal, such as Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R-VA). Actually, polls suggest that replacing Trump himself would do even more good, but that’s well-nigh impossible. What isn’t impossible is for a campaign to actually try to appeal to people not already on the Trump train while breathing their own fumes., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Hulk-Hogan-1.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Quin Hillyer,

President Joe Biden’s proposed Supreme Court-related “reforms” are part of a broader, unseemly attack on judicial independence, but conservatives should welcome one of those initiatives anyway.

Indeed, everyone should support a constitutional amendment, as Biden suggests, to relimit presidential immunity.

I firmly believe the July 1 high court decision in Trump v. United States, which decreed that presidents and former presidents are “presumptively” immune from criminal prosecution for acts within even “the outer perimeter of [their] official responsibility,” was one of the ten or twelve worst rulings in Supreme Court history. Nowhere does the text of the Constitution expound upon immunity, and, as renowned conservative constitutional law professor Randy Barnett wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Chief Justice John Roberts offered little, if any, originalist justification” for his majority opinion.

Roberts’ language itself should make conservatives wary. For decades conservatives rightly derided the court’s creation of a “right” to an abortion from an “extension” of “penumbras, formed by emanations” from other rights actually found in the Constitution. Now Roberts, with similarly diaphanous (non)adherence to actual text, discovers an “immunity” found nowhere in the Constitution and then presumptively extends it to the “outer limits” of a president’s duties. In other words, if a president can claim he was exercising anything within the utmost bounds of presidential authority, he could not be prosecutable even for acts that otherwise obviously would be criminal.

Such a kingly, criminally unaccountable head of state, with sovereign rights supposedly emanating from the misinterpreted penumbras of several already-dubious court precedents, is the antithesis of the ethos that led American founders to separate from the British crown. While the Constitution clearly provides vast presidential discretion in the conduct of international diplomacy, there is nothing obvious in the charter’s description of a president’s domestic powers that lends itself to such sweeping claims of immunity.

For conservatives of a less theoretic inclination, though, let’s get practical. Consider four words: Potential President Kamala Harris.

To those who believe, as I do, that Harris is a dangerous radical, it should be frightening to think of putting her in the Oval Office with almost no fear of criminal liability. The Supreme Court’s decision could embolden her even more to misuse executive-branch powers while not worrying about consequences. As long as she maintains at least 34 out of 100 senators in her corner – a near-certainty – she would know she couldn’t be removed from office via an impeachment trial. Relieving her of post-presidential concerns about criminal charges could unleash a Fury of epic ruthlessness.

Spend some time, if you will, reviewing videos of Harris “questioning” Supreme Court nominees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, or of her trying to blow up Kavanaugh’s hearings and his nomination. Her method is consistent: She launches into epic-length statements full of innuendoes and outright smears, making heavily ideological-political points divorced from actual constitutional law while accusing the nominee of being too political, all with an astonishingly sneering tone and a visage of vengeance.

All the allegations against Kavanaugh, she insisted, were “credible,” even though alleged witnesses flat-out said the stories weren’t true. She grilled Sessions about “consultations” with Russians when the entire scenario she was peddling was ludicrous. She all but accused Barrett of intending to fulfill a secret agenda to take healthcare away from poor people. And, back to Kavanaugh, Harris wasted two full question periods suggesting he had nefarious collusion with Trump’s legal team defending against the Russian conspiracy charges, only to let the questioning end with what her hometown paper called “a thud” because she actually divulged not a bit of incriminating information.

In other words, the smear was the point, not the actual record.

An unaccountable Harris, with the executive branch at her disposal to harass her enemies, would be a nightmare. Truthfully, any unaccountable president would be a nightmare. A constitutional amendment, even though difficult to pass, is needed to undo the damage the court created in Trump v. U.S.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The wording of such an amendment would need to be carefully crafted. Something such as this might do: “A president or former president enjoys presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken pursuant to international diplomacy, but otherwise enjoys no automatic immunity from such prosecution. A president or former president is, however, entitled to interlocutory judicial review to assert such immunity in any particular case via a claim of having been exercising core presidential powers.”

Otherwise, conservatives, watch out. President Harris will run rampant.

2024-07-30 20:30:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3104944%2Fbiden-is-right-we-need-an-amendment-limiting-presidential-immunity%2F?w=600&h=450, President Joe Biden’s proposed Supreme Court-related “reforms” are part of a broader, unseemly attack on judicial independence, but conservatives should welcome one of those initiatives anyway. Indeed, everyone should support a constitutional amendment, as Biden suggests, to relimit presidential immunity. I firmly believe the July 1 high court decision in Trump v. United States, which,

President Joe Biden’s proposed Supreme Court-related “reforms” are part of a broader, unseemly attack on judicial independence, but conservatives should welcome one of those initiatives anyway.

Indeed, everyone should support a constitutional amendment, as Biden suggests, to relimit presidential immunity.

I firmly believe the July 1 high court decision in Trump v. United States, which decreed that presidents and former presidents are “presumptively” immune from criminal prosecution for acts within even “the outer perimeter of [their] official responsibility,” was one of the ten or twelve worst rulings in Supreme Court history. Nowhere does the text of the Constitution expound upon immunity, and, as renowned conservative constitutional law professor Randy Barnett wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Chief Justice John Roberts offered little, if any, originalist justification” for his majority opinion.

Roberts’ language itself should make conservatives wary. For decades conservatives rightly derided the court’s creation of a “right” to an abortion from an “extension” of “penumbras, formed by emanations” from other rights actually found in the Constitution. Now Roberts, with similarly diaphanous (non)adherence to actual text, discovers an “immunity” found nowhere in the Constitution and then presumptively extends it to the “outer limits” of a president’s duties. In other words, if a president can claim he was exercising anything within the utmost bounds of presidential authority, he could not be prosecutable even for acts that otherwise obviously would be criminal.

Such a kingly, criminally unaccountable head of state, with sovereign rights supposedly emanating from the misinterpreted penumbras of several already-dubious court precedents, is the antithesis of the ethos that led American founders to separate from the British crown. While the Constitution clearly provides vast presidential discretion in the conduct of international diplomacy, there is nothing obvious in the charter’s description of a president’s domestic powers that lends itself to such sweeping claims of immunity.

For conservatives of a less theoretic inclination, though, let’s get practical. Consider four words: Potential President Kamala Harris.

To those who believe, as I do, that Harris is a dangerous radical, it should be frightening to think of putting her in the Oval Office with almost no fear of criminal liability. The Supreme Court’s decision could embolden her even more to misuse executive-branch powers while not worrying about consequences. As long as she maintains at least 34 out of 100 senators in her corner – a near-certainty – she would know she couldn’t be removed from office via an impeachment trial. Relieving her of post-presidential concerns about criminal charges could unleash a Fury of epic ruthlessness.

Spend some time, if you will, reviewing videos of Harris “questioning” Supreme Court nominees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, or of her trying to blow up Kavanaugh’s hearings and his nomination. Her method is consistent: She launches into epic-length statements full of innuendoes and outright smears, making heavily ideological-political points divorced from actual constitutional law while accusing the nominee of being too political, all with an astonishingly sneering tone and a visage of vengeance.

All the allegations against Kavanaugh, she insisted, were “credible,” even though alleged witnesses flat-out said the stories weren’t true. She grilled Sessions about “consultations” with Russians when the entire scenario she was peddling was ludicrous. She all but accused Barrett of intending to fulfill a secret agenda to take healthcare away from poor people. And, back to Kavanaugh, Harris wasted two full question periods suggesting he had nefarious collusion with Trump’s legal team defending against the Russian conspiracy charges, only to let the questioning end with what her hometown paper called “a thud” because she actually divulged not a bit of incriminating information.

In other words, the smear was the point, not the actual record.

An unaccountable Harris, with the executive branch at her disposal to harass her enemies, would be a nightmare. Truthfully, any unaccountable president would be a nightmare. A constitutional amendment, even though difficult to pass, is needed to undo the damage the court created in Trump v. U.S.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The wording of such an amendment would need to be carefully crafted. Something such as this might do: “A president or former president enjoys presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken pursuant to international diplomacy, but otherwise enjoys no automatic immunity from such prosecution. A president or former president is, however, entitled to interlocutory judicial review to assert such immunity in any particular case via a claim of having been exercising core presidential powers.”

Otherwise, conservatives, watch out. President Harris will run rampant.

, President Joe Biden’s proposed Supreme Court-related “reforms” are part of a broader, unseemly attack on judicial independence, but conservatives should welcome one of those initiatives anyway. Indeed, everyone should support a constitutional amendment, as Biden suggests, to relimit presidential immunity. I firmly believe the July 1 high court decision in Trump v. United States, which decreed that presidents and former presidents are “presumptively” immune from criminal prosecution for acts within even “the outer perimeter of [their] official responsibility,” was one of the ten or twelve worst rulings in Supreme Court history. Nowhere does the text of the Constitution expound upon immunity, and, as renowned conservative constitutional law professor Randy Barnett wrote in the Wall Street Journal, “Chief Justice John Roberts offered little, if any, originalist justification” for his majority opinion. Roberts’ language itself should make conservatives wary. For decades conservatives rightly derided the court’s creation of a “right” to an abortion from an “extension” of “penumbras, formed by emanations” from other rights actually found in the Constitution. Now Roberts, with similarly diaphanous (non)adherence to actual text, discovers an “immunity” found nowhere in the Constitution and then presumptively extends it to the “outer limits” of a president’s duties. In other words, if a president can claim he was exercising anything within the utmost bounds of presidential authority, he could not be prosecutable even for acts that otherwise obviously would be criminal. Such a kingly, criminally unaccountable head of state, with sovereign rights supposedly emanating from the misinterpreted penumbras of several already-dubious court precedents, is the antithesis of the ethos that led American founders to separate from the British crown. While the Constitution clearly provides vast presidential discretion in the conduct of international diplomacy, there is nothing obvious in the charter’s description of a president’s domestic powers that lends itself to such sweeping claims of immunity. For conservatives of a less theoretic inclination, though, let’s get practical. Consider four words: Potential President Kamala Harris. To those who believe, as I do, that Harris is a dangerous radical, it should be frightening to think of putting her in the Oval Office with almost no fear of criminal liability. The Supreme Court’s decision could embolden her even more to misuse executive-branch powers while not worrying about consequences. As long as she maintains at least 34 out of 100 senators in her corner – a near-certainty – she would know she couldn’t be removed from office via an impeachment trial. Relieving her of post-presidential concerns about criminal charges could unleash a Fury of epic ruthlessness. Spend some time, if you will, reviewing videos of Harris “questioning” Supreme Court nominees Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett and then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, or of her trying to blow up Kavanaugh’s hearings and his nomination. Her method is consistent: She launches into epic-length statements full of innuendoes and outright smears, making heavily ideological-political points divorced from actual constitutional law while accusing the nominee of being too political, all with an astonishingly sneering tone and a visage of vengeance. All the allegations against Kavanaugh, she insisted, were “credible,” even though alleged witnesses flat-out said the stories weren’t true. She grilled Sessions about “consultations” with Russians when the entire scenario she was peddling was ludicrous. She all but accused Barrett of intending to fulfill a secret agenda to take healthcare away from poor people. And, back to Kavanaugh, Harris wasted two full question periods suggesting he had nefarious collusion with Trump’s legal team defending against the Russian conspiracy charges, only to let the questioning end with what her hometown paper called “a thud” because she actually divulged not a bit of incriminating information. In other words, the smear was the point, not the actual record. An unaccountable Harris, with the executive branch at her disposal to harass her enemies, would be a nightmare. Truthfully, any unaccountable president would be a nightmare. A constitutional amendment, even though difficult to pass, is needed to undo the damage the court created in Trump v. U.S. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER The wording of such an amendment would need to be carefully crafted. Something such as this might do: “A president or former president enjoys presumptive immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken pursuant to international diplomacy, but otherwise enjoys no automatic immunity from such prosecution. A president or former president is, however, entitled to interlocutory judicial review to assert such immunity in any particular case via a claim of having been exercising core presidential powers.” Otherwise, conservatives, watch out. President Harris will run rampant., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/chief-justice-john-roberts-1024×594.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Quin Hillyer,

As we watch the Olympic Games this year, some of us oldsters lament a sort of innocence and sense of wonder that has been lost in the past half-century.

The first cross-oceanic Summer Olympic TV coverage with abundant portions aired live via satellite was in 1972 in Munich, and they proved almost unbelievably tragic (a massacre of Israeli athletes) and controversial (the Soviet basketball team being given three chances to score the winning points for the gold medal over the U.S. squad). There was a sense of sporting innocence shattered, on live TV from across the globe. But to be shattered, the innocence had to be there to start with.

In 1972, all the free-world Olympic athletes were, in actual fact, amateurs. Some were already somewhat famous, but there was a real sense of young people competing for pure love of sport while struggling to make ends meet. There was far less glam and glitter than there is today, and concomitantly far more room for endearing quirkiness.

Today’s swimmers, for instance, shave every 100th of a second off their times with scientifically designed suits, head caps, hairless torsos, and the like. In 1972, though, Mark Spitz won a then-almost-unimaginable seven gold medals while sporting a mod mustache that surely added dreaded nanoseconds to swims. In track, in what still may be the most stunning come-from-behind performance in Olympic history, American Dave Wottle wore a wide-brimmed golf hat — surely an aerodynamic hindrance! — while winning the 800-meter race.

Then there was the Cold War backdrop, despite which Americans showed then what seems rare now, which is that we could separate the athletes from the politics. This was a time when most Americans really feared the Soviet Union would nuke us to oblivion. Still, when the pixieish Belarusian Olga Korbut performed with stunning grace in gymnastics, she became a widely admired sensation here in the United States.

Nineteen years later, it should be noted, Korbut emigrated to the U.S. and is now a citizen. The earlier innocence was rewarded with redemptive freedom. Can this year’s Olympics begin a storyline just as good?

2024-07-26 02:05:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3099305%2Folympic-lament%2F?w=600&h=450, As we watch the Olympic Games this year, some of us oldsters lament a sort of innocence and sense of wonder that has been lost in the past half-century. The first cross-oceanic Summer Olympic TV coverage with abundant portions aired live via satellite was in 1972 in Munich, and they proved almost unbelievably tragic (a,

As we watch the Olympic Games this year, some of us oldsters lament a sort of innocence and sense of wonder that has been lost in the past half-century.

The first cross-oceanic Summer Olympic TV coverage with abundant portions aired live via satellite was in 1972 in Munich, and they proved almost unbelievably tragic (a massacre of Israeli athletes) and controversial (the Soviet basketball team being given three chances to score the winning points for the gold medal over the U.S. squad). There was a sense of sporting innocence shattered, on live TV from across the globe. But to be shattered, the innocence had to be there to start with.

In 1972, all the free-world Olympic athletes were, in actual fact, amateurs. Some were already somewhat famous, but there was a real sense of young people competing for pure love of sport while struggling to make ends meet. There was far less glam and glitter than there is today, and concomitantly far more room for endearing quirkiness.

Today’s swimmers, for instance, shave every 100th of a second off their times with scientifically designed suits, head caps, hairless torsos, and the like. In 1972, though, Mark Spitz won a then-almost-unimaginable seven gold medals while sporting a mod mustache that surely added dreaded nanoseconds to swims. In track, in what still may be the most stunning come-from-behind performance in Olympic history, American Dave Wottle wore a wide-brimmed golf hat — surely an aerodynamic hindrance! — while winning the 800-meter race.

Then there was the Cold War backdrop, despite which Americans showed then what seems rare now, which is that we could separate the athletes from the politics. This was a time when most Americans really feared the Soviet Union would nuke us to oblivion. Still, when the pixieish Belarusian Olga Korbut performed with stunning grace in gymnastics, she became a widely admired sensation here in the United States.

Nineteen years later, it should be noted, Korbut emigrated to the U.S. and is now a citizen. The earlier innocence was rewarded with redemptive freedom. Can this year’s Olympics begin a storyline just as good?

, As we watch the Olympic Games this year, some of us oldsters lament a sort of innocence and sense of wonder that has been lost in the past half-century. The first cross-oceanic Summer Olympic TV coverage with abundant portions aired live via satellite was in 1972 in Munich, and they proved almost unbelievably tragic (a massacre of Israeli athletes) and controversial (the Soviet basketball team being given three chances to score the winning points for the gold medal over the U.S. squad). There was a sense of sporting innocence shattered, on live TV from across the globe. But to be shattered, the innocence had to be there to start with. David Wottle of the U.S.A. comes in to win a gold medal as the Soviet Union’s Yevhen Arzhanov stumbles 2 meters short of the tape in the 800-meter race during the summer Olympics in Munich, Germany on September 2, 1972. (AP Photo) In 1972, all the free-world Olympic athletes were, in actual fact, amateurs. Some were already somewhat famous, but there was a real sense of young people competing for pure love of sport while struggling to make ends meet. There was far less glam and glitter than there is today, and concomitantly far more room for endearing quirkiness. Today’s swimmers, for instance, shave every 100th of a second off their times with scientifically designed suits, head caps, hairless torsos, and the like. In 1972, though, Mark Spitz won a then-almost-unimaginable seven gold medals while sporting a mod mustache that surely added dreaded nanoseconds to swims. In track, in what still may be the most stunning come-from-behind performance in Olympic history, American Dave Wottle wore a wide-brimmed golf hat — surely an aerodynamic hindrance! — while winning the 800-meter race. Then there was the Cold War backdrop, despite which Americans showed then what seems rare now, which is that we could separate the athletes from the politics. This was a time when most Americans really feared the Soviet Union would nuke us to oblivion. Still, when the pixieish Belarusian Olga Korbut performed with stunning grace in gymnastics, she became a widely admired sensation here in the United States. Nineteen years later, it should be noted, Korbut emigrated to the U.S. and is now a citizen. The earlier innocence was rewarded with redemptive freedom. Can this year’s Olympics begin a storyline just as good?, , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Paris-Olympics_552.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Quin Hillyer,

From both political and governing standpoints, former President Donald Trump has made one of the worst choices imaginable in picking Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) to be his running mate.

Indeed, he has thrown the flailing Democrats a campaign lifeline, giving them a new, surefire way to scare undecided voters away from voting for Trump or to move from staying neutral to voting for President Joe Biden instead. Vance isn’t remotely suitable to be the proverbial heartbeat of the presidency.

First, on purely political grounds, Vance is an odd choice. Vance has been in the Senate less than 18 months without remotely distinguishing himself with legislative accomplishments, and he proved a very weak vote-getter in his one and only political campaign. While he did win, he ran so far behind other statewide Republican candidates in Ohio that it was embarrassing. Gov. Mike DeWine (R-OH) won reelection by 25%. Attorney General Dave Yost and Secretary of State Frank La Rose both won by 20%. But Vance ran a gaffe-prone race and stumbled into office in his heavily Republican state by only 6%. He showed no ability to appeal to traditional suburban voters and little appeal to women.

Since being elected, Vance has been, well, a demagogue. Without ever offering a cogent explanation for his switch in tone and positions, Vance went from being a thoughtful contributor to conservative flagship National Review who wrote that blue-collar workers do not work harder than white-collar ones to one who now pretty much spews whatever MAGA, class-oriented nonsense he thinks will keep him in Trump’s good graces. Since 2021 he has been attached at the hip to Trump, despite in 2016 having written, “I go back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical a**hole like Nixon who wouldn’t be that bad (and might even prove useful) or that he’s America’s Hitler.”

In a year when Democrats think one of the biggest Republican vulnerabilities is extremism against abortion, they will hang around Vance’s neck comments he made against allowing legal abortions, even in cases of rape or incest. (That same interview featured remarks that liberals portrayed as Vance claiming rape was merely “inconvenient.” While that portrayal was largely out of context, the media will hammer him on that, too.)

Meanwhile, in a country evenly divided about whether to increase or decrease aid to Ukraine but strongly supportive of Ukraine’s moral cause, Vance has not just questioned U.S. assistance but consistently demagogued against Ukraine.

“There are people who would cut Social Security, throw our grandparents into poverty. Why? So that one of Zelensky’s ministers can buy a bigger yacht,” Vance said on a podcast hosted by former Trump adviser Steve Bannon.

Perhaps Trump doesn’t realize how strongly many swing voters feel in favor of Ukraine, but he and Vance will soon find out, to their dismay.

Economically, Vance is at the forefront of a faux-populist revolt against free markets. On the Constitution and the rule of law, he said he would not have done what former Vice President Mike Pence did in following his duty to count the 2020 electoral votes as duly certified by state officials. As National Review’s wise and astute Dan McLaughlin put it, “Trump picking Vance is a giant middle finger to conservatives.” And he is politically malicious without honesty, asserting without the slightest evidence that Biden’s rhetoric “led directly to President Trump’s attempted assassination.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Politically, Vance is strong only among subpopulations in which Trump already is well ahead, mostly white workers, but brings no new voter groups or states closer to supporting Trump. What Trump doesn’t realize is the visceral reaction against Vance that exists among a large subset of voters still undecided between the lesser of the two evils of Trump and Biden. They see him as callow, fake, and woefully inexperienced, with neither the gravitas nor the integrity to be a leader of the free world.

And they are correct.

If President Joe Biden‘s goal in tonight’s press conference were to avoid being outed from office through the 25th Amendment, he would have succeeded. But in trying to save his campaign, he utterly failed.

Biden clearly showed he is not completely non compos mentis. In general, he is aware of what is going on, and when he isn’t in a bad spell, he can essentially keep track of policy. What he did not come close to doing, though, is to convince anybody with half a brain that he will be up for the job for four more years.

Biden looked and sounded old. Biden rambled a lot, even if not entirely insensibly. He committed yet another howler of a mistake by referring to Vice President Kamala Harris as “Trump” on the same day that he referred to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as “Putin.” He repeatedly did that weird and unsettling thing where he suddenly lowers his voice sometimes almost to a whisper, for effect, but rather randomly, without any real reason to do so. He almost never speaks distinctly, showing that even on a comparatively “good” night for him, he still garbles words, runs words together, and repeats phrases in odd ways.

Biden barely reassured watchers that he has the vigor expected of the leader of the free world for the next six months. There is no imaginable way that he can still be doing so in 2027 or 2028 — or, frankly, even by this time next year.

It is utterly irresponsible to ask the country to elect him to serve until January 2029. Again, this is not about whether he can kinda-sorta-semi-manage the presidency now. This is about grappling with China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, terrorist Islamists, and others when he is 85 instead of 81.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

A doddering old man cannot project even reasonable strength, much less power. But a president who cannot project power leaves 330 million people at risk, not to mention perhaps billions more around a world that could become far more unstable if the president is weak and ineffective.

Biden is acting like a selfish man refusing to accept reality or put country above self. He ought to withdraw with dignity before he is shoved aside like frayed, torn old furniture.