Posted on 03/02/2020 9:21:50 AM PST by EyesOfTX
Im saying that
- He won national office - VP - a long time after he attained statewide office as senator from Delaware. A shooting star he aint - and winning presidential candidate most always are shooting stars.
- VP is a great office from which to obtain a presidential nomination - but much worse as a credential for winning the general election.
- The only real credential for winning the general election is being, or having been, a governor - which Biden never was.
In short, Im saying that in a race for an open presidency Senator/VP Biden would be expected to lose to a governor - let alone to a sitting POTUS. He would even be likely to lose to a freshman or sophomore senator (who was dynamic enough to win the Republican nomination).
I meant about the importance of the plugs on his pate.
Part of that might just be the notorious weirdness of the vice presidency - which isnt an executive position but merely political heir of a term-limited president who presumably will not die in office.At best [Pence] might squeak in on Trumps coattails for one term, but hed never make it on his own (putting him in the Poppy Bush bucket).
There would be something to be said for just winning in 24.Depending on the makeup of the Senate, by 1929 there likely would not be a whole lot of Democrat-nominated SCOTUS justices.
Not that we need to be counting our November 2020 eggs in March . . .
. . . and I suppose that goes double for me.
Its gonna be that Race Bannon dude, man.
My woman is NOT a HOBBIT!
Pence projected that vibe before Trump was in politics. (Back when Pence was best pals with Jeff Flake and Paul Ryan.)
And you’re right, no counting even our 2020 chickens yet.
Theres one cultural factor which - long shot - could be changed for the better.IMHO the reason the media has gone rogue with its fake news is the fact that Republican politicians are intimidated into not suing for libel. And that is down to the unanimous 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision which claimed that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First AmendmentAntonin Scalia pointed out that from an original intent POV that is nonsense.The Federalists were desperate to suppress controversy over the effect of the Constitution on peoples rights, and the last thing they were thinking about when they promoted and ratified the Bill of Rights was trying to change anyones rights. As the Ninth Amendment practically says in so many words. The enumerated rights in the first 8 amendments were only those rights which tyrants had suppressed historically; all others were too numerous to mention and were nowhere codified all in one place. But the First Eight Amendments were crafted not to disturb the unenumerated rights.
Thus, no one has ever thought that 2As preservation of the RTKBA impinged at all on anyones right not to be subjected to armed assault. The idea is absurd. And yet the claim that 1A restricts libel actions is a claim that a politicians reputation can legally be subjected to assault with a (reputationally deadly) press. Its humbug, and Republicans must file libel suits - and antitrust suits - for injunctive relief which will make journalists as loathe to libel Republicans as they already are to libel Democrats.
Now that would be a restorative cultural change.
Donald Trump Jr. will be Trump’s successor in 2024.
Funny you should mention this. Trump just sued the WaCompost for its libelous reporting of his comments on the hoax.
Its been my hobby horse for some time. Im not a lawyer, but Ive been looking hard at the issue ever since it sank in to me that there was bias in the media back in the Carter era.Trump just sued the WaCompost for its libelous reporting of his comments on the hoax.
Hooray!But IMHO the right lawsuit would name the wire services and the members of the AP. Because the wire services are continuous virtual meetings of major journalism. Thats significant because
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)powerfully suggests that the wire services and their members/subscribers, collectively, are a cartel. And as such, vulnerable to civil suits for triple damages.I would have SCOTUS fudge a little, letting Sullivan stand except for the journalism cartel delineated above. But let down the hammer on the wire services. If you think about it, if the wire services did not already exist, the idea of creating them now would seem ridiculous from the antitrust POV. Because their virtue is conserving scarce expensive bandwidth - and at this late date telegraphy bandwidth costs are de minimus. I imagine that FR uses more bandwidth now than the AP did in 1945 when it was found to be in violation of Sherman.
Fingering the wire services would cut thru the blame shifting which any individual newspaper would be likely to engage in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.