Biden Is Better Than Trump... But The Jury Is Still Out Whether Or Not John Tyler Will Be Judged Worse Than Trump Or Not

There's never been another president-- at least not in our lifetimes-- as antithetical to Americanism as Trump. And I've never seen as negative a reaction to him than to anyone else-- not Reagan, not Nixon... Maybe John Tyler, a vice president who became president when William Harrison died a month after being sworn in (1841). Tyler was the most racist president until Trump and one of the country's staunchest defenders of slavery. Like Trump, he was also a traitor to the country, backing secession and becoming a member of the Confederate Congress. I have no doubt history will judge Trump far worse-- even if he dies today and can't do any more harm. We should only be so lucky!

That said, Biden still sucks. I'm not telling anyone to not vote for him; do what you want. It's a damn shame there is no "Neither of the above" choice in elections. I can't image a better electoral reform. Have you noticed that the best anti-Trump ads are all coming from conservative #NeverTrump Republicans? Have you noticed that Republican elites are gleefully flocking to Biden? No? Watch these videos; there can't be more than 100 of them.

As I mentioned Thursday night, the Biden campaign is blowing smoke up progressives' asses, selling them a bill of goods that after the '70s, '80s, '90s and oughts, he's tossing his conservative record out the window and suddenly emerging as a progressive. Vote for him if you want-- or against Trump-- but Bien is no progressive and never will be. A liar? Oh, yes... that he is, probably not on a Trumpian scale, but not far behind.

After the big "I'm turning over a new leaf" rollout from his campaign, Biden himself was questioned by Wall Street whore Joe Kernen on CNBC. Kernen was concerned about Biden sliding left but Biden quickly calmed him down: ""I prepared to say that I have a record of over 40 years. And that I’m going to be Joe Biden. Look at my record. The fact is that some areas that I think, for example, I think health care is a right not a privilege. I do not support Medicare for All I will not support Medicare for all."

It's nods and winks like that that make it just so easy for top Republicans to embrace him with enthusiasm-- not holding their noses, but grinning ear to ear. "A group of former officials of the George W. Bush administration," reported Newsweek yesterday, "have come together to do what they once would have considered unthinkable-- endorsing a Democratic candidate for president-- and in a stinging rebuke to the president, are raising money for Joe Biden. The new super PAC, called 43 Alumni for Biden, submitted paperwork Monday listing Karen Kirksey, a former Treasury Department official, as treasurer. It is not yet clear whether the group has raised any funds, but its formation is the latest sign of growing trouble for Republicans and for Trump. Several members of the super PAC told Newsweek that Bush's stewardship during 9/11 illustrates his understanding that he needed to rally the country at the moment of its greatest need-- a contrast, they said, with Trump's 'law and order' approach during the current crisis."

They said they knew Bush well enough not to need him to explicitly say to them he was rejecting Trump's leadership because of the statement he made with former first lady Laura Bush about their public anguish over the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, and by Bush's own veiled rebuke of President Donald Trump's handling of the protests, when he said the voices of those who are hurting and grieving must be heard. "Those who set out to silence those voices do not understand the meaning of America-- or how it becomes a better place," he said.

"It must be very sad for him to see what is happening right now, to see more division, more threats, more violence from the current occupant of the White House, who would use the military against our own people, said former United States Treasurer Rosario Marin. "He must witness it in horror."

...Bush and many of the super PAC's supporters-- which include 162 members on a private Facebook page-- have not backed Trump from the start. Marin, for example, was one of the few who endorsed Clinton in 2016, but others quietly did not support Trump.

While the Trump campaign did not respond to Newsweek's request for comment, Steve Cortes, a spokesman for the America First PAC, which supports the president, said the group's support for Biden isn't surprising.

"We ran in 2016 against establishment, entrenched interests in Washington, some of whom claimed to be Republicans," he told Newsweek. "If these so-called conservatives prefer Biden now, they reveal their true colors.

One member of the group used to be a part of the RNC's Hispanic Advisory Council supporting Trump in 2016, but left before the election because he disagreed with Trump's hardline immigration messaging. Texas-based lawyer Jacob Monty-- who has donated to Republicans since 1997-- held a fundraiser for Biden in February, when the campaign's prospects were most tenuous.

"It makes perfect sense for the good of the country to support Biden but I'm still a Republican," Monty told Newsweek, before turning to what a Bush endorsement of Biden would mean. "I think it would be very powerful not only for the Latino community that he has a strong sway with, but also with the population in general."

Really? Was it "for the good of the country" that Monty contributed, in the last couple of cycles, to Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, Michael McCaul, Paul Ryan and John Cornyn... as well as Biden (back in February)? Anyway, think back to the Bush Regime for a minute. It wasn't all done by Cheney. None of these people resigned, did they?

A recent poll of the audience of one of the weekly radio shows I do indicated that at least 70% of the people who listen to me are going to vote for Biden. I understand that most of them aren't actually voting for Biden, but against Trump. Maybe that's true of many of the Republicans against Trump too-- or maybe not. On fiscal matters at least, Biden is just what they want. In any case, this is exactly the time to contribute towards a progressive Congress. Whether Biden is elected president or Trump steals the election, we will certainly need more men and women like Robin Wilt, Mike Siegel, Jamaal Bowman, Kara Eastman, Keeda Haynes, Nate McMurray, J.D. Scholten, Lisa Ring... you know who I mean. Lisa just reminded me, in fact, that "The strength of Progressives is not just our focus on important issues despite all attempts to distract, it is our willingness to support one another and fight side by side for something much bigger than any one of us." Please use the 2020 Blue America congressional thermometer on the right to help any of them or all of them. And, please remember, there is no such thing as a contribution too small.

We have an extraordinary progressive candidate running in Monroe County (Rochester, NY), Robin Wilt. A few minutes ago she told me that "Regardless who is in the White House, we rely on Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, to help to implement the will of the people. In particular, the House of Representatives, also known as 'the People’s House' in our bicameral legislature, should be occupied by citizens who are willing to legislate on behalf of the people whom they represent, as opposed to corporate PACs. In order to thwart the corrupting influence of money on the policy that we implement, more than ever, we need representatives in Congress that say 'no' to corporate lobbyists and are instead beholden only to the people they represent. The more of these grassroots candidates that we can elect-- and recreate a legislative branch that is governing in the interest of the people-- the better chance we stand of correcting the rampant and unsustainable wealth disparity that prevents us from enacting equitable policies such as the Medicare for All, the Green New Deal, a Federal Housing Guarantee, humane immigration policies, and an end to the prison-detention-military industrial complex."

How Many Seats Will Democrats Lose If They Impeach Trump? How Many Seats Will They Lose If They Don't?

In his NY Times column yesterday, Charles Blow came out strongly for impeachment. Of the redacted Mueller report-- I assure you that unlike most Republican members of Congress, that Blow has read it-- he notes that "it is a damning document. Not only does it detail Russian efforts to attack our election to help the Trump campaign and the Trump campaign’s eager acceptance of that help, it paints a picture of Donald Trump as an unethical man with no regard for the rule of law. In this report, we see a president who doesn’t deserve to be president. We see attempts over and over to obstruct justice, which in some cases succeed. The question is: What are we going to do about it?"

Yes, that is the question. "Obstruction of justice is a crime," he reminds his readers. "If Trump committed that crime, he’s a criminal. Are we simply going to allow a criminal to sit in the Oval Office and face no consequence?" We? We can't do much about it besides trying to influence our members of Congress to go for impeachment. If Pelosi and Hoyer bring it up, they would need 118 votes to begin the process. Pelosi knows how to count votes. She's says there aren't that many behind it yet. I believe she could whip her caucus and get the votes, but there are an awful lot of Democrats who will vote with the Republicans against impeachment. You think Pelosi wants a situation where all the progressives and activists decide to not vote for dozens of her incumbents because they voted against impeaching Trump? She doesn't.

Let's look at some of the worst Democrats in the House, freshmen Kenda Horn (Oklahoma City-- R+10), Joe Cunningham (Charleston, South Carolina-- R+10), Jefferson Van Drew (South Jersey-- R+1) and Ben McAdams (Salt Lake City area-- R+13), all of whom have tough reelection races coming up in red or in Van Drew's case, red-leaning, districts. Imagine they voted against impeachment. Let's start with McAdams, a Blue Dog like the other 3, he's tied with Van Drew and Cunningham of having the worst voting record in the House. Of the 269,234 votes cast in his district in 2018, he won 134,964, 694 more than his Republican opponent. He basically got slaughtered in Utah, Juan and Sanpete counties. All his votes came from Salt Lake County where a very significant number of Democrats are extremely progressive and already hating him. In the 2016 Democratic caucus in Salt Lake County, Bernie won 84.9% of the votes. Stop and think about that for un momento. Hillary-- who beat Trump 42.8% to 32.6% in the general election-- only took 14.1% of the vote in that blue county. People have to hold their noses and get drunk before voting for McAdams as is. Do you think they would if he voted against impeachment? Some would. How many wouldn't? More than 694? I think so. In fact I'm 100% positive than way more than 694 Salt Lake County Democrats would come out to vote for Bernie or Elizabeth Warren against Trump and not bother to vote for McAdams.

Do you want me to do this for all 4 of them? It's easy. I do one more-- Kendra Horn. Friends of mine in her district are already saying they won't vote for her in 2020. There were 238,960 people voting in 2018 and she took 121,149 votes (50.7%), 3,338 more votes than her Republican opponent. Nearly all her votes came from Oklahoma City. Pottawatomie and Seminole counties went massively for the Republican. Democrats in Oklahoma County are split between progressives and centrists. Trump beat Hillary in every single county in Oklahoma but she did less horribly in Oklahoma County than anywhere else-- 112,661 votes (41.2%) to Trump's 141,429 (51.7%). Primary time was a pretty even split in the district. This is how Hillary did in each of the 3 counties that make up the district:

• Oklahoma County- 50.1%
• Pottawatomie County- 37.5%
• Seminole County- 39.1%

I can tell you, some of those Bernie supporters-- and some of the Hillary supporters for that matter-- want impeachment more than Bernie does. If Horn votes against it, she'll lose enough of her base to lose the general. Besides, Republicans are already excited about former OK City mayor Mick Cornette and two state senators likely to run, Greg Treat and Stephanie Bice.

And so on. So, Pelosi is walking on thin ice-- I love this song and I can't help myself-- and she's screwed no matter what she does-- or doesn't do. Let me get back to Blow for a moment. He writes that his mind is made and he knows all the arguments: "I say impeach him." He lists all the wrong pros and cons though-- the solipsistic, intellectually sloppy ones-- and isn't looking at Pelosi's-- really, the House Democratic caucus'-- dilemma at all. "House Democrats, at least the leadership, are afraid of looking like they have a blood lust and inadvertently increasing Trump’s chances of re-election." But he's compelling:

I worry that inaction enshrines that idea that the American president is above America’s laws. I worry that silent acquiescence bends our democracy toward monarchy, or dictatorship.

As Thomas Paine wrote in 1776, “In America the law is king.” He continued: “For as in absolute governments the king is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.”

Who will we let be king in this country, the president or the law?

You can't argue with any of that. Maybe you can. I can't. Ask yourself this though. Is it worth impeaching Trump-- who won't be found guilt by the Senate-- at the cost of losing the House majority?

So what about censure-- a public reprimand or condemnation? The idea is being bandied about on Capitol Hill now. The Constitution defines impeachment-- and conviction-- powers but doesn't mention censure. Congress adopted a resolution allowing censure-- stronger than a simple rebuke, but not as strong as expulsion and either House can do it on their own. In 1834, the Senate censured Andrew Jackson-- although when the Democrats won back the Senate the censure was expunged from the record. In 1842, after the House failed to impeach John Tyler, a select Senate committee censured him. (He may have been a worse president than Trump-- maybe; we'll see-- and after his presidency he led Virginia into secession and then served in the Confederate House of Representatives.) In 1848 the House should have impeached James Polk for starting the Mexican-American War unconstitutionally, but they censured him instead. There was a half-assed attempt to censure Clinton that failed and there have been two censure motions introduced against Trump that have never been voted on, the first buried by Paul Ryan and the second buried by... Nancy Pelosi.

Is censure a viable option to use against Trump? A few congressmen have told me it is and it would pass. I think Trump would laugh it off, but that's better than nothing if they can't get the votes for impeaching him, which I don't think they can.