Joe, as you know better than just about anybody....
We are again selecting a SINGLE HUMAN BEING to have sole authority over the use of a nuclear arsenal which can destroy the modern world in an hour. And, as usual, there is very close to no discussion of these End Times weapons. The media doesn't ask, the politicians don't answer, and the public doesn't care. Even we Democrats are obsessing over every little detail of the current campaign, except when it comes to nuclear weapons, which we apparently have very little interest in.
The brilliant movie Don't Look Up was an understatement of our situation. We are actually dumber than the Don't Look Up people in the movie, because we've known all about nuclear weapons since before most of us were born. And unlike with the comet in the movie, we have direct control over the threat.
I will definitely vote for Harris. But I will not be "energized" if she continues the patterns of the past and declines to very publicly lead on the single biggest threat to the survival of America as a nation.
I have an open mind, and hope to be wrong. But, so far at least, it looks like just more of the same old thing.
Good points. She will have to talk about nuclear threats as part of her campai9gn, but I doubt they will be a major part of her message. That's not necessarily a bad thing. As my friend, John Isaacs, taught me a long time ago, it is general better for our cause if nuclear weapons do NOT play a big role in the election. During the general, candidates generally move to the right on national security issues. We don't want to lock the candidate into a "strong on defense" posture that has them embracing the administration's unwarranted nuclear buildup. BUT, groups should be working overtime right now to help craft a Harris nuclear posture that is much better than Biden's.
Ok Joe, I hear you. I'm not sure I'm persuaded, but I see your point. The reason I'm not persuaded is my sense is that after the election is over nuclear weapons will remain a priority #34 on a long list of national policies. But, given the overwhelming lack of interest in nukes, I can see how pushing that topic wouldn't be a wise campaign strategy, and in this case, winning is very important for all kinds of reasons.
Here's an alternative that we've touched on before. A single issue Congressperson whose only mission is to talk about nuclear weapons all day long every day. Out of 535 members of Congress shouldn't there be at least one member who is laser focused on the single biggest threat to the nation???
Who in the nuclear weapons community might be a good candidate for this job?
It looks like our choice will be either for the Stealers or the Patriots. I’m voting for the actions that will preserve Liberty and doing the best for our Republic.
Joe- At times, I stop and think of how lucky we are to be able to sit back and write and read these comments. What luxury.
We're in agreement; shaping (like catchers 'shape pitches') is what happens. The dark forces will try to shape her into something unlikeable. That's a given. The question is how will she shape herself? That's why she needs Clinton. He had the way of making people feel like he really cared. Sadly, people don't care about Ukraine, China, nuclear weapons, NATO and probably climate change. They care about their pocketbooks. They worry about the 'border'; they care about crime. Joe did a tremendous job righting the ship of state while combatting the sequela of COVID. He restored us to a position of respect and trust with the rest of the world.
He did fall for Bibi's bullshit and got tar babied into Gaza. She needs to disassociate herself from him and his mission. Stand with Israel but not with Bibi and Gaza.
She needs to make it clear that the border has not been handled well...remind everyone about the failed bipartisan border deal that Johnson and Trump torpedoed. If she make Mark Kelly her VP, he can bring that to the table easily. (But I'd not want to sacrifice a Senate seat to do that.) The Democrats' don't have a deep bench in AZ. They're going to struggle to elect Gallego vs Kari Lake...which is perposterous in any other world.
And she needs to tackle the economy/inflation/ the cost of living head on. Admit that people are struggling. Acknowledge their pain. It's axiomatic that no President can solve that problem...if Biden could have, he would still be a candidate.
Long missive but I just wanted to share. (I'm in B'lyn helping our son/wife with their new child...watching the Yankees dissolve into an also ran. Hard to believe)
Joe- I'm guessing that your 'friend' is Bill Clinton, the master of 'splaining stuff'. If not, the friend is a close second. And yes, talking to people is the key. Joe was good at that.....before....but he seems to have lost that "Biden kitchen table talk". People saw it and were disillusioned.
Let's hope that Kamala gets out there and defines herself before the other guys do it for her. (Think Dukakis and Willie Horton, e.g., or John Kerry). She's clever enough to know that and I sense that she'll get out there ahead of them.
But your point about enthusiasm is what really seals the deal. I can see it like you do...it's as if a weight has been lifted and people are smiling again.
Ha! No, it wasn't Bill Clinton. It really was a good friend with whom I worked for many years on the Hill.
Since her Milwaukee speech, I've seen a number of analyses from people who see it the same way as I do: an extremely effective message that could fuel a successful campaign. Take a look, for example, at this from Jonathan V Last over at The Bulwark: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/kamala-has-lift-off
Yeah, what is this thing I am feeling? Could it be... optimism??
"One of my close friends says that he has always felt that campaigns are about explaining how tomorrow will be better than today. "
Yes, this campaign understands how to sell things. Sell the brownie, not the recipe.
Exactly! Thank you for this comment and for sharing with your subscribers.
Joe, as you know better than just about anybody....
We are again selecting a SINGLE HUMAN BEING to have sole authority over the use of a nuclear arsenal which can destroy the modern world in an hour. And, as usual, there is very close to no discussion of these End Times weapons. The media doesn't ask, the politicians don't answer, and the public doesn't care. Even we Democrats are obsessing over every little detail of the current campaign, except when it comes to nuclear weapons, which we apparently have very little interest in.
The brilliant movie Don't Look Up was an understatement of our situation. We are actually dumber than the Don't Look Up people in the movie, because we've known all about nuclear weapons since before most of us were born. And unlike with the comet in the movie, we have direct control over the threat.
I will definitely vote for Harris. But I will not be "energized" if she continues the patterns of the past and declines to very publicly lead on the single biggest threat to the survival of America as a nation.
I have an open mind, and hope to be wrong. But, so far at least, it looks like just more of the same old thing.
Good points. She will have to talk about nuclear threats as part of her campai9gn, but I doubt they will be a major part of her message. That's not necessarily a bad thing. As my friend, John Isaacs, taught me a long time ago, it is general better for our cause if nuclear weapons do NOT play a big role in the election. During the general, candidates generally move to the right on national security issues. We don't want to lock the candidate into a "strong on defense" posture that has them embracing the administration's unwarranted nuclear buildup. BUT, groups should be working overtime right now to help craft a Harris nuclear posture that is much better than Biden's.
Ok Joe, I hear you. I'm not sure I'm persuaded, but I see your point. The reason I'm not persuaded is my sense is that after the election is over nuclear weapons will remain a priority #34 on a long list of national policies. But, given the overwhelming lack of interest in nukes, I can see how pushing that topic wouldn't be a wise campaign strategy, and in this case, winning is very important for all kinds of reasons.
Here's an alternative that we've touched on before. A single issue Congressperson whose only mission is to talk about nuclear weapons all day long every day. Out of 535 members of Congress shouldn't there be at least one member who is laser focused on the single biggest threat to the nation???
Who in the nuclear weapons community might be a good candidate for this job?
It looks like our choice will be either for the Stealers or the Patriots. I’m voting for the actions that will preserve Liberty and doing the best for our Republic.
Joe- At times, I stop and think of how lucky we are to be able to sit back and write and read these comments. What luxury.
We're in agreement; shaping (like catchers 'shape pitches') is what happens. The dark forces will try to shape her into something unlikeable. That's a given. The question is how will she shape herself? That's why she needs Clinton. He had the way of making people feel like he really cared. Sadly, people don't care about Ukraine, China, nuclear weapons, NATO and probably climate change. They care about their pocketbooks. They worry about the 'border'; they care about crime. Joe did a tremendous job righting the ship of state while combatting the sequela of COVID. He restored us to a position of respect and trust with the rest of the world.
He did fall for Bibi's bullshit and got tar babied into Gaza. She needs to disassociate herself from him and his mission. Stand with Israel but not with Bibi and Gaza.
She needs to make it clear that the border has not been handled well...remind everyone about the failed bipartisan border deal that Johnson and Trump torpedoed. If she make Mark Kelly her VP, he can bring that to the table easily. (But I'd not want to sacrifice a Senate seat to do that.) The Democrats' don't have a deep bench in AZ. They're going to struggle to elect Gallego vs Kari Lake...which is perposterous in any other world.
And she needs to tackle the economy/inflation/ the cost of living head on. Admit that people are struggling. Acknowledge their pain. It's axiomatic that no President can solve that problem...if Biden could have, he would still be a candidate.
Long missive but I just wanted to share. (I'm in B'lyn helping our son/wife with their new child...watching the Yankees dissolve into an also ran. Hard to believe)
Tom
🥥🥥🥥🥥🥥🥥
Joe- I'm guessing that your 'friend' is Bill Clinton, the master of 'splaining stuff'. If not, the friend is a close second. And yes, talking to people is the key. Joe was good at that.....before....but he seems to have lost that "Biden kitchen table talk". People saw it and were disillusioned.
Let's hope that Kamala gets out there and defines herself before the other guys do it for her. (Think Dukakis and Willie Horton, e.g., or John Kerry). She's clever enough to know that and I sense that she'll get out there ahead of them.
But your point about enthusiasm is what really seals the deal. I can see it like you do...it's as if a weight has been lifted and people are smiling again.
Tom
Ha! No, it wasn't Bill Clinton. It really was a good friend with whom I worked for many years on the Hill.
Since her Milwaukee speech, I've seen a number of analyses from people who see it the same way as I do: an extremely effective message that could fuel a successful campaign. Take a look, for example, at this from Jonathan V Last over at The Bulwark: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/kamala-has-lift-off