Sen JD Vance

[Crafty_Dog]

https://amgreatness.com/2024/07/11/is-america-first-code-for-racism-j-d-vance-sets-the-record-straight/

[ccp]

I strongly suspect Trump will pick him

and now that Rove likes Burgum one can automatically assume Trump will pick Vance
just to be the hard ass.



 

[Crafty_Dog]

An unwise choice in my opinion.

[ccp]

well I did hear Vance give it right back to, I think it was Dana Bash, last week and he did great job I will say.

he gave a course on how to stick it to the left media.

that said I don't think he should be chosen yet , he is only 40 and might be good sometime in the future.

[Crafty_Dog]

Concur on youth/lack of life experience.  AFAIK no executive experience either.   

Also I am wary of him on geopolitics.  If I have it right, he is of the "Not another penny for Ukraine school".   In my opinion, this is too glib.

[ccp]

AFAIK

= as far as I know 

[Body-by-Guinness]

Betting markets predict VanceP:

https://x.com/amuse/status/1812197021249405019?s=12

[Crafty_Dog]

My wife just read me her resume.

===============================

Chilukuri’s legal training included time spent as a law clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court. She served as a clerk for Chief Justice John Roberts in 2017-2018, according to her LinkedIn profile.

In 2014-15, she clerked at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She worked for then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 2018, Heavy reported at the time.

Chilukuri also clerked for Judge Amul Thapar at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky in 2013-14.

[DougMacG]

John Hinderaker, A disappointing choice.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/07/a-disappointing-choice.php

(Doug). Start looking for the positives.

1. If you want no US involvement in foreign wars, build the biggest, strongest, readiest fighting force on the planet.

2. He matches up positively against Kamala Harris.

3. I barely know him yet but I think he gets the American Creed - that the other side is trying to dispose of.

[DougMacG]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/07/16/top_five_reasons_jd_vance_is_the_perfect_vp_pick_151271.html

[ccp]

Thanks Doug.
Nicole Wallace had made the dopy assertion that Kamala would wipe the floor with
Vance in a debate yesterday on MSLSD.

Of course, she knows (as all of us do too) that Kamala will get the questions and have all her answers written up for her in advance while JD will not.

[Crafty_Dog]

If President Trump were to be assassinated (GOD FORBIBD!!!) JD is not ready. 

Nor do I seem his as adding votes to our side, but given his comm skills with certain blocks, I may prove to be wrong about that.

As best as I can tell, the man shows great promise-- I sense that on a deep level Trump sees something in him that he likes and that carries weight with me-- but IMHO this is not a man ready to be the CEO of the federal administrative state, let alone go to war with it, or deal with the Ukraine War, or China's expansionism in the South China Sea (Taiwan, Philippines, etc), or otherwise represent us on the international stage.

The choice is certainly defendable in a certain sense e.g. his qualifications about pretty much exactly those of when Obama ran for PRESIDENT but frankly that is a glib rejoinder on our part.  Worth noting the criticisms about Obama lacking geopolitical gravitas were the selling point on his selection of Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as his Veep-- and look where that got us.

Fortunately, he is WAY above Que Mala Harris!  (bilingual pun there on her name haha) and their debate could be a wonderful thing for Trump in the election.

[ccp]

Kamala Repub VP debate was supposed to be at my alma mater Lafayette College but I read it was cancelled.

Don't know why - I would have gone .

My niece met Kamala and works for her now while in military.

Very proud of her but wish it was for VP on our side.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://amgreatness.com/2024/07/16/tucker-carlson-every-bad-person-ive-ever-met-in-a-lifetime-in-washington-was-aligned-against-j-d-vance/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrQQ4Cy5Gjw

[Crafty_Dog]

https://tuckercarlson.com/uncensored-4

[Crafty_Dog]

J.D. Vance and the Rise of ‘Postliberalism’
Trump’s vice-presidential nominee brings philosophical heft to Trump’s attack on the progressive elites and the ‘deep state.’
By Graedon H. Zorzi
July 16, 2024 3:33 pm ET


J.D. Vance’s designation as Donald Trump’s running mate elevates to national prominence a political movement that has been brewing on the right for several years. Mr. Vance identifies himself as a member of the “postliberal” right, the first Republican candidate for such a high office to do so.

The significance of Mr. Vance’s endorsement of postliberalism goes beyond his role as Mr. Trump’s pick for vice president. Many observers anticipate that Mr. Vance will become the standard-bearer for the Trump movement after the next presidential term. He is viewed not only as a politician but as an intellectual, capable of articulating a governing philosophy. Steve Bannon went so far as to describe Mr. Vance as, in Politico’s paraphrase, “the St. Paul to Trump’s Jesus—the zealous convert who spreads the gospel of Trumpism further than Trump himself.”

Postliberalism isn’t a political platform or set of policy prescriptions. It’s a philosophical outlook, shaped by current philosophers—the likes of Patrick Deneen, D.C. Schindler, Adrian Vermeule and Peter Leithart—who are building on the work of 20th-century thinkers such as Charles Taylor, Alasdair MacIntyre, Philip Rieff, J.B. Schneewind and Pierre Manent. Many postliberals are Catholic, as is Mr. Vance.

Postliberalism is new and still evolving. Its clearest articulation is in Mr. Deneen’s 2023 book, “Regime Change,” which calls for the replacement of political elites with new ones more closely aligned with the interests of the people. Those new elites will, the hope goes, be guided by a “common good” conservatism focused on virtue, family and community.

Mr. Vance would fit that elite mold. A native of Appalachia and graduate of Yale Law School, he’s a true rags-to-riches American success story, obviously concerned with the problems faced by the communities he emerged from and lovingly described in his 2016 memoir, “Hillbilly Elegy.” Nearly all elites now claim to speak for the people, though, so if the new postliberal elites are to be differentiated from the old liberal elites, it would have to be by the actual positions they espouse.

On that score, it’s helpful to see today’s postliberalism as an extension of the communitarianism of the latter half of the 20th century. Proponents of that include Messrs. Taylor and MacIntyre and others mentioned above, whose concerns were most famously captured by Robert Putnam’s book “Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community” (2000). Mr. Putnam used the downfall of bowling leagues to exemplify the breakdown of American community. That same breakdown is a major theme of “Hillbilly Elegy.”

The postliberals share the concern with building strong communities, which helps explain their interest not only in traditional marriage and family but also in protective economic policies that may help to restore communities torn apart by the offshoring of manufacturing jobs.

The postliberals also add philosophical heft to Mr. Trump’s attack on the “deep state,” since the administrative state is viewed as taking from citizens the prerogative to work together to govern themselves. When Mr. Vance was asked to explain his suggestion that “a second-term President Trump should summarily fire a significant number of midlevel federal bureaucrats,” he said: “For me, this is not a limited-government thing—this is a democracy thing. Like, you need the bureaucracy to be responsive to the elected branches of government.” The postliberal commitment to community includes the commitment to communities governing themselves.

None of these positions necessarily fall outside mainstream Trump conservatism. So why would Mr. Vance and others adopt the term “postliberal”?

The “post” in postliberal comes in part from the claim that today’s social and moral problems are the inevitable result of the liberal regime set up by the Founding Fathers. Some postliberals, including Mr. Schindler, argue that the founders made a critical philosophical mistake: Baked into the American system is a wrong-headed rejection of an objective standard for goodness, truth and beauty. Postliberals therefore talk openly about the need to create a new blueprint for an American society centered on virtue and the common good. In this they differ markedly from other Trump-era Republicans.

Whether the philosophy that guided the American founding actually undermined objective morality, though, is disputed, so it’s unclear how different the new postliberal blueprint would be from the original American one. To that point, the postliberal criticism of the founding doesn’t necessarily amount to a desire to overturn political institutions and traditions. As Mr. Deneen put it, in the envisioned “postliberal order,” the “existing political forms can remain in place” as long as they’re informed by a healthier “ethos.”

Some of the left’s criticisms of Mr. Vance actually point to his commitment to founding principles. Politico’s Ian Ward opined in March that Mr. Vance is “prepared to transform his country’s entire constitutional system” in his commitment to “drain the swamp.” Since paring down the administrative state would arguably bring American politics into closer alignment with the founders, Mr. Vance’s commitment to doing so might make him a reformer rather than a revolutionary.

The postliberal movement is new, and its final shape is unclear. But those interested in the future of the American right will want to closely chart its direction.

Mr. Zorzi is an assistant professor of theology and philosophy at Patrick Henry College and a visiting fellow with the Mercatus Center.

[DougMacG]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/jd-vance-donald-trump-vice-president-2024-election-e37cf310
----------------------------------------

If JD Vance is young smart, my question is, what will his views be after 4 years as Vice President.

[DougMacG]

Three more:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-picks-ohios-j-d-vance-as-running-mate

https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/39-things-to-know-about-jd-vance-trumps-running-mate-5687131?src_src=Morningbrief&src_cmp=mb-2024-07-16&est=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAauM%2FfQosys7G%2F7YcqGRNAqJ%2F3EwDJidA1swjdzOTd8ER4N53vkiAQ%2FO4fQRX

https://issuesinsights.com/2024/07/16/is-trumps-pick-of-j-d-vance-as-his-running-mate-a-political-masterstroke-the-answer-is-yes/

[DougMacG]

"President Trump’s vision is so simple and yet so powerful. We’re done, ladies and gentlemen, catering to Wall Street. We’ll commit to the working man.

We’re done importing foreign labor, we’re going to fight for American citizens and their good jobs and their good wages.

We’re done buying energy from countries that hate us; we’re going to get it right here, from American workers in Pennsylvania and Ohio and across the country.

We’re done sacrificing supply chains to unlimited global trade, and we’re going to stamp more and more products with that beautiful label, “Made in the U.S.A.”

We’re going to build factories again, put people to work making real products for American families, made with the hands of American workers.

Together, we will protect the wages of American workers — and stop the Chinese Communist Party from building their middle class on the backs of American citizens."

(Sources: politico.com, nytimes.com, excerpted from full transcript of Sen. Vance’s speech to the Republican National Convention)

[Body-by-Guinness]

When Schlicter is speaking in measured terms is when he onto something:

The Real Reason Trump Chose Vance

Why did Donald Trump select JD Vance? Obviously, their current policy views are simpatico, but JD Vance was not supportive back in 2016. He was pretty harsh about Donald Trump the candidate. You know who else was? Me. Dig back through my columns and you’ll see. I was never a Never Trumper. I was always going to vote for the GOP nominee, and I did vote for the nominee. But I was a Ted Cruz guy because I didn’t think Donald Trump was actually going to do the things Donald Trump said he was going to do and I said so. In fact, CNN used to have me on as the conservative Trump-doubter…until I had it with Don Lemon’s nonsense. I was a traditional conservative, and I thought Donald Trump was a NYC liberal and that he would govern like one. But you know what?

I was wrong.

So, I changed my mind about him. I’m now a ferocious Trump supporter. And so is JD.

Here’s the thing about opinions. You change them when they are proven wrong. I thought Donald Trump was going to govern as a liberal. He did not govern as a liberal. He did about 95 percent of the things I wanted him to do. My concern was never with what Donald Trump was saying. I always liked what he was saying. I just didn’t think he was actually going to do what he said. And then he went and did a lot of it. He probably would’ve done much more if he hadn’t been subject to an unprecedented tsunami of fake scandals and if he had had a Rolodex of reliable people to work with. JD Vance had the same experience. He didn’t think much of Trump at first. Then Trump proved himself. And then JD Vance began to support him.

That’s how this works – remember that the great Ronald Reagan himself started as a Democrat. He learned and changed. I’m not sure why we are supposed to accept the bizarre notion that once you have expressed an opinion, you are locked into it in perpetuity despite evidence that shows you are wrong. I don’t accept that, and JD Vance doesn’t accept that either.

JD Vance is a very interesting VP choice. He was not my first choice to be the nominee for vice-president because I thought that Glenn Youngkin might bring more to the table in terms of building an electoral coalition. JD was, however, my first choice for actually being the vice-president. If and when he wins, I’m going to be thrilled.

But now I’m rethinking my initial assessment of his strengths as a candidate. I may have underestimated them. How? First of all, I have grown to trust Donald Trump’s instincts when it comes to politics. After all, this guy came out of nowhere and beat all the geniuses and professionals in 2016. Worst case, he nearly beat them all in 2020. And right now, according to all the polls, he’s beating that desiccated corrupt old husk. So, he had to have a reason for choosing JD Vance and it was probably a good one.

Dumb people will say it’s because JD Vance flatters Donald Trump. Again, that wasn’t always true, and Donald Trump has a long memory. But Donald Trump is not interested in flattery this time. He is clearly interested in winning. He has built a strong and effective campaign organization that dominated the primaries – I supported Ron DeSantis because I worried Trump was going to be hard to reelect and he just crushed my guy. Donald Trump has also shown incredible discipline by stepping out of the spotlight while Joe Biden staggered around on the verge of filling up his Depends to overflowing. And, of course, Donald Trump demonstrated his courage in his iconic response to the attempt to murder him. So, there’s no reason to believe Donald Trump picked JD Vance simply out of petty vanity. That’s silly. If you want to underestimate your opponent, feel free. But if you think Donald Trump is playing for anything but keeps this time, you are letting your own biases and prejudices cloud your judgment.

So, what did Donald Trump hope to gain from picking JD Vance? JD Vance is very smart and very effective in debate, but I’m not sure you really need that to beat Kamala Harris. She’s as dumb as a box of Arkansas rocks, no offense to Southern minerals. I think it’s something more.

Pundits often reflexively opine, by rote, that JD Vance appeals to the working class based on his impoverished upbringing. I think they are onto something, but I don’t think they go deep enough in assessing how this dynamic works. Guys who sweat on the job are not going to vote for JD Vance just because his family was poor. In fact, I’m not sure the goal is to get them to vote for JD at all. Rather, perhaps JD Vance is on the ticket so that they vote against Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the whole elite power structure.

You see, JD Vance did everything right. He did everything we asked within the paradigm of the American Dream. This was a poor but smart kid who worked hard and rose out of poverty. He served his country in the Marine Corps. Then he applied to a prestigious college and he excelled there. He was next accepted into the heart of the elite training grounds, Yale Law School, where once again he excelled. He was the editor of the law review. After graduating, he became a high-tech entrepreneur and did well. He did everything right. With his brains and his sweat and his hard work, he checked all the elite boxes. He beat the elite at their own game.

And yet, they still want to deny him his reward. He’s still not good enough, and maybe it’s because he rejects the ruling class’s ideology and because he’s a man of deep faith and patriotism. Without submitting to their false gods, he’s always going to be one of them. He’s The Other. Even though he earned it through effort, the elite refuses to allow him to be part of their clique. He will always be an outsider because he will not conform.

The message to the working-class men, and many women, of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota is that no matter what you do and no matter how hard you work, and no matter whether you play by the rules and whether you beat the elite at their own game, you will never be accepted unless you submit and repudiate your roots. You will never be allowed to win if you refuse to sign on to all the weird social pathologies of the left. DEI, trans, anti-Americanism – it’s not enough to pay the price of acceptance with hard work. You have to pay it with your soul.

No, JD Vance was picked not because the working class will necessarily love him but because the contempt rained down on him by the elite and its lapdog regime media will demonstrate that our ruling class will always hate working people who remain true to themselves. JD Vance is proof that the people who feed, fuel and fight for America will never be allowed to succeed. He is proof that they will always be second-class citizens. And that will motivate the people who build, run, and defend this country to vote against the drooling avatar of an elite that hates them.

Maybe I’m overthinking this, but maybe not. The hate that has come crashing down on JD Vance in the wake of his selection is undeniable. The elite cast him out, just as it cast Donald Trump out, for the crime of not bending the knee. Perhaps you can become part of the elite if you give up your self-respect, but the American Dream isn’t about debasing yourself. It’s about earning what’s yours while remaining true to yourself. And as the elites deny JD Vance what he has earned because he thinks for himself, those working-class men and women who will make the difference in the Rustbelt will be watching, and they will be voting.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2024/07/18/the-real-reason-trump-chose-jd-vance-n2642068#google_vignette

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/cnn-data-guru-says-jd-vance-making-history-as-first-vp-pick-with-negative-favorability-following-convention/ar-BB1qyZQD?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=fe5d5ba8c78c4dbabf8a8a54cf6ea8f1&ei=85

[ccp]

Of course the messenger is deceitful CNN but

Vance was not our first pick for VP.

but alas and of course Don had to be the hard ass as he always is.

[Crafty_Dog]

Yes.

OTOH   , , ,  Vance may prove himself to be intellectually articulate and precise in defense of things MAGA in a way that is helpful to Trump.  I've not seen much, but the little I have seen of his interviews with the Pravdas shows him to be both intellectually and emotionally intelligent.

[ccp]

So far I get that he will outclass Harris in a debate but of course her approach will not be with policy intellectual or ability it will to tie him to all things they can think of about Trumps character deficiencies etc.

Of course they already are.

Funny how the growth numbers are an amazing 2.8 % .   Very quietly, some Friday night a month or two from now it will be revised down.     

This is so horrible we can't trust ANYTHING our government tells us.

[Crafty_Dog]

This may be the source of much of the hyperventilating.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23373795/curtis-yarvin-neoreaction-redpill-moldbug?fbclid=IwY2xjawEPdW5leHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHbmH8-FVPkW1tLAV-vPtP5fgRdLACcibfqnYmUdjCsdsfrFcZiQHoXBIlQ_aem_E1JndrAbN-TbmpB_RsanHA

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-s-vance-pick-is-a-warning-that-m-a-won-t-get-an-easy-pass/ar-BB1qzl9S?ocid=msedgntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=49622892604c41848c21ecf2e2ad1f36&ei=93

[ccp]

From NPR which of course I do not trust when speaking of politics making JD out to be less free market and more government interventionalist on economics yet I was driving home and listening to Larry Kuds who had Stever Moore on radio and they in fact did say JD is not a real supply side person like Trump.
They liken Trump not just Reagan like but an expansionist of Reagan supply side economics.

They said JD is young and needs to sit down with them or others to really get a full class on what supply side is really about and what it would do for the country.  That Vance is young and maybe from a generation that thinks government need be the answer to everything .

https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2024/07/23/g-s1-12513/economic-mind-jd-vance

He is strong supporter of fossil fuel and bitcoin ( ) and made money in bitcoin:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/what-to-know-about-jd-vances-position-on-key-economic-issues/ar-BB1q5Keb

Bottom line Trump is 78 and could collapse dead any day so this guy really is important to be ready - just in case - the God Forbid ! happens.

We know what Kamala would do to the economy.

[DougMacG]

From NPR which of course I do not trust when speaking of politics making JD out to be less free market and more government interventionalist on economics yet I was driving home and listening to Larry Kuds who had Stever Moore on radio and they in fact did say JD is not a real supply side person like Trump.
They liken Trump not just Reagan like but an expansionist of Reagan supply side economics.

They said JD is young and needs to sit down with them or others to really get a full class on what supply side is really about and what it would do for the country.  That Vance is young and maybe from a generation that thinks government need be the answer to everything .

https://www.npr.org/sections/planet-money/2024/07/23/g-s1-12513/economic-mind-jd-vance

He is strong supporter of fossil fuel and bitcoin ( ) and made money in bitcoin:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/what-to-know-about-jd-vances-position-on-key-economic-issues/ar-BB1q5Keb

Bottom line Trump is 78 and could collapse dead any day so this guy really is important to be ready - just in case - the God Forbid ! happens.

We know what Kamala would do to the economy.

I am mostly from the Steve Moore wing and Vance is not.  He wasn't my pick. That said, I can work with him.  The NPR piece is a little bit off but mostly descriptive.

The differences between the so-called two camps is mostly that of emphasis.  I would say that Vance agrees with me on economics 80% of the time.  He's a smart guy, not beholden to anything Left, with common sense he can figure out the right course if put in charge. For now, his job is to back up Trump, and learn from his successes.

The thing about minimum wage is dumb to me, but I get the politics of it. Minimum wage should be zero, the government should be out of it, but that isn't the real world of politics. Raising the Federal minimum wage to $11 is of little consequence anywhere I go. Most states have it above that and no one I know of hires employees below that. Again, it's stupid for the federal government to be involved, but choose your battles because you have to win elections to govern.

The union thing is also a mostly meaningless issue. Most union members are government workers, only a few Industries still rely on unions, and they have to compete with states and nations that don't. .

The next devisive issue posed is tariffs. I believe in free trade, but Trump's use of tariffs has been part of a strategy to knock down the tariffs unfairly levied against us around the world. Vance's job will be to back up that strategy. I believe the Trump end game is free trade. If we accomplish that, we win. Why would Vance levy tariffs if we achieve a level playing field. He knows Americans can compete.

If the quote is correct on reserve currency, and I doubt they have it in full context, then he is naive on that. Hopefully he will have time to learn on that. Otherwise, enact great policies and reserve currency will take care of itself.

I was in the export business I get the point about a week dollar making American Goods competitive abroad. But it cuts both ways. if Vance becomes commander-in-chief, he will need to balance the interests of the whole nation..

Antitrust is an area where I disagree with Steve Moore.  We shouldn't break up companies just because they are successful and grew large, but that doesn't tell the whole story of how this happened. Google was allowed to buy YouTube and Facebook was allowed to buy instagram, and the Obama Administration yawned. These aren't just companies that grew big, these are companies that were allowed to buy up their market.  Government has a role to play here. We want government that governs least but not no government. Of course both Google and Facebook have abused their market power, just look at politics and the selective restriction on free speech as an example, and within that their collusion with federal agencies.

The whole immigration issue is blown up by the open border. Vance is on the right side of that. We are a long ways from having to figure out how much legal immigration we want.

Vance gets the American Creed. That combined with high intelligence and great advisors will lead him to the right policies.

There is a risk when any political figure takes elective office. Which way will they turn and how will they govern. if suddenly made President, Vancemight decide that federal spending should be limited by revenues and suddenly shrink government which would energize the private sector in so many ways.

Don't forget his pro crypto views.

Vance and Trump are the only ticket left to stand against the global March to the Left. From my point of view, there is no decision to make. Might as well give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Crafty_Dog]

Vague memories from Anti-Trust Law class and working in the Anti-Trust division of the FTC (summer job)

There was (is?) an idea that with high barriers to entry (and exit?) a foreign government/monopolist could use its deep pockets to sell below cost to drive competitors out of business. 

China would seem to be such.

[Crafty_Dog]

J.D. Vance’s Disregard for the Rule of Law
The senator appears willing to ignore court rulings, undermining the balance of powers.
By William A. Galston
July 30, 2024 12:44 pm ET


J.D. Vance is unfit to be vice president of the United States for many reasons, chiefly because he has shown a disregard for the constitutional balance of powers and the rule of law.

In a 2021 interview with podcast host Jack Murphy, Mr. Vance said that if Donald Trump is re-elected, he should sack federal agency workers en masse. Mr. Vance said that if he could give Mr. Trump one piece of advice, it would be this: “Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state. Replace them with our people. And when the courts—’cause you will get taken to court—and when the courts stop you, stand before the country, like Andrew Jackson did, and say, ‘The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’ ” Historians dispute whether Jackson actually said that. The quote’s provenance aside, by citing it Mr. Vance reveals an apparent contempt for the authority of the judicial branch of government.

Mr. Vance’s idea of overhauling the administrative state is in line with an executive order Mr. Trump issued near the end of his first term, which created a new category of federal worker (Schedule F) without traditional civil-service job protections, allowing for easier firing and hiring by the president. President Biden rescinded the executive order shortly after taking office, so it’s unclear to what extent it would have been challenged in court. What’s troubling is Mr. Vance’s assertion that if courts did block the president from firing federal employees, the president should refuse to obey their ruling.

Without the executive branch’s enforcement, the judicial branch is toothless. As Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 78, the Supreme Court “must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” The president is required to provide this aid. Every president takes an oath to “preserve, protect and defend” the U.S. Constitution. Article II, Section 3 provides that the president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”—all the laws, not only those with which he agrees.

Abraham Lincoln was our greatest president, in part because he understood the meaning of this oath and its role in preserving the rule of law, without which our constitutional system cannot endure. Although he despised slavery and thought that the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision was “erroneous,” he said that he would offer “no resistance to it” and instead would do what he could to have the court overrule it. While he offered a sophisticated legal argument denying that the decision was “settled” and had force as binding precedent, he never encouraged his supporters to disregard it.

Lincoln emphasized the importance of respecting the rule of law from the start of his career. In one of his earliest public speeches, the Lyceum Address, he deplored the spread of mob rule. The collapse of the rule of law, he warned, endangered our system of constitutional government. He urged that “reverence for the laws” become the “political religion of the nation,” which was “taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges” and “proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.”

Lincoln understood, as the Framers did, that the alternative to the rule of law was government by the will of the powerful, and that the alternative to government by the consent of the people was tyranny. As U.S. citizens, we’re obligated to respect the institutions and processes by which law is made, even when we disagree with a particular law. Legislatures and courts make grave mistakes. Yet even their errors must be respected as law. As Justice Robert Jackson once remarked, he and his colleagues “are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”

To say that the court is final isn’t to say that its judgment about the meaning of the law or the Constitution ends the argument. Lincoln pledged to continue debating the civic status of African-Americans until the disastrous Dred Scott was reversed by legal means. In our own time, it’s consistent with the rule of law to criticize Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and to enact legislation that would restore abortion policy to what it was when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land or, conversely, that would create a national abortion ban. It isn’t consistent with the rule of law for anyone—a private citizen or a president—to take the law into his own hands.

Mr. Vance’s rhetoric about ignoring court rulings is indefensible. Mr. Trump unfortunately appears to share his running mate’s disregard for the Constitution. The former president once argued that “massive fraud” in the 2020 election allowed for “the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”

The preservation of the constitutional order is at stake in the 2024 presidential election, even if the people choose to cast their votes for other reasons

[Body-by-Guinness]

J.D. Vance’s Disregard for the Rule of Law
The senator appears willing to ignore court rulings, undermining the balance of powers.
By William A. Galston
July 30, 2024 12:44 pm ET


J.D. Vance is unfit to be vice president of the United States for many reasons, chiefly because he has shown a disregard for the constitutional balance of powers and the rule of law….

Okey dokey though, alas, “Progressives” violate judicial pronouncements all the freaking time, witness ongoing student loan “forgiveness,” to name one instance. Indeed, the administrative state that regularly tramples all over citizen’s rights, making the process the punishment for daring to resist their edicts (until recently, hopefully, assuming the admin state abides by the SCOTUS ruling limiting their power to create regs at the drop of a hat) is a primary obstacle blocking a return to a constitutional republic as envisioned by the Framers. Oh, and then pay themselves via asinine lawsuits that are caved to, resulting in miscreant paydays….

I realize I’m preaching to the choir here, and perhaps I missed some tongue in cheek dog whistle embedded in this piece by its author, but sweet baby Jesus, let’s by all means fight a dug in “Progressive” power structure with a rusty Scout knife and our dominant hand tied to the opposite foot, why don’t we?

[Crafty_Dog]

So, when confronting a deranged TDSer in front of an audience (cyber or otherwise) what do we say when he brings up this statement by Vance and related statement by Trump?

[Body-by-Guinness]

So, when confronting a deranged TDSer in front of an audience (cyber or otherwise) what do we say when he brings up this statement by Vance and related statement by Trump?

Something high sounding that indicts the “Progressives” for their gross excesses while pledging to pursue a constitutional republic while in office despite all the decks stacked by the left.

Do you have any thoughts on that front?

[Crafty_Dog]

So, something along the lines of

"We both agree that Vance was profoundly out of place with that comment.   Now that we have established that such things concern you, how about , , , , , , , ?"

[Crafty_Dog]

second

J.D. Vance’s Basket of Deplorables
Trump’s running mate is on the defensive over his views about the childless.
By
The Editorial Board
Follow
Updated July 26, 2024 7:01 pm ET



Donald Trump’s choice of 39-year-old J.D. Vance as his running mate was supposed to present the GOP ticket as modern and looking to the future. Instead the campaign has found itself playing defense against Mr. Vance’s censorious views about women who don’t have children.


As it always does, the press has been digging up the VP choice’s comments over the years for political scrutiny, and the Ohio Senator turns out to be a target-rich environment. As a Senate candidate in 2021 he told Tucker Carlson, then a Fox News host, that the U.S. is being run by “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.”

That sounds like he was referring to Vice President Kamala Harris, who has two stepchildren but none of her own. The comment is the sort of smart-aleck crack that gets laughs in certain right-wing male precincts. But it doesn’t play well with the millions of female voters, many of them Republican, who will decide the presidential race.

The remark has gone viral on social media and is being portrayed as an example of chauvinist views. They’re mocking it on TMZ, a sure sign that this is Mr. Vance’s first big cultural impression, and not a good one.

Mr. Vance went on “The Megyn Kelly Show” on Friday to repair the damage, calling the cat-lady line a “sarcastic comment” that didn’t mean to denigrate single or childless women. But he wasn’t at all apologetic.

“I know the media wants to attack me and wants me to back down on this, Megyn, but the simple point that I made is that having children, becoming a father, becoming a mother, I really do think it changes your perspective in a pretty profound way,” Mr. Vance said.

He’s right about that, but then why didn’t he say it in 2021? One possibility is that at some level Mr. Vance really doesn’t respect people who make different life choices. Politicians often reveal their true beliefs when talking to supporters, as Hillary Clinton did when she sneered at the “basket of deplorables” who supported Mr. Trump in 2016.

Mr. Vance has also put some policy substance behind his cultural views by saying in the past that the childless should pay higher taxes than other Americans. “If you are making $100,000, $400,000 a year and you’ve got three kids, you should pay a different, lower tax rate than if you are making the same amount of money and you don’t have any kids. It’s that simple,” he told the Charlie Kirk Show podcast in 2021. The podcast with Mr. Vance has vanished from the show’s website but has been quoted widely in the press.

It’s bad policy to use the tax code for social policy because it creates complications that add distortions. Pro-natalist tax policies haven’t worked where they’ve been tried.

It’s also bad politics. Conservatives used to believe in a neutral tax code that didn’t play favorites, but Mr. Vance is suggesting the code should be used as a political and cultural weapon against people who don’t share his values. “Raise taxes on the childless” isn’t a winning campaign slogan.

An old political saw is that the best VP choice is one who gets applause upon announcement and then is never heard from again. You can tell that doesn’t apply to Mr. Vance since Mr. Trump is being asked if he still believes he made the right choice. He says he does, but the Trump campaign can’t be happy about having to defend Mr. Vance instead of focusing on Kamala Harris’s many extreme views.

If Mr. Vance doesn’t want to apologize, perhaps he could start showing up on stage with his wife, Usha. Her speech at the GOP convention was understated and warm, and she is clearly accomplished professionally. She might help persuade swing voters that Mr. Vance respects women more than his comments have made it seem.

[Body-by-Guinness]

So, something along the lines of

"We both agree that Vance was profoundly out of place with that comment. Now that we have established that such things concern you, how about , , , , , , , ?"

Uhm, what and why? Is there a goal here, one containing a juice v. squeeze value proposition that eludes me? Is this another Socratic exercise presented after I’ve made it clear I find them grating?

Is there some tangible benefit to be found were I to research the piece’s author, likely establish his Never Trump bonafides (Brookings Institute? Oy vey….); dig into Vance’s history, likely find a more nuanced view on this topic somewhere in his body of utterances that suggests he understands the constitutional concerns here, unlike Kamala who vows to “buy back” (read confiscate) guns she deems scary by executive fiat in her first 100 days in office, 2nd amendment and SCOTUS be damned; note that the Dems/Never Trumpers have a long established hyperbolic, hysteric, history of heaping horrific oratory on every wan Trump bit of jumbled syntax stated until some metaphoric molehill becomes a mountain of existential angst (Trump told Christians [invoke “extremist” dog whistle here!] yesterday there would only be one more election, meaning (we conveniently and shrilly believe) he plans to become a literally Hitler dictator and forsooth he literally called Nazis “nice people” after Charlottesville, Snopes’ emendation be damned); point out we are facing a clear, and pretty effing stark choice this November so perhaps ought not wind up to kick the football “Progressives” or those carrying water for them hold and will no doubt lift away at the last instance while declaring the football utterly unkickable because the transgression is of such a size and scope that even thinking about attempting to kick it in the hope of punting this pointless passion play demonstrates how deeply our character is flawed as well as our utter inability to embrace the shame we should take to heart, shame so deep and unrelenting we should curl up in a ball and utterly avoid polling places by way of penance?

I think not. I’ve seen this script acted ad nauseam and derive no benefit from it. Again, what’s the end and is there an upside of wandering the tangled yet predictable path described above? As the template I’ve laid out above appears so excruciatingly obvious perhaps you instead can tread the trail leading to the likely dead or dying end and spare me an exercise I see no point to?

PS: I think most Americans would be well served if most federal factotums were tossed out the vocational airlock.

PSS: Please note, I growl before I bite; with that in mind perhaps we can avoid getting to the “moving on” portion of the conversation this time around.

[DougMacG]

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/07/31/can_you_hear_me_jd_vance_attempts_a_reset_in_the_desert_151362.html

[Body-by-Guinness]

I have to confess: the thought of the “Progressive” blood vessels that will burst should Vance employ something akin to Nixon’s gambit when he bought network TV time to deliver the “Checkers Speech” does leave me grinning:

JD Vance Needs Political Jiu-jitsu: Just Roll with the Weirdness
SCOTT PINSKER | 10:48 AM ON JULY 31, 2024
   
When facing an onslaught of sharp, negative PR, there are times when you must issue an unequivocal denial because the allegations are so horrendous that there’s simply no wiggle room. For example, if you own a restaurant and a reporter asks if it’s true that you deep-fry puppies, you can’t say “only a little bit.” You need to issue a flat denial (and, hopefully, have a good explanation for all those missing puppies).

But sometimes, you can roll with the allegations and use them for your own benefit. It’s similar to the principles of judo, Brazilian jiu-jitsu (BJJ), or wrestling, where you exploit your opponent’s momentum by rolling with him. Lots of politicians try to use this technique, but one man did it better than any of them. And if you look closely, there are some eerie similarities between him and JD Vance:

They were both Republicans.

They were both young politicians. At the time, they were actually the same age: 39.

They were both nominees for vice president.

Back in 1952, Richard Nixon was a new, fresh face on the national scene. His reputation was something of a blank slate. Young and ambitious, he was tapped by Eisenhower to be his running mate. But then, a scandal broke that could’ve deep-sixed Nixon’s career before it ever truly began: He was accused of corruption.

Naturally, the more squeamish Republicans quickly called for him to be dropped from the ticket. Meanwhile, the media was happily drumming up anti-Nixon hysteria. The scandal was reaching an apex.

Nixon chose to fight. He had two options:

The first was to deny everything—and to do it loudly, forcefully, and credibly. Moral outrage is a politician's greatest weapon, and when used effectively, it can be devastating. But it’s also high risk and high reward.

Option two was to do some political jiu-jitsu: roll with the allegations and turn them into something better. And that’s exactly what Nixon did.

In a 30-minute televised speech to the American people, Nixon looked the voters in the eye and explained that his family came from modest means, and unlike so many others in politics, he’s not a wealthy man. But he works hard and plays by the rules, and what he’s been accused of isn’t accurate or fair at all. Yet one aspect of the allegations was, it seems, especially true.

He did accept a gift. He admits it! And he REFUSES to return it!

And then Nixon explained that the gift was an adorable black-and-white Cocker Spaniel that his kids named Checkers. His children fell in love with the dog, and come hell or high water, he’ll NEVER give Checkers away.

Instantly, the speech became the fodder of legend. Today, it’s called “The Checkers Speech.”

The airtime for Nixon wasn’t cheap, but it wasn’t exorbitant either. It cost the RNC $75,000 and required him to leave the campaign and travel to a Los Angeles TV studio. But 60 million Americans tuned in on TV and radio – the largest TV audience in history at the time – and the RNC was immediately flooded with an avalanche of popular support for Nixon: “Leave that man alone! Stop trying to steal his kids’ dog!”

It was a political home run.

Advertisement

And it’s the template JD Vance should follow: Roll with the “weird” attack.

Look the camera in the eye. Say, “I’m not at all surprised Kamala Harris thinks I’m weird. After all, I was raised in flyover country – hell, I’m from rural America! – and I realize that’s very strange and foreign to Kamala. In fact, here are some more things they might find weird: I married a woman, have a family, go to church, and think inflation’s out of control. Want more proof I’m a weirdo? I think women should compete in women’s sports, and I don’t believe drag shows are appropriate for children. Isn’t that weird?!

“But on the ‘odd’ chance that you think Kamala Harris is the weird one, we’d welcome your support. Vote Trump-Vance in November.”

Political jiu-jitsu. Roll with the attack. Go directly to the American people.

And roll with the weirdness.

https://pjmedia.com/scott-pinsker/2024/07/31/jd-vance-needs-political-bjj-roll-with-the-weirdness-n4931212#google_vignette

[Crafty_Dog]

https://lp.hillsdale.edu/wsj-2513200/

[ccp]

I guess with this post I am beating a dead horse but:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4806660-will-trump-dump-vance/

I tend to agree we were right to question Vance here.

I still think Bergun would have done no harm
or perhaps Rubio and either better. 

Vance is just tooooo much like Trump's negatives though sometimes he articulates well and thoughtful.

That said too late now.

I like Bernie a lot.
He guests on O'Reilly and is very sensible.

[DougMacG]

I guess with this post I am beating a dead horse but:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4806660-will-trump-dump-vance/

I tend to agree we were right to question Vance here.

I still think Bergun would have done no harm
or perhaps Rubio and either better. 

Vance is just tooooo much like Trump's negatives though sometimes he articulates well and thoughtful.

That said too late now.

I like Bernie a lot.
He guests on O'Reilly and is very sensible.

I don't think Vance is going anywhere.

I finally got to see the cat lady quote:

"..about what he said to Tucker Carlson in 2021 about how the U.S. is being run by “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.”

  - he's talking about Joe Biden and Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer and advisors and staff and Puppet Masters.

You should only be offended if you are all of the above, childless, with cats, and want everyone to be miserable. He's not talking about childless people with pets that are happy and living positive, functional lives.

Meanwhile, the border is open, the dollar is depreciating to nothing and the country is being run by people who (don't) know better than you how to run your life.

'It has nothing to do with being childless or having cats. Sorry for the misunderstanding.'

[ccp]

of context.

" 'It has nothing to do with being childless or having cats. Sorry for the misunderstanding.'

Well here is the problem
Vance has with this statement done what like Trump does over and over again

say things that the rest of us have to *try* to explain over and over again.  It is distracting and feeds into the character problem.   

* we * should not be put into this position because of crazy tweets

but I know I noted this probably 1000 x's on this board and as long as Trump is running or president will have to watch it unfold a 1000 more times.

I know someone who is childless has cats and does not wish poor on anyone in her own mind but since she is a die hard Democrat she does inadvertently wish harm on everyone.

[Body-by-Guinness]

of context.

" 'It has nothing to do with being childless or having cats. Sorry for the misunderstanding.'

Well here is the problem
Vance has with this statement done what like Trump does over and over again

say things that the rest of us have to *try* to explain over and over again.  It is distracting and feeds into the character problem.   

* we * should not be put into this position because of crazy tweets

but I know I noted this probably 1000 x's on this board and as long as Trump is running or president will have to watch it unfold a 1000 more times.

I know someone who is childless has cats and does not wish poor on anyone in her own mind but since she is a die hard Democrat she does inadvertently wish harm on everyone.

I think this misunderstands the issue: “Progressives” and their media handmaidens will comb everything possible source to come up with something, anything to decry at the top of their lungs, even if they have to make it up like the various Trump Russian scandals or his supposed support of Nazis post-Charlottesville. Nothing can be done to stop it so there’s little point pretending otherwise.

In a fair world with an even playing field Harris’ various mutterings of far more concern and that speak far more directly to her ability to govern would receive equal coverage. They don’t. That, however, won’t be fixed with Vance handwringing, second guessing Trump, or doing anything else that amounts to dive rolling through the flaming hoop “Progressives” are holding to that very end. Dismissing these stupid efforts early, often, and loudly to any paying attention is the smart play.

Or we can try to find candidates with little in the way of a public record. IIRC that was the idea when Souter was nominated for the SCOTUS. Remind me how that worked out….

[DougMacG]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/3114707/vance-comes-into-own-trump-attack-dog/

[Body-by-Guinness]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/3114707/vance-comes-into-own-trump-attack-dog/

Wait, what? We are no longer required to embrace existential angst, rend our hair, and most definitely avoid confined spaces like voting booths due to this pick? I didn’t get the memo….

[DougMacG]

He was hired for his skills and they're starting to show.  He has the guts to go on the shows while Harris and Walz hide.  The enemy press couldn't dent him, because the facts aren't on their side.

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2024/08/11/watch-the-two-moments-jd-vance-wrecked-left-wing-interviewers-on-cnn-and-nbc-n2177994

[Crafty_Dog]

Glad to see that.

[Crafty_Dog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_Lvf2cflfo