My hand shook as I wrote the title to this column. I don’t think Joe Biden should run for re-election, but he is considering another term. That scares me. I fear that is a lose-lose situation. If the President is re-elected, he will, in my opinion, be too old to complete another four years in office in a successful fashion. If he loses, Donald Trump or a Trump-wanna-be may be elected. 

I want to see Joe Biden announce that he will not seek another term. That would clear the way for the Democratic party to find a new leader—a leader who can run for president without Republicans shouting that he or she is too old even though most of the rest of us think the same thing. 

Eighty years old is too old for anyone to be president, let alone 86, an age Biden would reach at the end of his second term if he were re-elected. The risk is too great that he may become incapacitated or, even worse, die in office. 

Although Biden has been a successful president, he is not indispensable. Another moderate Democrat could assume his mantle, embrace his agenda, and carry America forward. A new face also will be more appealing to younger voters and eliminate the age issue from the 2024 race for Democrats.

Ideally, Biden would announce a decision not to run for re-election soon, perhaps in January. That timetable will give the Democrats sufficient time to determine who their candidate should be. If that process is conducted with an awareness that a divided Democratic party will pave the road for a return of Trump or another Republican, the party will be poised for victory in 2024.

Some suggest that should Biden announce he is not running, he will be a lame duck for his last two years in office. That is technically true. But the case of Joe Biden is unique. His decision will be seen as unselfish. The public will view it positively, not only Democrats but most other voters. This decision could result in Biden enjoying higher popularity ratings than he has to date for the last two years of his Presidency.

If Biden bows out of 2024, he also will be a less inviting target for Republicans. Kevin McCarthy’s House already plans to investigate Biden, his son Hunter, Attorney General Garland, the FBI and who knows who else. Maybe they will be less aggressive if their target has already announced his retirement. And the American people may resent a party that attacks a president who unselfishly sacrificed the glory of re-election for the good of the country.

Legislatively, the next two years will be challenging for Biden and the Democrats. That situation could change if the public rallied around Biden after he made his announcement. It would be naïve to expect the party to move forward an aggressive progressive agenda, but bipartisan legislation could, ironically, become easier to pass if Biden were not running.

If Biden doesn’t run, he also will be freed from the exhausting burden of campaigning. This will enable him to work not only with Congress, but also further his agenda through regulations and executive orders. A Biden focused on the next two years rather than the next six will get more done. The country will benefit.

Sometimes I am asked about my choice for president in 2024. I don’t like the question. It is too early to answer responsibly. America needs to get a closer look at multiple Democratic candidates if the right one is to be chosen as the party’s new leader. Who would I like to see in the group? Kamala Harris, of course, but also Pete Buttigieg, Amy Klobuchar, Gretchen Whitmer, and a few more fresh faces. Don’t forget that in 2007 nobody foresaw Obama being elected president in 2008. Are there exciting new faces in the Democratic party yet to be discovered? Count on it.

President Biden can be confident that between now and when the party nominates its candidate for 2024, a strong candidate, capable of defeating Trump, DeSantis, or someone else hoping to return America to the 1950s, will emerge. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.

 

While 2022 has had its ups and downs, as Thanksgiving arrives, I am thankful. Perhaps because the Eastern Shore has been exceptionally beautiful this year, I am, for a change, focused on the positive. The glasses I see are half-full, and I am grateful for that.

Let’s start with the scenic beauty around us. Despite having been on the Eastern Shore for more than a decade, I remain in awe of the water. It still excites me to see herons in motion, and I treasure seeing sailboats race in the distance. I am grateful that, in my area, there are no tall buildings as it remains easy to imagine what parts of the Eastern Shore looked like 100 or more years ago.

I am equally thankful for those in our community who work to keep the Eastern Shore beautiful. They also work to keep development in check. And they remind us that the bay is fragile and only a few bad decisions can change the uniqueness of the Eastern Shore forever. 

As I witnessed directly in recent elections, pushing back on the idea that all economic development is good is not easy. Fortunately, resistance is not futile. I see signs that even those who support economic development recognize the value in projects being rigorously evaluated for their impact on the environment, roads, healthcare, schools, and social services. This is a welcome sign for which I am grateful. 

I am especially thankful this year for everyone who voted in this month’s elections, including those whose votes were different than mine. The only thing worse than “the other side” winning is voter indifference. If a critical mass ever throws the towel in on democracy, we are all in trouble. That is why I smiled every time I passed hundreds of road signs for candidates that “decorated” our landscape earlier this month. May I also express thanks that most of those signs have now been removed? I am grateful for those who help maintain a clean and uncluttered environment. 

In the First District, an exceptional candidate, Heather Mizeur, ran for Congress and lost. I am grateful that she took on a race that was a long-shot and worked tirelessly on a campaign that focused on the Eastern Shore rather than something else. I thank Mizeur for running. I hope her loss this year will not deter her or someone of similar quality from trying again. Every time an exceptionally qualified candidate runs for Congress, the political process is improved. That is why Heather Mizeur deserves our thanks.

I am also grateful for my neighbors. I am originally from D.C. When I moved here, I was not prepared for neighbors to offer polite waves as I passed them on the road entering our community. I am also grateful to neighbors who are friendly to me even if they are not fond of D.C. and do not agree with what I usually write in this space. So, thank you neighbors.

This year (so far) I have been healthy. I am grateful for that. Thanks are due to helpful doctors and those who promote a healthy lifestyle. In particular, I am grateful that I attended a wellness retreat earlier this year and took some yoga classes which taught me that when I get angry or frustrated, I should take a deep breath, hold it, and then exhale. It works. 

I would be remiss if I did not mention The Spy and editor Dave Wheelan. I rely on The Spy to further my understanding of the Eastern Shore. I do not know what I would do without it. It has enhanced my perception of the Eastern Shore and solidified my gratitude for being here. So, thank you, Dave.

I also must thank Dave for the privilege of writing for The Spy. Dave has assembled a talented group of writers and contributors, many of whom are “real journalists,” experts in their fields, and have remarkable resumes. I am fortunate to be part of The Spy team.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects. He thankful for being part of the Eastern Shore community.

 

Finally, after a week, we know the outcome of the 2022 midterm elections. The Democrats won, sort of. They unexpectedly retained control of the Senate but lost control of the House. Election denial and Donald Trump were the big losers. Joe Biden was the winner. Democracy and common sense prevailed.

So, everything is going to be better now, right? Yes, sort of. A repeat of January 6, 2021, and the return of Trump in 2024 is now less likely. Republicans will be less likely to block Biden judicial nominees. But there remains a lot to worry about. Despite the Democratic party win, the next two years will be troubled ones. While the Second Era of Trumpism was avoided, it is unclear what we will get instead. That is what divided government and political instability are all about.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer was jubilant when it became clear he would keep his job. Democrats expected to lose. Unexpected wins are particularly exciting. But the party’s majority will be, at best, only one seat. That majority could be lost if a few Democrats switched parties (think Sinema of Arizona or Manchin of West Virginia). And that pair of “moderates” may redouble their efforts to block any new Biden spending legislation.

The Republican win of the House makes the precarious situation in the Senate worse. Even if the Republicans enjoy a House majority of only one or two seats, they will be able to block most legislation that they do not like. Bills that the party opposes will not even make it to the full House of Representatives for a vote if the party’s leadership can secure loyalty on the House Rules Committee. 

Because of the power to block legislation inherent in Republican control of the House, the Senate will have to craft any legislation it hopes to pass to address Republican concerns. The passage of progressive legislation will be much more difficult than in the last Congress. And, if Republicans attempt to scale back things like aid to Ukraine, Biden’s foreign and military policy will be impacted.

In both Houses of Congress there will be defections on the Republican side on some legislation—members voting with the Democrats. Some House Republicans won in Democratic districts and are not likely to jeopardize their re-election prospects by blindly voting along party lines. Still President Biden will not be able to count on defections in many instances. Thus, we are likely to enter a period of legislative stalemate. That may be what the Republicans want, but it’s not good for America, especially if the country enters a recession or faces other challenges requiring quick, bold action.

Let’s also look at what the House majority will do. First, while the odds of impeaching Joe Biden (for what?) are decreased given the slim Republican majority, the opportunity to abuse the House’s investigative and oversight authorities is increased. Hearings into the withdrawal from Afghanistan, Nancy Pelosi’s response to the January 6 riot, Joe and Hunter Biden’s business dealings, the FBI seizure of documents at Mar-a-Lago and more are likely. It will be ugly. The goal will be to discredit Democrats so that the Republicans gain a political advantage in the 2024 elections.

Importantly, the House will also be subject to the instability inherent in a razor-thin majority. A few deaths or resignations could flip the House back to the Democrats. It is also conceivable that a Republican member or two could change parties, especially if the Republican party implodes along with Donald Trump’s dream of a return to the White House.

One final comment. What does the House majority mean to Andy “Handgun” Harris? Legislatively, not much. He has never been much interested in legislation, even where it will directly benefit the First District. Instead, Harris is likely to become part of the Freedom Caucus effort to replace presumed Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) with someone more conservative. One article I read suggested that some members want to elect Donald Trump to the post, legally possible because the Speaker does not need to be a Member of the House. 

Given Harris’ record, it is easy to imagine him voting for Trump one last time. That is sad.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.

 

(As of Wednesday morning, November 9, election results are still coming in. Major networks had not yet called control of the House or Senate for either party. The Georgia Senate race between incumbent Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker appears headed for a December 6, 2022 run-off election.  This piece reflects results as reported as of 8:15 a.m. November 9).

Predicting elections can be a tricky business. I was reminded of that last night but don’t mind. The voters proved the pundits wrong again. Democrats did much better than many of the pundits predicted. The geniuses that predicted a massive red wave—and I saw one in the mirror this morning—were wrong. A lot of voters, especially in Pennsylvania and Georgia, are smarter than some of us assumed. 

By the time many of you read this, we will know more about the midterm elections, but what we know now is that the Republicans are not likely to control both the House and Senate next year. We also know that MAGA Republicanism, at least the strain of it associated with Donald Trump, is losing its potency. Voters in key states rejected low-quality candidates hand-picked by Trump and the reactionary issues they ran on. Dr. Oz will be eating his crudités in New Jersey next year. And it looks likely Herschel Walker won’t have to worry about making a fool of himself in Washington.

What happened? It looks like the Trump Train has a wheel in the ditch. The voters—a lot of them—rejected the Republican message of hate and fear. They are less interested in getting the January 6 insurrectionists out of jail than they are in preserving democracy. Many voters decided the right to an abortion is more important than the right to carry a gun.

And a surprising large group of voters determined inflation, high gas prices, crime, and problems at the southern border are not all Joe Biden’s fault. They may also have realized a Republican Congress focused on returning Trump to the White House in 2024 and discrediting Joe Biden with revenge hearings and investigations, is unlikely to fix the economy. 

With the benefit of only a few hours to digest the election outcomes, I have a few take-aways to share. First, character and candidate-quality counts. That’s why John Fetterman won in Pennsylvania over Dr. Oz. That is why a lot of Georgia voters walked away from Herschel Walker after the self-described pro-life candidate was accused of paying for ex-girlfriends’ abortions. That is why Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, an election-denier that called the press “bastards” at one of her finally campaign events, was not swept into office in a tidal wave.

Second, there is more interest in preserving democracy than Republicans assumed. That is why Pennsylvania’s Dan Mastriano, a participant in the January 6 assault on the Capitol, will be looking for work in the private sector. Could it be that voters realize that electing Republicans is hazardous to the Constitution?

Don’t get me wrong here—a lot of election-denying, Trump-loving candidates won that will try to use their new offices to undermine the 2024 elections, but the election produced clear signs that many of us don’t want to see thugs dressed in military garb intimidating voters outside polling places. That’s encouraging. 

Third, pundits underestimated the importance of abortion, LGBQT+ rights, addressing climate change, preserving social security and Medicare, racial justice and equity, and basic civility as important drivers in elections. Voters I talked to in recent weeks told me they were afraid a Republican controlled Congress would move the country backwards. Had I listened to them more carefully, my predictions of last week would have been different.

Hopefully, Kevin McCarthy, now expected to be the next speaker of the House of Representatives, will realize there is no mandate for Republicans to reverse Biden policies. (I’m not holding my breath).

Fourth, money continues to count too much in elections. While I am glad Democrats did better than expected in the midterms, I note that the Ds enjoyed a sizeable advantage in spending over Republicans in several key races. Friends of mine who regularly contribute to Democrats told me they were receiving up to dozen text messages a day from Reverend Warnock, Nancy Pelosi, Jill Biden, Mark Kelly, and others, begging for money. Would Democrats have done as well as they did without the funding advantage? Probably not. 

Let’s talk about Maryland. I will leave it to others to provide better informed comments on the election outcomes in Maryland, but I am sorry that First District voters are returning Andy “Handgun” Harris to Washington. By reelecting Harris, the First District missed an opportunity to send a woman with expertise in legislation and domestic policy, a focus on improving the lives of people on the Eastern Shore, and basic decency, to Congress. I hope Heather Mizeur will consider running again in 2024. 

Maryland should be proud that voters soundly rejected right-winger Dan Cox. Wes Moore will be the new governor. That’s exciting. But please forgive me if I do not join the small group of people already suggesting that Moore should now set his sights on national office. Until this year, Moore had never run for political office. Let’s see how he does as governor before suggesting that he is the next Barack Obama. Okay?

I’m looking forward to watching the next From and Fuller for a more in-depth analysis of the election. Look for it tomorrow. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.

 

A sign in front of the old fire station on Oxford Road reads, “It’s Simple. Vote Democrat.”  When I first saw it, I thought of Thomas Jefferson, who stressed the importance of an educated citizenry. Although the exact wording is in dispute, he said something like, “An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people.”  The Oxford Road sign contradicted that.

I don’t like what I call “congenital Democrats” or their GOP counterparts—people who vote “their party” regardless of the candidate and don’t bother to learn anything about the opposing candidate. The term “congenital” is not meant as a compliment. Yet, in 2022, I find myself telling people. “Vote Democrat. It’s Simple.”

As is dramatically obvious, the Republican party has imploded into a toxic cloud of racism, greed, personality cults, uncivil attacks, homo-and transphobia, and treason. Except for the name, the party of even 10 years ago no longer exists. Referring to it as “The Party of Lincoln” solicits laughs. You get the idea.

As the mid-term elections approach, there is an important race here on the Eastern Shore. Andy Harris is running against Democrat Heather Mizeur. Conventional wisdom, especially considering recent national polls suggesting a “red wave,” says she will lose. Unfortunately, these polls have caused some First District voters to think, “Why vote for her when she will lose anyway?” 

Other voters, including some independents and conservatives aware of Harris’ attendance at an infamous December meeting at the White House where the January 6 insurrection was planned, tell me they won’t vote for Mizeur because “she’s too liberal.”  (Two points here—first, Harris refuses to tell us what he was doing at the December meeting because he says the January 6 Committee will accuse him of treason. Second, Harris doesn’t think January 6 was an insurrection.)

Is Mizeur too liberal? I didn’t think so, but I was curious how she would fare in a head-to-head confrontation with Andy Harris. Watching the video of the recent League of Woman Voters candidate forum posted in The Spy provided an opportunity. You can watch the full 90-minute exchange here. The Spy is also posting excerpts of the forum. A video of the opening statements is here. 

Mizeur did not seem too liberal to me. She is right, in my view, on many issues, including abortion, education, healthcare, the environment, and the economy. She embraces a larger role of government in supporting our well-being than Harris, but I did not see any similarities to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). I saw a woman genuinely interested in learning about the challenges facing the Eastern Shore and willing to do the work to address them.

I also watched Harris. He was smug and blamed inflation, the economy, crime, the Fentanyl epidemic, federally controlled education, declining test scores and a lot of other issues on Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi (who Andy wants “to fire). I did not hear anything positive from him. He wants to stay in Washington to protect our rights, especially freedom of religion, which he felt was attacked when efforts were made to prohibit in-person services during the pandemic, and, of course, the Second Amendment.

How do you weigh the pros and cons of the two candidates? Harris was slick and enthusiastic, especially when defending himself for carrying a gun in the U.S. Capitol and clarifying that Governor Hogan did not call him crazy, but only said his insistence that churches not be closed during the early, most-deadly months of the pandemic was crazy.

Mizeur was “soft” in my view in laying out her policy positions. She was better when attacking Harris, but she could have been stronger in laying out positive reasons why she deserved my vote. 

Then I remembered the Oxford Road sign and its message:  The Republican party is so rotten that you should not vote for any Republican. If Talbot County had an elected dog catcher, I would vote for the Democrat. The party is an engine of hate and division. Its continued vitality is a threat to American democracy, especially when more than 200 candidates nationally continue to deny that Biden won the presidency in 2020.

So, you can argue whether Trump caused the Republican party to go to hell or whether Trump took advantage of a Republican trend of nationalist populism, but you cannot argue that the party is not rotten. It is. The only way to end the divisiveness that is plaguing America is for the party to go away.

That is why the vote for the First District Congressional seat is a simple one, even if you are not wildly enthusiastic about Heather Mizeur. She is not a Republican. It’s that simple. I’m with Heather.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, the environment, and other subjects.

 

It was a few years ago, when I was driving East on Route 50, I noticed a sign for the Lakeside development and thought, “I wonder what that’s all about.”  I later read that it is a 2,500 home planned development in Trappe. That worried me. That is a big development–a game changer.

Scroll forward to 2022, and Lakeside is emerging as a key issue as Talbot County prepares for the November 8 election. Resetting Lakeside is on the ballot in the form of electing members of the County Council.  The Reset Lakeside campaign seeks to elect candidates that will reset the approval process for Lakeside. 

Until recently “Resetting Lakeside” seemed like a promising idea to me, but then I pondered, “Do I know what “Resetting Lakeside” means? In short order I realized, it’s complicated. I decided to reach out to Dan Watson, a leader of the Talbot Integrity Project (TIP) to get some answers.

Last week I spent some time with Dan to discuss several questions I had about Lakeside. I wanted to know why it needed to be “reset” and whether a “reset” was even possible. When I met with Dan, I learned that a 16-minute opinion video of Dan would be published last Saturday. (If you have not watched it, I encourage you to do so—you will learn a lot.)

Here are several of my questions—key questions in my view—about the “Reset Lakeside” campaign. After listening to the answers, I agree that Lakeside needs to be reset and that candidates for the Talbot County Council who share that view should be elected. 

Here are Dan’s answers to my questions. 

I am regularly getting ads from Lakeside at Trappe offering homes for sale or lease. Isn’t the horse already out of the barn? 

No, it is NOT too late to “reset” the Lakeside situation. About 25 homes (of 2501!) are indeed under construction, but there is a sound legal basis—and local political will–to reconsider the earlier approval which was based on omissions and misunderstandings. A proper review can affect sewage issues, the pace and scale of development, and matters previously ignored (e.g., schools).

If Talbot County voters elect five members corresponding to your recommendations, when would construction at Lakeside stop? 

Once a new Council made up of members committed to “resetting Lakeside,” is installed, one of its first acts can be adoption of a resolution acknowledging primacy of the Planning Commission on “consistency” and bringing us back in conformance with Maryland Law. That should result in a “pause in place” of the development while the County reconsiders Lakeside approvals anew.

Please elaborate on why the Council should recognize that the non-partisan planning commission should have final say on whether sewer permits are consistent with the Talbot County Comprehensive Plan. You also say that Maryland law requires this.

TIP wants to see the Lakeside approvals be in accordance with the law. The history is complicated, but the Planning Commission did initially say Lakeside was consistent with our Comp Plan (whereupon the Council gave it a green light). But when the Planning Commission came to understand new information omitted initially, coupled with misinformation, the Commission reversed its position—as permitted under law when new information arises. The Council refused to recognize the Commission’s action, and improperly let Lakeside chug away.

In addition to concerns about sewage, many of us worry about the impact of a large new development on existing healthcare facilities, schools, roads, and police. Even if the Lakeside developers were to address the sewer issues, should the development still be stopped? 

YES. But TIP’s goal is not to “stop” Lakeside per se, but to pause the project (“reset button”) while all those matters are brought back to the Council to be addressed for the very first time. The only thing of substance reviewed up to now was the sewer system…and even that has big problems!

What should future development on the Eastern Shore look like? Should there be a cap on the population of Talbot County? 

That is exactly the kind of question the citizens of Talbot County should address when next revising our Comprehensive Plan. The Comp Plan begins with citizen participation, and it will be done in the next few years under direction of this new Council—even more reason to elect TIP’s endorsed candidates who respect the Comprehensive Plan.

Reset Lakeside has endorsed candidates for the Talbot County Council. Who are they? 

Pete Lesher, plus four of the following candidates (all of whom have sound views on “land use”). Alphabetically, they are Dappert, Haythe, Jackson, Kane, Mielke, and Montgomery. (These include Ds and Rs, as TIP is a non-partisan organization. NOTE:  Lesher is called out above others because he is a proven advocate for the Comp Plan and responsible growth, and an opponent of Lakeside for the past 18 months.)

I have been disappointed to talk to some Talbot County neighbors who tell me they do not plan to vote on November 8. Tell me why, if for no other reason, they should vote for the candidates you have endorsed for the Talbot County Council?

Folks who “never vote” should make an exception this time–to protect Talbot County from swiftly degrading into “just another place.” If we wanted to live in a congested suburbia like Howard, or Harford or PG Counties, we could have moved there. 

 Talbot is unique, and we can preserve it if we act. We have that responsibility.

After talking to Dan Watson, listening to the Spy video, and reading some material regarding the project (some of it critical of TIP and “Reset Lakeside”), I think Lakeside needs to be reset. I hope all of us in Talbot County will review the facts and vote accordingly. I like Talbot County. I want to see growth happen the right way. A “reset” will help make that happen.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.

 

I know where I will be at 1 p.m. tomorrow–in front of my television. I will be tuned into what is expected to be the last investigative hearing of the House Select Committee on the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol. A few days ago, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), a Committee member, hinted that Ginni Thomas, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, would testify. That has changed. Now Lofgren just promises “surprising new material.”

I wasn’t particularly interested in learning more about Ms. Thomas, an enthusiastic proponent of efforts to keep Donald Trump in the White House. I wonder what the new material might be given everything the Committee has already reported. Could it be that Roger Stone got a new tattoo or that Trump played a round of golf with three Oath Keepers and cheated? Yawn.

What do I expect tomorrow? Although I hope I’m wrong, not much. The hearing will take the format of the previous hearings. The witnesses are a minor part of a multimedia presentation structured to make what could be boring information more accessible to a larger audience. There will be videos of depositions, and presentations by one or two Committee members laying out “new revelations.”

My expectation of an anticlimactic final day of hearings doesn’t mean that the Committee has failed in any way. The Committee has documented that Trump spent considerable time planning and executing the January 6 insurrection and that the law and Constitution did not deter his plan to overturn the 2020 election in the least.

The formal findings of the Committee, which will be issued after the midterm elections, will present a compelling case to indict Trump. We already know that. We will be told, again, that:

Trump lost the November 2020 election and, unable to reconcile himself with his defeat, either knowingly lied about believing he won the election or deluded himself that he did.

Various White House counsel, his daughter and Attorney General Barr knew Trump had lost and advised him of that fact.

Before the January 6 failed insurrection attempt, Trump, and various Trump gang members, including Rudy Giuliani and Lindsey Graham, sought to interfere with the proper counting of votes, including in Georgia and Arizona.

Trump intended the rally that preceded the attack on the Capitol to be the starting point for the attack.

Trump was aware that armed militia groups were going to the Capitol in quasi-military garb.

Trump intended the assault on the Capitol to persuade legislators to reject electoral college votes to set the stage for his being declared the winner.

Trump supported the discredited legal theory that suggested that the vice president could reject electoral college votes.

Trump was angry at Vice President Pence after he declined to implement Trump’s unconstitutional scheme.

Trump did nothing to deter the Capitol riot once it started, choosing instead to watch it on TV.

What more do we need to know? More importantly, what else does the Justice Department need to know to start formal proceedings against Trump?

Regardless of what happens on Thursday, Donald Trump and the big-game hunter Donald Trump, Jr. will cry “Witch Hunt!”

To my knowledge, Don, Jr. has never bagged a witch. But, while the defeated ex-president does not deserve fairness given his assault on democracy, it must be admitted that Democrats are doing their best to use the final hearing of the January 6 election to influence the midterm elections. That revelation is like the discovery that gambling was going on in Rick’s Café in Casablanca. What did you expect? It is, however, unfortunate because the crimes that the January 6 Committee documented need to be prosecuted, and anything that gives Donald Trump ammo to attack the Committee and its findings as politically motivated is counterproductive.

One final thought: I wonder whether the January 6 Committee got to the bottom of what was said at the December 19, 2021, meeting at the White House attended by our Congressman, Andy Harris. To date, Dr. Harris has not offered a satisfactory explanation of what he was doing at the meeting. It would be a service to the First District if the Committee shared everything it has about that meeting and its attendees before election day. The information might open some eyes here on the Eastern Shore.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.

 

I have been seeing a number of signs throughout the First Congressional District that read, “I’m With Andy.” What does this mean? I know that Congressman Andy “Handgun” Harris is a staunch supporter of Donald Trump and his big lie. Harris voted against certifying the results of the 2020 election. The doctor-turned-politician also has gained notoriety for attending a December 19, 2020, meeting at the White House at which, I assume, Harris offered advice on how to persuade Vice President Pence to reject the electoral college vote count and allow Trump to remain in office. And, of course, I still wonder what Harris was doing when he was caught trying to carry a gun onto the floor of the House of Representatives. 

Does “I’m With Andy” mean that I endorse these actions? If it does, my follow-up questions are “Really?” and “What do these things have to do with the First District?”   

I would also ask the Congressman about his propensity to vote against almost every piece of legislation that comes before the House. Harris voted against the Biden infrastructure bill. Andy, why did you vote against a bill that would bring money and needed social services to the First District?

Several of the Andy Harris campaign signs I have seen say “Fire Pelosi.”  Nancy Pelosi (R-CA), of course, is Speaker of the House. Andy chose to tout his interest in “firing” the House Speaker, presumably by having Republicans win a majority in the House, rather than any other issue. 

When I visited Harris’ campaign website, I was greeted with “Andy’s Message.”  In part it reads, “The 2022 election is more important than ever. The Biden Agenda is hurting our communities. It’s time to stop the Biden-Pelosi Agenda – save our schools and protect our pocketbooks.”

Harris is confused about who he represents in Congress. Donald Trump, thank heaven, does not live in Maryland.

Andy, like many of the most prominent Republicans serving in the House and Senate today, appears more interested in national issues than the ones that impact the daily lives of his supposed constituents. Rather than work to represent their states or districts, these Republicans embrace the Trump agenda. That is sad. 

Andy, if doing the job of representing the First District means working to make life better for the people living here, you are not doing your job. 

Have you noticed that Harris is not reminding voters of his former support for term-limits? Harris broke his promise to serve no more than six terms in Congress. When he announced that he was breaking his promise, he said he had unfinished work to do fighting liberals and socialists. 

Andy, is part of that unfinished work returning Donald Trump to the presidency? (I also wonder how the Oath Keepers feel about Andy breaking his oath on term limits, but that is another conversation.)

Lest anyone think I focus too much on Andy Harris, it is worth pondering what a sign reading “I’m with Heather” might tell us. Heather Mizeur is a Democrat with a solid legislative record. Her resume is impressive, including work on Capitol Hill, in Annapolis, and as a working farmer. Should Heather win in November, she would make an impact, almost immediately, on legislation relevant to the First District.

What legislation are we talking about? Visit Mizeur’s website to see her 10-point vision. It includes several items that the First District needs, such as better workforce training, infrastructure investments, and improved housing. A liberal agenda? Note that she also supports policies that should appeal to more conservative voters, such as tax relief for small businesses, support for the fishing industry, and reining in inflation. It sounds as though Heather understands the First District and plans to pursue priorities that are important to its residents. 

Next time I talk to Harris supporters, I will ask them if they are with Andy. If they answer yes, I will try not to shake my head in disgust. I do not see anything about Handgun Harris to get excited about. Of course, in saying that, I do not want to see Trump returned to office and American democracy destroyed.

If you have not registered to vote, do so today. Our future depends on it. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.

Postscript. This column was written prior to publication of the Spy’s profile of Congressman Andy Harris on October 3. In the video profile, Harris addresses his carrying a concealed firearm and the incident where a handgun was detected by a metal detector while entering the Floor of the House Chamber. Harris indicates he had forgotten he was carrying the weapon that day. 

Congressman Harris’ discussion of the incident begins at 18 minutes into the video. He specifically discusses the incident at around 18:50.

The video may be accessed here.

How would you answer the question? I see the pending disaster in Southwest Florida as additional evidence of climate change. To me it’s obvious. Others, however, would answer by asking me to give them a break. They would remind me that hurricanes are nothing new. They would also ask me for evidence of a direct causal connection between climate change and hurricane Ian. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s possible. Even Al Gore would struggle to find a credible answer.

So why do I think Hurricane Ian is telling us something? It’s because we have had a year of heat waves, forest fires, and record cold snaps. We have also had a year of video showing the Greenland ice cap melt and listened to scientists talk to us about the sea level rising.

The message about climate change has been received by the Democrats. The so-called Inflation Reduction Act includes large appropriations to address climate change. I applaud President Biden for his win on the bill. 

Republicans, unfortunately, did not get the memo. Have you read Republican Leader McCarthy’s “Commitment to America?”  It is supposed to be a set of promises to the American people to be delivered on if the Republicans win control of Congress. When I read it, I looked for something on climate change. I didn’t find one. Republicans want America to energy independent and build a wall on the Mexican border in the hope of stemming illegal immigration. Climate change, to them, is less important that those and the other issues addressed in the plan.

For several years I have wondered what it will take to get conservatives to accept the reality that climate change is an existential threat to our future. Do we need a category six hurricane? Or more “heat domes?”  I don’t know but am struggling to continue to believe that some time soon, some time before it is too late, that a national consensus will emerge that will prompt government action that will make last month’s Inflation Reduction Act look small.

In thinking about climate change this week, I also thought about what issues have trumped it this past year. The answer is Trump, his big lie, and efforts to those responsible for January 6 accountable. I wonder, had Donald Trump simply walked away from the presidency after losing the 2020 election, would the nation have had a different conversation, a conversation about climate change, racial equity and justice, and public health? I suspect we would.

I have also noticed the last couple of days that there is more news about Hurricane Ian than there is about Trump. Even the final hearing of the House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack on the Capitol has been postponed. 

I had planned to spend this afternoon watching the January 6 hearing. I was looking forward, in a perverse sort of way, to watching the teased excerpts of Roger Stone’s documentary about January 6. I expected to see more “bombshells” proving Trump’s involvement in the insurrection. Instead, my TV will be tuned to the Weather Channel. I dread seeing storm surges of up to 12 feet in an area of Florida that I visit regularly.

I will be thinking about climate change. Hurricane Ian is telling us that there something out there even more important than holding Trump and others accountable for their crimes. That something is addressing climate change. 

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.

 

I spent Monday morning watching Queen Elizabeth’s funeral. There is something about the majesty of watching 152 members of the Royal Navy pull a gun carriage carrying the Queen’s coffin through the streets of London that is spectacular. The British know how to do funerals. 

As an American, I felt little sense of loss, but the solemnity of the event engaged me. I knew that I was watching something special. I also know that it is unlikely that I will see another funeral like it in my lifetime.

Queen Elizabeth’s reign was remarkable, and, by most accounts, she was a good person. I do not object to Great Britain honoring her with a ten-day farewell but was reminded of why America is fortunate not to be a monarchy. We do not celebrate deceased leaders the way the British do. A funeral service remotely like that of Queen Elizabeth’s here would prompt widespread protests.

Dare I say that the Queen’s funeral was not only a celebration of the past, but also a fantasy about the past? If we did not know that Great Britain is today a struggling European country amid a tough economic crisis, one might assume Britain is the most powerful, important country in the world. Watching the ceremony, one might also not realize that the Queen did not rule Great Britain. That would be Parliament and its Prime Minister. The monarch is purely ceremonial. That is why it really does not matter who is King or Queen. 

Who are all those soldiers, dressed in dozens of different uniforms? The procession on Monday even included Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They and the dozens of other colorfully costumed groups are interesting to watch, but what do they do when not participating in a once in 70-year funeral? How many ceremonial groups and bands does a small island nation need?

I have read a bit about the cost of the funeral. It is substantial at around $10 million, but the funeral is only part of the total costs associated with the Queen’s passing and the ascension of Charles to the throne. Later this year, Britain will hold an elaborate coronation ceremony. And British money and stamps will be changed to feature an image of King Charles III instead of the late Queen. One estimate I read, suggested the total costs of the transition from Queen Elizabeth to the new King will cost over $6 billion. That seems high to me, but the British do not seem to skimp on funerals and honoring the monarchy. 

 I hope it is not disrespectful to comment that the money might have been better spent elsewhere. There are a lot of people in England who could have used the funds. 

In addition to thinking the ceremony was overdone, I also reflected on two funeral services, one that I saw personally and one that I did not. The first was the funeral of John F. Kennedy. It was also grand. I suspect it was as close as an American presidential funeral got to what we saw Monday (and the nine previous days) since Abraham Lincoln’s funeral. That reflects well on America. Grand state funerals for assassinated presidents’ funerals are appropriate. When JFK and Lincoln were murdered there was genuine grief throughout the land. The funerals helped reconcile Americans to the sudden loss of their leader.

I also thought about the funeral of Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon. Per his own instructions, there was no public funeral for Armstrong. He was buried at sea. There was no television coverage. A simple ceremony, not materially different from what might be given to a sailor who died at sea, was held.

I wonder who humankind will remember more in 500 years? The Queen or the first man to walk on the moon? I suspect it will be the latter.

Reports suggest that Queen Elizabeth planned “every detail” of her funeral. I might find that hard to believe, but she had 70 years to do so. Dare I say the time might have been better spent?

I salute Queen Elizabeth, but I don’t salute her funeral.

J.E. Dean is a retired attorney and public affairs consultant writing on politics, government, and other subjects.