The conventional wisdom is divided, as everything is nowadays. Republicans believe that Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s decision to suspend his campaign in the swing states and endorse Trump could boost Trump by a few crucial points.
Democrats, on the other hand, are downplaying the "defection" (after they spent millions trying to exclude him from the ballot all over the country, even in deep-blue New York). They say RFK Jr. is going to be a liability for Trump.
So which is it?
When Biden was in, RFK Jr. was a liability for the Democrats. He gave those who did not want to vote for Biden but could not stomach a vote for Trump a symbolic alternative. It could have cost Biden several swing states.
With Kamala Harris replacing Biden, RFK Jr. was a liability for Republicans. The Democrats now had a different, younger, candidate, and the remaining RFK Jr. voters were likely independents for whom Trump was not a first choice.
But RFK Jr. decided he did not want to help the Democrats -- and who can blame him? They smeared him as an antisemite; they tried to sue him off the ballot, they used his family against him; and they denied him Secret Service protection.
The effect will be to move some -- not all -- of the RFK Jr. vote to the Trump column.
But it's more than that. RFK Jr. also validates Trump's campaign -- the Kennedy name still counts -- and gives it new energy, a new edge.
If you listened to RFK's speech -- and it was awesome (here's the transcript: https://im1776.com/2024/08/24/rfk-address-to-the-nation/) -- you heard him throw down a serious challenge to the Democrats, the media, and the country's governing establishment.
RFK Jr. reframed Kamala Harris from the candidate of "joy" to the puppet of party leaders, a media oligarchy, and a state apparatus that have conspired to suppress democracy in the name of defending it. He called out her emptiness.
He also laid out the case against U.S. foreign policy in Ukraine.I don't agree with him entirely, but leave that for the moment: the point is that no one had heard it before. Think of that: $200 billion later, and never a counterargument.
Finally, and most consequentially, Kennedy talked about his major issues: free speech, preventing war, and addressing the crisis of chronic health problems among America's children, especially through nutrition and poor regulation.
These are fresh ideas. The free speech issue has been raging for a while, but as long as Republicans were the main victims, no one really cared. With Kennedy pushing the issue to the forefront, it's impossible to ignore -- at least, it is now.
Some pundit -- I forget who, and it might have actually been Nikki Haley -- said during the primary that since many American voters were sick of Biden and Trump, whichever party nominated a younger candidate would win.
Harris is the Democrats' younger candidate. JD Vance doesn't quite fit the bill, somehow, maybe because he's the vice presidential candidate, or maybe he's just SO young (just 40). But Kennedy, though 70, has a youthful energy.
I, for one, am grateful that Kennedy has established his pro-Israel credentials so clearly. If he hadn't done so, all the media would be talking about would be that Trump had embraced an "antisemite" (what a lie!), and you know the rest of it.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
