We'll start with two Bulwark columns from Amanda Carpenter with the first being the aforementioned "Mail It In" with the discussion centered around having voting more accessible by mail for November's election.
Sixteen states currently require a "reason" to vote absentee and even though Maryland is not one of those states, I still think that giving voters more avenues to cast their votes can be a good thing.
I've voted absentee on several occasions and for a country that doesn't have a holiday to allow people to have the day off to vote, it only makes good sense.
While I understand that the chances of fraud do increase with paper/mail ballots, I'm not sure it is any higher than tabulating results via computer and we've seen how that can turn out.
With the almost guaranteed heat and fury that November's election is going to bring from supporters of and against the President, absentee voting might avoid some potential incidents at polling places and that alone might be worth the effort to expand the paper voting into all states for at least this November's election.
Carpenter also writes of conservative commentator Michelle Malkin and her gradual drift downstream from conservatism to radicalism.
Malkin, who once was a regular on cable news networks, has become almost persona non grata for television or even mainstream conservatives and unless you still read her column on a dwindling amount of news outlets, has faded from the scene.
Carpenter gives far more detail than I can in her article, but the article shows that no matter the topic or belief just how quickly one can fade from the scene.
More Bulwark as Richard North Patterson writes the six lessons learned from the Democratic primaries and how they could relate to the November elections.
The analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of various candidates and how they define the party entering the next stage is quite interesting and could say a lot on the eventual message for the showdown with Donald Trump and maybe even 2024.
One final Bulwark note as Gregg Hurwitz tells the reader that "We can wake up now" from the Donald Trump experiment.
Many voting for Trump in 2016 did so because they wanted someone that would "blow things up", "wanted a businessman" or just plain couldn't stand Hillary Clinton.
While I could understand all of those various reasons, I couldn't seriously consider voting for Donald Trump and didn't do so (For the record, I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton either) because I knew the background, the record, and I wasn't remotely convinced that any of the hype was sincere.
I don't hold the Democrats innocent for 2016 for shoving a candidate to the forefront that was so disliked that they lost an election that was handed to them to win and I also hold the left accountable for being so stringent to their beliefs that they didn't bother to show up at the polls.
Hurwitz writes how it happened in 2016, how it led to where we are today, and what it will take to reverse the decision in November.
The Atlantic's Peter Wehner wraps us up with the temperament of the President for dealing with the Covid 19 crisis and why he is so ill-suited to lead in times of stress.
I'm not going to mention why this is so, although even the most fervent supporter of the President knows that these are the actual characteristics as in many cases it's those characteristics that earned their vote.
Covid 19 won't roll over in fear, it could care less about a nasty Tweet, it cannot be affected by changing its name and it will not give the time of day to "as I like to call" mundane nicknames.
Whether you think Covid 19 is a crisis or simply media-hyped flu (and I know plenty of friends and others that believe either side), the tactics of the last four years isn't going to stop it cold.
Finally, the President has to deal with something that will not be intimidated and won't dodge in fear or shame.
No comments:
Post a Comment