Clothes don't make the senator, but still...

One of the best things that ever happened to me was when my parents sent me to Salesianum, a private boys' high school in Wilmington, Delaware. It's a great school, I got an outstanding education, and I learned a set of good, solid values that have guided and shaped my entire life.

At the time, Salesianum, or "Sallies," was not only an outstanding educational institution, its football and basketball teams were repeat state champions. But, more than anything else, the one thing that Salesianum was known for and set it apart from any other high school in the area was its dress code: jacket and tie. Every day, no exceptions.

Which brings me to the silly scandal of the week: relaxation of the mandatory dress code for members of the United States Senate. In a nod to Pennsylvania Democrat John Fetterman, who persisted in showing up to vote wearing an ugly hoodie and baggy shorts, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer dropped the requirement that men wear a coat and tie on the Senate floor. "Senators are able to choose what they wear on the Senate floor," Schumer announced. "I will continue to wear a suit."

OK, before you pelt me with rotten tomatoes, let me confess. One, I realize this is not the most important issue facing the nation. Two, I'm a huge fan of John Fetterman's, both his politics and the way he acknowledged and dealt with depression. Three, I care more about how a senator votes than what he or she is wearing. Four, I know that many will dismiss my reaction to this change as belonging to an old-school, old-fashioned, old-fart generation that just doesn't understand how times have changed.

Nevertheless, let me say it loud and clear: I think getting rid of the Senate dress code is wrong. A big mistake. For three good reasons.

First, out of reverence for the United States Senate. It's the temple of our democracy. It's the world's greatest deliberative body. It's where, for more than 235 years, our leaders have gathered to chart the future of this country, and still do today. It deserves to be treated as a very sacred place. You shouldn't be able to walk onto the Senate floor wearing what you'd sport on an outing to the neighborhood pool.

Second, out of recognition of the important work of the Senate. Agree with their decisions or not, senators are dealing with the most critical issues facing our nation: immigration, climate change, education, civil liberties, war, and the future of democracy itself. Somehow those issues don't seem that important when you show up in shorts and flip-flops. As the Washington Post editorialized this week, "Putting on a suit creates an occasion for lawmakers to reflect, just for a moment, on the special responsibilities with which the people have entrusted them and on a deliberative process that at least aspires to solemnity."

Third, out of respect for the profession of politics. There's a good reason why doctors wear white coats, judges wear black robes, and even fast-food workers wear some kind of uniform. It's a way of showing respect for their profession, just like wearing a suit is a sign of the importance of lawmakers. It's hard to take them seriously when they refuse to dress for the job.

The worst part is, Schumer didn't consider a compromise: just jacket and dress shirt, for example, no tie required. Instead, he went all the way, letting just one senator out of 100 take the Senate dress code from Brooks Brothers to Walmart.

We can only shudder to think what comes next. When anything goes, anything goes. We could soon see senators wearing MAGA gear, or T-shirts with graphics supporting political candidates or sports teams. Or bowling shirts.

Call me an old fogey, but count me out. I want a Senate that at least looks like one we can honor and respect. I don't want to see Mitch McConnell in a T-shirt and jeans. I don't want to see Ted Cruz showing up in a Speedo. I don't want to see Susan Collins sporting a bikini. I don't want to see Chuck Grassley in a onesie. If senators don't like it, they can get another job - if anybody would hire them, dressed like that.

The dress code Salesianum adopted when it was founded in 1903 is still in place. If it's good enough for my high school alma mater, it's good enough for the United States Senate.

(C)2023 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Impeach Biden first - then find out why

It's hard to know what to say about House Republicans moving to impeach President Biden, except: it's insane; it's totally evidence-free; it's pure revenge for two impeachments of Donald Trump; and it's the most outrageous abuse of congressional power in our lifetime. 

Impeachments used to be rare. Now they're almost standard procedure every time the opposition party takes over the House. No president had been impeached since Andrew Johnson, in 1868. But in the last 25 years, we've seen three of them: Bill Clinton, 1998; Donald Trump, in 2019 and 2021.

Here we go again. On his own, with no vote in the House, Speaker Kevin McCarthy ordered House Republicans to begin an impeachment inquiry into President Joe Biden. Which has only one possible outcome. You can't put ketchup back in the bottle, and you can't derail the impeachment train. It's inevitable. Joe Biden will become the fourth president to be impeached. With one big difference.

I remember it well. I was co-host of CNN's "Crossfire," when news of the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke. Suddenly, there was the Ken Starr report. And there was the blue dress. In other words, whether what Clinton did was an impeachable offense or not - I argued not! - there was evidence before any impeachment inquiry was launched.

Same with Donald Trump. For Trump's first impeachment, there was evidence: the tape of his telephone call offering Ukraine President Zelensky a bribe for opening an investigation into Joe Biden. For his second impeachment, there was also evidence: the assault on the Capitol on January 6, seen in all its horror by millions of Americans on TV.

That's the difference. For the impeachment of Joe Biden, there is no evidence. Zero. Which Republican lawmakers openly admit. In fact, defying both logic and protocol, they argue that they must first start impeachment proceedings in order to find the evidence - which, so far, they've been unable to uncover.

It's not that they haven't tried. For years, Republicans have accused Joe Biden, as vice president, of personally and illegally profiteering - even accepting bribes! - from his son Hunter's business dealings in Ukraine and China. But to date they've come up empty-handed.

In 2020, Wisconsin's Ron Johnson conducted a months-long Senate investigation of Hunter Biden. His final report - issued in September 2020, Johnson admitted, in order to help Trump's re-election campaign - concluded that Hunter's business activities proved "very awkward" for Biden. Note: Not illegal. Not impeachable. Just "very awkward."

Last month, House Oversight Chair James Comer announced with great fanfare that he would prove the case against both father and son Biden in a closed-door hearing with Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's former business partner. Oops! The hearing transcript revealed that Archer, under oath, instead testified that Joe Biden had never benefited from nor done anything to help Hunter's business activities and had never been offered, nor accepted, any bribe.

And yet, despite having no evidence, McCarthy triggered an impeachment inquiry on President Biden on the theory that if Republicans just keep digging, sooner or later they'll find something to impeach him for. In other words, it's just the opposite of Clinton and Trump. Then it was evidence first, impeachment later. With Biden, it's impeachment first, and - maybe! - evidence later. As Washington Post columnist Alexandra Petri suggests, the headline is: "We Guess Joe Biden Did Something Worth Impeaching and We Can't Wait to Learn What It Was."

It's no secret why McCarthy's making this move. For two reasons. First, because Donald Trump begged him to, on Trump's ridiculous theory that accusing Biden of breaking the law will take the spotlight off Trump's own 91 charges of federal crimes. Second, because, for now, it's the only way McCarthy can save his job from extremists who are actually running the House and could vote him out as Speaker at any minute.

It's a gamble McCarthy will soon regret. In the short term, he may save his job. But, in the long term, he may well lose his job anyway, when Democrats take back control of the House in 2024. A tit-for-tat impeachment is not what the majority of Americans want. It may excite the MAGA base, but it'll turn off Independents and moderate, suburban voters Republicans need to win.

Which is why, privately, many Democrats are saying about the Biden impeachment: "Bring it on!" It'll only show how irresponsible today's Republican Party is. It'll help Democrats hold on to the Senate and take back the House. And it won't hurt Joe Biden - it will probably help re-elect him.

Is Joe Biden too old to be president?

Republicans believe they've found the winning argument for 2024. They can't argue with President Biden's record, because most of his legislative victories had the help of Republican votes. They can't make the case that the economy's a disaster, because it's not. It's stronger than ever.

Nope. Republicans are basing all their hopes for 2024 on one argument alone: Joe Biden's too old to be president. Which, you must admit, is a real issue. Right or wrong, for most people, there's something about "80" that automatically means "over the hill."

But which is also about as hypocritical as you can get. After all, if 80 is too old, what about Donald Trump? He's 77 now. He'd turn 80 as president were he re-elected in 2024.  Why no issue with The Orangeman's age? Or what about Chuck Grassley, now 89, re-elected in 2022 at age 87, and already running for re-election?

And how about Mitch McConnell, whom Republicans were quick to rally behind, insisting he's still up to the job despite two brain freezes on camera? Does the age argument just apply to Democrats?

Clearly, Republicans are trying to make political hay with Biden's age because they have nothing else to run on. But let's be honest. For Biden, the problem with the age issue is not criticism by Republicans. It's all the worrying, if not outright panic, on the part of Democrats - whom Obama 2012 re-elect campaign manager Jim Messina recently called "a party of bedwetters."

In fact, there are probably more Democrats fretting about Biden's age than Republicans. I hear it all the time: from friends, from family, from elected Democratic officials: Joe Biden's too old. He looks old. He talks old. He walks old. If only he'd step aside and pass the torch to the next generation.

Which is not crazy. Again, it's a real issue. We'd probably all be more comfortable in 2024 with a younger nominee. But it's also time to face reality. Which is this: Joe Biden's not going anywhere. He's not going to drop out. He will be the Democratic nominee in 2024.

So, with all due respect, here's my advice to my fellow Democrats: KNOCK IT OFF! GET OVER IT! DEAL WITH THE FACTS!

Fact Number One: Joe Biden has done a helluva job. He knows how to get things done. Other presidents have promised to pass legislation to rebuild our infrastructure. Joe Biden did it. Other presidents have promised to end the war in Afghanistan. Joe Biden did it. Other presidents have promised to force pharmaceutical companies to negotiate lower prescription drug prices with Medicare. Joe Biden did it. Other presidents have avoided or opposed doing anything about guns. Joe Biden worked for and signed the first gun safety legislation in 30 years.

And "Bidenomics" is real. Thanks to incentives included in the infrastructure and CHIPS legislation, 35,000 new road and highway construction projects are underway. Thirteen million new jobs, including 800,000 manufacturing jobs, have been created. America's enjoying an apartment construction boom not seen since the 1970's. Venture capital firms and private investors are flocking to new clean energy firms. Private firms have launched new high-speed rail projects in Texas and Florida. Wages are up, consumer spending is up, and inflation is down.

In two years, Joe Biden has accomplished more than most presidents have done in eight. He's the most effective president since FDR. He's running for a second term. And he's earned it.

Fact Number Two: It's not how old a person is that counts, it's whether they're fit for the job. Nancy Pelosi was an effective Speaker until she was tossed out at age 82. Pope Francis hasn't slowed down at age 86. Warren Buffett's still one of America's leading and most active business leaders at age 93. And, no doubt about it, at age 80, Joe Biden is up to the job of president: stronger, more physically and mentally fit than many people 20 years younger.

Fact Number Three. Yes, things could change. Joe Biden could change his mind, or Donald Trump could be behind bars, both of which are unlikely. So that defines what the 2024 election will be all about. Not a vote on whether Joe Biden's too old. But a choice. A dramatic choice: between competence and incompetence, between truth and lies, between the lawmaker and the lawbreaker, between democracy and demagoguery.

It doesn't matter how old Biden is. Forced to choose between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, the choice is clear.

(C)2023 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
  

Impeach Joe Biden! But for what, exactly?

Americans of a certain age will remember the fun of coming up with a new oxymoron. Three of my favorites were "airline food," "military intelligence," and "jumbo shrimp."

The game is back! Under hapless Speaker Kevin McCarthy, House Republicans have come up with a brand-new oxymoron: "Biden crime family." It's a huge contradiction in terms, with no basis in reality. Yet they shout it from the rooftops and they've held half a dozen congressional hearings to "expose" it. The only problem is, 18 months after taking control of the House, they've come up with not one shred of evidence of any crime committed by anybody named Biden.

But that lack of evidence hasn't stopped them. Just the opposite. McCarthy recently announced that one of his first priorities for Republicans after Labor Day is to impeach President Biden! "How do you get to the bottom of the truth? The only way Congress can do that is to go to an impeachment inquiry," the Speaker told CNN.

Of course, what everyone wants to know is: What exactly are you going to impeach President Biden for? That's the $64 million question. Which, so far, not one Republican -- not Speaker McCarthy, not Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan, not Oversight Chair James Comer -- can answer. Why? Because they don't have the goods. And efforts so far to prove any wrongdoing by Biden have only backfired.

On June 13, for starters, Comer accused President Biden of having been "allegedly engaged in a bribery scheme with a foreign national." According to Comer, based on an FBI interview with a since-discredited informant who met with Mykola Zlochevsky, founder of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, of which Hunter Biden was a board member, then-Vice President Biden accepted a $5 million bribe to push for the ouster of Ukraine's attorney general, considered unfriendly to Burisma.

Sounds serious, except there's nothing to back it up. In fact, in the last few months, it's been totally disproven. Zlochevsky himself has denied having any contact with or receiving any assistance from Joe Biden. And on July 31, in closed-door testimony before the Oversight Committee, Comer's key witness, Hunter Biden's business partner Devon Archer, testified under oath that VP Biden never intervened to help his son or Burisma and that he had no knowledge of bribery payments. Because there weren't any.

The only thing we know for sure about the Burisma issue is that Hunter Biden exercised bad judgment by trying to capitalize on his father's job in order to line his own pockets. That was wrong, although he's hardly the first member of any political family to do so. But there's no evidence he did anything illegal, except maybe fail to pay all taxes he owed. And whatever mistakes Hunter made were made by him, not his father.

Yet McCarthy's determined to plow ahead with impeachment -- for two reasons. First, to pacify extremist members of the Freedom Caucus who are demanding a government shutdown. You agree not to shut down the government, he's reportedly told them, and I'll let you have your impeachment hearings.

Second, McCarthy's eager to help Donald Trump, who's been begging House Republicans to impeach Biden in the hope they'll take the spotlight off his own monumental legal problems. And whatever Daddy Trump wants, My Kevin delivers.

In other words, McCarthy's guilty of what Republicans accuse Democrats of: "weaponization of government" -- using the powers of Congress, not to solve problems, but to attack their political opponents. And they do so at their own political peril.

Efforts to impeach Joe Biden will fail, not only because of lack of evidence, but because they could backfire on Republicans and cost them control of the House in 2024. A poll by the Congressional Integrity Project this week shows that 56% of Americans already think trying to impeach Biden is a "political stunt."

It's insane for Republicans to go down this road. Especially when there's a ready alternative. If their goal is really to expose a major "crime family," they're looking in the wrong place. There's another family nearby in which the father's been charged with 91 crimes and whose sons and daughter made business deals all over the globe in their father's name while he was in the White House. Their last name's not Biden. It's Trump.

Credit: Tribune Content Agency 

GOP primary debate: The parade of the Lilliputians

Working on a special project this week, I happened across a definition of the Lilliputians that Jonathan Swift encountered in "Gulliver's Travels" - "men of six inches in height but possessing all the pretension and self-importance of full-sized men. They are mean and nasty, vicious, morally corrupt, hypocritical and deceitful, jealous and envious, filled with greed and ingratitude."

Bingo! Watching the first GOP primary debate on August 23, I suddenly realized: that's the perfect description for the eight hapless Republican candidates on stage: political peewees compared to giant Trump, but just as venal and empty-handed.

Indeed, if you were a Republican looking for an alternative to Trump, someone who could beat him in the primary, you did not find that person among the eight candidates on stage in Milwaukee. Some had a bad night, a few had a good night, none of them had a great night. Trump had the best night by not even showing up.

In fact, the most astounding thing about the debate was that, because he didn't show up, Trump was hardly talked about at all. The most important question facing Republicans today is whether the party will actually nominate its front-runner: a twice-impeached, four times indicted, former president now charged with 91 state and federal crimes. And yet Fox hosts Brett Baier and Martha MacCallum didn't even get around to Trump for a whole hour - and then devoted only about 15 minutes out of two hours to questions about Trump. Which was no accident. Fox was afraid of losing more of Trump's base to Newsmax.

However, even that brief acknowledgment of the orange "elephant not in the room" did create one awkward moment. Asked by a show of hands if they'd still support Donald Trump as their party's nominee if he were actually convicted of a crime, only two - Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson - refused to raise their hand. Which tells you all you need to know about the sad state of today's Republican Party and the cowardly crowd supposedly running against him.

Again, those who did show up get mixed reviews. North Dakota governor Doug Burgum and former Arkansas governor Asa Hutchinson might as well have stayed home. Burgum weirdly repeated that he deserved to be president because he grew up in a town of 300 people. Hutchinson made good points against Trump, but Chris Christie beat him to the punch.

Overall, however, Christie disappointed. Expected to dominate the debate with a knock-out punch against DeSantis, he never delivered it. He ignored DeSantis. Instead, he focused his fire on Vivek Ramaswamy as the "ChatGPT" candidate, and then slathered Mike Pence with praise. Even Christie's criticism of Trump seemed muted.

Poor Tim Scott. He's a nice guy, determined to win by campaigning as Mr. Nice Guy, but today's Republican Party isn't ready for niceness. You could easily forget Scott was even on stage. He spoke rarely and ended his one serious discussion of any issue with a grand promise to finish Trump's border wall. Nobody applauded.

Compared to others, Mike Pence had a good night. Not great, but good. He showed more fight than we've ever seen from him, especially when taking on Ramaswamy. And he made the strongest case yet for why he refused to do what Trump demanded on January 6.  But four years as Trump's lapdog still weighs him down.

Many anticipated the debate as Ron DeSantis' best chance to break away from the field and establish himself as the strongest alternative to Trump. If so, he blew it. Too angry, too rehearsed, too quick to duck most questions, too rattled when challenged. Most of the time he was just annoying.

But not nearly as annoying as Vivek Ramaswamy, who spit out mindless slogans as fast as Donald Trump. In fact, it was like he was filling in for Trump, calling climate change "a hoax," siding with Vladimir Putin, and accusing everybody else on stage of being "bought and paid for." He's a totally obnoxious little brat whose act wears thin very fast.

Best performance of all? Hands down, Nikki Haley. Very strong on both domestic and foreign policy, not afraid to take on the party line on abortion and Trump. And she eviscerated Ramaswamy on Ukraine. Moving forward, she's the one to watch.

But the night's big winner was far from Milwaukee. If either Trump himself or one of the eight amateurs we saw on Wednesday night is his opposition, things are looking better and better for Joe Biden in November 2024.

Credit: Tribune Content Agency

Democrats' magic ticket for 2024: Abortion rights

Some people don't know when to quit. Like today's MAGA Party (there is no more Republican Party). For 50 years, they worked every possible political angle to kill Roe v. Wade. Last year, they finally succeeded when the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3, announced its Dobbs decision, overturning Roe v. Wade and turning abortion politics over to the states.

But for the anti-abortion zealots, that still wasn't enough. They immediately embarked on a two-pronged attempt to ban abortion altogether, either by getting Congress to enact a national ban or by pressuring state legislatures, starting in red states, to adopt tougher and tougher anti-abortion measures.

Now here's the good news: the more MAGA Republicans beat the anti-abortion drum, the more ground they lost - starting in the red state of Kansas. In August 2022, Kansas became the first state following the Dobbs decision to vote on abortion rights. Voters overwhelmingly defeated, 59 percent to 40 percent, an initiative that said there was no right to an abortion in that state.

And that was just the beginning. In November 2022, abortion measures were on the ballot in five more states - and anti-abortion forces lost all five. California, Michigan, and Vermont voted to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. Voters in the red states of Montana and Kentucky rejected tougher limits on abortion access. Adverse reaction to the Dobbs decision is also generally recognized as the main reason Republicans fared so poorly in the 2022 midterms, barely winning the House and losing control of the Senate. And in April 2023, Wisconsin voters elected Janet Prostasiewicz, running as an abortion rights advocate, to the Supreme Court.

Yet MAGA Republicans didn't learn anything. They still pressed ahead in state after state with draconian anti-abortion measures - which led to this week's debacle in Ohio. Nowhere is it more clear that anti-abortion politics is a losing issue for Republicans than what happened in the red state of Ohio. It turned out to be one of the worst political miscalculations ever.

To counter anticipated attempts by the state legislature to ban or severely limit access to abortion, abortion activists had already qualified a measure for the November ballot protecting abortion rights: an initiative which, under the existing Ohio constitution, would have required only a simple majority, 50 percent plus 1, to pass.

At which point, knowing they might well lose that vote, after what happened in Kansas, anti-abortion extremists in the legislature panicked. They decided to play games. They called a special statewide election on August 8 (when everybody would be on vacation) for one purpose only: amending the constitution to raise the minimum requirement for passing an initiative from 50 percent to 60 percent.

Republican legislative leaders insisted it was a move to protect the state from "special interests." But voters of Ohio weren't fooled. They saw it for what it was: a cynical  attempt to change the rules in the middle of the game and make it harder for the abortion rights measure to pass in November - and they rejected it bigtime.

It was an amazing show of force. On a sleepy day in the middle of summer, Ohio voters turned out in record numbers to vote on only one issue - and they turned it down by 14 points, 57 to 43, a winning margin of 430,000 votes. And this, remember, in Ohio - a red state that Donald Trump won in 2020 by eight points.

The message from Ohio is clear. One, the pro-abortion rights initiative in November is now bound to pass. Two, severe anti-abortion efforts, by legislation or initiative, are a losing issue for Republicans. Since the Dobbs decision, times have changed dramatically. The issue that used to motivate conservative voters is now the main force driving liberal, moderate, and independent voters.

Ohio proves the enduring power of abortion rights on the ballot. And that's good news for Democrats, heading into 2024. As Aidan Johnson, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Committee warned after the Ohio vote, "Republicans' deeply unpopular war on women's rights will cost them district after district, and we will remind voters of their toxic anti-abortion agenda every day until November."

Ironically, Dobbs has backfired on conservatives. According to an April 2023 PBS NewsHour poll, support for abortion rights has actually gone up, not down, since the Dobbs decision: 61 percent of Americans now support abortion rights.

By that measure, we can only hope that Republicans put an anti-abortion initiative on the November 2024 ballot in all 50 states. If Republicans don't, Democrats should.

(C)2023 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.