Word Play

    What does "immune" mean?
   In medicine, it's clear. A person cannot catch a disease. But in current politics, the debate is whether a government official can be prosecuted for alleged wrongdoing, either while in office or later, or whether the supposed action was related to official duties.
   Part of the argument may rely on whether the Constitution specifies that a President is immune from prosecution. For anything. Ever. Under any circumstance. At any time.
   That's the core of the debate between law enforcement officials and followers of Donald Trump, the former president now seeking to regain his office.
   (Whether he was legitimately ousted or not re-elected is a separate argument.)
   History notes that the writers of the Constitution relied on British precedent, which had the tradition that a monarch, as ruler of all, could not be prosecuted. Currently, some Americans insist that Trump enjoys similar immunity.
   But he's not a king, much as he may act like one. A bigger danger is that many Americans believe he should be a total, unquestionable leader. That raises the question of whether he will -- if elected again -- follow the Constitutional rule that limits him to two terms.
   Unless he dictates some things during his first four months in office -- as dictator, to use his own phrasing -- and then returns to the Constitutional rule after suspending the Constitution.
   If in fact he does return.
   The kicker in this argument is whether a new dictator will give up total power in a certain time frame, as promised.
   Promises, promises.

Debate Debate

   What excuse will Donald Trump find to not debate Kamala Harris?
   Already, there have been several challenges that she is not eligible because the original agreement was with Joe Biden, who dropped out of the presidential race. As vice president, Harris stepped in and took the nomination.
   But she was not the original candidate, the argument goes, so the arrangement should be rearranged. Harris has a strong background as prosecutor and as a member of Congress.
   Trump's debate experience is a few encounters with Joe Biden and with Hillary Clinton, in both of which he ignored the rules and repeatedly interrupted the other person's comments.
   Whether he can escape challenges by the more competitive Kamala Harris is an open question.
   Overall, Trump's reputation indicates that he is more concerned with domination than with discussion.
   Whether he will be able to dominate Harris verbally is an open question.

Presidential Immunity -- Continued

   This posting follows up on earlier commentary entered on January 3, 2024.

   The Supreme Court ruled that the President is immune from prosecution for "official" acts done while in office. But what about "unofficial" acts?
   That is the core of the argument rolling again in the court system as Donald Trump tries to cancel any court action against him. But the prosecution revised its case to remove references to acts that could be deemed "official," and refiled court documents to focus on "unofficial" acts.
   Deep background suggests that anyone who has ever been President can commit anything and be free from prosecution because of total immunity.
   If that be the case for Republican Donald Trump, would it not also be true for former Democratic presidents?
   Be careful what you wish for.
   You may get it.

Best Seller Books

   We often read of new books instantly ranking high on the best seller list. However, publishers don't say that the list counts only the number of books sold to distributors. It does not mention them or retailers, much less members of the reading public, the ultimate consumers, who buy single copies.
   The giveaway is the reality that the very week the book is made available to the public, many thousands of copies are listed as "best sellers."
   Sold to whom?
   Distributors and retailers.
   Readers may not get their copies for days of weeks more, and it would be several additional days until they actually finish reading their copies.
   If in fact they do finish reading them.
 

Political Razz ma Tazz

   Politicians lie.

   So what else is news?

   Responsible journalism has a duty to print what a conservative politician says as well as opponent's  views.

   Sometimes, one set of views includes just a few lies, while the other set has none, or a bunch more. So is it journalism's duty to report both sets, without any guide as to which set is true? That suggests readers should decide.

   Or is it journalism's duty to specify who lies and who is truthful?

   Is a puzzlement, as the king of Siam would say.

   There was a time when broadcasters were required to transmit what political leaders said, and were forbidden to present their own opinions, much less whether someone was lying, on the fear of losing their broadcast license

   However, that changed soon after cable television came on the scene. And since their programming was delivered via cable, and not broadcast, there was no danger of losing their broadcast license.

   Why not? Simply because they didn't have one. Broadcast licenses were granted by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and generally, any other licenses were granted by individual states.

   Besides, requiring businesses to focus on one aspect of an issue and to denigrate others amounts to control of the news media. And that would be a clear violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedom.

   So challenging news media's decisions as to which stories to carry and how to carry them is not likely. Although some politicians  talk about it. The odd thing is that the very targets of the attack carry reports of the criticism in detail.

   In great detail.

   Many times.

   And since they can respond with their own views as well as continued criticism of the political attacks, one has only a brief guess as to who gets more broadcast time.

   Even so, network broadcast TV news channel programs remain relatively neutral in their coverage of these attacks on journalistic freedom.

   Cable television people have the right to their opinions, both right and left, conservative and liberal.

   If you have any doubt, tune in to the Fox network programs, as well as MSNBC or CNN.

Polly Ticks

   The clock may be running out for the candidate who parrots lies about his opponent. But already, he has started chanting the same rant about a "rigged election," which he did in the previous two elections.
   (He won the first time; does that mean he did the rigging?}
   All this ranting is especially curious because the vote count won't start until after the elections, which is more than two months away.
   By the way, who did the rigging when he "won" the election eight years ago? Even then, he began the chant weeks before Election Day and the official count.
   Keep in mind that he did not win the popular vote either time he ran for the White House office. The first time, he manipulated the electoral vote -- the state by state count -- but lost the popular vote -- the number of people who supported his candidacy.
   So what can we expect from someone who rants about alleged cheating by others when he himself has a long reputation for lying and cheating in business and politics?

Danger

    When a political leader talks about anger more than offering solutions, that is a signal that the leader does not understand the problem.

   Either that, or he is more concerned with his own power than about resolving a problem for the benefit of all citizens.

   Or both.

Blame Game

    If Democrat Kamala Harris is elected to the presidency, America will see the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of 1929. So said Donald Trump in a campaign rally.

    But all the major recessions of the past 100 years occurred when a Republican was in the White House, beginning with Herbert Hoover as president. And that includes the Great Recession of 2008-2009, when George W. Bush, another Republican, was president.

   Others include the downturn of 1956, under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and the economic difficulties of 2017, when Trump himself was in the White House.

Political Gibberish

   Time was, using the term "lie" would get the user punched out. And when TV commentators used it, they would apologize. Moreover, news announcers rarely used it at all, and apologized in advance when they had to play a recording of it.
   Now, however, a certain major politician uses the word regularly, often and emphatically, so any attempt to diminish its effect on listeners is pointless.
   There comes a time in journalism when it is essential to report clearly and accurately what a politician says. This is a sound policy, but we now live in abnormal times.
   Note: That time comes sooner and more often when a politician regularly insults reporters by regularly using the term "stupid," as when saying on live television to a network journalist, "That's a stupid question."
   Comment: There are indeed some questions that can be termed "stupid." But realistically, and in the context of neutral journalism, there are only stupid answers.
   There can be  leading questions, designed to help a speaker focus. Even so, this can work two ways -- to help or to entrap. Journalism's duty is to report accurately and completely what a politician or government official says. There is no need for anger. Just report what the politician says. There is no need to report the question. Journalism's duty is to report the answer.
   Or as the old guideline in the PR industry puts it, "Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel."
   But when a politician regularly insults reporters, they can respond by quoting clearly and accurately just what the politician says. They don't clean up the grammar or clarify any confusing phrase. They will report exactly what the politician says as well as the way he says it, without cleaning up the grammar or clarifying any unclear phrases.
   The pen is mightier than the sword.
   This can explain why a certain national political figure has few friends in the news media. Either way, reporters should not be friends with politicians. They can and should be friendly. But that's all.