A Bad Day for Hockey, Trump & Harris
Happy Labor Day weekend, but the last blast of politics before we fire up the grills for a long weekend was depressing and bad for both campaigns and the world of ice hockey.
First of all, Happy Labor Day weekend. Be safe on the roads, and please look out for bicyclists. The worst tragedy of the holiday weekend was an “impaired” (read: intoxicated) driver in my former stomping grounds of southern New Jersey killing a talented and famous NHL hockey player, Johnny Gaudreau, and his brother Matt on the day before their sister’s wedding. It’s just horrible, even unimaginable. We grieve for the family and their friends.
As an avid bicyclist, I never take my bike on roads and highways, at least ones used by cars and trucks—I ride only off-road. Even though the drivers around here seem friendly, patient, respectful, and sober, you never know. Crossing streets and roads is dangerous enough, even here. I’m blessed with the W&OD trail here in northern Virginia. The Philadelphia suburbs have even better off-road trails, but apparently not in Oldmans Township, New Jersey.
That’s the worst news going into the weekend, at least that I know, but neither Donald Trump nor Kamala Harris helped their causes on Thursday.
Let’s start with Harris and her pre-taped interview on Democrat-friendly CNN with Capitol Hill journalist Dana Bash.
First, I had zero confidence in Nancy Pelosi fan girl Bash or CNN's ability to break any new ground with the Democratic nominee and her running mate, finally acceding to their first interview in 40 days and 40 nights. My expectations were met. There were no surprises and nothing new. If anything, some perceptions were cemented. I just do not think Kamala Harris has the talent or the skill set to lead our nation (here come the usual “but Trump!” retorts. Save ‘em. I’m still waiting for the first Harris supporter to tell me why they’re voting for her without mentioning Trump).
Let’s start with Bash's open-ended, appropriate opening question: “If you are elected, what would you do on day one in the White House?” The response: “things.” Bash had to ask the same question twice. Then, Bash turned to Walz and asked, “What about you?”
Bash began to zero in a few good follow-ups when Harris finally began to offer a few details, including, “So you have been vice president for three and a half years. The steps that you’re talking about now, why haven’t you done them already?” (Harris lied in response about Trump never trying to reduce insulin prices for seniors, and tried to take credit for bringing down inflation after being the tie-breaking vote for $5 trillion in new spending that caused it in the first place).
After Bash asked her final tough question—“So you maintain Bidenomics is a success”—the conversation was mostly mushy. Bash did ask about fracking and immigration and delved into one of Walz’s falsehoods about carrying weapons “in war” and the use of in vitro fertilization in his family. Bash failed to follow up on much of it when she clearly could have. Maybe she did, but it was left on the editing room floor. That’s why live interviews are always more valuable for viewers. There were no winners in this interview.
Now, our final disappointment: Donald Trump. Not once, but twice.
Trump stepped on the abortion rake first in an interview in Michigan with a local NBC reporter, who asked him about a Florida ballot question, Amendment 4, this November that would enshrine the right to abortion in the state’s constitution through “viability” or to protect the “health” of the woman as determined by the “healthcare provider,” a barn-door sized loophole for Planned Parenthood that would practically allow abortion on demand.
Background: Last year, Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation prohibiting abortion after six weeks of gestation. Florida law includes exceptions for victims of rape, incest, and human trafficking up to 15 weeks. Florida also has a 24-hour waiting period for abortions. Recent studies show that 40 percent of abortions occur within six weeks, but many don’t know if they’re pregnant until closer to 8 weeks.
Trump told NBC when asked how he, a Florida resident, would vote: “I think six weeks is too short; there has to be more time,” setting up a firestorm in the pro-life community. In fairness, Trump did not say he would vote for the Amendment.
It’s time to be real. Donald Trump was never pro-life. His views and work on the issue are purely transactional. In his view, winning confirmation for three Supreme Court justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade was enough to earn the loyalty of pro-life voters.
He has a point. Having achieved the pro-life community’s top policy priority for 50 years, Trump tossed the ball in their court to finish the work of building a pro-life culture. And on that count, the pro-life community has failed. And with recent defeats on state constitutional amendments enshrining abortion rights in two bright red states, Ohio and Kansas - with many more such votes in the queue - politicians like Trump in close races are going to do what politicians do.
“In a democracy, politicians say and do what they have to say and do to win.”
Rod Dreher.
The fact is that abortion has become a losing issue for Republicans; most of them would rather talk about inflation, immigration, crime, and Israel. Who can blame them? Those are winning issues, and top of mind for most voters. Abortion appears to be the top major issue Democrats can win on, besides Trump, the person.
I’ve written extensively about abortion previously, and you’re welcome to find my previous works here, here, and here. What should Trump have said, consistent with his own views? “While Florida’s law isn’t perfect, Amendment Four is way too radical, opening up abortion on demand up to birth. I can’t support that.”
But Trump wasn’t done yet. He decided to jump into the world of In vitro fertilization (IVF) by announcing this:
I immediately went nuts. I’m as pro-life as most anyone and would love to see America’s birthrate increase. I favor child tax credits and legislation that make it easier for caregivers to remain home (a form of paid family leave) to care for children and others. I love many of Hungary’s pro-family policies and would love to see some brought here.
But I’m also firmly against most government mandates in health insurance and would prefer the reforms allowing us to purchase and own our insurance tailored to our specific needs. Like car insurance, companies compete for consumer dollars to buy only what we need (hat tip, Liberty Mutual). It can never be quite that simple (as if car insurance is simple), but it’s an excellent model to emulate as we did with the Consumer Choice and Health Security Act of 1993, sponsored by former US Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) and 23 other Senate Republicans that year. It wasn’t perfect, of course, and it was never enacted. Republicans have never been able to agree on an alternative to “Medicare for All” or even Obamacare, which may be why they never talk about it.
Trump is now reversing his past position and doubling down on a critical tenet of Obamacare. I agree here with Philip Klein, writing for National Review:
Government-financed IVF treatment, which costs tens of thousands of dollars, would impose an enormous cost on taxpayers, or, as a mandated benefit, would dramatically drive up insurance premiums. Outside of requirements to sell insurance to older and sicker patients and capping the cost to them, IVF is one of the most expensive benefits one can mandate. By taking this position, Trump is calling for hiking premiums on every American who does not use IVF. Had Democrats tried to mandate IVF federally when Obamacare was being debated, it’s quite possible that would have been the breaking point for the more moderate Democrats, and it would have tanked the whole bill. Put another way, Trump has taken a position that was deemed too left-wing for Barack Obama.
I’m not particularly eager to pick fights on X, but I did on this. And I was happy with the number of “likes” for such a puny account. Health insurance exists that covers IVF.
I still envision a day when the tax code is reformed so that your employer pays you (instead of the health insurance companies they chose) to buy the health insurance you need. You can shop for it among competing companies and take it from job to job - it’s your insurance, not your employer’s. Employers can get out of the health insurance business, individuals and families can shop for, buy, and own what they need, and job-lock over health insurance becomes a thing of the past. This would be partly paid for by tax credits based on income and, yes, tax penalties for those who refuse to buy basic catastrophic health insurance. That’s an oversimplification and missing much detail, but that’s the vision I bought into over 30 years ago. I still think it’s worth it.
A lot of health policy experts, especially the elected variety, like mandated benefits because 1) the benefits are politically popular, and 2) it “reduces” the cost to provide the benefit if the cost is shared with everyone else. In other words, higher premiums for coverage the vast majority of Americans don’t want or need.
That’s the thinking behind Obamacare, which did little more to expand insurance coverage than to bribe states to expand Medicaid and make millions spend $30,000 or more on health insurance premiums and deductibles before the first dollar of benefits, other than some preventative care. Contrary to President Obama's promises, it forced people from perfectly acceptable insurance plans and doctor-patient relationships.
Trump experienced two political car crashes in one day. At least he can walk away and hopefully learn from them.
Do better, Mr. President.
What an election. Harris is trying to sound like she supports Trump's policies, and Trump is sounding like he supports some of Harris' policies. I have to agree with your assessment that Trump was never pro-life. It is transactional for us, too. We support him because he will give us some things we want in exchange and because his election prevents a far worse Administration opposed to all we believe in.