By Bob Gaydos

Pete Hegseth … taking the pledge

  If it swims like a fish, smells like a fish and drinks like a fish, you’ve got a drunken fish. Or, in this case, Pete Hegseth.

   The evidence is everywhere, starting with the fact that Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of defense is running around apparently telling everyone that if he is confirmed as head of the most powerful military organization on the planet, he would stop drinking completely. He’s even telling people who didn’t ask him about his drinking. In fact, I’m not sure anyone asked him to stop drinking, but apparently he thinks it’s a good idea, if not a job requirement, for the secretary of defense to abstain completely from alcohol.

    Like an alcoholic. Which Hegseth apparently does not think he is because he told his colleague, Megyn Kelly, on TV, “It’s not hard for me because it’s not a problem for me.” He added: “This is the biggest deployment of my life, and there won’t be a drop of alcohol on my lips while I’m doing it.”

    Pete, Pete, Pete. Take a seat. First of all, if “it” is not a problem for you, then there’s no reason for you to abstain completely from drinking. I’m sure some secretaries of defense have had a glass of wine at some fancy dinner, someplace or other with no one raising an eyebrow.

      But if you’re swearing off, there must be some reason. Usually, that means a lot of other people have suggested or outright said you have a drinking problem.

    I’m not making this stuff up out of thin air, Pete. I’ve been writing a column about addiction and recovery for 17 years and I’ve interviewed literally dozens of members of Alcoholics Anonymous. They agree that people who don’t have a drinking problem (1) don’t accidentally wind up at AA meetings and (2) don’t feel the need to swear off drinking totally in order to get a good job or not get kicked out of the house or fired.

    Or, as The New Yorker reported, get carried to your room at a Memorial Day veterans event in Virginia Beach in 2014 because you were “totally sloshed.” Or,  had to be held back from joining female dancers on stage at a Louisiana strip club.

  Or go on the air to host a morning show on Fox TV smelling of alcohol, as colleagues reportedly complained.

   Or, as reported, be removed from leadership positions at two military veterans organizations amid allegations of financial mismanagement, inappropriate sexual behavior and, yes, drunkenness.

   I guess that’s why you’re promising to be abstinent if you’re put in charge of the Defense Department, Pete, a job for which, by the way, you are also clearly unqualified.    

    And, Pete, as long as we’re being honest here, there’s that painful note your mom sent you six years ago: “I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego.

   “You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth. I…say… get some help and take an honest look at yourself.”

    That’s the kind of behavior which experience tells usually involves alcohol. 

    There’s no time like the present, Pete. Your mom is right. Get some help and take an honest look at yourself.

     You sound like a macho guy, Pete. Do yourself a favor. Find an AA meeting, walk in quietly and take a seat and listen. You don’t have to say anything. They don’t even want to know your last name. A lot of macho guys have told me it was the hardest thing they ever did.        

     And the best.

                   ***

    As long as we’re on the subject, in the past, I’ve posted several different questionnaires used to assess whether a person has a problem with alcohol. The shortest one is the AUDIT, offered by The World Health Organization and is the most widely used alcohol use assessment tool in the world.

      AUDIT stands for alcohol use disorders identification test. This test is for Pete and anyone else wondering about a drinking problem. As always, be honest for the best result.

The AUDIT questionnaire:

Please circle the answer that is correct for you

1. How often do you have a drink containing alcohol?

• Never
• Monthly or less
• 2-4 times a month
• 2-3 times a week
• 4 or more times a week

2. How many standard drinks containing alcohol do you have on a typical day when drinking?

• 1or2
• 3or4
• 5or6
• 7to9
• 10 or more

3. How often do you have six or more drinks on one occasion?

• Never
• Less than monthly
• Monthly
• Weekly
• Daily or almost daily

4. During the past year, how often have you found that you were not able to stop drinking once you had started?

• Never
• Less than monthly
• Monthly
• Weekly
• Daily or almost daily

5. During the past year, how often have you failed to do what was normally expected of you because of drinking?

• Never
• Less than monthly
• Monthly
• Weekly
• Daily or almost daily

6. During the past year, how often have you needed a drink in the morning to get yourself going after a heavy drinking session?

• Never
• Less than monthly
• Monthly
• Weekly
• Daily or almost daily

7. During the past year, how often have you had a feeling of guilt or remorse after drinking?

• Never
• Less than monthly
• Monthly
• Weekly
• Daily or almost daily

8. During the past year, have you been unable to remember what happened the night before because you had been drinking?

• Never
• Less than monthly
• Monthly
• Weekly
• Daily or almost daily

9. Have you or someone else been injured as a result of your drinking?

• No
• Yes, but not in the past year
• Yes, during the past year

10. Has a relative or friend, doctor or other health worker been concerned about your drinking or suggested you cut down?

• No
• Yes, but not in the past year
• Yes, during the past year

Scoring the AUDIT

   Scores for each question range from 0 to 4, with the first response for each question (eg never) scoring 0, the second (eg less than monthly) scoring 1, the third (eg monthly) scoring 2, the fourth (eg weekly) scoring 3, and the last response (eg. daily or almost daily) scoring 4. For questions 9 and 10, which only have three responses, the scoring is 0, 2 and 4.

    The range of possible scores is from 0 to 40, with 0 indicating an abstainer who has never had any problems from alcohol. A score of 1 to 7 suggests low-risk consumptions, according to World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Scores from 8 to 14 suggest hazardous or harmful alcohol consumption and a score of 15 or more indicates the likelihood of alcohol dependence (moderate-severe alcohol use disorder).

    If you’re concerned about your score, reread the above message to Pete. Again, be honest. And have a safe and sober holiday season.

By Bob Gaydos

President Joe Biden, and son, Hunter.

  This week, in the category of “Wow, I didn’t see that coming,” we have President Joe Biden pardoning his son, Hunter.

  Way to go, Joe. Finally, a Democrat realized it was suicide to bring a knife to a gun fight.

    As has become predictable, Biden received all sorts of self-righteous criticism from some fellow Democrats and the so-called mainstream media for pardoning Hunter, after saying that he wouldn’t. Democrats are supposed to be better than that, goes the argument. What about all those things he said about Trump? It just legitimizes all Trump’s pardons, etcetera.

    Nonsense. 

    There’s not a father worth his salt in the world who would not, if he were also president of the most powerful country in the world, pardon his son while the opportunity still existed, especially considering the charges the son was convicted of and the extraordinary political and public pressure by Republicans over the years to harm the father by persecuting this son.

    Not pardoning Hunter would have been unforgivable.

     As the president said in announcing the pardon, “No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter’s cases can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my son — and that is wrong. There has been an effort to break Hunter — who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me — and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.”

     Indeed.

     The criticism of Biden, especially from the media, but also from some members of his own party, rests largely on the foolish belief that, even though Republicans have refused to play by the so-called rules of bipartisan government since about the time Ronald Reagan was elected, Democrats are still supposed to be the good guys and take the high ground, do the right, moral thing.

    Look where that got them in 2016 and this year. Two well-qualified women candidates for president rejected by an electorate that preferred a lying racist, amoral buffoon. A buffoon, by the way, who is a convicted felon, adjudicated rapist, twice-impeached, adulterous former president who went out of his way to do favors for family members and loyalists, be it pardons, lucrative financial deals or well-paid, low-expectation jobs.

     So spare me the breast-beating. And spare me the holier than thou “reporting” on the pardon. Most of the stories say Hunter Biden was convicted on a gun charge or a firearms charge or weapons charge and for tax evasion. He was actually  convicted of lying on a firearms application form about his drug addiction. He also pleaded guilty to failing to pay taxes that he later paid with penalties. Not uncommon occurrences and not a major threat to society. Also, obviously a result of his addiction to drugs and alcohol. Usually, these don’t wind up being felony charges. But when one political party has it in for the other political party, sometimes unusual things happen. 

    President Biden addressed his remarks to “reasonable“ persons. The few who existed in the Republican Party have left. The MAGA cultists who buy Trump’s game, hook, line and sinker don’t qualify. But I suspect that if some of those “just following the story” reporters would track down a few so-called “typical“ Trump voters who were upset about the price of eggs, a lot of them would say they were OK with a father pardoning his son.

   In this case an 82-year-old father with an extraordinary career of service to his country who has tragically lost another adult son to brain cancer and a young daughter and previous wife in an automobile accident.

      And maybe, if those reporters want to chase a presidential family story, they can ask the president-in-waiting what qualifies Charles Kushner, father-in-law of Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, for the position of ambassador to France.

    On his way out of the White House in 2020, Trump pardoned Kushner, who served two years for a variety of charges he pleaded guilty to, including tax evasion, illegal campaign donations and witness tampering.

     The witness tampering involved a scheme Kushner dreamed up to get even with his brother-in-law, who he found out was cooperating with the feds in an investigation.

       Kushner hired a woman to lure his brother-in-law to a motel room in New Jersey in which a hidden camera was installed and recorded everything that happened in the room. Kushner then sent the recording to his sister. This display of brotherly love apparently qualifies Kushner to handle America’s diplomatic relations with one of our key allies, France.

       Actually, with Trump, rather than not seeing it coming, one pretty much expects such news. And there’s the problem.

      Biden‘s got a little less than two months left in office. Can’t wait to see what other surprises he has in mind.

By Bob Gaydos

  “Put up or shut up.”

  That rather rude admonition occurred to me the other day as an apt metaphor for our times. Actually, it was delivered to me inadvertently and directly thanks to the United States Postal Service and social media.

    The message in the mail was not a new one, but it took on new significance as I tried to gather my wits, stamina, confidence and faith in an unknowable universe to deal with four more years of Trumpian chaos. What can one guy with an iPhone, a bunch of opinions and some supportive readers do to fight a wave of ignorance, intolerance and incompetence washing across our country?

    The mail held a couple of answers.

    One virtually shouted at me: “We’ve Seen 105 Years and 19 Presidents. Trump’s Gotta Get Past All of Us.”

     Right! I don’t have to do this alone. Step aside, ego. I knew this, of course, but at that moment I seriously needed a reminder.

     There are people who’ve been doing this a long time and know very well what they’re doing. Plus, they’re successful and they don’t ever give up. The ACLU.

      Yes, for the record, I’m already a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union and, yes, I’ll gladly renew. During Trump’s first term, the advocacy group filed 434 legal challenges against his administration. It won many important battles.

     Before Election Day 2024, it already had a plan in place, should Trump win, to fight his threatened mass deportation plan, provide legal aid to whistleblowers and those who oppose Trump’s policies, protect the rights of LGBTQ+ people and protect the right to reproductive freedom. All Trump targets.

    And they’ll do it all in court at all levels of government and all with experienced lawyers. So yeah, I’ll gladly put up a few bucks to help.

     There was also mail from the SPLC, another group of initials dedicated to fighting for people’s rights. The Southern Poverty Law Center was born in the civil rights movement and continues to fight for the rights of blacks (especially voting rights) across the South and, now, across the country. It has expanded its mission to fighting poverty, improving education and, notably, compiling a list of hate groups, state by state. 

    These groups, fed a steady diet of disinformation from far-right media that support Trump, represent a growing threat of violence against people of color, Jewish Americans, immigrants, LGBTQ+ and women. Again, all the people Trump targets when it suits his purpose.

   The SPLC has had some growing pains and internal issues recently in shifting its focus from helping individuals victimized by injustice to fighting injustice on a national scale, but it shows no less dedication in its mission and, again, it has been doing this for some time.

   Besides, the only other organization I can think of that might have compiled a list of hate groups state by state is the FBI and they don’t send me their list in the mail. So, yes, I will trust the SPLC and gladly renew my membership and, again, put my money where my mouth is.

    That’s the “put up” part. The “shut up” part came via social media. I’ve been sharing my opinions on various issues in newspapers and on social media for more than four decades now. I’m used to criticism. I also know that I speak for a lot of people who haven’t been given the privilege of opinionating publicly, as I have, or don’t feel comfortable doing so.

    So when I got a comment on one of my social media columns to the effect of: “It’s over. You lost. Stop” I had an immediate reaction. Not gonna happen. No way, no how and certainly not for any “sore winner.”

   No, I didn’t post this online. Never do. I’m not there to debate. But clearly, I got to this person. That’s good. Sometimes, the truth is hard to take. But I intend to keep spreading it as long as I can and it certainly helps to remember that, when it comes to fighting MAGA, you and I have our own bunch of smart initials — with lawyers who get paid — backing us up.

rjgaydos@gmail.com      

By Bob Gaydos

Aaron Rodgers and Donald Trump, birds of a feather?

     Sometimes you can’t win for trying.

      If you’re a regular reader of my column (and thank you for that), you probably noticed I’ve taken a break from politics the last few posts. It was deliberate. A need to get centered and focused on what’s important in life before engaging, slowly, with the current … umm reality.

      But wouldn’t you know it, just as I decided it was time to tackle the litany of “in your face” spite appointments emanating from Mar-a-Lago, one of the most gratuitous Trump insults to the rule of law and the Constitution decided for himself (maybe) that there’s such a thing as being too cocky. Especially when there’s mounting evidence that you participated in a large sex trafficking ring, which apparently included an underage female and you also happen to be a member of Congress.

    Matt Gaetz will not be the next attorney general of the United States of America. He withdrew his name from consideration for the post, even though Republicans on the House Ethics Committee tried to keep him in the game by refusing to release their report on Gaetz’s activities.

      The stuff will all come out, but Gaetz, thankfully, is gone from Congress, having resigned soon after Trump named him as Attorney General pick. It was probably just a way to kill the report, but, also good news, too many Senate Republicans were having trouble swallowing Gaetz, even for their exalted leader. Checks and balances, anyone?

     So, good riddance to Gaetz and thank you for unintended consequences.

     This, of course, leaves a spoiled fish stew of other appointments and nominations announced by Team Trump to help run the country for four years without running it into bankruptcy or court, like virtually all other activities involving Trump.

       Bubbling to the top of this pot are worm brain, anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to be Health Secretary and TV crackpot Dr. Mehmet Oz to head Medicare and Medicaid.

  Close behind is Fox TV personality Pete Hegseth, as Defense Secretary, apparently because he once served in the military and stands accused of doping a woman’s drink to have sex with her (some call this rape), which refers back to the Gaetz qualifications for Trump’s Cabinet.

    Toss in a fracking company exec for Energy Secretary and a drill baby drill guy for Interior and you know where this is going. Lots of back-scratching and little concern for the future of the planet or the people.

      For now, also throw in a choice for Education Secretary who said she was a teacher, but wasn’t, but did run a professional wrestling business and donated millions to Trump’s campaign and a U.N. Ambassador who has no diplomatic experience but totally switched her political philosophy when Trump hijacked the GOP.

      It remains to be seen where Republicans in the Senate draw the line on Trump’s choices, if anywhere, but I’m hopeful that MAGA’s history of incompetence holds true and becomes evident to a lot more Americans.

     As a former sports editor, one of the things I turned to in my brief hiatus was the NFL season, such as it is in New York. If you want a non-political example of MAGA incompetence, take the New York Jets. Please, as Henny Youngman used to say.

      Their owner, Woody Johnson (Johnson & Johnson) is a big Trumper. He was rewarded with the ambassadorship to the United Kingdom in Trump’s first term and is looking for a repeat. Maybe he just wants to get out of town.

      Johnson thought he would improve his football team by insisting on paying big money to hire Aaron Rodgers, a 40-year-old quarterback who refused to be vaccinated against Covid, doubted the Sandy Hook School shootings and 9/11 attacks were truthfully reported and felt strongly both ways on abortion. He was critical of Trump, but questioned the results of the 2020 election and had the same Trumpian tendency to make stuff up. RFK Jr. considered Rodgers as a vice presidential running mate before jumping to Trump.

      Well, Jets fans know how that Rodgers decision worked out. In a disastrous season, Johnson fired the coach and general manager because, well, quarterback Rodgers may have shared some political views with Johnson, but he couldn’t connect often enough with his receivers. Out of touch and out of step. Time for a new quarterback. 

     If that’s a metaphor for MAGA, I hope all the rest of us USA fans can simply survive through a losing season and, like Jets fans, let ‘em know it’s time to draft a new quarterback.

      Heck, maybe everything is politics.

By Bob Gaydos

   “This, too, shall pass.“

   That’s a text I received from a friend this morning. It was in response to a text I had sent saying, “It sucks.”

    Now, I’m well aware of the “this too shall pass“ philosophy of life. And, yes, it has its usefulness. But, see, I am more in the “day at a time” stage of life. At 83, waiting for something unpleasant to pass, painfully like a kidney stone, or slowly, like torture, doesn’t really appeal to me.

      Eckhart Tolle‘s philosophy of  “the power of now” encourages me to focus on what’s right in front of me at the moment and not imagine what’s going to happen in the future because I have no control over it. Because there is only now. There is no next.

    Many years ago, another friend said to me, “Bobby, isn’t it great to be present in your own life.” Many years ago some people actually called me Bobby.

    I slowly came to realize what he was saying. Enjoy the present. Be grateful for what you have. Do something positive over things you can control. Projection breeds anxiety,  breeds worry, breeds negative behavior and negative results.

    So that’s what I’m doing. I’m dealing with the results of the 2024 presidential election on a personal rather than professional level. That is, rather than writing a commentary in the manner of editorial writer or columnist, which I have been doing for decades, I will deal with it on a personal level, just for today.

    The primary reason for this approach is that when I get in my editorial writing mode I can tend to be a little abrasive, judgmental, even sarcastic and nasty, all in the service of being honest, because, theoretically, I’m not writing just my own opinion.

    I could wind up writing something like, “The only reason millions of Americans voted for Donald Trump is that they are stupid and lazy.” I used to say that all the time to another friend of mine, usually blaming much of the stupidity and laziness on an education system that is failing too many people. Too many don’t know history, economics, or civics. Also, there’s religious zealotry and racism.

      But saying that only angers people and I certainly have no control over those issues. So I’m not going to do that today.

       I will, however, say that I think living a day at a time to the best of my ability will be better for my health and offer me a much better chance of being able to cast a vote for a qualified presidential candidate in four years when I won’t have to worry about millions of others preferring the other candidate, who is a twice-impeached serial liar, convicted felon, adjudicated sex offender, misogynist, racist, fascist, mentally incompetent insurrectionist and lazy SOB.

      So, just for today, I will walk my dog and encourage my texting friend to hug his 80-something mother.

PS: Don’t get frustrated. It takes practice.

By Bob Gaydos

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate groups map.

    Thinking about that ugly, hate-filled MAGA rally in Madison Square Garden a few nights ago, I wondered about the real audience Donald Trump was addressing out there in the rest of the world.

     Surely it wasn’t the millions of relatively normal Americans who will be  choosing their next president on November 5. The message coming out of the Garden was too pointedly — too obviously— hateful to appeal to any but the already committed Trump voters. To pump them up, media analysts said. To get them ready for the inevitable defeat, many speculated. Ready to do what? To reprise January 6? To simply further stall Trump’s imprisonment? To actually try to overthrow the government?

     As outlandish as these thoughts seem to me as I think them, I know there are people in this country who actually hold them seriously. They are a minority given disproportionate voice by Trump these past eight years.

    Who are they, I wondered? Where are they? For help, I went to a source that has made it its business to know the answers to those questions. To know who the hate groups in America are and where they are.

     The Southern Poverty Law Center, headquartered in Montgomery, Ala., was founded in 1971 with civil rights activist Julian Bond as its first president. Its purpose, as its web site declares: “To ensure that the promise of the Civil Rights movement became a reality for everyone.”

       In taking the fight for equality to the courts, the nonprofit organization has won victories, not only for blacks in America, but for women, children, the LGBTQ community, the disabled and immigrants.

     As part of its mission, in the 1980s, with a rise of white supremacist activity in America, the group started tracking hate groups. It publishes an annual report, state by state, listing the groups, their hometowns and their particular flavor of hate.

    It’s informative, if not pleasant, reading. The 2023 report lists 2,430 hate and anti-government groups in America. No state is spared.

     Especially curious, I checked out New York, where I live. The SPLC lists 63 such groups in New York last year with agendas ranging from anti-government to anti-Muslim, anti-semitism, anti-LGBTQ, neo-Nazi, white nationalist and, my favorite label, “general hate.”

     Moms for Liberty, a group of parents which wants to control what schools teach and do not teach, has 14 chapters, including one in Orange County, which is in my bailiwick.

      Also, of note, the Proud Boys, a group of that has gained some notoriety recently, has five chapters in the state. It’s in one of those “general hate” categories.

     According to the SPLC, “Established in the midst of the 2016 presidential election by VICE Media co-founder Gavin McInnes, the Proud Boys are self-described ‘Western chauvinists’ who adamantly deny any connection to the racist alt-right. They insist they are simply a fraternal group spreading an ‘anti-political correctness’ and ‘anti-white guilt’ agenda.” They are listed as a terrorist group in Canada.

      How do you show you’re a Proud Boy? The SPLC, which is clearly very thorough in its research, says there are four degrees of membership. It writes, “To become a first degree in the ‘pro-West fraternal organization’ a prospective member simply has to declare, ‘I am a Western chauvinist, and I refuse to apologize for creating the modern world.’ To enter the second degree, a Proud Boy has to endure a beating until they can yell out the names of five breakfast cereals (in order to demonstrate ‘adrenaline control’). Those who enter the third degree have demonstrated their commitment by getting a Proud Boys tattoo. Any man – no matter his race or sexual orientation – can join the fraternal organization as long as they ‘recognize that white men are not the problem.’ The fourth is reserved for those who have gotten in a ‘fight for the cause.’”

     On a positive note, I guess, the SPLC says, “All members are banned from watching pornography or masturbating more than once a month because, in theory, it will leave them more inclined to go out and meet women.”

         Well then. So now I know a little bit more about the audience Donald Trump was addressing in Madison Square Garden Sunday night. Still not sure how I feel about that.

By Bob Gaydos

     I was voter number 838 Sunday afternoon, Oct. 26, at the Government Center in Monticello, N.Y.. Row A, Kamala Harris and Democrats, all the way. “Yes” on New York State Proposition One extending protection against discrimination in several categories including pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes — Democrats’ preemptive effort to thwart possible Republican efforts to enact a national abortion ban.

            Republicans have forfeited any chance of consideration at the ballot box with their full-throated and conscience-free embrace of all things Trump, punctuated by the all-out salute to hatred and bigotry at his Sunday night Madison Square Garden rally. An utterly despicable display.

       In contrast, it was a pleasure casting the vote Sunday. A sunny afternoon. Lots of parking. No lines. Plenty of helpful volunteer poll workers. Name, address, signature. Smooth as silk. Well done, Sullivan.

       Of course, this is precisely the kind of thing Republicans have been trying to dismantle across the country — orderly, honest, uncomplicated voting. For all. When that happens everywhere, they tend to lose nationally because their policies don’t sit well with many Americans. Especially for the past decade when their only policy has been to oppose anything Democrats propose. It’s hard to run a two-party system of government that way.

       That’s why Trump and the MAGAs want it their way: one ruler with absolute power and a bunch of flunkies to make it happen. Essentially eliminate all marginalized citizens — non-white, non-straight, non-Christian — who might expect support from their government by eliminating their vote and the votes of those who support the concept of equal rights and opportunity (those Trump calls “the enemy within”).

       It wasn’t that long ago that women were on that list of marginalized citizens. Not anymore. They have the vote and tend to vote in larger numbers than men. They have a candidate this year who understands their concerns and those of the citizens who were targets of ugly “jokes” and comments in Madison Square Garden Sunday night.

       Early voting numbers are up in many areas of the country where it hasn’t always been as easy as it was in Monticello Sunday afternoon. I’d like to think it’s a positive sign for Kamala Harris and those who want to protect and preserve democracy in America. 

          Vote like your freedom depends on it.

rjgaydos@gmail.com

By Bob Gaydos

The Washington Post’s ironic motto.

    The oligarchs are flexing their muscles. On the heels of stories that the owner of the Los Angeles Times killed an editorial supporting Kamala Harris for president, the Washington Post announced it would not be endorsing any candidate for president this year, or in the future.

      So much for the Fourth Estate. So much for a Free Press.

     These “non-endorsements“ are bought and paid for by the greed of super rich people, afraid of losing some money and influence if they say something that might, heaven forbid, offend someone.

      Something like maybe, “Don’t vote for the incompetent, felonious, lying fascist, but rather vote for the competent, sensible, intelligent candidate. The country’s future wel-being may hang in the balance.”

      In the most important presidential election of our lifetimes, the newspaper that drove Richard Nixon out of office is taking a pass because its owner, Jeff Bezos, is more afraid of what will happen to him if Donald Trump wins knowing that the Post endorsed Kamala Harris, than what will happen to everyone else in the country if Harris doesn’t win.

      You’re on your own folks. We don’t have an opinion. Except, the Post editorial board actually did have an opinion. Like the editorial board at the LA times, it was preparing to endorse Harris for president.

  Instead, Will Lewis, the Post’s chief executive, wrote, “The Washington Post will not be making an endorsement of a presidential candidate in this election. Nor in any future presidential election. We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates.” Balderdash.

    The Post has been endorsing presidential candidates since 1976.

     This is where the politics of fear leads — newspapers, protected by the Constitution, become fearful of performing their duty. Of course, if the fascist wins, that fear will exist every day. That’s when greed and the desire to maintain power kick in. More silence. Look at today’s Republican Party.

     Editorial writers at the Post and the LA Times have resigned in protest, pointing out that this is not the time to remain silent. Indeed, maintaining a position of neutrality in this election falsely suggests that there’s no clear difference between the candidates, that they are pretty much alike, take your pick. We have an opinion on everything else, but this one’s up to you. No biggie.

   Patriotism apparently is not present in the Post’s roots.

                                    ***

    Full disclosure: In my 23-plus years writing editorials for The Times Herald-Record in Middletown, N.Y., we took a pass on one presidential election. It was the 2000 race between Al Gore and George W. Bush. There was no concern about fascism, criminal convictions, sexual assaults, fraud, lies, ignorance of government procedures, secret foreign alliances, threats of reprisal and obviously declining mental competence with either candidate. Just which one might be better for the country, Gore, the current vice president, or Bush, the son of a former president and a governor of Texas.

    I preferred Gore, the  Democrat. So did Mike Levine, the paper’s editor. Gore was in keeping with the newspaper’s liberal tradition editorially. However, Jim Moss, the publisher, preferred Bush, the Republican. Not entirely surprising since publishers tend to be more conservative.

      Levine told Moss that I was going to write an editorial endorsing Gore for president. Moss said he wanted Bush. We asked why. His reasons didn’t sway us. Our arguments for Gore had the same result on Moss.

      Moss insisted that the newspaper run an editorial endorsing Bush for president. I said I wouldn’t write it. Levine said he wouldn’t write it. That left it up to Moss. He decided to punt. Levine and I considered it a victory of sorts in that we avoided endorsing Bush and I wrote an editorial which, to this day, remains remarkably unimprinted on my brain. We had an opinion on the election, but no endorsement and I have no idea what I wrote.

      That was the hanging chads election in Florida which the Supreme Court gave to Bush. It was also the only time that Moss made any such demands on me editorially and even he compromised his position.

    Unfortunately, both Levine and Moss are no longer with us so I have no way to check my recollection of events, but I’m pretty sure I got it right. If any librarian reading this can find a copy, I’d love to see it.

        In any event, I’m glad The New York Times whose reporting on the campaign, has left much to be desired, still had the courage of its convictions this year to write a strong endorsement of Harris for president. I’m sure other newspapers around the country will do likewise. But the continuing growing control of newspapers in this country by a few rich, powerful entities is a threat to democracy that, I feel, too few Americans appreciate.

      Our founding fathers gave newspapers the protection of a free voice for a reason. If you don’t use it, you lose it.

rjgaydos@gmail.com  

By Bob Gaydos

Donald Trump speaks behind bulletproof glass during a campaign rally at Arnold Palmer Regional Airport in Latrobe, Pennsylvania. (AFP via Getty Images)

  (Deep sigh.)

     My fellow Americans, the Trump era in politics began with Stormy Daniels, a porn star, talking about the size of then-presidential candidate Donald Trump’s putter. (He’s an avid golfer, as you know.). Eight years later, the candidate himself, Trump, is talking about the size of the golfing legend Arnold Palmer’s driver.

     No, you’re right, this has nothing to do with golf. 

     And before I go any further, I want to extend my sincere apologies to David Bernstein, my first editor (and publisher) at the Binghamton (N.Y.) Sun-Bulletin, and Donald Koster, my journalism professor at Adelphi College in Garden City (N.Y.), for resorting to such snarky symbolism to refer to male genitalia. You taught me better. But unfortunately, that’s where we are today in journalism and in life in general. There are no apparent rules. F bombs abound. Besides, the topic never came up about what to do when a political candidate started talking about someone’s penis at a public political rally.

     Yes, that’s where we are, people, courtesy of the aforementioned Donald Trump, convicted of 34 felonies in trying to stop Ms. Daniels from telling the world about his extramarital golf game and awaiting sentencing on the convictions. Trump was also found liable, in a civil trial, for sexually assaulting a woman in a dressing room at a Manhattan department store. He was ordered to pay her $85 million for the assault and defaming her when she accused him. Plus there’s the matter of attempting a coup when he lost his bid for reelection in 2020.

       Back to golf. Trump was talking about Palmer because the rally was in Latrobe, Pa., the late golfer’s hometown. What better reason to muse about the size of Palmer’s penis. What better way to make your supporters feel good about themselves, laugh and pat you on the back when you come in from recess? Yes, they laughed and for good measure also tossed the word s—t out at Trump’s opponent, Kamala Harris. At his urging of course.

      This coarse intersection of the presidential campaign highlights again the absolute depths to which the Republican Party has sunk, with no leader willing or able to step forward and point out that, not only does their leader and presidential candidate have no morals, he is also losing his mind. What Trump did in Latrobe and continues to do everywhere he appears, wandering off into a verbal mishmash fantasyland, accentuated by lies and threats, is not the behavior of a competent adult, never mind someone who is capable of leading the most powerful country in the world.

        What will it take for someone, some family member or party leader to step up to say Trump must step aside for the good of the party and the country? So far, only Liz Cheney has shown those kind of, yes, cajones.

         A day after Trump (apparently no longer interested in talking about tariffs, immigration or abortion) reminisced about Arnold Palmer’s manly presence in the clubhouse shower, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives was interviewed on CNN by Jake Tapper.

        The speaker dismissed questions about Trump’s violent rhetoric about “the enemy within” and threats to use the military against his political opponents, specifically naming Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schaffer. Then Tapper asked, “Is this really the closing message you want voters to hear from Donald Trump, stories about Arnold Palmer’s penis?”

        Avoidance.

        Tapper persisted. “I’m sure that you think that a policy debate would be better than a personality debate. But if President Biden had gone on stage and spoke about the size of a pro golfer’s penis, I think you would be on this show right now saying you were shocked and appalled and you would suggest it was evidence of his cognitive decline.”

        The speaker, agitated: “Don’t say it again!”

        “We don’t have to say it. I get it.” Flustered: “There’s lines in a rally – when president Trump is at a rally, sometimes you’ll speak for two straight hours. You’re questioning his stamina, his mental acuity. Joe Biden couldn’t do that for five minutes. That’s how you started this segment. You said, what if Biden was in a rally like that? He couldn’t fill the room, Donald Trump does.”

         That’s how the Speaker of the House, second in line to the presidency and supposedly a leader of the Republican Party, responded to questions about his party’s presidential candidate riffing at a campaign rally about the size of Arnold Palmer’s … you know … don’t say it.

          I hesitate to point out, but, what the heck, the embarrassed speaker is a conservative Evangelical Christian from Louisiana with the unfortunate last name “Johnson.”

          (Sigh.) Sorry, David. Sorry, Professor Koster.

          God bless America. Vote for Kamala Harris.

                                        ***

(David Bernstein, before owning The Sun-Bulletin in Binghamton, established the Middletown Daily Record, the first offset daily in the country, in 1956. It later became the Times Herald-Record in Middletown, N.Y. I worked there for 29 years, including 23 as editorial page editor. Donald Koster was a member of the Adelphi College English Department in the 1960s. I squeaked through as an English major. Adelphi became a university in 1964, the year after I graduated.)

By Bob Gaydos

Bret Baier  interrupting Kamala Harris.

    Where to start? Let’s go with the obvious. When you are a “journalist“ interviewing the vice president of the United States, who also happens to be the first ever female vice president of the United States, you don’t interrupt her in the middle of her comment and stick your hand in her face.

    It’s rude and disrespectful to the office and the person. Heck, it’s rude to anyone. It doesn’t matter if she’s not sticking to the script. It’s not her script anyway. It’s yours. Let her answer and then follow up with a question if you’re not satisfied with what you heard.

   Journalism 101. Something rarely practiced on Fox News because, as they have admitted in court, they are not a news organization, but rather, an entertainment network, a fact too many people still don’t know. That means most of the people who work there act like journalists, saying whatever they please whether it’s true or not, and most of their guests follow a script that both interviewer and interviewee know very well.

      Kamala Harris is not part of that chummy Fox club, Bret Baier, who drew the job of interviewing her, knew that full well. And she is running for president against Fox’s favorite fascist and political candidate who can do no wrong, Donald Trump.

      So Baier went into the Harris interview in a “gotcha” mode. It backfired. She got him. She chastised him for interrupting her, completed her statement, called Baier out on running a clip that did not address the issue of the discussion and concluded with a detailed and accurate description of the pathetic candidate Trump is today. Definitely off script.

     Baier should’ve just let her answer the question. But see, that’s the problem when you’re not a real journalist. At Fox, everyone pretty much knows what questions to ask and what answers are going to be given. They get in trouble when outliers like Harris agree to appear with them. She’s a trained prosecutor used to arguing the facts of the case.

     Baier should’ve known that. Maybe he forgot. Or maybe he underestimated his interviewee. That’s rule number one in political interviewing. Know whom you’re dealing with. Number two is know the issues well and what you want to find out. Number three is be polite, but firm, if necessary.

      The goal should be to provide viewers or readers of the story to follow a better picture of the candidate. What he or she stands for on the issues and how well he or she explains those positions. Is he confident? Is she comfortable? Is he nervous? Is she believable?

       Baier actually accomplished all that in spite of himself. Because he was so bad at trying to sabotage Harris and because she is such an experienced, skilled politician, the real Kamala came through. Controlled and confident. Comfortable and believable.

       That’s not always the case. I remember an interview with a local congressional candidate, a political novice, who had difficulty explaining her position on some key issue. In an interview with the newspaper editorial board, her first answer was vague and evasive. Someone asked her to expand on it. Same result. Again, someone asked politely could she please explain to us a little more clearly, so we could understand and write about it accurately. Not much better and growing obviously uncomfortable. When someone started to ask just one more time, tears actually appeared in the candidate’s eyes. We relented. We knew what we needed to know. We endorsed the other guy. Polite-but-firm had worked.

        There’s a lot of quasi-journalism going on today. Especially on television. Newspapers are disappearing every day and people have no clue what’s going on in their own hometown. Social media is not a reliable alternative. The truth is a constantly moving target. This is how candidates like Trump survive. Someone needs to come up with a solution fast.

       I don’t know Bret Baier’s background or training in journalism. I don’t really care, because he sold his soul when he agreed to take a paycheck from Fox News to peddle lies about Donald Trump and his MAGA cult. That goes for all the Foxies.

      Not tooting any horns here, but taking the license granted me when described as a curmudgeon at my retirement from newspapers, I must report that, over many years, in interviewing governors, senators, congressmen, mayors, state officials, legislators, judges, countless local officials and business leaders, never did I or any of my colleagues ever put a hand in the face of the person we were interviewing and interrupt them.

     It’s not respectful or professional and, as Baier found out, can be counterproductive.

     rjgaydos@gmail.com