Biden deserves RFK

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (Photo: Democratizemedia)

It's been an eventful three weeks in Presidential politics. Joe Biden had a disastrous performance on his June 27 TV special with Donald Trump, followed by calls for him to step down as the Democratic nominee. If this made people look again at Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK), on July 2 Vanity Fair published a piece by Joe Hagan that can be summarized as NOOOOOO!!!!! DON'T!!!!!

On July 11, Biden called the President of Ukraine "President Putin" and his Vice President "Trump."

And then there was the July 13 assassination attempt on Trump. History tells us we'll never get to the bottom of it, but the sympathy it generated for Trump created a positive buzz for the Republican National Convention. I didn't watch but Trump supporters seemed happy with it. That positive energy seems to have added to the pressure on Biden to leave the race.

Meanwhile, RFK is still polling around 9% nationally. Assuming he remains in the race until Election Day, I'm guessing he'll come under that in the final results, but could still swing states for Trump.

Here's why.

A sizable percentage of the electorate wants Trump to return to the White House and RFK won't "steal" any votes from him. But there's a large number that opposes Trump and would vote for Biden if they thought he was mentally competent, but believe that Biden, in his own way, is as unfit for the Presidency as Trump.

Some of those votes will fall to RFK. With almost anyone else at the top of the Democratic ticket, fewer votes will go to RFK and the Democrats have a much better chance of winning.  RFK's presence has forced the issue of Biden's fitness onto the Democrats; without him in the race, they would feel less urgency.

Most Democrats will still vote for Biden if he's the nominee, even if the 25th Amendment has to be invoked sometime during his second term. To them, anyone and any future is better than a second Trump Administration, even Biden with his diminishing mental capacity.

That explains Joe Hagan's Vanity Fair article slamming RFK. Vote Democrat! NO RFK! NO! While Hagan does a reasonably good job attacking RFK's character backed by evidence (although disqualifying someone who had a heroin addiction 40 years ago is a stretch), Hagan also unwittingly explains how Biden deserves to be done in by RFK.

Here's the key point:

When Meta shut down his Instagram account after Kennedy disseminated misinformation on vaccines at the height of the COVID pandemic, Kennedy was enraged and sued the Biden administration, which he accused of pressuring Meta, turning the First Amendment into a pillar of his broader crusade and eventual campaign for president. . . Last summer during an interview with Vanity Fair. Kennedy told me the Biden administration “lost me 800,000 followers.” (The suit is still pending.)

I believe RFK. I believe Biden censored him, directly or indirectly. I believe nearly all censorship on social media related to public policy is the result of federal coercion achieved through threats against, or secret deals with, social media companies.

RFK doesn't believe he spread misinformation, and no government is fit to judge what is and isn't misinformation. I agree with Tom Stoppard's line: "Junk journalism is the evidence of a society that has got at least one thing right, that there should be nobody with the power to dictate where responsible journalism begins." 

If RFK is correct that Biden censored him on social media, and if RFK's candidacy is nothing more than a personal vendetta against Biden, then Biden had it coming. If it is RFK who costs Biden a second term, Biden deserves that outcome.

As I've written previously, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for their Biden problem. In turn, Biden has no one to blame but himself for his RFK problem.

You may republish with attribution.

James Leroy Wilson writes The MVP Chase (subscribe) and JL Cells (subscribe) and is a monthly columnist at Meer. Thank you for your subscriptions and support! You may contact James for writing, editing, research, and other work: jamesleroywilson-at-gmail.com.

Using the Secret Service to subsidize speech

 

President Obama and Michelle Obama flanked by Secret Service agents, 2017 (PHOTO: public domain).

A few hours after the apparent assassination attempt on Donald Trump on July 13, 2024, I saw Kentucky Republican Rep. Thomas Massie's tweet saying independent Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK) deserved Secret Service protection.

President Biden had already granted it, and this was announced on Monday.

In one sense, I agree with the decision. Even if I ran for President as an independent or third-party candidate and were polling equally with RFK, I'd say RFK would deserve protection more than I do. His name, and the fame attached to it, would be the only reason, but it's sufficient.

In another sense, however, my skin crawls. At the core, what is happening here?

When Trump and now RFK travel and speak at rallies, the taxpayers are on the hook for their security. We're giving them a free platform in the most literal way "platform" can be used, short of actually being literal.

We are forced to subsidize their speech.

Many people despise RFK for his stance on vaccines, perhaps blaming him for the deaths of loved ones. Now, he'll get to say whatever he wants on their dime.

Trump has been called a Nazi and an insurrectionist. Whether he is or isn't is beside the point:  would you voluntarily give money to provide security for someone you thought was a Nazi insurrectionist? 

Every once in a while the subject of "public financing" of campaigns is promoted, and it always struck me as morally repugnant. Candidates should be free to say whatever they want, but nobody should be compelled to support what they say. 

"But wait!" you might say, "What about the President? Isn't it unfair that he gets Secret Service protection when he's campaigning if his opponents don't get it?'

Yes, yes it is unfair.

The President rarely needs to be anywhere but the White House, the Camp David retreat, and maybe foreign capitals for summits with other national leaders. City airports don't need to be shut down, freeways don't need to be closed, and city streets shouldn't need to be blocked as the President campaigns for a two-bit gubernatorial candidate.

Campaigning is not part of the President's job description. When he engages in activities outside of his official duties, he should pay for his own security or reimburse the Secret Service for expenses incurred. 

Likewise, as a former President, Trump is entitled to Secret Service protection, but he shouldn't be entitled to extra security when he goes wherever he wants to speak at large crowds. He ought to pay for that. 

Security expenses in political campaigns should be used from campaign funds. 

Otherwise, it's subsidized speech.

And subsidized speech is an attack on personal conscience. 

You may republish with attribution.

James Leroy Wilson writes The MVP Chase (subscribe) and JL Cells (subscribe) and is a monthly columnist at Meer. Thank you for your subscriptions and support! You may contact James for writing, editing, research, and other work: jamesleroywilson-at-gmail.com.