One might think that they would have made this decision back in 2016 when he bragged about groping women. Or, perhaps, early this year when he was found liable for sexual assault.

What about being found guilty of 34 felonies, trying to overturn a presidential election, or encouraging an assault on Congress? Would any of these give them pause?

How about mocking a disabled reporter? Or making a graphic and vulgar sexual suggestion about Vice President Kamala Harris and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as Trump did last Wednesday on his social media account? Trump’s running mate, JD Vance, called Trump’s comments a “joke.” Would Vance think it was funny if Trump made the same suggestions about his wife?

I thought that Trump’s recounting of the time that he gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a billionaire Republican campaign donor would open the eyes of his supporters, at least those with military experience. Trump said that his donor getting the Presidential Medal of Freedom was better than soldiers receiving the Medal of Honor because the Medal of Honor recipients are “in very bad shape because they’ve been hit so many times by bullets or they are dead.” Instead of correcting himself later in the week at a campaign rally, Trump doubled down on his assessment of the value of the Medal of Honor.

Then, this past week, Trump used one of the most sacred places in our nation, Arlington National Cemetery, to stage a campaign photo opportunity, breaking the law against political campaigning there and breaking the rules of taking pictures in a special section of Arlington Cemetery while demonstrating his total lack of respect for the soldiers buried there.

Before the visit, the Trump campaign contacted military officials at the cemetery to review their policies. According to military officials, Trump’s campaign aides were told that federal law prohibits election-related activities at military cemeteries. Media sources confirmed that Arlington officials were fearful that Trump would turn the visit into a campaign photo opportunity, against their long-held policy, so they laid out the rules to his campaign staff ahead of his visit.

Trump’s people were told that no reporters or photographers could follow him to the 14-acre plot, known as Section 60, where recent veterans from recent wars are buried. But if there is one thing we have all learned about Trump, he doesn’t think rules apply to him.

According to Arlington and the Pentagon military officials, a female cemetery employee tried to stop Trump’s two photographers from bringing their cameras into Section 60. A campaign aide pushed her aside. Campaign spokesman Steven Cheung stated that the cemetery official was having a “mental health episode” at the time, but Arlington officials said she was trying to do her job.

Pictures released by Trump’s campaign showed Trump posing directly behind the burial plots of our nation’s fallen soldiers, wearing a big smile and giving his standard thumbs up. Trump tried to deny to reporters that his campaign took and posted the pictures, even going so far as to blame the Gold Star families. When he was told that the photos and video were taken by his campaign and posted on his campaign’s TikTok site, Trump responded, “I really don’t know anything about it.”

Trump never takes responsibility for his behavior and always tries to blame someone else.

As stated by Paul Eaton, a retired Army general whose father’s remains are interred at Arlington, “It is completely inappropriate to do any kind of political activity on a federal installation, and it is immoral in my terms to conduct any kind of self-serving activity on a cemetery with the graves of our fallen.”

Any veteran who supports Trump after his repeated disregard for our nation’s military, including this recent stunt at Arlington Cemetery, needs to question their own honor and patriotism.

Trump did not visit the grave sites of the 13 soldiers who died in Afghanistan during President Joe Biden’s 2021 withdrawal to honor them. It was intended as a political dig, a campaign stunt against the Biden/Harris administration. Interestingly, he avoided the graves of the 65 soldiers who died during his administration, including 45 combat deaths in Afghanistan under his watch, as documented by the Defense Casualty Analysis System maintained by the Defense Department.

Trump said this year on social media that the attacks on American forces in Syria “would NEVER have happened if I was President, not even a chance.” But it did happen when he was president, more often than during the Biden administration.

Also, Republicans can’t be upset about Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the playing of the national anthem before a football game and then pretend that Trump’s behavior at Arlington Cemetery is acceptable. Unless, that is, they are hypocrites.

Over 80 percent of Republicans, according to the polls, continue to support Trump for president, and I doubt that dishonoring our dead soldiers at Arlington Cemetery will make any difference to them. This is just another example of a very long list of inappropriate behaviors that his supporters choose to ignore or explain away.

Apparently, they, too, have no shame.

Tom Zirpoli is the Laurence J. Adams Distinguished Chair in Special Education Emeritus at McDaniel College. He writes from Westminster. His column appears on Wednesdays. Email him at tzirpoli@mcdaniel.edu.

They have other similarities, too. Neither understands or appreciates science, especially medical science. Neither has a foundation of basic principles or values — everything with these guys is transactional.

This last point was displayed as Kennedy shopped around for a job with the Kamala Harris and Trump campaigns, offering his endorsement in exchange for a cabinet or other position in their future administration.

Harris — more intelligent than Trump and a person of principle — wanted nothing to do with Kennedy. He then went to Trump and, of course, worked out a deal only two soulless men, who have a history of saying terrible things about each other, could make. Time will tell, but history tells us people who deal with Trump frequently don’t get paid.

The overriding character flaw drawing them together is their lack of shame in telling blatant falsehoods. Kennedy said a falsehood right out of the box as he announced the suspension of his presidential campaign and his endorsement of Trump.

He said: “In Chicago, a string of Democratic speakers mentioned Donald Trump 147 times just on the first day … who needs a policy when you have Trump to hate? In contrast, at the RNC convention, President Biden was mentioned only twice in four days.”

This is not true and is easily disproven. The New York Times did just that and counted the number of times Republican speakers mentioned Biden during the Republican convention. The number was a bit larger than “twice in four days.” It was 393 times. JD Vance alone mentioned Biden 12 times in his acceptance speech. Heck, Kennedy mentioned Biden 11 times in his Trump endorsement.

Like Trump, Kennedy is not only a liar but a very poor liar in that his lies are so easily disproved. As Philip Bump wrote for the Washington Post, during the announcement, Kennedy “rained bizarre claims and false assertions down upon (reporters), reinforcing indirectly the extent to which even the limited success of his campaign was rooted in his last name rather than his commitment to reality.”

While Trump has said he “knows more than the generals,” Kennedy thinks he knows more than medical experts regarding children’s health. As documented by Daniel Dale, writing for CNN, “Kennedy is one of the country’s most prominent anti-vaccine activists. He has for years used false and misleading claims to undermine public confidence in vaccines that are indeed safe.”

Nevertheless, last summer, Kennedy looked reality in the eye and announced he has “never” urged parents not to have their children vaccinated. Nor, says Kennedy, is he anti-vaccine but just a “proponent of vaccine safety.” The avoidance of reality continued in testimony to Congress when Kennedy continued his big lie and said he has “never been anti-vax” nor has he encouraged the public to “avoid vaccination.”

Roll the tape: In 2021, Kennedy said during a podcast, according to Dale, that “he had personally urged strangers to refrain from vaccinating their babies” and encouraged the public to join him “in telling strangers not to vaccinate their babies.”

He said, “If you’re walking down the street — and I do this now myself … I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby, and I say to him, ‘Better not get him vaccinated.’ If he hears it from 10 other people, maybe he won’t do it, you know, maybe he will save that child.”

Kennedy has also pushed the false claim that childhood vaccinations cause autism, that the COVID-19 vaccines killed seniors in nursing homes and a variety of other falsehoods aimed at scaring parents from vaccinating their children and discouraging people from getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

Trump and Kennedy are two peas in a pod of falsehoods and misinformation.

With all the weird stuff coming out of Kennedy’s mouth these days, like his story about moving a dead bear to Central Park, one has to wonder how long it will take Trump to say something like, “I never even heard of Kennedy” as he now says about the authors of Project 2025 after the document negatively impacted his campaign.

How will this impact the presidential race? Not much, according to data analysis from pollster Nate Silver, who writes that it may help Trump a little. This makes sense to me. If you were an anti-vax Kennedy supporter, Trump seems to be the logical place to land as both peddle conspiracy theories. Others wonder if Trump’s association with Kennedy will further alienate him from independent, suburban voters.

Finally, I don’t think this relationship will last because Trump and Kennedy are narcissists. On Friday night, Trump gave Kennedy 15 minutes of fame in exchange for his endorsement, but I bet he will provide him with little additional air time in the future. Trump is not known for sharing the stage, especially with someone perceived as a loser.

Just ask Arizona Senate candidate Kari Lake.

Tom Zirpoli is the Laurence J. Adams Distinguished Chair in Special Education Emeritus at McDaniel College. He writes from Westminster. His column appears on Wednesdays. Email him at tzirpoli@mcdaniel.edu.

I will spare readers the details of Vance’s beliefs about “childless cat ladies” and families who don’t have children. I will say, however, that for a young man of 40 years, Vance has not had enough life experiences to understand how much he doesn’t know about the challenges of ordinary Americans. Then again, the man who picked him as a running mate thinks he knows everything, too. Just ask him.

Vance has said that only families with children are invested in America’s future. Perhaps he would be surprised to learn that a 2021 Pew Research Center study found that only 37 percent of his peers ages 25 to 49 lived with a spouse and had one or more children.

If Vance wants to advocate for American families, he may want to start at home and become a stronger advocate for his wife and children. His wife, Usha Vance, is an Indian American, born to parents who immigrated to America from India. She holds to her Hindu faith.

Like Kamala Harris, Vance’s three children, who are half Indian and half white, are biracial, a common characteristic of Americans today that Donald Trump seems to have trouble understanding. It would have been nice to hear Vance speak up in defense of biracial Americans when his running mate seemed confused about how Harris could talk about her Indian heritage one day and her Black heritage the other, without denying either.

When Vance was questioned about Trump’s attack on Harris’ biracial background, he said that Trump was being “totally reasonable” and called Harris a “chameleon.” This is rich coming from a guy who has changed his name three times, changed his religion, and has significantly changed his politics, especially his opinion of Trump, whom he once called on Twitter “reprehensible” and “an idiot.”

I’m also waiting for Vance to stand up against the racism being thrown at Harris for being Black and Indian. Vance has stated that he loves his wife because “she’s who she is.” Because “she’s not a white person,” said Vance, “we’ve been accused, attacked by some white supremacists.” Of course, these are some of the same folks attacking Harris.
It would be nice for Vance to not only condemn white supremacists when they say stupid things about his wife and the names of his children but to condemn members of his Republican Party who associate with white supremacists.

Vance could advocate for his family, as well as millions of other biracial couples and children in America, by actively rejecting racist groups that support the Republican Party and Republican officials, including Trump.

In a recent interview, Vance was asked how he could join Trump’s presidential ticket when people like Nick Fuentes, a self-admitted and proud white supremacist who has said terrible things about Usha Vance, has dined with Trump in his Florida home. Fuentes criticized Vance’s selection as Trump’s running mate and wondered how he could be a “defender of white identity” while being married to a non-white wife. “Clearly,” said Fuentes, “he doesn’t value his racial identity.”

Trump had dinner with Fuentes and Kanye West at Mar-a-Lago in 2022. Trump said he didn’t know who Fuentes was but has said little to condemn him or his beliefs. Nor has he condemned West, his friend, for his association with Fuentes and other white supremacists.

Vance seems to be caught in the middle between a beautiful, biracial family and a Republican Party that looks down on his family for their racial identity. He has failed to use his position as the Republican nominee for vice president to educate and advocate to his fellow Republicans that his family is as American as any other and that, in fact, a majority of American families come in different arrangements, colors and religions.

Vance could speak up in no uncertain terms against white supremacists and racists and strongly reject their support of the Republican Party. He could also urge Trump to do the same. Unfortunately, as demonstrated by his inability to stand up for Medal of Honor recipients insulted by Trump this past week, Vance doesn’t have the values or a strong enough backbone to take such positions.

While he wants everyone to have children, Vance and his fellow Republicans have blocked the extension of tax credits for children that cut child poverty by half during the Biden administration. Yet they are willing to give more tax cuts to billionaires.

Vance could also state that he will protect the Affordable Care Act, which provides health care coverage for 45 million American families and has reduced the number of American children without health care by 38 percent.

Ten states under Republican control continue to deny their citizens the benefits of expanded Medicaid coverage for children provided by the ACA. Vance could advocate for these children and encourage those Republicans to do what is right for their state’s children.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation provides state-by-state comparisons of the overall well-being of our nation’s children. The 10 states with the best outcomes for children are mostly Democratic-led states. Most of the 10 states with the worst outcomes for children are Republican-led states. Vance could challenge his fellow Republicans to do better for ordinary families, especially their children.

If Vance wants Americans to have more children, he should advocate for making child care available and affordable so parents don’t have to quit their jobs after having children. Most married couples with children, like the Vance family, include two working parents. Unlike the Vance family, however, most American families are not wealthy.

If he wants Americans to have more children, it would be nice to hear Vance advocate for policies that improve the quality of life for our nation’s children but that he and the GOP have consistently blocked.

Tom Zirpoli is the Laurence J. Adams Distinguished Chair in Special Education Emeritus at McDaniel College. He writes from Westminster. His column appears on Wednesdays. Email him at tzirpoli@mcdaniel.edu.

I have my doubts. Other pollsters have found that, historically, the number of undecided voters this close to a national election is between 11% and 15%. Even this lower number, however, is difficult to believe in 2024, given the polarization of American politics.

While Newsweek may consider these folks “persuadable,” I think they are less interested and informed and have probably never or seldom voted.

This is not a criticism; some folks have complicated and busy lives with multiple jobs and children or elderly parents to care for. Politics is not on their radar, and getting informed, if they were interested, would take time they don’t have.

Chasing undecided voters may be tempting for both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris, especially if they believe that 20% of voters are still persuadable. But here is a more fruitful strategy that’s tried and true.

History tells us that the candidate who gets the greater proportion of their registered party voters to the polls will win in November. I think this is especially true for 2024.

In 2016, observers were surprised that Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton. After looking at the election data, they were surprised again when they studied Democratic turnout, especially compared to Democratic turnout for the two previous election cycles that elevated Barack Obama to the White House.

Looking back, some pre-election evidence suggests that some Democrats were not excited about Clinton. Fumbling announcements made by the FBI Director, James Comey, about Clinton’s emails immediately before the election took some of the air out of Clinton’s campaign and Democratic voter enthusiasm.

For whatever reasons, many registered Democrats stayed home, Trump’s supporters showed up, and Republican turnout was the key to Trump’s victory.

For Harris to win, Democrats need to be more excited than they were in 2016 with Clinton. Early indicators are encouraging for Harris, as demonstrated by the number of first-time Democratic contributions and volunteers. Many of these voters, who did not plan to get involved with Biden at the top of the ticket, seem to be getting involved with Harris.

Harris’ choice for running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, seems to be adding to the enthusiasm, especially compared to Trump’s running mate, J.D. Vance. According to a YouGov survey conducted last week, Walz has a net favorability rating of positive 11. Vance has a net favorability rating of negative nine with a dismal 34% approval rating as measured in a recent Marist poll.

Party turnout has long been associated with presidential victories. In 2004, an equal number (37%) of Democrats and Republicans showed up at the polls. The Republican candidate, George W. Bush, won. In 2008, Democrats were enthusiastic about Obama, and 39% of voters were Democrats, compared to 32% who were Republicans. Obama won.

In the 2016 race between Clinton and Trump, voter turnout was at a 20-year low. Who stayed home? A study by the Pew Research Center found that 55% of the nonvoters were Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents. Only 41% were Republicans and Republican-leaning independents.

For Harris, getting Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents to the polls this November is the key to her victory. Unfortunately, some groups who tend to vote for Democrats, especially young voters and minority voters, have poor track records of showing up at the polls. Harris and Walz will need to provide the enthusiasm to get them to the polls.

Also, Harris cannot count on there being more registered Democrats than Republicans nationally, an advantage Democrats had in the past. In 2024, according to Pew Research Center, 49% of registered voters are Democrats, and 48% are Republicans.

Harris may have a small advantage in some Midwestern swing states where registered Democrats still outnumber Republicans, although in ever-shrinking numbers.

For example, in Pennsylvania, according to the Pennsylvania Department of State, registered Democrats have a 4% advantage over Republicans. This is significantly less than in 2008, when Democrats had a 12% advantage, and Obama won.

Several variables influence voter turnout for both parties. One variable is a party’s satisfaction with its candidates. In a Times/Siena poll of voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, taken last week, 87% of Democrats responded that they were “satisfied” with their candidates compared to 79% of Republicans.

Another factor influencing turnout is the “ground game” each political party organizes to educate and get its voters to the polls. The number of field offices, paid staff and volunteers per state are indicators of a party’s ground game.

In April, the then-Biden-Harris campaign had 24 field offices in Pennsylvania, for example. The Trump campaign opened its first office in Pennsylvania in June, believing in a different strategy of state rallies and having Trump to energize their voters. This strategy worked for Trump in 2016, not in 2020.

There is a saying that those who show up rule the world. This is certainly going to be the case in November.

Tom Zirpoli is the Laurence J. Adams Distinguished Chair in Special Education Emeritus at McDaniel College. He writes from Westminster. His column appears on Wednesdays. Email him at tzirpoli@mcdaniel.edu.

Maduro is the 48th president of Venezuela. He has held the office since 2013 and has no plans to step down. Yes, elections are still held in Venezuela, but Maduro controls the media, all levels of government, the courts, and, most importantly, the electoral system.

There are no checks and balances within Venezuela’s government anymore. If an opposition leader becomes too popular, Maduro has the Supreme Court, which he controls with his hand-picked judges, declare the candidate ineligible to hold office.

This happened to María Corina Machado, Venezuela’s most-popular opposition leader, who was supposed to run against him this election cycle. After Maduro had the courts remove her name from the ballot, the opposition parties unified under one candidate, Edmundo González Urrutia, a retired diplomat.

González was expected to win in a landslide. Exit polling found he won by more than 60% of the vote. Independent researchers in Venezuela estimated Gonzalez won with about 66% of the vote.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken recognized González as the winner and said, “Given the overwhelming evidence, it is clear to the United States and, most importantly, to the Venezuelan people, that Edmundo Gonzalez Urrutia won the most votes.”

While many Republicans in Congress agreed with Blinken, Trump has been unusually silent on Maduro’s election denialism. Wonder why.

Maduro’s government has taken total control of Venezuela’s electoral system. His people count the votes and declare the winners. An independent electoral system like we have in the U.S., where observers from all political parties view the counting and tabulation of votes, is no longer operational there.

This is what many Republicans in the states they control wish to accomplish and threaten to do this November.

Maduro’s people blocked international observers from entering Venezuela during the election to monitor the counting and tabulation of votes. Thus, no matter how many people voted for the opposition party — and we might never know — Maduro was guaranteed to be the winner.

This is what Trump envisions for America if he wins in November. This is what I believe Trump meant when, during a recent campaign speech, he said, “Christians, get out and vote! Just this time! You won’t have to do it anymore. Four more years, you know what? It will be fixed; it will be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore …”

If we put Trump back into the White House in November, many people believe he doesn’t plan on leaving. By refusing to respect the outcome of elections — unless he wins — and by trying to change the outcome of the 2020 election, Trump is a threat to America’s democracy.

Trump is fascinated with foreign dictators, many of whom he has invited into his Florida home. He is fascinated with their power, as he talks about them being “strong.” Ruth Ben-Ghiat of CNN said Trump praises these dictators “because of their absolute power, not in spite of it.”

Trump said Chinese President Xi Jinping is “strong like granite. He runs 1.4 billion people with an iron hand.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin, according to Trump, is a “genius” for invading Ukraine and taking “over a country — really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people, and just walking in.”

Turkey President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a recent visitor to Trump’s home, governs “very, very strongly” and is “a friend of mine,” Trump declared. When Trump made this statement, Erdogan’s government had arrested more than 47,000 Turks in a government crackdown. While the world condemned Erdogan’s human rights violations and continued attack on democracy, Trump was singing his praises.

Who can forget the “love letters” between President Kim Jong Un of North Korea and Trump? “We fell in love,” said Trump, ignoring the fact that, under Kim, the people of North Korea have no freedom, and many are starving as Kim lives an opulent life. Kim is, by all accounts, one of the most brutal dictators in the world. Yet, Trump brags about exchanging love letters with him.

“Americans,” writes Ben-Ghiat, “are the most important audience for the stream of praise Trump directs to autocrats. Trump’s repeated elevation of dictators as models of leadership should be understood as part of a re-education strategy — conditioning Americans to see authoritarianism as a superior form of government to democracy.”

Seven million people have moved out of Venezuela since Maduro came to power in 2013 and began systematically removing their freedoms. As a result, the country’s economy is in shambles. Most people who remain are poor, while Maduro enriches the wealthy who remain. In return, they finance Maduro’s wealth and his position of power.

This should sound familiar to Americans who might be asking themselves why Elon Musk and other billionaires want to finance Trump’s return to the White House. Could it be the billions of dollars they will save in tax cuts during a second Trump presidency?

For Trump and Maduro, everything is transactional. For Maduro, it is not about what is best for Venezuelans; just as for Trump, it is not about what is best for Americans.

It is especially not about high school-educated Americans who form the backbone of Trump’s support. He doesn’t care how Musk or other businessmen treat them as employees, whether they receive a living wage or health care benefits. In fact, Trump promises to end the Affordable Care Act that provides healthcare benefits to millions of Americans.

In November, Americans get to decide if we will continue to be the United States of America, for the people and by the people, or become more like Venezuela, where a strong man ignores the votes of the people and wipes out freedom and democracy for an entire nation.

It might be our last chance to decide. I hope we make the most of it.

Tom Zirpoli is the Laurence J. Adams Distinguished Chair in Special Education Emeritus at McDaniel College. He writes from Westminster. His column appears on Wednesdays. Email him at tziripoli@mcdaniel.edu.

If Biden didn’t step down, Trump’s selection of a second white MAGA male on the Republican ticket would hold. If Biden did step down, Trump understood Vice President Kalama Harris would likely be the Democratic candidate and, perhaps, he would be advised to select a woman or someone more mainstream to attract independent voters.

Biden, however, didn’t give Trump that option. Facing the start of the Republican National Convention, Trump named JD Vance as his running mate. Less than a week later, Biden made his announcement. Trump was not happy. He had been outsmarted by Biden.

Trump selected Vance because he thought he would run away with the presidential race with Biden at the head of the ticket. He didn’t need, he thought, to balance his ticket with a woman or a more mainstream candidate. Instead, he doubled down on appealing to his base. Also, selecting Vance was encouraged by Trump’s eldest son, Don Jr.

Vance has had a lot of negative things to say about Trump. During Trump’s first campaign, in an email to Democratic Georgia state Rep. Josh McLaurin, his college roommate, Vance wrote he went “back and forth between thinking Trump is a cynical a-hole like [Richard] Nixon, who wouldn’t be that bad … or that he’s America’s Hitler.”

Vance said he could not vote for Trump in 2016 because he was “reprehensible.” He wrote “There is no self-reflection in the midst of a false euphoria. Trump is cultural heroin. He makes some feel better for a bit. But he cannot fix what ails them, and one day they’ll realize it.”

Trump’s supporters are still flying high on their “cultural heroin.” Perhaps Vance had a higher regard for Trump supporters than they deserved. To date, they have not fixed “what ails them.”
Vance decided to join the “false euphoria.” His previous comments about Trump, however, are well documented and will fit nicely in Democratic ads.

For Trump, everything he does is personal and transactional. To get ahead in Trump’s world, one must think transitionally and be willing to sell your soul. Vance seems to have made that calculation, even if that meant running with someone he thought could potentially be “America’s Hitler.”

The selection of Vance has not gone well for Trump or Vance. You can tell Republicans are afraid of Harris by their response to Biden’s decision to step aside. Suddenly they are expressing deep concern about how Democrats treated Biden. Isn’t that nice? Never mind, of course, how Republicans treated him.

Even after Biden dropped out, Trump and his allies could not manage to say anything positive about Biden or thank him for decades of service to our nation.

Republicans are saying Democrats are undermining democracy by making Harris their nominee after Biden received the majority of primary votes. This is rich coming from the same folks who tried to undermine democracy by keeping Trump in the White House after Biden won the 2020 presidential election.

The formal vote for a party’s president and vice president nominees is usually held during a state-by-state roll call on the first day of their national conventions, as we saw during the Republican National Convention.

Democratic delegates will have that same opportunity to vote for Harris or anyone they want.
Another Republican attack on Harris is that she laughs too much. To me, this indicates Harris is happy and Republicans are desperate.

One Republican member of Congress, Andy Ogles of Tennessee, has resorted to introducing an impeachment resolution against Harris. Again, more desperation.

Republicans are also trying to sell the idea Harris is a diversity hire, that she has achieved her current status because she is a minority, not because of her extensive education and experience.

We all knew Republicans would be playing their sexism and racism cards, but I’m surprised at how quickly they resorted to this strategy, which has already started to backfire.

As stated by Robert Hubbell on Substack.com, the diversity “attack is offensive not only to the highly qualified Harris, but to all Black Americans.” Hubbell reminded his readers that Harris “spent 14 years as a county prosecutor, eight years as attorney general of California, two years as a U.S. senator, and 3.5 years as vice president. It is hard to imagine a more qualified presidential candidate.”

More than 350 national security leaders from previous Democratic and Republican administrations have endorsed Harris for president. They wrote that Harris “would enter that office with more significant national security experience than the four presidents prior to President Biden.” They also wrote, “Trump is a threat to America’s national security.”

During a 2021 interview with Tucker Carlson on Fox News, Vance called Harris, and others, “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.” Harris has two grown stepchildren with her husband, but Vance doesn’t appear to recognize them as legitimate children.

The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page wrote, “The comment is the sort of smart-aleck crack that gets laughs in certain right-wing male precincts, but it doesn’t play well with the millions of female voters, many of them Republican, who will decide the presidential race.”

Vance continued his war on childless women by making the argument that women with children should have extra votes. More children, more votes.

He has also argued that childless families should pay more taxes. This has elicited responses from conservatives like Dave Portnoy, founder of Barstool Sports, who asked on X “You want me to pay more taxes to take care of other people’s kids? Are we sure this dude is a Republican? Sounds like a moron.”

Does Vance understand that Democrats are not the only Americans who either can’t have children or who made the decision not to have them? Hypocritically, while Vance has attacked women without children, he has voted against protections for women trying to have children by using in vitro fertilization (IVF).

One has to wonder if Vance was vetted by anyone in the Trump campaign besides Don Jr. In addition to his history of insulting Trump, Vance has a habit of insulting the voters they will need to win in November. He might be the best thing to happen to Democrats since Biden withdrew from the race.

Tom Zirpoli is the Laurence J. Adams Distinguished Chair in Special Education Emeritus at McDaniel College. He writes from Westminster. His column appears on Wednesdays. Email him at tzirpoli@mcdaniel.edu

According to NBC News and other media reports, Crooks had access to more than a dozen guns in his home, including the AR-15 Crooks used to target Trump. Research has repeatedly found that people who live in homes with guns are at greater risk of being victims of gun violence and more likely to assault others.

On the day of the shooting, Crooks was wearing a shirt from Demolition Ranch, an online business with a YouTube channel, that focuses on guns. The folks who run Demolition Ranch said they don’t promote violence and they are upset about the shootings.

However, they certainly do glorify guns, the power of the weapons they promote and the violence these weapons do to various targets, as demonstrated on their channel.

The desensitization to violence is real and common in young men who are frequently exposed to violence. Add to the mix a steady stream of right-wing rhetoric and violence promoted by politicians, a young man can surely be groomed to commit violent acts.

The AR-15 assault rifle used to shoot Trump is proudly promoted by MAGA Republicans, who wear pins on their lapels in the shape of a miniature AR-15 rifle. This was the same weapon used at Sandy Hook Elementary and other schools to kill dozens of young children. This association does not seem to bother the Republicans wearing the pins.

Trump has used violent-laden speech against opponents, Democrats and Republicans, for the past eight years, starting with his campaign against Hillary Clinton in 2016. I will not go through that long history — one can Google it — but his violent rhetoric continues in the current presidential campaign, including the threat of violence that will occur, he says, if he is not elected.

During a March 16, 2024, campaign rally in Ohio, Trump said, “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s gonna be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country.”

North Carolina Lt. Gov. Mark Robinson, one of the opening-day speakers at the Republican National Convention, frequently engages in violent speech on the campaign trail. Last month, he said “Some folks need killing! It’s time for somebody to say it.”

In Robinson’s mind, he is on the side of God while he describes his opponents, as “evil,” “wicket people,” and “people who have evil intent.” He has talked about going “into battle and take the head of your enemy in God’s name.”

Robinson is noted for defending the AR-15 assault rifle after school shootings. He has verbally threatened the police and the FBI, who he suggested without evidence, might try to take away his AR-15. The “first thing you’re going to catch,” Robinson warned them, “is the .223 or .556 bullet headed straight to you.”

Perhaps Crooks has been listening to folks like Robinson. Words have power and they are influential to young minds. People in powerful positions need to consider how they can influence others. Sometimes, their words might come back to bite them.

During her campaign in 2022, Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Green posted a campaign video in which she aimed her assault rifle at the camera saying she was going to “blow away the Democrats’ socialist agenda.”

Several MAGA Republicans include pictures of themselves with assault rifles in campaign literature.

Recently, Donald Trump Jr. reposted a fake image of President Joe Biden bound and gagged in the back of a pickup truck. A few months ago, during a fundraiser for the Kansas State Republican Party, attendees paid to kick and punch an effigy of Biden.

Then, of course, there is the Jan. 6 U.S. Capitol attack and the police trying to protect members of Congress from Trump supporters chanting “Hang Mike Pence.”

After inspiring his supporters to march to the capitol and reminding them “you’ll never take back our country with weakness,” Trump watched the attack on television for hours after many people were killed or injured, before asking his supporters to stop and go home.

Today, he promises to pardon all of them, including those who attacked police officers with a variety of weapons from flag poles to tasers.

Melania Trump issued a statement asking all Americans to “ascend above the hate, the vitriol, and the simple-minded ideas that ignite violence.” Does she believe her husband’s attempt to overturn a presidential election on Jan. 6 was an example of “simple-minded ideas that ignite violence?”

During the Capitol attack, according to aides, Melania Trump refused to ask her husband to call off the attackers.

According to Trump’s former Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Trump wanted protesters outside the White House shot. “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something” Trump asked, according to Esper.

Trump also publicly tweeted the idea of shooting protesters in the wake of George Floyd’s killing in Minneapolis. Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has granted the president immunity, those wishes might become a reality when and if Trump is back in the White House.

There is a double standard from Trump regarding the treatment of protesters as demonstrated by his support for his protesters trying to overturn a presidential election vs. those who protest for civil rights, voting rights and other democratic causes.

He promotes violence when it promotes his position of power, but demands silence for those trying to keep democracy alive in America.

Republicans in Congress have repeatedly refused to stand up to gun manufacturers and support reasonable gun control to protect ordinary Americans. As demonstrated by Trump’s shooting, gun violence hurts everyone, Democrats and Republicans. A shooter with an assault rifle who randomly kills children in school is unaware of their parents’ political affiliation.

Trump demands gun violence protection from the Secret Service while the rest of us have to live with constant fear of a random shooter. Guns are not allowed in the White House nor at any of Trump’s campaign rallies.

Republicans in Congress don’t allow guns in the U.S. Capitol building where they work. Most Republican-led state houses don’t allow guns and visitors must pass through metal detectors.

While Republicans pass more laws allowing for the open carry of weapons in our communities, Trump and other Republicans are demanding wider security measures for themselves.

Republicans in Congress want to hold hearings on the president’s security after he had his ear pierced by a bullet from an AR-15. Where are their demands for hearings as our children are gunned down in their classrooms?

Tom Zirpoli is the Laurence J. Adams distinguished chair of special education emeritus at McDaniel College. He writes from Westminster. His column appears on Wednesdays. Email him at tzirpoli@mcdaniele.edu.

Republicans used to claim they were originalists when interpreting the Constitution. That is, if an issue, such as abortion, wasn’t specifically addressed in the Constitution, then women could not claim a constitutional right to an abortion.

There is nothing in the Constitution that provides for or even implies immunity for the president of the United States. If you go back to 1776 and read the words of our Founding Fathers who were fighting for independence from the King of England, it is clear they did not believe in the king’s authority, but in the authority of the people.

They believed in Democracy, not in the rule of a king. It is one of the primary reasons people escaped to America.

The court’s ruling comes out of thin air. They argue that the president would be overwhelmed with legal issues without immunity, impacting his ability to do his job. Interestingly, however, this has not been an issue for 45 of the last 46 presidents.

Why is former President Donald Trump the only one with this issue? Is it, perhaps, that other presidents followed the Constitution and the law, that they didn’t steal classified documents at the end of their term, that they respected the transition of power after losing an election, that they didn’t assault women, and that they didn’t cook their business books?

Did the justices notice that only one former president, Trump, needs their offer of immunity because of his inappropriate behavior in and out of office? Clearly, this was a ruling for the benefit of one man.

Can anyone familiar with our nation’s history and the writings of the people who created the U.S. Constitution, find evidence that framers thought the president had or needed immunity to carry out his job?

Respected historians have condemned the ruling, noting zero Constitutional basis for it, and stating this was a clear political nod to protect Trump, who appointed three of the six Republican-appointed justices ruling in Trump’s favor.

One does not have to go far in the past to hear these same six justices publicly state in their writings or their testimony to Congress that the president is not above the law in any shape or form.

For example, before he was appointed to the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a law review that presidents could be subject to criminal prosecutions after they leave office. When questioned during his confirmation hearings if he was suggesting that presidents had immunity, Kavanaugh said, “No one has ever said, I do not think, that the president is immune from civil or criminal process.”

He added, “Immunity is not — not the correct word, and I do not think anyone thinks of immunity. And why not? No one is above the law. And that is just such a foundational principle of the Constitution and equal justice under law.”

In his written and verbal statements, Kavanaugh frequently cited the Federalist Papers in finding that presidents should “be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” Yet, regardless of his writings and testimony that there was no presidential immunity provision in the Constitution, Kavanaugh voted Trump had immunity while carrying out the official duties of his office.

During Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearings, Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, said a president was “not above the law” and asked Gorsuch if he agreed. Gorsuch responded, “No man is above the law. No man.”

Yet, Gorsuch, like Kavanaugh, voted that Trump was above the law while carrying out the official duties of his office.

Justice Samuel Alito also made it clear in his confirmation hearings that the president could not “escape prosecution” if he, for example, ordered the intelligence community to murder someone.

“Neither the president nor anybody else, I think, can authorize someone to—can override a statute that is constitutional.” He added, “No person in this country is above the law, and that includes the president and it includes the Supreme Court. Everybody has to follow the law, and that means the Constitution of the United States, and it means the laws that are enacted under the Constitution of the United States.”

Responding to a senator during her confirmation hearing, Amy Coney Barrett said, “Senator, I believe that no one is above the law under our system, and that includes the president.” Chief Justice John Roberts said in 2005, “The president is fully bound by the law, the Constitution, and statutes”

For the benefit of Trump, they all had a change of heart.

In her vote against presidential immunity, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote, “In the majority’s view, while all other citizens of the United States must do their jobs and live their lives within the confines of criminal prohibitions … the majority holds that the President, unlike anyone else in our country, is comparatively free to engage in criminal acts in furtherance of his official duties.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, wrote that the ruling of the Republican-appointed members of the court “makes a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of government, that no man is above the law.”

Investigative journalist David Rohde talked with former Justice Department officials who served under Trump during his first term. He wrote they “fear that the Supreme Court’s recent immunity ruling will make it easier for him to use the department against his enemies if he is re-elected president.”

Trump has made it clear this is his goal. According to Rohde, former members of Trump’s Justice Department believe the immunity ruling will “give Trump cover to improperly pressure the Justice Department for his political benefit, to prosecute an enemy or go easy on an ally, by saying he was executing his official duties as president.”

This ruling opens the door for Trump to engage in further criminal behavior if and when he is back in the White House in January 2025.

This man normally disregards the rule of law; I can’t imagine what he will try to get away with now that he has the blessing of the Supreme Court’s immunity ruling. This should concern all Americans who believe in our constitutional democracy.

Tom Zirpoli is the Laurence J. Adams Distinguished Chair in Special Education Emeritus at McDaniel College. He writes from Westminster. His column appears on Wednesdays. Email him at tzirpoli@mcdaniel.edu.

I’ve been a Biden fan and have outlined his efforts to help ordinary Americans in this column. I continue to believe that Biden is the most honorable and capable man running for president, even with his age-related difficulties. In the November election, however, Biden is heading toward a significant defeat.

Remember, Biden was behind in key swing states before last month’s debate. In fact, the reason why Biden challenged Trump to an early debate was to change the direction of the campaign. Biden was losing, he knew it and his campaign was hoping a good debate performance would turn things around.

Clearly, the debate made things worse for Biden. He confirmed people’s belief, fairly or unfairly, that he was too old for the job. Instead of swinging voters toward him, Biden scared more people away, especially independents and swing voters.

Now, his chances of beating Trump are less than before the debate and, if Biden stays on the ticket, Trump will return to the White House.

I don’t see anything happening between now and November to turn things around for Biden. Yes, there will be another debate. Yes, there will be the Democratic Party convention. And, yes, Biden will continue to look like an old man with significant mental and physical limitations.

After the convention, however, replacing him will be impossible and Trump will walk into the Oval Office.

Sure, Democrats will vote for Biden if he remains on the ballot against Trump, even if he continues to falter. They will vote for anyone other than Trump because they love America, they love democracy and they fear the damage Trump will do to our nation and the future of our children and our grandchildren.

Voting for Biden over Trump, for Democrats, is an effort to keep Trump away from the powers of the White House, which he will surely abuse.

Democratic voters, however, will not be enough to secure a victory for Biden. He needs independent and swing voters in large numbers. He does not have them now, and it is unlikely he will have them in November.

He needs Black and young voters as much as he did during the 2020 presidential campaign. He does not have their support in sufficient numbers now, and he is unlikely to have those numbers in November.

If Biden stays on the ballot, Trump will win. As good a job as Biden has done the last four years, he needs to do one more thing for America: Step away and allow Vice President Kamala Harris to replace him at the top of the ticket. In my estimation, it is the best hope of keeping Trump out of the White House.

Are there others in the Democratic Party who would be terrific candidates? Definitely, yes. But Harris is our nation’s vice president and the first Black candidate to win that office.

She is the natural replacement for Biden and would inspire many Black voters to show up at the polls in numbers the Democratic ticket will need for victory. As Jennifer Rubin argued in the Washington Post, “The prospect of the first female Black president could inject the sort of energy needed to turn out the vote in what is likely to be a mobilization rather than a persuasion election (i.e., most everyone has already made up their mind).”

Picking someone else to replace Biden would ensure that many Black voters stay home in November.

Harris is also more popular than Biden among young voters. As Rubin pointed out, Harris is a popular speaker on college campuses. Those groups alone — Black and young voters — might be enough to put a Harris ticket over the top.

Rubin cites a CNN-SSRS poll that found Harris “would swing Biden’s three-point deficit among women voters to a seven-point lead, while also making gains among independents.” These are two critical blocs of voters for the Democratic ticket.

Of the four voting groups mentioned above — Blacks, young voters, women, and independents — Biden is polling poorly. If Harris can bring these voters to the polls for her, she will win in November.

Harris also brings to the ticket additional attention to one of the primary issues of the campaign: women’s reproductive rights. It would be difficult to find any Democrat today who has been more outspoken on this issue than Harris. She has been Biden’s point person on reproductive rights and Harris has done well speaking on these issues on the campaign trail.

Harris can address reproductive rights, birth control, and in vitro fertilization (IVF) issues much more effectively, and more personally, than Biden. It is a winning issue for Democrats, and Harris would bring it front and center for the campaign.

The thought of Biden dropping out scares the heck out of Trump and other Republicans. That alone should tell us something about the current direction of the race and the potential for changing this if Biden hands off to Harris.

Harris’ relative youth would turn the tables on Trump regarding the issue of age and focus more attention on Trump’s verbal stumbles and mental lapses currently overshadowed by Biden’s difficulties. Also, as a prosecutor, Harris is well positioned to go on the offense against Trump’s lawlessness in a way that Biden has not been able to.

As Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina predicted on CBS News, if Harris “becomes the nominee, this is a dramatically different race than it is right now today.” And that is exactly what Democrats need — a dramatically different race than it is today.

Tom Zirpoli is the Laurence J. Adams Distinguished Chair in Special Education Emeritus at McDaniel College. He writes from Westminster. His column appears on Wednesdays. Email him at tzirpoli@mcdaniel.edu.

The U.S. economy is leading the world, even beating worldwide post-pandemic inflation. Not China. Not Japan. The United States. A combination of good policies, the right priorities, and wise decisions of the Biden Administration got us here.

Trump says he had the best economy in U.S. history. Again, not even close, unless he is talking about the top 1% of Americans who received massive tax cuts while he was president.

For ordinary Americans, however, Biden has a far better record of accomplishments.

Let’s look at some fundamentals. How about access to affordable health care insurance? According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. uninsured rate has decreased by 26% during the Biden Administration.

It dropped from 10.3% in 2019, Trump’s last year in office, to 6% in 2023. An additional 8.2 million Americans now have health care insurance that did not have it under the Trump Administration.

How about the national debt? In a recent study, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget found that “Trump increased long-term borrowing at twice the rate of President Biden.” Moreover, according to the report, Biden cut the annual budget deficit by a factor of four compared to Trump.

According to the report, “Trump approved $8.4 trillion of new 10-year borrowing during his full term in office. President Biden, in his first three years and five months in office, approved $4.3 trillion of new 10-year borrowing.”

A significant amount of the debt accumulated during both administrations is a direct result of large tax cuts signed by Trump in December 2017 which cut corporate tax rates by almost 40%.

While Republicans told us the Trump tax cuts would grow the American economy and generate an additional $1 trillion in revenue, the Congressional Budget Office warned them the tax cuts would add $1.9 trillion in debt before they expire in 2025. The CBO was correct, of course.

If Trump is elected, he has promised to extend his 2017 tax cuts for another 10 years. If he does, the CBO estimates that the federal debt will grow by another $4.6 trillion.

Republicans continue to pretend more tax cuts for corporations and billionaires will trickle down to the rest of us. But they never do. Instead of sharing the extra revenue with workers, corporations took their 2017 tax cuts and increased their stock buybacks, according to Robert Reich, who worked for four presidents, Democrats and Republicans, on various economic advisory boards.

As stated by Reich, “A recent study by economists from the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Federal Reserve Board found that workers below the 90th percentile of their firm’s income scale saw no change in earnings from the Trump tax cuts. Earnings rose only for those at the top, with the largest gains for those at the very top.” In other words, the rich got richer while everyone else saw no benefit from the tax cuts.

Biden has stated he will not extend the Trump tax cuts. Instead, he has proposed that billionaires pay at least 25% of their income in taxes and corporations pay at least 21%. They were paying 35% before the Trump tax cuts of 2017.

While Trump’s extension of his 2017 tax cuts would add $4.6 trillion to the national debt, according to the CBO, Biden’s plan would increase revenue and reduce the national debt by $3.8 trillion.
Most importantly, Biden’s plan would have billionaires like Trump finally paying their fair share as they once did.

According to The New York Times, Trump paid zero federal taxes in 10 of the 15 years before taking office and paid just $750 during his first two years in the White House.

Let’s look at job growth. Biden has created almost 16 million jobs in less than four years. This is more than any other president in history. Trump recorded a net negative job growth of almost three million during his four years. He is the only modern-day president to lose jobs while serving in the White House.

Trump predicted in 2019 that if Biden won the election “the stock market would crash” and “you would have a depression the likes of which you’ve never seen. Your 401(k)s will go to hell and it’ll be a very, very sad day for his country.” In looking at Biden’s performance compared to Trump’s economic predictions, however, it is clear Trump didn’t have a clue in 2019 and continues to spread false information about the current U.S. economy.

Here are the facts: On the day of Biden’s inauguration, the New York Stock Exchange closed at 13,457. At the end of 2023, it closed at 16,852, a 25% increase. Last week, on June 28, it closed at 18,009. Thus, the New York Stock Exchange, along with our retirement funds, is up 33.8% since Biden’s inauguration. Not bad for an old guy.

Trump also warned in 2019 that if he didn’t win, “American’s suburbs will be overwhelmed with violence and crime.” Crime peaked during Trump’s last year in office and has been decreasing during the Biden Administration. According to the FBI, murder decreased 6.1% from 2021 to 2022, and violent crime in 2023 was 8% lower than in 2022.

Property crime decreased by 6.3% to the lowest level since 1961. American cities observed significant decreases in violent crime during the Biden Administration. For example, in 2023, Detroit had the lowest murder rate since 1966.

Here is a simple indicator of who cares about ordinary Americans, especially American workers.

Look at their positions on the minimum wage. Trump and his fellow Republicans insist the federal minimum wage of $7.25 is just fine and continue to block efforts by Democrats to increase it. But 22 states, led mostly by Democrats, have enacted new minimum wage increases that at least double the Republican standard of $7.25 per hour.

Actions speak louder than words. Trump is, and has been, all talk. The old man in the White House, however, is getting things done for ordinary Americans.

Tom Zirpoli is the Laurence J. Adams Distinguished Chair in Special Education Emeritus at McDaniel College. He writes from Westminster. His column appears on Wednesdays. Email him at tzirpoli@mcdaniel.edu.