Either Or Both

A law school classmate -- who remains one of my most cherished friends 40 years later -- was asked one of those typical law school questions in our first year contracts class that had no clear answer. His response, "either or both" was funny at the time but also probably the most appropriate response. Some questions can't be answered with a clear choice between two options. And Occam's razor notwithstanding, the simplest answer is not always the right one. 

Polling, focus groups, and other studies suggest that a majority of Americans favor Democratic policies, particularly if they don't know they are Democratic policies -- including protecting reproductive rights, combatting climate change, raising the minimum wage, and increasing, not cutting tax increases, for the wealthy. Even with regard to immigration, while there is widespread support for border safety, there is no desire for the kind of mass deportation that Trump and his neo-Nazi compatriots promise.

So why couldn't the Democrats convince voters that they were best positioned to pursue policies that most Americans want. Sure, there's been a backlash against incumbency internationally in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic damage and psychological trauma. But there's more to it. The Democratic brand is badly damaged and far too many Americans seem to believe the Democrats are truly nothing more than a bunch of woke elitists who don't care to help struggling Americans. That is the case despite the fact that the Biden Administration actually did a remarkable job in tamping down inflation and rescuing the economy from much of the damage Trump caused the last time he stank up the White House (just like Obama did after Bush II).

A huge reason for the disconnect is the radically changed media landscape that the Democrats have been so slow to recognize. As Joyce Vance notes, polling data shows that "People who are in possession of truthful, accurate information voted overwhelmingly for Harris. In other words, if you believed violent crime in major American cities was at an all-time high—which is not true—you were far more likely to vote Republican." 

As Dan Pfeiffer explains: "Because of Fox News and other Right Wing outlets, Republicans have long had an asymmetric media advantage. However, in recent years, Right Wing messaging has come to dominate non-political online spaces centered on topics like comedy, gaming, gambling, and wellness."  Thus, from Fox propaganda to Musk's transformation of Twitter into a right-wing megaphone to oligarch-owned networks to Joe Rogan's podcasts, Americans have been marinating in a toxic stew of alternative facts in which cities are crime-ridden dystopias, migrants are raping and pillaging law-abiding citizens and eating their pets, January 6th was a peaceful protest, pro-choice moms want to be able to kill their newborns, and kids are getting sex change operations at school. Who better to protect them than Donald J. Trump?

Sure there is an all-too-sizable group of, dare I say, "deplorable" Americans who embrace Trump's lawlessness, misogyny, and racism, and have no problem with his lies, corruption, and authoritarianism. But there are many others -- enough to sway an election -- who think he did an admirable job last time and actually cares about them, and that this time he will keep them safe while using tariffs to lower prices and get them higher wages. A large reason they believe this is because of the media environment to which they've been overexposed.  

But this doesn't absolve Democrats of their inability to break through and make the case for why they should have remained in power. Biden may have done some great things but the dude could not convey in any compelling way how his policies helped ordinary Americans. And while the Democrats controlled the Senate they failed to use it to expose a myriad of issues that would have highlighted the disconnect between Americans' needs and Republican values. Why Jared Kushner received billions from the Saudis would have been a good one. Or the seeming never-ending gifts received by Clarence Thomas and the lack of ethical standards at the Supreme Court. Or how about hearings on how Trump politicized the FDA and botched the response to the COVID pandemic? Maybe that would have reminded those with amnesia about how the Trump years weren't so awesome. The point would have been not simply to show that Republicans are corrupt and incompetent but that they put their own greed and political gain above the needs of the People.

The passivity that permeates the Democratic Party, particularly the old guys who have failed to reckon with the fact that the halcyon days of Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan are long over, is absolutely infuriating. And don't get me started on Merrick Garland's beyond methodical approach to indicting Trump but it is worth thinking about why Biden felt it was necessary to appoint someone of such a moderate, relatively apolitical tenor for Attorney General in the first place.

It is understandable that Americans believe the political system is broken and our institutions are ill designed to help them. But Democrats could have addressed this by focusing, for example, on the post-Citizens United landscape in which a handful of oligarchs can fund and influence political campaigns. Susan Glasser's piece in The New Yorker explained how Trump courted the country's wealthiest donors and what they might expect in return. But not only have Democrats been mostly silent about the need to reign in campaign spending and for greater transparency as to who is funding whom, they too have become adept at courting big donors, making it somewhat difficult to throw stones.  

The Democrats have lost the ability to speak to their base and address their concerns. It is remarkable that Harris seems to have lost not because more people voted for Trump but because less people identified as Democrats voted at all. The Party needs to figure out how to reach those folks again and I don't think the answer is to pal around with Liz Cheney. 

So before we descend into the madness and chaos of the next term, it is worth asking, did Harris lose because she and her Party failed to make a compelling case or because their case was drowned out by the the right wing media machine? The answer is: either or both. 

 

Not Great, Bob!

 “This campaign was run on the explicit promise to inflict maximal suffering on a lot of disfavored and marginalized people. I trust them to keep that promise. Try to keep your heart soft because that will be the work. Take care of yourself because you will do that work again.”  -- Dahlia Lithwick

He will overplay his hand as his rapid cognitive decline causes him to be even more erratic. His disorganized thinking might slow down his authoritarian impulses. Resistance will grow. If the Democrats can take the House that would be huge and thwart much of his agenda. Governors in Blue States and local governments will be critical too. Midterms are only two years away.

In the meantime, the federal cases against him will go away and I’m not sure if the Georgia case still has legs (but DA Fani Willis was re-elected). That means his incitement of a violent insurrection and his stealing and likely distribution of highly classified information will go untried and unpunished. Hopefully the fruits of the special counsel’s investigations will see the light of day.

Because we lost the Senate, more MAGA judges will be appointed throughout the country unless Senate Democrats can put salt in the gears and slow things down — which they aren’t good at — and we may see Thomas and Alito retire and be replaced by younger extremists. No way to sugarcoat that or the demise of civil service or the dangers to public health and women’s health. Or what may happen internationally, to name just a few areas of grave concern.

I’m disoriented and nauseated and sad and angry. I want to blame most of all Merrick Garland for his slothful approach to holding Trump accountable, as well as Senate Dems for failing to use their power as the majority party to hold hearings in order to highlight Trump’s corruption, from Egyptian bribes to Covid-related malfeasance. And I’m incensed at the mainstream press for failing to give Biden credit for how he resurrected the economy (Biden’s inability to convey this didn’t help) and for normalizing for so long Trump’s lawlessness, misogyny and racism — not to mention his wholesale inability to form a coherent thought or discuss policy with even a modicum of sense.

The enormous influence of our oligarchs, especially Elon Musk, in bolstering Trump’s campaign shouldn’t be underestimated. And the ratfucking and the bomb threats from Russia (especially in light of Trump’s and Musk’s Putin connections) shouldn’t be ignored.

Kamala Harris ran an inspired campaign given the burden of incumbency and how quickly she had to pivot when it became clear Biden was compromised. I wonder if the focus on swaying old school Republicans was the right approach but what do I know. I do know that we shouldn’t underestimate the reluctance of many American voters to elect a woman — not to mention a woman of color. Indeed I can’t get my head around the fact that a majority of the American people who bothered to vote chose to ignore — or embrace — the myriad of cruel, ignorant, vengeful, racist, and misogynist qualities of this malignant narcissistic fascist. But I need to remind myself that they don't represent all of us -- not by a long shot.

I want to conclude by talking reassuringly about hope, love, and community, and about how we cannot allow ourselves to become demoralized and complacent  -- because that's how they win. But I can’t quite find the words yet. Maybe tomorrow. 

Requiem For An Amazin' Season

There I was, a 65-year-old attorney at law, respected member of my community, and father of two adult children, wearing Met socks I refused to wash because I had worn them the game before when the Mets had won. The Met Hawaiian shirt that worked so well when we defeated the Phillies in the NLDS had lost its magic in the NLCS, so I switched to a Lindor shirt, and then, in desperation, to a black Met jersey. Alas, in the end, my sartorial choices couldn't overcome the lack of reliable bullpen arms or the dearth of clutch hitting. 

The Mets needed to win just two more games to reach the World Series when their season ended. But this was unlike other years where we came up painfully short of a championship, seasons which mostly left a bitter taste. See, e.g, 1988 (the end of a dynasty that never was); 1999 (losing to the Braves with Kenny Rogers walking in the winning run); 2000 (a rageful, steroid-fueled Roger Clemens throwing a broken bat remnant at Mike Piazza); 2006 (Carlos Beltran's strikeout with the bases loaded); 2015 (Matt Harvey pitching just a little too long and Lucas Duda throwing just a little too wild); and 2022 (a dispiriting team-wide end-of-the-season fade).  

This year was in many ways sui generis, but for me the most analogous Met season is 1973. That was the year of "Ya Gotta Believe," with beloved players from the 1969 squad and widely popular additions sprinkled in such as Rusty Staub, John "The Hammer" Milner, and Felix Millan and, of course, a last hurrah from Willie Mays. That team, like this one had low expectations. Indeed, they were in last place with a month left in the season and barely won more games than they lost. But they came within one poor managerial decision (i.e., pitching Tom Seaver on short rest in Game #6 -- no, I'm still not over it) from winning the World Series against the Mighty A's. For me, the two championship years (1969 and 1986) and 1973 are my three favorite Met seasons.

I can now add a fourth. This season was as fun as any I can remember. It was a rollercoaster to be sure, with a horrible start and some really disheartening play until late June, when the Mets began to play inspired ball that lasted for the duration of the season -- and beyond. 

The 2024 Mets played with unbridled joy that resonated from the dugout through Citi Field and reached fans like me watching nearly every game from across the country. It has become a cliché to refer to team chemistry but this team had it -- the love and trust among the players was palpable. There was the silliness of the rally pimp and the Grimace and OMG. But there was also the remarkably steady leadership of their new manager, and some compelling story lines, from the incredible out-of-nowhere brilliance of Jose Iglesias to the budding stardom of Mark Vientos to the unexpected pitching from reclamation projects, Sean Manaea and Luis Severino. And then there was Francisco Lindor, who emerged as a true superstar with a season as good as any Met position player ever had (with all due respect to David Wright and Carlos Beltran).  

And that wasn't all. Lindor's homer to beat the Braves on the last day of the season, Pete Alonso's 9th inning homer to beat the Brewer's in the first round of the playoffs, and Lindor's grand slam to crush the Phillies in the next round will be cherished by Met fans forever. In the end, they ran out of gas and out of magic. They simply didn't have the depth of talent as did the Dodgers, their opponent in the NLCS, who won the series in 6 games and will now face the other powerhouse from the Bronx. 

But that's OK. Really. This was a season for the ages, an incredibly fun, exciting journey with so many magical moments that is only slightly marred by the final result. And it doesn't really feel like an ending. Although some of the key players that comprised this special group won't be with the team next year, it feels like the beginning of a new Met narrative. Perhaps we are no longer lovable losers but, dare I say, lovable winners? 

OMG, there are only about 100 days until spring training 2025.

Tis Better To Have Loved And Lost ...

You see, the Mets are losers, just like nearly everybody else in life. This is a team for the cab driver who gets held up and the guy who loses out on a promotion because he didn’t maneuver himself to lunch with the boss enough. It is the team for every guy who has to get out of bed in the morning and go to work for short money on a job he does not like. And it is the team for every woman who looks up ten years later and sees her husband eating dinner in a T-shirt and wonders how the hell she ever let this guy talk her into getting married. -- Jimmy Breslin, Can’t Anybody Here Play This Game?

This was a new recognition that perfection is admirable but a trifle inhuman, and that a stumbling kind of semi-success can be much more warming. Most of all, perhaps, these exultant yells for the Mets were also yells for ourselves, and came from a wry, half-understood recognition that there is more Met than Yankee in every one of us.  -- Roger Angell, The Summer Game

In 1962, the Mets' first year of existence, they lost 120 games against 40 wins, the worst record of baseball's modern era. (The Cleveland Spiders were 20-134 in 1899.) It has remained the gold standard for baseball futility almost my entire life. (I was 3 years old in 1962.) But no longer. The 2024 Chicago White Sox, with their 120th loss (and six games left) will hold the ignominious distinction of playing worse than the 1962 Mets. I imagine for White Sox fans, this has been a season to forget. There has been nothing entertaining about that miserable team as illustrated by woeful attendance figures. But, while admittedly my knowledge of the inaugural Met squad is a priori, by all accounts, Met fans found the 1962 team to be fun, engaging, and loveable. We still embrace 1962, even those, like me, who were too young to remember it. This new reality is disorienting. (I'm not going to talk about the other new reality -- the exhilarating 2024 Mets -- kinehora!)

As poorly as they played -- and they really sucked in every aspect of the game -- the 1962 Mets were beloved. Fans of the Dodgers (like my dad) and the Giants -- teams that left for the West Coast five years earlier -- could not abide by the Yankees and were thrilled by having a new National League team to root for. The Mets honored those fans with the team colors of the former residents -- Dodger Blue and Giant Orange -- and fielded more than a few well-worn stalwarts from those teams' glory years, such as Gil Hodges and Duke Snider. As the great and ever-prescient Roger Angell put it during spring training that year, the Mets were "an attractive team, full of echoes and overtones" with "former headliners whose mistakes will be forgiven and whose accomplishments will win sentimental affection."  

And then there is Mets' lore, all those quirky, bizarre, and sometimes charming anecdotes that endeared the '62 team to their fans forever. Like all the crazy shit that their colorful manager Casey Stengel said (e.g., explaining why the Mets chose journeyman catcher Hobie Landrith as their first pick in the expansion draft: "You gotta have a catcher or you're gonna have a lot of passed balls." And describing another nondescript catcher, Greg Goossen: "he's only twenty and in ten years he has a chance to be thirty.") Their very first game was rained out, which was just as well since several of the players were stuck in the hotel elevator before the game. They had two pitchers named Bob Miller, one lefty and one righty. The ironically nicknamed Marvelous Marv Throneberry, their inept first baseman, famously hit a triple but was called out because he missed first base. When Stengel came out to argue, the umpire told him not to bother because Throneberry missed second base too. Joe Pignatano, back up catcher (and later a Met coach who grew a vegetable garden in the bullpen) hit into a triple play in the last game of the year and last at bat of his career.

And there's the story that gave the band Yo La Tengo their name. After center fielder Richie Ashburn and shortstop Elio Chacón collided in the outfield when they both tried to catch a fly ball, Chacón, who did not speak English, taught Ashburn to yell "Yo la tengo," which means "I got it" in Spanish. When Ashburn later attempted to catch a shallow fly ball, he called out "Yo la tengo," only to be run over by the left fielder, Frank Thomas, who spoke no Spanish. 

The Mets were terrible for the next several years too, finishing last or second-to-last every year from 1963 to1968. And then 1969 happened. The Miracle Mets won the World Series. And this is what makes 1962 so iconic for Met fans -- that this team of misfits went from being historically horrible to champions. It is this improbable arc that is so miraculous -- without the depths of 1962, the heights of 1969 would not feel as magical. (Although, given that the Mets have only captured one championship since then, it would still be pretty fucking special, to be honest.)  

Now, instead of Marvelous Marv and Hot Rod Kanehl and Choo-Choo Coleman, the worst team in history consists of players like Gavin Sheets, Nicky Lopez, and Andrew Benintendi, players of whom South Side fans don't seem quite as enamored. But I suppose it doesn't really matter.  For Met fans like me, there will always be a great fondness the team that Stengel dubbed the "Amazin' Mets." For our whole lives, the 1962 Mets were a touchstone -- a core part of who the Mets are and who we are as Met fans. As always, we embrace the loveable losers and, every season, hope we can become loveable winners.

How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Kamala

"Before I was elected vice-president, before I was elected United States senator, I was elected attorney general of the state of California, and I was a courtroom prosecutor before then.  And in those roles, I took on perpetrators of all kinds: predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain. So hear me when I say, I know Donald Trump’s type" -- Kamala Harris

During the 2020 primaries, when January 6th was just another winter day, Roe v. Wade was the law of the land, and Joe Biden was in his seventies, I struggled with Kamala Harris' candidacy. (See Kamala's People) I had experienced her tenure as California's Attorney General with great frustration, where her approach to death penalty challenges was same as it ever was for that office, vigorously defending every death sentence no matter how questionable. And I couldn't overcome my general dislike for prosecutors who, by and large, see the criminal justice system as fair and just -- despite the built-in bias against the poor and people of color -- and view the way to solve society's ills through the prism of that system. 

But as President Biden became increasingly unable to effectively prosecute, as it were, the case against Trump, much less make the case for his own candidacy, it became clear that he had to step down. And it also became clear that his Vice President was the only one who could succeed him without alienating key Democratic constituencies and forfeiting critical resources and campaign infrastructure. 

Shockingly, the usually self-destructive Democrats did the right thing, and the transition has not only been seamless but joyful, with a wholehearted embrace of her candidacy that speaks to the widespread pent-up energy for a candidate who can go on the offense with vigor and use complete, fluid sentences.   

As it turns out Kamala Harris is the right person for this moment. She is perfectly positioned to speak to what I believe are the three key issues that will excite and mobilize voters: reproductive rights, climate change, and Trump's authoritarianism and disdain for the law.

She has long been an authentic, powerful voice on abortion rights.  (Remember how she grilled then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh: “Can you think of any laws that give the government the power to make decisions about the male body?”) She has embraced her role in leading the Biden Administration's response to Dobbs, speaking passionately about reproductive freedom and Republican extremism at rallies and on college campuses, and making meaningful appearances at abortion clinics. As Jill Filipovic said in The Atlantic: "it is her voice, not Biden’s, that’s been loudest in objecting to abortion bans and conservative efforts to curtail IVF and contraception."

Harris has long been out front on combatting  climate change. As the Times put it: "She pursued polluters as attorney general in California and later staked out bold positions as a senator, including sponsorship of the Green New Deal."  According to the Washington Post, "Environmentalists have long praised Harris’s commitment to climate and environmental issues, beginning when she was a local elected official in California."

And perhaps most importantly, there's her ability to use her prosecutorial chops to filet Trump's putrid character and lay bare his lawlessness. Importantly, her law enforcement background provides a stunning contrast to a candidate who has not only been convicted of 34 felonies, but has been indicted for many more, and has been found liable for fraud and sexual assault.  (While as a former criminal defense lawyer, I am somewhat uncomfortable with stigmatizing someone merely because of their status as a felon, I have decidedly less qualms when that person has used his privilege and power in such a corrupt manner -- and whose criminal intent remains a clear and present danger to democracy.) 

The euphoria will wear off. There will be missteps. The opposition will perhaps tone down their racism and misogyny (perhaps), and mount more effective attacks against her. But we have a powerful case to make about the future of this country and why Trump Redux would be catastrophic.  And we have a candidate remarkably well equipped to make it. 

Trump v. The United States: An Opportunity To Recharge The Election

“Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?  Immune.  Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune …  In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.”  Trump v. United States (Sotomayor, J., dissenting) 

The most remarkable thing about our politics has been the willful blindness to Trump and his Party's plan -- in plain sight -- to destroy the pillars of democracy and create a white Christian nationalist state.  There remains, somehow, an overarching belief that our institutions are strong enough to withstand the inevitable constitutional crisis. Proof of this, apparently, is that court delays notwithstanding, Trump's attempts to remain in power after losing the last election were unsuccessful, and his efforts to steal highly classified documents were stymied. See, the system worked.

Last month, the New York Times (finally) published a frightening report on Project 2025, stating:

Donald Trump and his closest allies are preparing a radical reshaping of American government if he regains the White House. Here are some of his plans for cracking down on immigration, directing the Justice Department to prosecute his adversaries, increasing presidential power, upending America’s economic policies, retreating militarily from Europe and unilaterally deploying troops to Democratic-run cities. 

But this effort to centralize power in the executive branch -- what would essentially be a fascist takeover of government -- is treated as just one issue among many to be discussed and debated on the Sunday morning talk shows, rather than a hair-on-fire moment for the country.

As I wrote a few months ago, the Democrats – with their fetish for bipartisanship and compulsion to stay above the fray -- have completely abdicated from exposing and highlighting Trump’s past perfidies as well as the existential danger he poses if he returns to power. As always, they have ceded the narrative to the Republicans. Which is just fine with the mainstream press, which has yet to grapple with how to cover politics where one of the two candidates is a demented fascist, and one of the two political parties is facilitating a Christian theocracy. It maddeningly continues to focus on the odds, not the stakes, ignoring Trump’s incoherent rambling and his all-too-coherent plan for mass deportations, the replacement of civil servants with loyalists, and taking revenge on his political enemies. 

And now, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled (after unconscionably delaying the case to prevent a pre-election trial) not only that many of Trump's actions to remain in power may well be immune from prosecution, but that if he returns to power, he will be able to achieve many of those things he has been threatening as long as they are cloaked in official duties -- from weaponizing the Justice Department to prosecute his perceived enemies to using the military to suppress domestic protests, and much, much more.  It is not hyperbole to say that he truly could become dictator on Day One.

The Court's ruling has crystallized the key issue in this election.  There are no longer any guardrails to protect us from dictatorship. Trump already controls one our two political parties, and now he has received a free pass -- a get out of jail card, as it were -- from the highest court in the Land.

The election is no longer about Biden v. Trump, it is, as the caption of the Supreme Court's decision unwittingly states: Trump v. The United States.  But that only highlights the importance of determining whether Biden is up for prosecuting the case for Democracy and against Trump. He completely failed to do so during the debate, and it isn't at all clear whether he can do it now. 

Biden may very well have been an excellent president but he is an awful campaigner -- and between now and November we need a candidate who can deftly and aggressively prosecute the case against Trump and for Democracy.  If he isn't up for it -- and sadly, I don't think he is -- he needs to step down and pass the torch to his successor. (I strongly believe that it would be disastrous and demoralizing for the Party's key constituencies (i.e., black and women voters) if the Vice President is bypassed. I've never been much of a fan of Kamala Harris (see Kamala's People), but she is a brilliant communicator and is well suited to make the case against Trump. She has also been a powerful voice on another critical issue -- reproductive rights. And, not insignificantly, as VP, she's the only potential candidate who can gain access to Biden's campaign war chest.)

The Supreme Court's immunity decision has given Democrats a golden opportunity to focus this election on the dangers of a Trump presidency.  They better seize it.

New York Pizza Journeys

(Revised; originally published in 2014)

Although I've moved to California in the early 1980s, according to a New York Times test, I still talk like a New Yorker.  I have also held fast to a couple of New York obsessions.  As readers of this blog well know, I remain painfully devoted to the baseball team of my youth.  The other one -- less easily satisfied with a cable TV subscription -- is pizza.  For that, I have to wait for my occasional visits to New York, when I venture out to as many of the legendary pizzerias as my family will tolerate.

There was wonderful pizza in Great Neck, Long Island, where I grew up.  I preferred La Tosca, but a plausible argument could be made -- and often was -- that Scotto's was its equal.  We took great pizza for granted and it was hard to imagine it could taste any better.  But everything is better in the City, and back then the consensus was the best pizzeria in Manhattan was Ray's.  Yes, but which Ray's?

Ray's, Famous Ray's, Original Ray's or Famous Original Ray's?

Well, the first Ray's was on Prince Street in Little Italy, opened by Ralph Cuomo in 1959. Ray's closed in 2011, after a legal dispute among Cuomo's heirs.  (This is now the site of Prince Street Pizza, where the long line misleadingly suggests a stellar slice.  I found it to be just ok, with a crust had the consistency of cardboard.)  Cuomo had opened a second location on First Avenue at 59th Street, which he sold in the early 1960s to Rosolino Mangano, and which became the first of several "Famous Original Ray's."  For me, the go-to Ray's was Famous Ray's on 6th Avenue and 11th Street, opened by Mario Di Rienzo in 1973.  Famous Ray's closed in 2011, but Mario reopened in 2012, as Famous Roio's Pizza.  In the fall of 2012, I went to Famous Roio's with that wide, thin, greasy slice still embedded in my memory.  I was deeply disappointed.  Too thick with too much cheese, and nothing at all like I recalled.  Others must have felt the same.  Famous Roio's closed its doors in 2013. 

Coal Brick Ovens

Then there are the storied coal brick oven pizzerias, beginning with Lombardi's at Spring Street and Mott, which, as the plaque says, is the "First Pizzeria in the United States."  Opened by Gennaro Lombardi in 1905, the pizza at Lombardi's is truly excellent, but the restaurant -- geared for tourists -- sorely lacks atmosphere.  

Lombardi, himself, trained the next generation of pizza makers, including Antonio (Totonno) Pero, who opened Totonno's at Coney Island, John Sasso of John's of Bleecker Street, and Patsy Lancieri of Patsy's in East Harlem.  Patsy's nephew, Patsy Grimaldi, opened Grimaldi's in Brooklyn. 

These successors to Lombardi's form the pantheon of the great coal-fired brick oven pizzerias.  The ovens give the pizza a crispness and smoky flavor that cannot be duplicated -- literally.  New coal ovens are not permitted because they fail to meet New York's  environmental laws, but the old ovens, having been grandfathered in, can still be used.

In 2015, we were in NYC for Father's Day and my family asked where I wanted to go for dinner.  Without hesitation, I said Patsy's, which has been serving up pies in East Harlem since 1933 (although the Lancieri family sold the restaurant in the early 1990s).  With Sinatra watching us approvingly, we wolfed down pizza that was as close to perfection as you can get -- thin crust, slightly sweet sauce, just the right amount of cheese.

Totonno's might be even better.  It is unassuming and more down-to-earth as befits its Coney Island location, and has the feel of a family-run operation -- as it should since Totonno's grandchildren operate the place.  John's of Bleeker Street, with its wood booths and "no slices" reminder, is fabulous too. 

The walk over the Brooklyn Bridge to Grimaldi's feels like the true pilgrimage that it is.  Once you brave the line outside, the red and white checkered tablecloths, photographs of New York glitterati on the wall, and -- of course -- Sinatra on the sound system transport you back in time.  The pizza, crisp and piping hot out of the brick oven is not marred, in my view, by the fact that Patsy Grimaldi sold his interest in the restaurant in the late 1990s.  (He operates Juliana's in Grimaldi's original location a couple of doors away.)

The Old Masters

There are not too many things more sacred than personally receiving a pizza from one of the Old Masters. Sal & Carmine's is indistinguishable on the outside (or inside for that matter) from any other hole-in-the-wall pizza joint, but this hallowed place opened in 1959 on the upper West Side -- Broadway at 102nd Street -- is no run-of-the-mill pizzeria.  Sadly, Sal passed away in 2009, but his brother Carmine is still behind the counter, and served up one of the best slices I've ever had.  A bit light on sauce but with a memorable, chewy crust that is not as floppy thin as a traditional NY slice (not that there's anything wrong with that).

I dragged my family to Avenue J in the Midwood section of Brooklyn for a pie at Di Fara, which is often rated the "Best Pizza in NY."  Di Fara has been run by Dom DeMarco since 1964, and he still makes every pie personally.  Yes, every pie.  As a result, service is slow and the line outside the door is long.  When we got there in the late afternoon, DeMarco's friendly but very protective daughter came out to say they were going to close for an hour because her father needed a break.  We didn't mind the wait, and were ultimately rewarded when DeMarco, himself, took our pie out of the oven, ceremoniously cut fresh basil leaves over the top, and handed it over.  (DeMarco passed away in 2022.) 

My favorite slice in the City is from Joe's Pizza on Carmine Street in the West Village.  Joe's was opened in 1975, by Joe Pozzuoli, who still runs the business.  This is THE classic thin, wide, greasy New York slice.

Staten Island

The ferry to Staten Island is free.  Who knew?  It's a fun trip and takes you a short bus or cab ride away from Deninos, a pizzeria established in 1937.  The slices were pretty close to perfect -- bit of a salty sauce with a slightly crispy crust.  The other classic pizza place on Staten Island is Joe and Pat's.  I haven't made it there.  But I have been to Rubirosa in the Village, run by the son of Giuseppe Pappalardo, who is the "Joe" of Joe and Pat's.  The pizza is very thin, very crisp and the slices are very small.  The pizza is very, very good. 

More Modern

I usually like to go for the plain (cheese) pie or, if I'm feeling adventurous, I might add some anchovies or maybe olives or mushrooms.  At Motorino on 1st Avenue in the East Village, I had one with cherry stone clams and another with brussel sprouts.  Great choices.

On the other hand, at Paulie Gee's in Brooklyn's Greenpoint neighborhood, I should have stuck with the plain.  This place comes with a lot of hype and a pun-filled menu (e.g., Ricotta Be Kiddn' Me).  We went for the Brian De Parma (essentially a margherita) and the Greenpointer (with a salad's worth of arugula on top).  Mostly enjoyed the former, not the latter.

Speaking of Brooklyn, Roberta's in Bushwick appears to be just another hipster joint, which it is, but its pizza is serious -- truly up there with the best pizza in New York.  I see now why the New York Times features a recipe for how to make its pizza dough -- aptly described as "delicate, extraordinarily flavorful."  Wow.

The individual pies at Keste Pizza & Vino on Bleeker, and its cousin, Don Antonio by Starlita on 50th Street between 8th and 9th Avenues, are also quite good, if not up to Roberta's impossibly high standards.  Don Antonio apparently features a fried pizza, which I neglected to try.  Next time.

So Much For A Cliche'

I have been known to say that a slice on any random corner of New York is better than the best pizza elsewhere.  Unfortunately, I went to the wrong corner.  Finding myself around Times Square recently, I walked into Patzeria Perfect Pizza on W 46th Street and ordered a couple of slices. A long way from perfect. The right corner, as I later discovered, is at 8th Avenue and 31st Street, where you can get a great slice at Pizza Suprema.  And if you find yourself on the Upper East Side, go to 92nd and Second Avenue where Delizia 92 (and I would assume its other branch on 73rd Street, Delizia 73) serves a classic slice that is just about as good as it gets. 
.

New Favorite

Scarr's Pizza, on the Lower East Side, has gotten a lot of hype.  In 2023, a New Yorker article entitled "Is Scarr's The Best Pizza In New York?" essentially answered the question in the affirmative.  I may have to agree.  The crust was light and chewy without being floppy, the sauce had a pleasant tang, and the cheese -- for me, the highlight -- had a smoky, burnt-tasting je ne sais quoi that made the pie extraordinary.

To Be Continued

A Republic, If You Can Keep It

It’s been pretty easy to take our democracy and its constitutionally-guaranteed rights for granted. Unlike our Western allies, we have never seriously been threatened or occupied by a foreign power. So, there’s a sense of security -- invincibility, really -- that other countries don’t share. Moreover, we, as a nation, have long bought into the myth that we really are the land of the free and home of the brave. We have never come to grips with our wholesale denial of human rights, much less civil rights, to wide swaths of our population for most of our existence. Obviously, and most egregiously, is the utter resistance to a meaningful reckoning -- through a truth & reconciliation commission or any genuine consideration of reparations -- with the genocide of native peoples and the fact that our country’s wealth and power were built -- literally -- on the backs of enslaved people, whose descendants continued to be brutalized and denied equal rights. There was the imprisonment of anti-war protestors during World War I. There was the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. There was McCarthyism. There was the FBI’s infiltration of the civil rights and anti-war movements. There was the widespread wiretapping after 9/11. The list goes on. But when our government has overreached, we routinely refuse to ensure accountability. The assumption has always been that there’s no need -- that our constitutional democracy is resilient enough to be pulled back from the brink. So, Ford pardoned Nixon. Bush I pardoned those responsible for Iran Contra. Obama determined not to hold Bush II accountable for torture and the aforementioned wire-tapping. 

And so here we are. We keep hoping that somehow, this time will be different. It feels different.  Trump’s unrelenting malfeasance has been so blatant, so utterly indefensible. Unjust enrichment. Financial fraud. Rape. Insurrection. Stealing classified documents. Surely, in a democratic nation such as ours justice will be done.  

Yet despite multiple indictments, it looks increasingly likely that Trump will be able to hold off going to trial on most of the cases against him until after an election that, if he wins, will empower him to make it all go away. We can thank the right-wing takeover of the Supreme Court. But also, there’s Biden’s ill-fated appointment of the ponderous Merrick Garland as Attorney General, who predictably slow walked the investigation of January 6. There are, of course, Trump’s enablers in the Republican Party, who rely on minority rule, and therefore believe they must cling to his coattails to stay in power.  

And, critically, there are the Democrats – with their fetish for bipartisanship and compulsion to stay above the fray, who have completely abdicated from exposing and highlighting Trump’s past perfidies as well as the existential danger he poses if he returns to power. As always, they have ceded the narrative to the Republicans. Which is just fine with the mainstream press, which has yet to grapple with how to cover politics where one of the two candidates is a demented fascist, and one of the two political parties is facilitating a Christian theocracy. It maddeningly continues to focus on the odds, not the stakes, obsessing about Biden’s age, while ignoring Trump’s incoherent rambling and his all-too-coherent plan for mass deportations, the replacement of civil servants with loyalists, and taking revenge on his political enemies. 

It is long past time to recognize that our democracy has always been fleeting and fragile, and that Trump and his Party are eager to sweep it all away.  

It Can Happen Here -- It Is Happening Here

Why, America's the only free nation on earth.  Besides!  Country's too big for a revolution.  No, no!  Couldn't happen here!  -- Sinclair Lewis

Whether or not you approve of President Biden, he is not going to destroy the pillars of democracy.  Say whatever you want about him, he is not a fascist.  Yes, it's a low bar, but this is why he must be re-elected.  Republican Party officials are through with democracy.  From voter suppression to gutting fundamental rights, they are all in on or (to give some the benefit of the doubt) are afraid to oppose a white, Christian, patriarchal society controlled from the top.  They keep telling us this.  But we continue to treat them as a legitimate political party merely with different policy goals.  This is how democracies die.  

This is why it is so dangerous to entertain third party candidates who (as we have seen before) can help Republicans win office.  This is why the mainstream media must eschew both reflexive bothsidesism and the compulsion to view Republican proposals through the prism of "the horserace" rather than report on their disastrous impact.  And, most importantly, this is why the Democratic Party needs to make clear to voters -- every day -- what kind of government the Republican Party envisions for this country.

The United States has been a stable democracy that has withstood a civil war, constitutional crises, and, most recently, an insurrection.  We take for granted that we will always be a democracy with three co-equal branches of government, even as we see the Supreme Court going rogue, the House being taken over by MAGA extremists, and Trump's first term (and attempted coup) not that far in the rearview mirror.  But what will happen if Trump (or some reasonable facsimile) wins in 2024?  We don't have to guess.

As Masha Gessen wrote in November 2016, "Trump is the first candidate in memory who ran not for president but for autocrat—and won."  In her remarkably prescient piece, "Autocracy: Rules for Survival," Gessen gave us a set of rules necessary to defend the laws, the institutions, and the ideals on which this country is based.  The first rule: "Believe the Autocrat."  As we are now all too familiar, Trump relentlessly spews ignorant and malevolent nonsense that one would not expect from any rational human being, much less the purported leader of the free world.  Gessen stressed back then that while it is human nature to assume he was exaggerating and to reach for a rationalization, it was critical to believe that he meant what he said.  We barely survived one term.  

And here we go again.  Trump and members of his Republican Party keep telling us what they plan to do if they seize control of the executive branch.  They publicly extoll as their model for electoral success and governance none other than Hungary's Victor Orban.  As Heather Cox Richardson describes it, Republicans have disavowed the fundamental tenets of democracy -- "equality before the law, free speech, academic freedom, a market-based economy, immigration," which they believe "weaken a nation by destroying a 'traditional' society based in patriarchy and Christianity."  Instead, they prefer Orban's "“illiberal” or “Christian” democracy, which uses the government to enforce their beliefs in a Christian, patriarchal order."  This is not a secret.

Then there's DeSantis, Trump's competition, who is experimenting with his own version of a mini-fascist state in Florida.  He recently announced the activation of a State Guard, purportedly to aid in disaster relief, but which is apparently being trained as a heavily militarized force.  And, as Cox Richardson reminds us, "DeSantis has pushed through laws that ban abortion after six weeks, before most people know they’re pregnant; banned classroom instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity (the “Don’t Say Gay” law); prevented recognition of transgender individuals; made it easier to sentence someone to death; allowed people to carry guns without training or permits; banned colleges and businesses from conversations about race; exerted control over state universities; made it harder for his opponents to vote, and tried to punish Disney World for speaking out against the Don’t Say Gay law. After rounding up migrants and sending them to other states, DeSantis recently has called for using “deadly force” on migrants crossing unlawfully."  This is not a secret.

An explosive article in the New York Times this week (with a typically tepid headline: Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025) essentially describes Trump's plan to become dictator if he wins the next election (or is otherwise able to seize power).  It is beyond alarming.  It describes Trump's plan to “to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House."  Again, this is not a secret.  

The plan couldn't be more clear: (1) bring independent agencies (like the FTC and FCC) under direct presidential control; (2) revive the practice of “impounding” funds (i.e., refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress) -- which was banned after Nixon abused; (3) strip employment protections from tens of thousands of career civil servants, making it easier to replace them if they are deemed obstacles to the Trump agenda and remove officials from intelligence agencies, the State Department, and the defense bureaucracies who, according to Trump, "hate our country."  Russell T. Vought, who ran the Office of Management and Budget in the Trump White House says of the plan: "what we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them.” 

Yes, it can happen here. 

Investigate, Prosecute, "Lock Him Up"

For years I've regarded his very existence as a monument to all the rancid genes and broken chromosomes that corrupt the possibilities of the American Dream; he was a foul caricature of himself, a man with no soul, no inner convictions, with the integrity of a hyena and the style of a poison toad.”  -- Hunter S. Thompson (on Richard Nixon)

When President Ford pardoned Richard Nixon for "all offenses against the United States," he stated that it was out of concern for the "immediate future of this great country."  Next came Iran-Contra, which culminated in the pardon by the first President Bush (with the support of then-Attorney General Barr) of several key participants who had been indicted and whose trials would likely have dispelled the notion that Bush was, as he claimed, "out of the loop."  More recently, President Obama refused to seek any investigation of Bush II's "War on Terror," despite substantial evidence that wiretapping laws were broken and torture was authorized at the highest levels.  Much like President Ford, Obama claimed that “nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past.” 

And now that the end is nigh for the malevolent orange shit-gibbon, there are the frustratingly familiar calls for abstaining from investigating and prosecuting the myriad acts of abuse of power and corruption that have marked this horrid presidency from Day One.  The argument goes that we should be grateful that we are rid of this "mentally deranged U.S. dotard," as dear leader Kim Jong-un calls his dear friend  -- that, in the words of President Ford, "our long national nightmare is over." 

Accordingly, we are supposed to maintain our democratic cred by not engaging in political retribution against those who have lost power.  Further, given the immediate attention needed to address the economic, environmental and, most urgently, public health, disasters that will have been left in the disastrous wake of this disastrous presidency, we must, as President Obama said about his predecessor, "look forward as opposed to looking backwards." 

In The Atlantic, my old high school classmate (and favorite Republican), Paul Rosenzweig, gamely tried to thread the needle, arguing that any investigation and prosecution of Trump should be limited to his conduct before and after his presidency, and that declining to pursue him for his actions as president is "the price we pay for the routine peaceful transition of power."  In Rosenzweig's view, going after Trump for his acts as president would result in an "ever-escalating cycle of retribution," with each administration prosecuting its opponents -- that "indicting one former president risks making a habit of doing so, and reducing America to little more than a revolving-door banana republic."  As Rosenzweig put it, if we think "lock her up" is wrong to say about Hillary Clinton, then "lock him up" is equally improper.  

First, the notion that Democrats should not launch legitimate investigations into the most corrupt administration in history out of fear that Republicans would respond in kind once they are again in control of the White House assumes, wrongly, that the GOP is not a nihilistic, anti-majoritarian cabal.  The modern Republican Party is not constrained by civility or norms or any notion of decency.  As Mitch McConnell made clear in completing his theft of the Supreme Court, the GOP will always put party over country and wield whatever power they can, while they still can.  Indeed, if they manage to hold onto the Senate, stay tuned for their shameless obstruction of Biden's efforts to restore the economy or deal responsibly with COVID or climate change, their refusal to pass any meaningful legislation or confirm judicial and executive nominees, and their bogus investigations of Hunter Biden and others in order to sabotage the new Administration. The Pelosi/Schumer/Feinstein non-confrontational approach (e.g., limited investigations, narrowly-drawn impeachment, docile SCOTUS confirmation opposition) does nothing but embolden Republicans, who know that Democrats default to compromise and appeasement.    

Second, there is a world of difference between fevered cult-inspired cries at Trump rallies for locking up Hillary Clinton, who was never found to have committed any criminal wrongdoing, with the reasonable investigation and pursuit of justice in response to the unprecedented level of corruption committed by, what Sarah Kendzior so aptly calls, "a transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government."  

 

Rosenzweig agrees that the tax and mortgage fraud, campaign finance violations, and sexual assaults that occurred pre-presidency are all fair game.  But he would stop there, although he concedes that "the discretionary policy of not prosecuting an ex-president for acts committed while in office ... would have to yield in extreme cases."  But if this isn't an extreme case, I'm hard pressed to imagine what would be.  Trump's pervasive malfeasance as president has been far more egregious and has posed a far greater threat to our nation than anything he did before he slithered into office.  

Under normal circumstances it is certainly not ideal to go after a leader who has been justly defeated in a popular election.  BUT THESE ARE NOT NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES.  There has never been a more corrupt president and the bill of particulars grows larger every day.  Indeed, we have only recently learned about Trump's interference with a criminal case against a state-owned Turkish bank at the urging of Turkey's authoritarian leader and presumably so as not to jeopardize Trump business interests there.  More details are emerging about Trump's unfettered self-enrichment while in office and reports of millions of dollars that taxpayers have paid to Trump-owned entities.  He appears to have worked with Russian disinformation operations to taint his opponent, used the resources of the government in his reelection campaign and undermined the efficacy of the Post Office to thwart the timely arrival of mail-in ballots.  And he's got a couple of months to do even more damage.

There has been a disturbing pattern of Republican Administrations, beginning with Nixon, to engage in abuse of power, violate of the Constitution and federal law, and break formerly-sacrosanct norms.  Each time we are persuaded it would be unseemly and undemocratic to hold them accountable. This has led us to this moment and to this presidency.  

And as Kendzior recently lamented: 

The current American crisis is in part due to those officials who refused to curb Mr. Trump’s worst behaviour. When organized crime hijacks government, officials must act aggressively, transparently, and immediately. They cannot waste time like Robert Mueller did with his plodding, placating probe. They cannot “impeach at the ballot box,” which Nancy Pelosi – a staunch opponent of impeachment until she buckled to pressure from her colleagues and the public – suggested throughout 2019. They cannot go by the book when the book is burning.

We need to hold Trump, his family and his cronies accountable because their brazen wrongdoing demands it.  But we also have to come to grips with how easy it was for this "fascist carnival barker" to undermine our system of government.  All it took was a political party willing to follow him in lock step and a compliant media that normalized his pathology.  And so, a full accounting of all the ways our institutions have been corrupted is essential so we can figure out how to better protect the nation from the next wannabe kleptocrat -- one who may not be as clownish and incompetent as this one.  

Remembering Tom Seaver

"There is actually a good argument that Tom Seaver should be regarded as the greatest pitcher of all time ... Seaver pitched for eight losing teams, several of them really terrible, and four other teams which had losing records except when Seaver was on the mound."  —Bill James, The New Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract, 2001

Tom Seaver passed away today.  2020 keeps getting worse.  This piece was written in March 2019, when it was announced that Tom was suffering from dementia.  RIP to my childhood hero.

For Met fans of a certain vintage -- those old enough to have rejoiced in the first of (only) two Met championships -- Tom Seaver will forever hold a special place in our hearts.  We love everyone from that team -- from the key players (Cleon Jones, Tommie Agree, Donn Clendenon, Jerry Koosman) to the more obscure (Rod Gaspar, Duffy Dyer, Jim McAndrew).  But Tom Seaver was on a different level altogether.

He wasn't just a great Met.  He was one of the greatest pitchers in Major League history.  And he was ours.  His pitching form was a thing of beauty -- both powerful and graceful.  He was called "The Franchise" because of how he transformed the Mets' identity, from a joke -- albeit a lovable one -- to World Series winner (until they became a less lovable joke once again).  He did it with his brilliant pitching and with his no-nonsense, brash professionalism. 

I treasured pretty much every start in those years -- watching on a black & white TV or listening on the radio or, occasionally, getting to see him live at Shea.  I would check out the box score in the paper the next day and diligently recalculate his E.R.A. after every game he pitched.

We all have our favorite Tom Seaver memory.  For many it is his near perfect game against the Cubs in 1969 or the 10-inning complete game victory in Game #4 of the 69 Series or any of the over 60 shutouts in which he simply dominated opposing hitters.  My favorite memory is being at Shea Stadium on April 22, 1970, when he tied what was then a record of 19 strikeouts in a game and set a record for striking out the last 10 hapless Padres hitters in a row.  Simply epic.

Yes, he changed the perception of the Mets, but even with the miraculous World Series win in 1969, they remained a feeble-hitting team (some things never change), and Seaver had to consistently pitch flawlessly to keep his team in games, often losing heartbreakers 2-1 or 1-0.  (Jake deGrom can relate -- but try doing it for a decade.)  Typical was 1971, when he led the league in ERA (1.76) and strikeouts (289 in 286 innings), pitched 21 complete games and still lost 10 games, going 20-10.   Had Seaver played with a decent team for the bulk of his career, his remarkable numbers would be off the charts.

And as a recent New York Time article pointed out, in stark contrast to the current game, where starting pitchers rarely go more than six or seven innings, Seaver excelled in finishing what he started, getting even better as the game wore on.  His lifetime ERA in the last three innings was 2.75, and in 1969, he pitched in the ninth inning 17 times without giving up a run.

Seaver continued to pitch brilliantly for a mostly awful team, and then, on June 15, 1977, came the "Midnight Massacre" -- the worst in a very long list of dismal management decisions.  The penurious Mets refused to renegotiate Seaver's contract and shipped him off to the Cincinnati Reds for a collection of mediocre players.  I attended his return to New York, where, looking positively surreal  in a Reds' uniform, he faced off against his old teammate and fan favorite, Jerry Koosman.  Along with the rest of the crowd, I was cheering for Seaver, who beat the Mets that day.   

Seaver continued his great career as a Red, including the strike-shortened season in 1981, when he led the league with 14 wins and came in second in the Cy Young voting.  And then came some measure of redemption.  Seaver was traded back to the Mets for the 1983 season.  It was indescribable to see him pitch a shutout on Opening Day.  But at 38 years old, it didn't seem he had much left.  He didn't have a great year -- and neither did the Mets -- but with Seaver wearing his familiar number 41, the Mets seemed like a team on the rise, with promising young pitchers, a Rookie of the Year in Darryl Strawberry, and the acquisition of Keith Hernandez.

But it was not to be. The Mets would have to rise without Seaver.  Incredibly, before the 1984 season began, the Mets left the 40-year old Seaver off the protected list, assuming no other team would want him.  The White Sox quickly scooped him up, leaving Met fans distraught once again.  Seaver won 15 games for the White Sox in 1984 and 16 in 1985, including his 300th.  In 1986, he finished an injury-plagued season with the Red Sox.  (A bad knee prevented him from playing against the Mets in the World Series.)

The Mets tried to atone once more, hoping to bring Seaver back to the Big Apple to finish his storied career where it began.  But after pitching a few exhibition games in June 1987, Seaver realized he had nothing left and announced his retirement. 

3 Cy Young Awards -- and deserving of at least another in 1971, 311 wins, 61 shutouts, 3,640 strikeouts and a 2.86 E.R.A.  In 1992, he was inducted into the Hall of Fame.  A career of remarkable moments and incredible milestones marred only by stupid, short-sighted management decisions -- including, more recently, the failure to honor Seaver with a statue at Citi Field. 

In devastating news, it was announced yesterday that Tom Seaver is suffering from dementia.  His family announced he will no longer make public appearances.  As the Mets gear up for the 50th anniversary of the 1969 team, his out-sized presence as a Met icon, a baseball legend, and a childhood hero to so many of us will be felt even more deeply and the memories he's given us will be held even more tightly.

Kamala's People

Originally posted Jan. 29, 2019

I met Kamala Harris about 15 years ago and she was very impressive. I was on the board of an anti-death penalty organization that gave her an award when she was the San Francisco D.A. for courageously refusing to seek the death penalty in a cop-killing case despite intense political pressure (Sen. Feinstein pushed for the death penalty at the officer's funeral!)  She was not only extremely personally engaging but she also gave a powerful speech about how the resources spent on death penalty cases could be better spent to ensure public safety. 

But as California's Attorney General she was a disappointment.  As did her predecessors (including Jerry Brown), Harris essentially deferred to the deputy AGs in the death penalty unit, who vigorously defended every death penalty case, no matter how suspect.  Under Harris's watch, the AG's office used every procedural technicality to prevent the courts from considering the underlying merits of cases, defended truly egregious cases of prosecutorial misconduct, refused to acknowledge cases of actual innocence, and vigorously appealed a federal court decision that found the death penalty law unconstitutional.  Harris also refused to support California ballot propositions that sought to reform the  criminal justice and replace the death penalty with life without parole.

Harris claims to have been a progressive prosecutor, but that phrase is really something of an oxymoron.  In my three decades as a defender of death row inmates, I admit to a long-standing bias against prosecutors who, generally, seem to care more about securing convictions than doing justice.  Even the more thoughtful or "progressive" ones still by and large see the criminal justice system as fair and just -- despite the overwhelming disparity in resources between the government and the defendant, and despite the built in bias against the poor and people of color.  And they view the way to solve society's ills through the prism of the criminal justice system, as Harris's history of threatening parents with prosecution for their children's truancy when she was D.A. suggests.

By using the slogan "Kamala Harris for the People" for her presidential campaign, Harris is explicitly linking her history as a prosecutor to her strengths as a candidate.  But the phrase "for the People" is a fraught one, as least from a criminal defender perspective -- after all, my clients were people too.  A prosecutor really represents an agency within the government.  But invoking the phrase "for the People' implies something different; it misleadingly suggests that the community at large wholly supports the prosecution of a given defendant, providing an unfair rhetorical advantage from the get go.

So, I don't buy the progressive prosecutor thing.  But at the same time, I find Harris to be an extraordinarily compelling candidate.  She is brilliant, a dynamic presence and a compelling speaker.  She is fearless and has put her prosecutorial skills to great use on the Judiciary Committee, where she skewered Trump nominees, from Jeff Sessions to Brett Kavanaugh.  She is unabashedly and consistently taking progressive positions on health care, climate change, immigration, equality and even criminal justice reform.  And the zeitgeist calls for a woman -- and a woman of color -- to run for president against an incumbent and a political party that have fully succumbed to misogyny and white nationalism.  And, at least according to Nate Silver, she appeals to the widest coalition of Democratic voters at this point.

I'm not sure how to reconcile Harris's history and her candidacy -- but I'm not sure I have to.  After all, there is not a candidate seeking or thinking about seeking the presidency who isn't flawed.  Indeed, our search for ideological purity last time is no small reason why we are where we are.   So although I'm wary of the embrace of a prosecutor's perspective as Harris's slogan suggests, I will support whoever has the best chance to take back the White House.  It's early, but it very well might be Kamala Harris.

Super Tuesday Post Mortem

So if you leave with only one thing, it must be this: Choose to fight only righteous fights, because then when things get tough — and they will — you will know that there is only one option ahead of you. Nevertheless, you must persist.  -- Elizabeth Warren, March 5, 2020

With the notable exception of Barack Obama, no one I've supported to win the Democratic primary has ever won it (except for George McGovern when I was 12 -- and that didn't turn out so well).  And here I am again.  Elizabeth Warren is/was my candidate -- and Barack included, I have never felt more passionate about a candidate or believed more strongly about their strength, brilliance, competence and sincerity -- ever.  I think she not only could have crushed the malevolent orange shit-gibbon in the general election (like she unmercifully fileted Bloomberg), but would have gone on to be a great president. (See Why Elizabeth Warren Would Be The Best President)

As Rebecca Solnit put it: "Perhaps Warren's greatest strength is her commitment to listening and listening to many constituencies; she is a candidate speeding up the journey of ideas by making space to hear and plans that respond to what she heard. By shortening the distance between the grassroots and the center of power." Jodi Jacobson is right:  Warren is "once in a lifetime. She not only knows how to wield power, she is unafraid of doing so. She knows how government works and has worked it to our advantage. She has moral clarity. She has the best plans for addressing debt, bank corruption, corporate corruption, government corruption, climate crises, race and class analyses, the goddamn coronavirus epidemic and everything else you can imagine. SHE GETS SHIT DONE."

Despite all this Warren couldn't seem to gain traction, particularly on what should be the most compelling issue facing the country -- corruption and the erosion of democracy in the Age of Trump.  I wholeheartedly agree with her that we can't address other critical issues from climate change to gun control until we deal with the corrosive effects of corruption in Washington and the corrupting power of wealth.  But, alas, it is not to be.  There were perhaps some strategic missteps, but I think it was a combination of a whole lot of misogyny, a panic-stricken electorate fleeing to the perceived safety of the center, an "establishment" -- in the media and the Party -- that reinforced the nonsensical (and misogynist) concept of "electability," and the mainstream media's incomprehensible erasure of her that doomed her candidacy.

Charles Pierce nails it:  "This is not a country that is ready for what she called, endlessly, 'big, structural change.'  This is a country fearful of any kind of change at all, a country longing for a simpler time—which, these days, does not mean the flush 1950s or the pastoral 1850s, but 2015. The election of Donald Trump has lodged in so many minds a longing for the status quo ante that there’s no room for intelligent experimentation."  As Pierce says, "we have been rendered such a timorous people that even someone as open and lively and welcoming as Elizabeth Warren was considered too much of a risk."  She will, of course, remain a formidable leader and critical progressive voice, but I will always feel an enormous sense of loss for what could and should have been.

I've liked Bernie since he was first elected mayor when I was a senior in college in Burlington, VT.  I wrote admirably about him on this blog ten years ago.  (See Vermont's Finest)  He has an inspiring, compelling message about inequality that should resonate across multiple demographics.  But as Tuesday demonstrated, he doesn't seem able to expand his base to include African Americans -- the most critical of Democratic voters (although he has impressively garnered support from Latinx communities) -- and his key strategy of energizing new, young voters seems to be flailing.  And, yes, his abusive, divisive supporters, including those who have official positions high in the campaign, are dangerously alienating wide swaths of progressive-minded people.

But that leaves Biden -- who I still can't believe has parlayed Jim Clyburn's South Carolina endorsement into front-runner status.  The dude can rarely complete a coherent thought, much less a sentence.  How bizarre that all those debates I suffered through in which he seemed so tired and lost didn't matter. (I want those hours back.)  He barely campaigned, instead relying on Obama's coattails (notwithstanding Obama's silence) -- and it's fucking working.  I think he's an awful candidate who is not only cognitively compromised but has never really reckoned with much of his record, in particular, his unforgivable performance as chair of the Judiciary Committee that humiliated Anita Hill and put Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court. (See Joe Biden's "Apology" To Anita Hill Is Too Little, Too Late And Too Lame).  I believe he is dangerously naive when it comes to the perfidy of the Republican Party, which is baffling given he was Obama's Vice President when Merrick Garland was denied a confirmation vote, not to mention their continued bad-faith Ukraine investigation.

I feel that those who are certain that Biden is the most electable candidate were also sure that Hillary Clinton would win, as would John Kerry and Al Gore.  Are we really going to do this again?  Are we really going to choose our nominee based on fear.  It shows a remarkable lack of imagination, a failure to understand that we are living in a far different world than we were living in even four years ago.  We need someone who can capture the zeitgeist, energize voters and articulate why Trump is such a danger to our survival.  I seriously doubt that person is Joe Biden, who just wants to return us an imagined normalcy -- to the halcyon days of bipartisanship and smoked-filled rooms.  Maybe it could be Bernie Sanders, but he still hasn't shown the ability to embrace a wider constituency.  But what the fuck do I know?

I do know that it is critical that the nominee, whoever it is, must pick a running mate who can actually capture the zeitgeist -- someone who can begin to transform the Party away from one that is still led by old white men.  It needs to be a woman.  It needs to be a person of color.  It needs to be someone who is brilliant and vibrant and progressive.  Stacey Abrams seems the obvious choice.  I could get excited about that.  I'm sure there are others.

At bottom, we need to enthusiastically support whoever the candidate is, no matter how flawed.  No more of this purity bullshit.  (See #NeverNader: A Reminder About The Perils Of Purity)  Yes, I love Elizabeth Warren.  I do not love Bernie or Biden.  But it doesn't matter.  It's time to retire that tired old cliche about how Democrats fall in love, but Republicans fall in line.  We don't have to love them.  We have to get in line and do whatever we can to win in November.

The Democratic Presidential Candidates Need To Unite Behind Common Principles

Viewers watching the recent network-sponsored debates, with the focus on spectacle and conflict, could be forgiven for failing to absorb a key point missing from most of the coverage:  The Democrats generally agree on the goals for the United States that align with the majority of Americans, although they may not fully agree on how to reach them.  But it is the Republican Party and their leader who are dangerously out of touch.  It is they who are embracing white nationalism, condoning the separation of families at the border, reversing efforts to combat climate change and failing to reckon with the Russian attack on our elections.

There is plenty of time for the Democratic candidates to highlight their differences and challenge each other's policies and vision.  But not now.  These are not normal times and this is not a normal election.  We are facing an existential crisis and the Democrats need to unite to demonstrate, collectively, what is at stake.  They should sign a statement of common principles in order to illustrate the stark differences between the two parties on fundamental principles that often get muddied in the daily discourse.  Such a document would demonstrate why the 2020 election is so critical.

Perhaps something like this:

1.  We condemn white nationalism, and Trump's rhetoric that has emboldened a white nationalist movement.  We support common sense gun control reform, including mandatory background checks and banning assault-style weapons.  

2.  We believe in the urgency of addressing global climate change and the irrefutable science that warns of the dire consequences of inaction.  We support rejoining the Paris Climate Accords immediately, and taking meaningful and substantial steps to reduce fossil fuel consumption in the United States.

3.  We are horrified by the cruelty of Trump's immigration policies which have led -- and continue to lead -- to the needless and tragic separation of families at our southern border, and have imposed extreme hardship and trauma on those seeking escape from violence and injustice in their home countries.  We support immigration reform that will protect our borders while ensuring that those seeking political asylum and refugee status are provided with a safe, fair and timely process.

4.  We believe in a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body, including the right to have an abortion.  We strongly oppose efforts by Republican lawmakers at the state and federal level to undermine Roe v. Wade, and place obstacles in the way of women -- particularly poor women -- seeking abortions.   We will pursue policies to ensure full access to abortion rights and reproductive health for all women. 

5.  We may differ on the details, but we believe that health care is a human right and oppose Republican attempts to sabotage Obamacare, including their pursuit of a federal lawsuit that would eliminate insurance for pre-existing conditions.  We all believe in policies aimed at expanding, not reducing, health care coverage for all Americans.

6.  United States intelligence agencies and the Mueller investigation have documented Russia's interference in our elections, which we consider an attack on our country.  Special Counsel Mueller has warned in his recent testimony that this remains a serious threat for 2020.  Yet, the president refuses to acknowledge it and the Senate Majority Leader refuses to allow bills on election integrity and security to come to the Senate floor for a vote.  We believe it is urgent to safeguard democracy by implementing immediately the measures that passed the House of Representatives.  In addition, we support efforts to stop voter suppression schemes, gerrymandering, and the proliferation of dark money that have undermined the time-honored principle of one person, one vote.

7.  The President of the United States has committed several documented instances of obstruction of justice that impeded the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference with the 2016 election.  He was not indicted because of a Department of Justice policy that bars indictment of a sitting president.  That policy must be re-examined.  He also has refused to release his tax returns or divest from his many business entanglements with private and foreign interests. He and his administration are stone-walling legitimate attempts at Congressional oversight.   Trump's conduct is rife with conflicts of interest and he has lied to the American people over 10,000 times, according to a study by the Washington Post.  There has never been a more corrupt president and we believe it is far past time to restore dignity and the rule of law to the presidency.