There is always the temptation to engage in the stall show when
can fronting the difficulties and disappointments of present times. There
certainly can be no doubt that there are plenty of those these days. Of the two
major presidential contenders one is an egomaniac and the other is blatantly
incompetent.
There has been a transformation in recent decades as to what the
term "debate" means. It used
to be (as I know from my days on my school debate team) a contest as to whom
could bring the best argument for or against a particular policy position. Did
you hear anything of that sort last week? What you actually witnessed was a
beauty pageant. The winner was the one who appeared more attractive in looks
and manner and best filled the role the viewers desired.
So, when one hears CNN broadcasters claim that Harris "crushed" Donald Trump, it's laughable. Yes, she won the beauty (appearance) contest but that's all. No one, outside of the VP's cadre and fawning media members, commended her intellectual acuity or verbal performance.
Pollsters were probably startled when they reviewed the results of
a national poll which asked: "are you extremely proud to be an
American?".
59% of Republicans and 34% of Democrats said yes. Perhaps the disparity was to be expected since those on the left have been, for some time, less enthusiastic about their country with some even expressing anti-American sentiments.
But 41% of the GOP are not "extremely proud"? Now that to one, such as myself who considers American patriotism a part of his DNA, is a shocker.
Of course these are difficult times in our society. Our many common values and interests seemingly are overshadowed by political divisions and hostility toward fellow countrymen with opposing views.
The decline in patriotism is not merely a noteworthy fact reflecting changing American beliefs. It has real-world consequences as the recent military recruitment shortfall attests. If you don't love your country, why volunteer to fight for it? Are voters less inclined to support America's foreign policy aims to protect our as well as the broader Free World's interests such as resisting Russian and Chinese aggression?
[Ironically so-called populist Republicans may very well be a large segment of the GOP who aren't extremely proud. Their leader paints a dark picture of America today and isolationism is favorably viewed. The irony is the claim of staunch pro-Americanism.]
What is happening? The antagonism by some Americans against their country has been festering for some time. Remember the support from many when, in 2016, Colin Kaepernick "took a knee" during the national anthem being sung at a 49ers football game? Is an educational system that highlights America's failures over its accomplishments to blame? Does a media which focuses on the shortcomings of America play a role?
How can the decline be reversed? Experience tells us that we are a people who rally around the flag when the country is threatened. 9/11 comes to mind. Should patriots welcome a national disaster? Of course not. But, history enlightens us, America will not escape future national calamities. Hatred and envy will continue to motivate our enemies from without.
Confronting our adversaries will indeed reverse patriotism's decline. Reigniting a love for America before-hand will cause us to be better prepared to win however. A strong national defense, including necessary levels of military recruitment, require broad backing (as in increased spending) from a patriotic nation. We need leaders who not only believe in the future of our nation but proudly proclaim that for all to hear.
The media – both sides – self-righteously
edit obscenities, racial slurs and crude language by deleting letters to avoid
using the entire word or expression.
Donald Trump is insecure as a person in so many ways. An example is his denigration of his
opponents. By doing so, he assures
himself that he is better than they are.
After all, he tells himself, he must be more intelligent since he
succeeds where they don’t.
So, Trump holds a rally in Georgia and decides to use that
forum to attack the very popular state governor Brian Kemp for his failure to
assist in the effort to overturn the election results of 2020.
Is Trump really that stupid?
Georgia is one of those swing states whose support is vital
to Trump’s victory in November. Gov.
Kemp has pledged his support. That
endorsement in valuable since the governor has a high approval rating.
Obviously, the smart move by Trump would have been to
praise – not pummel – the governor. To
let “bygones be bygones” is beyond his capacity however… That observation
brings us back to Trump’s insecurities.
The former president almost always speaks in terms of exaggeration and
hyperbole. Thus, the stupidity displayed
in Georgia brings into question his own intelligence level since his
self-assessment rates it highly.
The
consensus among most liberal politicians and media commentators was that Gov.
Shapiro of Pennsylvania was the obvious and best possible pick as the VP running mate for Comley
Harris. He was considered relatively moderate (by liberal standards), a popular
leader and likely to attract more support for the ticket in his home state. But
he was Jewish and pro-Israel. That apparently generated resistance to his
candidacy among young voters and members
of the left-wing.
They were wrong.
The reasoning behind the choice of Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is unclear. "Good vibes", whatever that means, has been suggested by many. The fact that he was not Jewish is not cited as an explanation. Given the apparent opposition among the far left and young, that may or may not have been an explanation for the political decision. Unfortunately, the Harris campaign ill-served the country regardless of the preselection considerations.
Choosing Gov. Shapiro would have been a clear declaration of opposition to anti-Semitism. Sure, those of that bias would be angry and that reaction would have had negative political consequences. But the net electoral effect might have been – in Pennsylvania anyway – positive.
But forget the political (if possible) for a moment. He would have been the right choice for the Democrats. It would have been a message to the country that a Jew should be treated no differently than any other American. That truth would survive the election results. Implicitly stating it would have been a credit to the Democratic Party.
The fact that Gov. Shapiro was not named certainly doesn't prove the presence of anti-Semitic considerations. But it does leave open speculation – and thoughts of conspiracy – for just such things.
The Democrats did indeed blow their chance to make a clear statement for the country and possibly benefit politically.
Older people – and I acknowledge my status with few regrets – have
long deplored the ways of younger generations. I certainly remember the
disapproval of elders for the young when I was in that category.
When I suggest – as I do – that these are the worst of times for American society and its politics, I recognize that I may simply be displaying generational displeasure.
Good times are here when we feel happy together about national successes (WWII victory) or united in sorrow (9/11) but determined to mend. We stand as one people.
Bad times are present when major forces within threaten to tear us asunder.
As old as I am (hint - I've been following, and been active in, politics since I was a teenager, some 50 years ago), I objectively report that these times are the worst I've seen. We don’t get along
We Americans are not only at each other's throats, we are losing respect for our country, viewing the other side as in control. This seems comparable to the rhetoric and passions of the Vietnam era of the 1960s. But those subsided with the US withdrawal. The period was seen by most as an aberration from more civil times.
And then the Internet landed on the general scene.
Civility began to slide again. Language was particularly crude, obscene and vulgar because of the anonymity of the exchange. Eventually, giving offense seemingly became the object online. Hiding the sender’s identity no longer seemed necessary (speak your mind!). The vile exchanges, if anything, only increased.
It is a truism that society leads the way and the political class adopts society’s mores. Thus, in 2024, politicians both male and female utter out loud obscenities which were previously considered unacceptable even when used in private [remember the disapproval of Richard Nixon's recording tapes which merited the label "explicative deleted"?].
This change is well illustrated by Nancy Mace, a young conservative Republican Congresswoman from South Carolina, who spews obscenities on live TV. (The genteel South is no more?)
Such conduct would have been strongly condemned not that many years ago as violations of good manners and social mores (why give needless offense?) enforced by the broad society.
Not anymore. Our society's response is relativistic – who are we to judge?
Those of us who believe that standards of decorum should be in force for the good of society, that's who.
Words convey emotions and attitude. Hostile words often lead to angry responses and hostile reactions. Is violence, including assassination efforts, a surprising consequence?
And we wonder why so many of us hate the other side.
These are the worst of times.
Of course, the simple answer, and I suggest the correct one, is the 20-year-old shot dead on the Pennsylvania rooftop.
Apparently, the person was registered as a Republican but made a modest contribution to a left-wing organization. There is no evidence that he was other than a lone wolf whose motivation was unclear (as this is written).
So why is this attempted assassination being treated as if it's more than it appears – an isolated action by a single individual?
The immediate and almost instantaneous verdict is this was the product of America's deep polarization where members of each side hate their opposition.
While the divide is certainly real and intense, it can't be blamed for the conduct of a lone wolf.
Of course, the name-calling by Democrat leaders that Trump is a fascist and enemy of democracy causes a hostile reaction from his supporters in the same fashion that the former president's attacks on his foes as enemies of America do.
Leave aside whether either set of allegations are true, they are political speech. Are such statements to be discouraged because hearing them may inflame violent actions? (If, however, such verbal attacks are demagogic it is simply irresponsible to utter them knowing their possible effect on a few of 330 million Americans.)
Yes, many of America's leaders contribute to the polarization of politics in a way that transforms the view of opponents into enemies. That cannot be good for democracy which needs a commitment to shared values to survive.
But America, our system of government, is not responsible for the few loons who choose to kill in support of their apparent political objectives.
[Postscript-- the positive of the universal condemnation of
America's deep political division, implicitly the cause of the shooting, is the
likely dampening, if not reversal, of bipartisan anger. That would be a good thing.
There is (or used to be) a myth
among the general population that people get involved in politics to offer
public service. Idealistic high school civics classes are probably the main
reason for that view. While it is not entirely false, the myth does not
encompass the many who get involved for less selfless purposes such as power,
status and financial emollients
Why has there been no national
discussion on the nature of dementia?
It is incredible that Pres. Biden's mental deficiencies have not triggered a national discussion of dementia. Many millions of Americans know firsthand, including The Sensible Conservative, the effects of cognitive loss that often (but certainly not always) accompany old age.
Yet commentators across the ideological spectrum seem ignorant of its effects.
It would be helpful to understand the condition by having health experts (psychiatrists and others) give explanations for the broader public. Still, the many Americans who have had experiences observing the condition afflicting loved ones know enough.
Dementia is progressive. However, those affected do not suffer a straight-down decline. There are good days mixed in with bad ones. With the passage of time, the former are fewer. It is an irreversible condition.
Given that these facts are pretty much common knowledge, the ignorance (genuine or feigned) of this by the media – left and right – is astounding.
Prior to the debate, Biden supporters attributed seemingly odd behavior of the president featured on Fox News to selective editing made to make him look bad. And they would cite his Teleprompter - aided State of the Union address as evidence of his acuity, ignoring that reading a script is far less demanding than free flow articulation.
Furthermore, holders of that persuasion will point out that Obama and Reagan both recovered nicely from poor debate performances. They were both prepared for the next one. But the lack of pre-debate preparation can't be the president's excuse. He had a week of it.
On the right, Joe Biden's occasional "normal" conduct was dismissed, jokingly, as drug-induced. No, a fair response would be he simply had a good day.
The failure to recognize the obvious – out of willful ignorance or intentional deception – is just another reason to condemn the sorry state of American politics.
The deterioration of Joe Biden’s
mental capacity is sad for him and a looming disaster for America until January
20 of next year and thereafter, of he is re-elected.
Some people bemoan the increasing polarization of American political society as a threat to national unity.
But that is the wrong emphasis. Americans, like people everywhere, have differences of opinion. The stronger the feelings, the deeper the divide, the further apart the poles.
Thus, it is accurate to say that polarization has always been a factor in America. The absence of unity, in a political and social sense, has never been a threat. Its lack is not a problem as such for our country. But unity in a national sense is vital. If we do not believe that we share common values, how can we feel loyal as Americans to our nation? Rather, we find ourselves increasingly living in a country with others with whom we believe we share little in common and, in fact, often consider foes, even enemies, of what we believe in.
With that mindset, polarization is truly a danger.
Since America was founded on ideas and values, there used to be a presumption that differences were about means to attain a common end. The ends of freedom, tolerance, etc. were not disputed. Those holding opposing viewpoints on issues were excused as being misguided or uninformed. This was the default opinion unless there was evidence of corruption or malevolence. In effect, those holding contrary opinions were given credit at least for acting in good faith.
For many Americans that is no
longer true. To express an unfavored view for some is to utter thoughts beyond
the pale. That person is not accorded credit for good faith. Rather, it is
taken for granted that he is either a fool or knave (or both). For blunt
examples, tune in the opinion makers on MSNBC/CNN and Fox News.
Some, like President Biden, accuse opponents of being against democracy and, implicitly, anti-American.
That sort of talk clearly challenges the principles Americans have, with few exceptions like the Civil War, long lived by. To question the other side's patriotism is to dispute that they share a commitment to the nation, founded as it was, on loyalty to ideas and values
The long-term survival of the United States of America depends on a return to civility. Tolerance and respect for those expressing different views must regain favor. This is not hyperbole. Viewing the other side across the moat and barricade as the enemy (as many on both the left and the right appear to see those on the other side) it is a sure road to national suicide. We require unity as a people to survive as the Land of the Free.
Is it any wonder that our real
enemies – like China and Russia – are doing what they can to foster hostile
divisions among us?
America is an exceptional nation for many reasons, some bad (racial history), but mostly good: (high regard for freedom, individualism, generosity, openness, tolerance and the world's longest lasting democracy are examples of America's many positive traits).
Americans together?
It used to be a given that shared values – of the sort recited above – was the uniting glue – not ancient heritage. During periods of large immigration influxes which occurred during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the assumption was that peoples from around the world were attracted by these values and became human ingredients for the American melting pot. The country’s demographics changed but the core of the nation remained constant. Sure, the melting pot idea was just that – not always realized. But look around. America is populated by one-time immigrants from myriad backgrounds who generally get along and share the American dream of betterment.
Times they are a changing…
Our immigration laws were intended to promote healthy and productive integration. Needed skills were desired as were those with family members already here and presumably absorbed in American ways.
The policy was what was perceived to be America's national interest. Immigrants are valued as contributors to the country and supporters of that broad category of American values.
[There is a myth that US policy should reflect the inscription on the Statue of Liberty affixed in 1885:;
“Give me your
tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. The wretched
refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I
lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
The noble sentiments of the poem are uplifting but poetry is not, nor should it be, the foundation of policy.]
Largely unrestricted migration of course flaunts these concerns but even if the unwanted influx were halted, such immigration policies are questionable.
Applicants who have needed skills. Their aptitude doesn't translate as such into a willingness to adopt American values. Consider the anti-semitic protests on American campuses of late. Many protesters seem to be those whose heritage was from Muslim countries. Their ire was directed at a staunch US ally and those believed to be Jews. Some even declared by signs and voice that hostility to the nation in which they reside and may even be citizens. [“Death to America” was a chant of some. How many of the protesters share that sentiment? Why are such people living here? Freedom of speech does not sanction calls for the destruction of fellow Americans. They may have valuable skills but national interest overrides our need for them. Peddle their wares and bigotry elsewhere.]
Applicants with family connections. There is at least a superficial connection between having a relative already here and a readiness to follow American principles. Yet statistics tell us the impact of the policy (with allowance for illegals) is the presence of immigrants from Mexico in the US who have increased fivefold in 40 years. The omnipresence of bilingual signs across the country is yet another threat to American unity. It's hard to share values with the neighbor who speaks a different language.
Of course not. Truly the Constitution provides that America's chief executive has limited powers of authority which implicitly means that his conduct is subject to control.
But are there not circumstances which should incline those charged with enforcing the law to decline the opportunity to hold the president accountable for his transgressions?
Is he above the law? No. But a prudent regard for the nation's best interest is more important in this instance then that justice be served. He should not have been charged. But his foes are so consumed by hatred that they are unwilling to contemplate the consequences of their actions. It is alarming that some may not even care
Western
opinion in favor of Israel was united after the massacre of October 7 and until
several weeks later when the counterattacks began. Since then, with Palestinian
casualties mounting, support has steadily waned, particularly in the case of
Joe Biden.
The president says that he is appalled by the numbers slain, and his reaction may be genuine. But the outrage may also be influenced by political consideration of the significant percentage of Democratic voters who are antagonistic to America's aid to our Middle East ally.
Politics aside, what other than a devastating Israeli response was to be expected? Consider the American reaction when 3000+ people were killed on 911 in 2001. On a pro rata basis, the 1500 killed in Israel, a country of 9.5 million, is massively higher than the US experienced with its population of 330 million. If America had received a loss of the magnitude suffered by Israel, the numbers killed 23 years ago would've been more than 50,000, approximately the same number lost in the entire Vietnam War!
Israel's leadership has consistently pledged to stay the course: fight until Hamas is destroyed (Biden made that promise, too). That objective is probably unattainable since common sense tells one that some remnants are sure to escape elimination. But the organization will at least be severely crippled and rendered impotent, one hopes, for many years.
Yet Biden, et al., want to thwart this effort by demanding a cease-fire (whether labeled temporary or permanent, the pressure to make it the latter would be strong) that would likely end further military activity by Israel.
But Israel can hardly afford to ignore the wishes of its chief foreign backer. It needs access to America's seemingly bottomless well of military supplies.
Israel feels compelled, therefore, to offer not only lip service to Washington's call for a reduction in civilian deaths but actual steps to minimize losses by lessening military action against Hamas.
That response, however, will aid Hamas efforts to survive and soon again, Israelis fear, it will resume deadly attacks against their homeland.
Israel knows that its radical Islamist foes are implacable – a cease-fire will not lead to peace. For various reasons the administration prefers to think otherwise and is inclined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory … an outcome rather typically obtained by our commander-in-chief.
Israel, however, has no real choice but to persevere in the face of timid allies. The horrendous events of 10/7 united their people. Never Again.
[Note: war is simply a nasty endeavor. To expect warriors to fight in a humane way is fantasy. Humans so engaged are not inclined to be merciful. Atrocities occur as do mistakes which kill innocents such as aid workers. But to suppose that such events are the result of policy decisions by Israel it (it is not Russia after all) are ridiculous. Such policies would be counter to Israel’s interests as the outrage over the attacks on the humanitarian convoy made clear.]
These days most liberal outlets (think "mainstream") don't bother to conceal their antagonism towards Republicans and conservatives in general. Thus, there is no surprise when New York Times staffers assail the decision by an editor to run a piece by a GOP senator calling for a strong law enforcement response in the midst of the 2021 urban riots following the death of Minnesotan George Floyd. Likewise, there is a ho-hum reaction to news that prominent anchors of NBC protested the hiring of the recent chairman of the Republican National Committee (which led to her firing).
The display of such blatantly liberal/leftist bias is not helpful to their efforts to persuade America to follow the left. Only those already in the choir pay favorable attention. For the media – at least most of the "profession", there is no pretext toward objectivity. The result is the loss of respect – and attention – from the public (most) who do not share their allegiance to leftist, wokist, etc. ideas.
It used to be that members of the media saw merit in being perceived by the public as objective, notwithstanding bias that lay beneath the veneer of fairness. They were, like today, mostly liberal. For my readers old enough to remember Walter Cronkite, he was a prime example of this approach. His demeanor on the air was smooth and his presentation exuded fairness and balance for all sides. After his TV career ended, however, he felt no need to conceal his liberal perspective.
Some media still strive to maintain the "Cronkite" appearance but practice, as he did, selective bias. And that can be very effective in affecting the audience’s understanding of whatever point of view is being promoted.
National Public Radio and TV, for instance, as entities supported at least in part by taxpayers, are obligated to be objective in their activities. But that hardly means that such are bias-free.
How selective bias works is along these lines: Assume (of course in stark opposition to current reality) that the object is to promote Donald Trump's candidacy over that of Joe Biden’s.
Feature stories at the top of the TV news or on the newspaper’s front page that describe recent and positive statements he has made. Describe the activities that he is making to fulfill his promises, if elected, to make America great again. At the same time either ignore, or downplay, such activities which have not been successful.
Contrast the coverage of that of the incumbent president. He is described as forgetful and frail who often seems confused in public appearances. His success in achieving legislative successes are not covered.
A fact checker would find nothing amiss in what was reported in either case. The contents were accurate. But that misses the point.
The coverage is clearly biased, even though true, for balance is missing. Another example of selective bias is simply the priority attached to news coverage. If a story is covered, the reader or viewer reasonably concludes it must be important. Thus, the fact that CNN seemingly leads each morning news with an update on Trump’s court challenges means the subject matter is more Important than, say, wars in Ukraine and Israel and southern border crossings. Fox News plainly has different news stories with illegal border crossings leading the way.
Again, the stories, in both cases are not inaccurate but, whether they are highlighted or not makes a big difference in the audience’s take-away. MSNBC (even more leftist than CNN) viewers overwhelmingly dismiss border crossings as an important problem. Fox News watchers go strongly the other way.
Simply put, selective bias works. Highlight your side’s positives (minimize the negatives) and do the opposite for the other side. Few will comprehend what's happened. The audience will be influenced in the manner intended.
The
term “friendship” is close to meaningless in its usage in modern American
society
Does a click on a Facebook post qualify? How about the relationship one shares with a political ally? Workmates? Fellow sports enthusiasts?
With each we can be friendly but is that the same?
Real friendship as I was raised isn't like that at all. Rather it's like being a member of a loving family and believing in the way, one spouse pledges to the other to "be there through sickness and health,” an admitted abridgment of a traditional wedding vow.
Life teaches that few of our acquaintances become friends in that sense. Sharing happiness is not difficult. Providing support when times are the opposite of rosy is the test few of those we know will pass.
I do not mean to dismiss the value of friendly relationships. To enjoy someone's companionship because of shared interests and views and likability is a large part of life's enjoyment. True friends come from these acquaintances after all, yet few do.
I don't know if my experiences are typical or not. My real friendships were generally formed when I was young in my late teens and early twenties or much older in my early 70s. In each of those periods, I guess I was seen by others as who I was rather than what I did. I had not yet acquired the status that comes with accomplishments. With advanced age and retirement, the status which had accompanied my active years largely disappeared. True friends remained; those friendly acquaintances who were not disappeared.
That was not a surprise. Human nature commands for most of us the priority of self-interest. That means that when acquaintances are no longer valuable, they are jettisoned (as a lawyer for 45 years dealing with mankind's foibles, I never needed that guidance.)
Human nature, however, can surprise by its capacity to harbor altruism. What I define as friendship is inseparable from the commitment it entails. It is not an implicit "quid pro quo" promise. Rather, it is unconditioned in the sense that a spouse commits to the other. Perhaps viewed in that fashion, true friendship is a form of love. If one gives or takes as life unfolds, it makes no difference
I have three friends from the early years. One just turned 80 and is well along on the dementia path and requires in-home assistance. Another is 79, still independent but fading. The third is 78 with wits fully intact (as a light note, we first met as young Republicans. Since then, he has veered sharply to the left; I more strongly to the right. Still, our friendship thrives.) My oldest friend, after I assisted his move to a safer residence, said to me “thank you”. I replied “I did for you what you would've done for me”. He nodded yes. My three new friends had been friendly acquaintances from my lawyer days who evolved. To emphasize the point of what matters, all knew of my politics and were not deterred from becoming friends even though they all consider themselves liberal Democrats! That I've garnered six true friends so far makes me happy indeed.
Standards
for life determine how people live, for good or bad. Who sets them? What are they?
In America the answer traditionally was the family which guarded the offspring and, with assistance from various societal forces including religious bodies, educational institutions and other entities forming the mores of the community.
In today's America, such traditional influences are no longer active for many, if not most.
The former sources for setting and upholding standards have largely abdicated that task. That is not to say that such moral elites have forsaken their personal beliefs in the rightness of certain guidelines of life hope (although certainly some have). Instead, it is that they have lost faith in the rightness of their doing so. In these terms the attitude is prevalent that no one should insist or suggest that others conform to standards of behavior followed seemingly since the dawn of time.
It is as if the consensus of former moral leaders is that despite the manner of their conduct, they believe that it is presumptuous to offer guidance to others.
Yet despite such reluctance the simple fact is that standards of behavior will be set. The void will be filled, although not to the benefit of society necessarily.
Social science studies make clear that certain behaviors lead to personal well-being while others do not.
The prescription for individual success can be summarized in chronological order: (One) get an education, (Two) get a job, (Three) get married, (Four) have children. The order matters. Obtaining a decent job presupposes adequate schooling; being self-supporting, for men, makes one eligible to attract a spouse and successful child raising is best accomplished within a marriage. Abundant research has established that these are not debatable assertions.
Of the four, the last is the most important (although its status flows from the preceding three). Children, as the true but hackneyed phrase instructs, are the future. Their proper upbringing (including the inculcation of moral and life virtues) should be the paramount focus of society
[Interestingly as cohabitation has increased and marriage numbers have dropped, child welfare has declined. On one level, the well-established fact makes no sense. Why should the fact that mom and dad are not married but living together affect a child's well-being or outcome? But it does. Perhaps, viewed from a different perspective, the lack of the relationship’s legal permanence – marriage – impacts the parents’ treatment of the off-spring. Perhaps the “looseness” of the relationship shapes the parents’ commitment to the child (which he or she absorbs).]
(Based on my experience, some very thoughtful people would say this explanation applies more to men than women. Mothers tend to stick to their kids through thick and thin. A mother’s commitment to the child would increase, not decrease, if she and her partner weren’t married.)
That accurately describes the feelings of The Sensible Conservative and other traditional conservatives (Reaganites of old) when noting the staying power of Donald J Trump.
Now one has to wonder if his foes were the aberration, not the other way around.
This occurs even though that person previously had no hesitation in endorsing as generally honest our electoral system or strong opposition to Putin and Russia.
