Apology Tour, Calling the Question, and the Skunk Nebula

July 20, 2024

Although the anger in yesterday’s newsletter resonated with many readers, a fair number were offended, put off, puzzled, or concerned. The first clue that something was amiss came when a close family friend texted my wife Jill early in the morning, asking, “Is Robert okay?” I received several concerned emails from readers asking about my blood pressure. One reader offered private counseling sessions. After I offered to unsubscribe and refund one reader who posted a Comment saying she never wanted to hear about the 14 million primary voters again, another reader replied that I had become “grumpy and intolerant.”

Not my finest hour, so I start this newsletter by offering some apologies. I then offer a suggestion for Democratic leadership, including Joe Biden, on how to “Call the Question” so that we can move on to defeating Trump. Finally, I offer a profound story about the Skunk Nebula (pictured below) for you to ponder over the weekend.

---

Apologies

If you thought I was criticizing you yesterday for wanting to replace Biden on the ticket, I apologize. That wasn’t my intent, but my intent isn’t what matters, it’s what you perceived. So, I apologize. No qualifications or equivocations.

I was, however, rightfully angry with the current and former staffers of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Hakeem Jeffries (and possibly of Joe Biden), who were leaking almost hourly to the New York Times and other outlets that claimed Joe Biden on the verge of withdrawing, writing a withdrawal speech, and waiting for the right moment to withdraw.

In light of today’s events, those leaks appear to be some combination of exaggerations, misstatements, or deliberate lies designed to manipulate the media and the Democratic process for resolving the debate about Joe Biden’s status. Today, for example, the Biden campaign announced that the president would return to the campaign trail next week. David Letterman announced a major fundraiser for Joe Biden on July 29.

Perhaps the NYTimes’ reporting is accurate except for timing, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that Democratic leaders should have this discussion in one of two ways: Privately (as in no leaks) or publicly (as in no “Sources close to former Speaker Nancy Pelosi say . . . “).

The worst possible way for the discussion to unfold is through unverifiable, untraceable leaks to the New York Times. The rumor campaign hurts Joe Biden and all Democratic candidates, confusing and demoralizing the base.

So, to those current and former staffers who believe they have the right to manipulate the media and the Democratic decision-making process by leaking information gained through privileged access to party leaders, shame on you! I do not mean for that criticism to reflect on those who believe Biden should withdraw but are not leaking confidential information to the New York Times.

However, I wrongly suggested that the leakers were “in their 20s and 30s.” I apologize to any non-leaker who is a current or former staff member in their 20s or 30s for Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, and Jeffries. I don’t know who the leakers are or how old they are. I do know they are cowards and dissemblers, regardless of their age.

My insistence that the decision-making process include consideration of the 14 million primary voters upset many readers. I don’t apologize for that position, but I acknowledge that many of you wrote to say that those votes are not determinative because (a) there was no real choice in the primary, (b) many people voted for Biden “begrudgingly,” (c) circumstances have changed and/or Joe Biden has deteriorated since the primaries.

While I don’t agree with those premises, I have communicated my disagreement directly to the readers who took the time to express their views. I do, however, want to clear up a misconception about my position. I have not said that the 14 million votes are an absolute block to replacing Biden. I qualified my position with this statement in yesterday’s newsletter:

There may be a good and compelling reason for doing so [replacing Biden]. I haven’t heard it yet. But at the very least, please—and I am begging here—have the decency and candor to acknowledge that the voters who made their voices heard in the primaries are part of this process.

Many voters who supported Biden in the primaries still do. If Biden is replaced, ignoring those voters may make them feel that voting doesn’t matter. That is the worst possible outcome for everyone.

So, I am not saying that the primary vote is an absolute obstacle to replacing Biden. I am saying that we must at least acknowledge that some people voted in the primaries and expect their votes to matter. The fact that others may have changed their minds or believed they had no real option in the primary doesn’t invalidate the votes of those who supported Joe Biden then and now.

I apologize for the two instances of profanity in the newsletter. As usual, my Managing Editor was correct. My inclusion of those words resulted in the newsletter being diverted to spam or trash folders for many readers.

Finally, as long as I am apologizing, I apologize for last Friday’s newsletter, which suggested that the weekend would bring a welcome respite. Instead, less than 24 hours later, there was an attempted assassination of Trump. I will no longer make predictions about relative calm in the news cycle.

---

Calling the Question

We are in this mess because of a collective failure of Democratic leadership. That collective leadership includes Joe Biden. To date, President Biden has been in a piecemeal defensive mode, trying to douse each new wildfire in a sporadic fashion. The drip-drip-drip nature of the process is hurting Joe Biden and other Democratic candidates. And it is confusing the base.

Here's my suggestion: Joe Biden should invite to the White House all party leaders who are rumored to favor his withdrawal. (Obama, Pelosi, Schumer, Jeffries.) Also invite major donors who have threatened to pull funding. And invite other relevant people (I don’t know who they are; Biden does.) Perhaps AOC and Bernie Sanders?

Sit them all in the Roosevelt Room (across the hall from the Oval Office), lock the door, and hide the key. Agree that the discussion is off the record—no leaks—but that the group will provide a complete, transparent, and candid joint statement at its conclusion.

Joe Biden should lead the discussion on the following questions: (a) Do you support my continued candidacy? (b) If not, will you respect my decision if I remain in the race and agree not to undermine me with ongoing leaks or statements that question my electability? (c) If you do not support me, is there any reasonable, feasible path forward for another consensus candidate? Depending on the answer to (c), go back and re-consider (a) and (b).

I can understand that President Biden may be hesitant to hold that meeting; he might not like the answers he gets. But the present situation is intolerable. It must stop, and President Biden has a role in making it stop—one way or the other.

As to question (c) “is there a reasonable, feasible path forward to a consensus candidate,” hundreds of readers have told me that the answer is obvious—Kamala Harris. I am a big fan of Kamala Harris and hope she is president one day. But for readers who think the answer is “obvious,” I ask you to compare and contrast these three statements:

(a)  Statement by Rep. Zoe Lofgren opposing a “mini-coronation” of Kamala Harris, calling instead for a series of mini-primaries and “vetting” by former presidents Obama and Clinton; and

(b)  This Comment by reader “Little Believing” in yesterday’s newsletter. The reader wrote about the suspicion that the attack on Joe Biden is really an attack on Kamala Harris—and the possible consequences of such an attack on the support of Black and Hispanic women if Kamala Harris is disregarded as the obvious replacement.

(c)  This (private, leaked) statement by Nancy Pelosi that Democrats should hold an “open process” to select a replacement if President Biden withdraws.

And for those of you who follow social media (kudos if you don’t), there is no consensus among Democratic commentators that Kamala Harris is the “obvious” choice. Quite the contrary.

I will express no other opinion than to say that the question of whether there is an answer to “is there a reasonable, feasible path forward for a consensus candidate” should weigh heavily in a decision to ask Joe Biden to withdraw.

The participants in this meeting should be viewed as making personal commitments about what they will or won’t do—not that they are deciding for Democrats at large. However, Biden deserves—indeed, should demand—clarity on their positions so that he can proceed with his campaign or consider the alternatives. Again, the present state of chaos is harmful and unacceptable to everyone.

Joe Biden should call the question, consider the responses in good faith, and end the chaos. I offer this solution not as a stalking horse for replacing Joe Biden. I believe he should remain. But he also has the responsibility to help restore order in the Democratic Party. Only he can do that.

---

The deep meaning and profound lessons of the Skunk Nebula

There is no astronomical object known as the Skunk Nebula, but that is what I am calling the photo below.

The picture below is of the Pelican Nebula. It is a star-forming region 1,800 light years from Earth. The photo is almost perfect, except for the two dark lines that trisect the photo (starting in the middle of the right edge and tracing to the top and bottom edges). I offer the story of how the image came to be marred by those lines as an amusing distraction and thought experiment for your consideration over the weekend.

I set up my astrophotography telescope while writing last night’s newsletter. After two hours of exposure, the dim Pelican Nebula shone brightly in the composite image generated by the imaging software that collects (or stacks) photons over a long exposure.

Then, I received an alert from my backyard security camera that something was moving near the vegetable garden. I knew immediately it was a skunk. I grabbed my narrow-beam flashlight and went outside to shoo away the skunk. Keeping a respectful distance to avoid being sprayed, I directed the flashlight’s beam across the yard to the vegetable garden. In the process, the flashlight beam grazed the opening of the optical tube that collects the photons for stacking by the sensor at the bottom of the optical tube.

You do not have to be a rocket scientist or astrophysicist to know that shining a bright light into the optical tube of a telescope is a bad idea. A very bad idea. Especially when that telescope is lovingly, delicately stacking photons that traveled for 1,800 light years to reach my backyard on July 18, 2024. The beam from my flashlight illuminated a wire in the optical tube that powers the camera and created the dark lines you see in the photo.

To summarize, photons that traveled 1,800 light years to reach the narrow opening in my telescope were disrupted at the last nano-second by my efforts to shoo a skunk rooting in our vegetable garden.

That story contains a deep and profound lesson about our present circumstances. I have no idea what that lesson is, but I will reflect on the meaning of the Skunk Nebula over the weekend to give myself a break from the last four weeks of intense newsletters reporting on daily crises. Feel free to share your thoughts on this or any other issue. I will open the Comment section to all readers until the Chinese bØts or Russian trØlls appear.

---

Concluding Thoughts

Let’s put this internal strife behind us. The RNC convention was a clown show, but not funny because of the fascism stuff. And Trump's acceptance speech was a slow-motion train wreck. Meanwhile, Democrats have delivered for the American people and continue to do so. We need to get that message out. We have four months to do so. We can do that! Indeed, we are doing that at the grassroots level every day!

Talk to you on Monday!

The Pelican Nebula, henceforth known to me as the Skunk Nebula.