Category: Guest Authors

Kamala Won’t Disappear

By Joe Guzzardi

Despite the sound defeat that Vice President Kamala Harris suffered in the 2024 presidential election, she’ll likely remain in the public eye. In her November 6 concession speech, she admitted that she planned to stick around. Harris said, “I concede this election, I do not concede the fight that fueled this campaign: the fight for freedom, for opportunity, for fairness, and the dignity of all people. A fight for the ideals at the heart of our nation, the ideals that reflect America at our best. That is a fight I will never give up.”

For high-visibility, vainglorious politicians who have held powerful positions like Harris—San Francisco District Attorney, California Attorney General, U.S. Senator, and Vice President—giving up 20 years in the limelight goes against the grain. Harris could follow the examples that previously defeated presidential candidates set. Her options are many. Harris might start a foundation like Jimmy Carter did after his 1980 defeat to Ronald Reagan. The Carter Center, which builds sustainable housing and prevents disease from spreading in developing countries, helped the former one-term president the win the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize. After Al Gore narrowly lost the 2000 election to George W. Bush, in 2005 he established the Alliance for Climate Protection, renamed The Climate Reality Project. Foundations are nice but hardly the stuff of substantial public exposure.

Or Harris could follow President Richard Nixon’s strategy. After his 1960 defeat to President John F. Kennedy and a subsequent loss in California’s 1962 gubernatorial race to Democrat incumbent Pat Brown, Nixon spent years promoting GOP candidates nationwide and, by 1968, had accumulated political favors that he cashed in on. Another Harris presidential bid, theoretically possible, is not in the cards because it would end in a comparison to Adlai Stevenson, a two-time loser to President Dwight David Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956. More Harris options: she could join a high-end law firm, become a lobbyist, or retire to private life and wait for book or Netflix deal advances to come in. The Obamas got $65 million from Penguin Random House to release both their memoirs. Harris and spouse Doug Emhoff are not Michelle and Barack, but they would still command a hefty advance.

A safe bet on Harris’ future is that she will run to replace termed out California Governor Gavin Newsom, a perfect situation for her. The gubernatorial election is in 2026, which gives Harris time to kick back before stumping again. Campaigning in California would be cake for Harris as opposed to trying to sell herself to a skeptical national electorate. Harris is a known quantity in California and would benefit from incessantly glowing media coverage. As of today, Harris’ likely competition, many of whom might drop out rather than face certain defeat in a primary, are Toni Atkins, Senate president pro tem, Eleni Kounalakis, California’s Lieutenant Governor, Tony Thurmond, California’s superintendent of public education, Xavier Becerra, Health and Human Services Secretary, Betty Yee, former controller and the California Democratic Party’s vice chair, and finally a name familiar to long-standing enforcement advocates, the pro-immigration Antonio Villaraigosa, once Los Angeles’ mayor and unsuccessful 2018 gubernatorial candidate. Harris has statewide name recognition while the others are, in many corners of California, unknown. One issue that Harris and her potential challengers share is unbending support for open borders and amnesty for already-present illegal immigrants.

The most interesting thing to watch in a Harris gubernatorial bid would be how she interacts with Newsom. For more than a year, Newsom displayed everywhere his naked ambition to displace President Joe Biden. When Harris took over as the nominee, Newsom vanished. Consider his snide remark about Harris after her coronation: “We went through a very open process, a very inclusive process. It was bottom-up, I don’t know if you know that. That’s what I’ve been told to say.” Insiders know that Newsom, confident that he would win, favored an open convention to replace Biden. No doubt secretly delighted that Harris absorbed a drubbing; Newsom is back as 2028’s leading candidate.

In politics, four years is an eternity. When 2028 rolls around, Newsom or any other Democratic presidential nominee may be campaigning in a California that, based on the right-shift towards Trump from 2016 to 2020 and finally in 2024 for a 12 percentage point gain, may be as red as it is blue.

Joe Guzzardi is an Institute for Sound Public Policy analyst. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org

Kamala Won’t Disappear Kamala Won’t Disappear

Pirates WWII Teams included First Drug-tested Player

By Joe Guzzardi

During World War II, the Pittsburgh Pirates were less affected by the departure of key players than most other Major League Baseball teams who lost superstars like Bob Feller, Ted Williams and Joe DiMaggio to the draft. The Pirates were able to keep their squads mostly intact and added valuable players through trades. Between 1942-45, off to war went the Pirates Oad Swigart who pitched in 10 games in 1939 and 1940, Ed Leip with 35 plate appearances in three seasons, Ed Albosta, a 1946 Pirates twirler with a 0-6, 6.13 ERA mark, and Huck Geary, .160 batting average in two seasons.

Although the 1944 Pirates sent more players to World War II than they did in any previous year, they nevertheless enjoyed their most successful campaign since capturing the 1927 pennant. The ‘44 Bucs, led by one of their wartime acquisitions, All-Star first baseman Babe Dahlgren whom they acquired from the Philadelphia Phillies, posted a 90-63 record and finished a strong second to the St. Louis Cardinals. Dahlgren played in every game of the 1944 season, batted .289 and drove in 101 runs, sixth in the league.

In his two years as the Buccos’ first sacker, Dahlgren hit a respectable .271. Dahlgren, after burning up the Pacific Coast League, broke in with the Boston Red Sox in 1935 when fellow San Fransico native and incoming manager Joe Cronin thought Babe had a chance to be the BoSox starting first baseman, mostly because of his peerless fielding. In an interesting twist, and paralleling the New York Yankees’ Lou Gehrig, Dahlgren played consecutive PCL games from 1931 through 1934.

On the fateful May 2, 1939, the day that Gehrig asked manager Joe McCarthy to scratch his name from the line-up, Dahlgren substituted for the Iron Horse, hit a double and a homer. Dahlgren recalled Gehrig’s kidding reaction after his 2-for-5 day: “He grabbed me when I got back to the bench and shouted at me, ‘Hey, why didn’t you tell me you felt that way about it. I woulda got out of there long ago.” At Lou Gehrig Day, 1941, McCarthy whispered to Dahlgren, “If [a dying] Lou falls over, catch him.”  While baseball historians can quickly respond to the not-very-tough trivia question: “Who replaced Lou Gehrig,” few recall that Dahlgren was the first player ever drug-tested.

Unsubstantiated rumors that Dahlgren smoked marijuana plagued his career and after baseball, his family’s lives. In the 1940s, smoking marijuana was a major scandal. McCarthy and Branch Rickey instigated the rumors and other baseball gossips fueled the fire.  The New York Times writer John Drebinger, who wrote the lead story for every World Series game between 1929 and 1963, a total of 203 tilts, said that McCarthy had told him that the Yankees would have “won the pennant in 1940 had it not been for an error Dahlgren made against the Indians late in the season.” The Yankees’ pilot continued, “Dahlgren doesn’t screw up that play if he wasn’t a marijuana smoker.” When Dahlgren volunteered to test for marijuana, a Philadelphia doctor administered a series of examinations and declared him free of any drug use. Still, the chatter persisted.

Years later, then-MLB Commissioner Fay Vincent told The New York Times reporter Murray Chass that, “People railroaded him [Dahlgren] for illegitimate reasons. It’s a sad story. He was accused of being on drugs when I doubt very much that he was. It’s not one of baseball’s prettiest stories, and I regret that it didn’t get fixed before he died.” [of natural causes in 1996.]  Dahlgren’s grandson Matt wrote an acclaimed book titled “Rumor in Town” that debunks the baseless marijuana allegations. Matt also provided some comforting details about his grandfather’s last 25 years. “Babe continued working with young prospects and eager-eyed players. He had compiled hundreds of rolls of film dating back to the early ‘40s when he used his first 8mm movie camera to capture the likes of Joe DiMaggio and other stars from the past. Little could he have imagined back then that his idea of using film to help struggling ball players would…become a mainstay in modern baseball and coaching.” Unfortunately, these historical and priceless films were lost to the fire that engulfed Babe’s home in 1980.

Safe to say that Babe would be aghast at the common use of performance enhancing drugs in today’s baseball and the wrist slap that passes for punishment. The use, possession, and sale of performance enhancing drugs is a federal felony punishable by a jail sentence and/or fines. If Dahlgren had played in a more tolerant drug-usage baseball era, his and his family’s lives would have had been more peaceful.

Joe Guzzardi is a Society for American Baseball Research. Contact him at guzzjoe@yahoo.com

Pirates WWII Teams included First Drug-tested Player

States Join Immigration Enforcement Battle

By Joe Guzzardi

The national frustration over President Biden’s immigration agenda was reflected not only in the presidential election’s results but also in Arizona, outside of the spotlight. Proposition 314, a border security measure that makes it a state crime to enter Arizona from Mexico and outside of a legal port of entry, passed overwhelmingly. The Associated Press called the race Wednesday morning after the early returns Tuesday night showed a strong advantage for a yes vote on the measure, officially known as the “Immigration and Border Law Enforcement Measure.” Prop 314 led 62.7%-37.3% with a more than two million votes reported, according to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office results page.

Opponents have compared Prop 314 to SB 1070, Arizona’s “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” which passed in 2010 and was partially struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States. Only four of SB 1070’s provisions went before SCOTUS, and the court left one of those intact, Section 2 (B) which requires Arizona law enforcement to make an attempt, when feasible, to determine a person’s immigration status during a “lawful stop, detention, or arrest” if there is a reasonable suspicion “that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States.” Lawful stops would include, among other crimes, traffic violations, home invasions or drug sales. Prop 314 has similar restrictions. Before law enforcement personnel could begin the removal process, it would have to capture on video and identify the illegal immigrant crossing or articulate based on their professional experience that the suspected alien dressed in camouflage or was part of a large group packed into a van, or other actions consistent with unlawful entry. The proposal covers more than border crossing requirements: also included are Increase penalties for fentanyl sales that results in death, a requirement that legal immigration status be confirmed before welfare benefits are granted, and that legal employment status be confirmed through E-Verify. Arizona judges could, after reviewing the evidence presented to them, issue deportation orders to any illegal alien who refuses to leave voluntarily.

Although voters approved Prop 314, the border-crossing provisions would not necessarily immediately become law. The text says that Prop 314 cannot be enforced until Texas’ SB 4 is approved. Other states have taken action similar to Texas’— Iowa’s Senate File 2340, signed by Governor Kim Reynolds,  and Oklahoma’s House Bill 4156, signed by Governor Gov. Kevin Stitt. A federal court is challenging the Texas proposal, a process which could take years. The good news is that, after Arizona completes its November 25 state certification, the added penalties for fentanyl-related deaths, and identity misrepresentation, become law.

Even though Prop 314 may be years away from becoming law, pro-immigration advocacy groups and the discredited ACLU are taking steps to block it. The ACLU made the familiar claims that it would “break families apart, exacerbate racial profiling, and increase criminalization of immigrants and communities of color.” 

Residents in states that have seen their schools, hospitals and police forces adversely affected by the entry of millions of illegal immigrants are imploring their local governments to assist the feds in restoring a rational immigration system. Nationwide, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations and Enforcement Removal Operations have about 35, 000 agents. Stacked up against ten million or more illegal aliens, the odds against meaningful enforcement are unbelievably bad indeed. The enforcement agencies need the help state governments can provide.

Former Texas U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan and keynote speaker at the 1976 Democratic National Convention gave the best guideline for immigration policy: “those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave.”

Joe Guzzardi is an Institute for Sound Public Policy analyst. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org

States Join Immigration Enforcement Battle

Consistently Wrong Pollsters Try Again in 2024

By Joe Guzzardi

In 1964, I cast my first presidential ballot for Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater. I preferred Goldwater’s more aggressive solution to end the Vietnam War, at the time heating up and poised to get even hotter. Goldwater promised “a choice, not an echo.” Voters will never know how successful Goldwater’s plan might have been. But the documented facts are that although Johnson positioned himself as more moderate than Goldwater, he became the quintessential warmonger. After Johnson’s landslide victory, LBJ escalated President John F. Kennedy’s commitment from fewer than 20,000 U.S. troops to more than a half million. Following the election, the war waged on for longer than a decade as more than 58,000 U.S. service members and millions of Vietnamese, Cambodian and Laotians were killed.

Since the 1964 election, 15-four-year cycles, I’ve been a registered Republican, a registered Democrat, and a registered Independent. I have lived in New York, California, Washington, and Pennsylvania. At no time did I ever miss in-person voting which must, I assume, qualify me among pollsters as “a likely voter.” Yet during the last six decades, I have never received a telephone call from a pollster asking me for whom I planned to vote. Moreover, after I inquired, I learned that no family member, friend, neighbor, or work colleague has been polled. Who, then, is polled? Given my long-standing experience as a confirmed but never polled voter, I wonder what the non-stop fuss in print media and television is all about: “Harris is up two points in Wisconsin, but down two points in Michigan!” or “Trump is up four in North Carolina and gaining in Arizona.” Comparable stories not only have headlined but consumed most of the print ink or broadcast air with one talking head after another chattering predictable points that depend on their political leaning.

Since the 2016 and 2020 polls were dramatically off the mark, no one should put any credibility in the 2024 election predictions. In 2016, Donald J. Trump’s victory shocked many Americans, especially pollsters who showed his opponent, Hillary Clinton, leading the race up right up to Election Day. All data they were looking at seemed to predict her victory. Clinton’s campaign, confident she would win, had the champagne ready to pop. But Trump, who disdained data gathering, carried swing states Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania which Democrats thought were in the bag. After the ballots were counted, Trump had won 306 electoral votes, compared to Clinton’s 232, securing him the presidency. The pollsters offered weak excuses for their embarrassing failures including a farfetched claim that the results were skewed by whether a male or female picked up the phone.

The 2016 misfire was supposed to serve as a wake-up call for pollsters, but it did not. The 2020 election would be, according to the polling, an easy Joe Biden victory. But Biden won by only three points versus his projected margin of eight—another humbling for the touted polling industry. Pollsters have spent the years since 2020 experimenting with ways to induce hard-to-reach voters to participate in surveys and testing statistical techniques to improve accuracy. But expert opinion is mixed on whether polling outcomes are due for a repeat of 2020, which a professional association of pollsters called the most inaccurate in 40 years. New developments, such as the shift of black and Latino voters away from Democrats and toward Republicans and the increase of online surveys that use unproven sampling methods create additional potential for error. Referring to 2024’s polling reliability, Stanford University political scientist Jon Krosnick said, “We are headed for more disaster.”

Pollsters do a better job of identifying the core issues that worry voters. The numbers one and two are the economy and immigration. But neither the polling organizations nor the candidates have comprehensively linked the two. Immigration directly impacts federal, state, and local economies. In March 2023, three years into the ongoing four-year invasion, the Federation for American Immigration Reform published its study, “The Total Fiscal Cost of Illegal Immigration.” FAIR estimated that, at the time of its report, 15.5 million illegal immigrants resided in the U.S. Beginning in 2023, the net cost of illegal immigration to the U.S. including K-12 education, emergency medical care, and other affirmative benefits is at least $150 billion. Subtracting the tax revenue that illegal aliens pay, just under $32 billion, from the gross negative cost of illegal immigration, $182 billion, FAIR arrived at its $150 billion total. Eighteen months have passed since FAIR’s report, and millions more illegal aliens have entered with taxpayers funding every step they take once inside the U.S.

The Biden/Harris administration has given the green light to millions of unvetted illegal aliens who have unlawfully crossed or, unprecedented, been flown into the interior via the unconstitutional CHNV program that admits 30,000 foreign nationals monthly. Voters who consider the economy their main concern should realize that unchecked immigration contributes to high living costs including the tax hikes necessary to pay billions for illegal aliens’ resettlement.

Joe Guzzardi is an Institute for Sound Public Policy analyst. Contact him at jguzzardi@ifspp.org

Consistently Wrong Pollsters Try Again in 2024

Consistently Wrong Pollsters Try Again in 2024