"Repeat, Rinse, Repeat" Letter to the editor Tom Denton

Since December 19^th Ulster County Board of Elections officials have been hand counting over 53,000 ballots cast in November’s district attorney election.  The recount, mandated by the narrow 77-vote win by Democrat Dave Clegg, could have been waived by his opponent, GOP candidate Michael Kavanaugh, who instead chose to proceed with the taxpayer-funded recount, citing his obligation to voters to “permit the legal process to play out.”  Fair enough.  His hopes for winning depend on an unlikely glaring error in the November count or on rejecting ballots that have stray or irregular markings.  (Voters:  did your marking pen accidentally touch the ballot and leave a scratchy line somewhere?  Too bad.)  To date, a recount of nearly half of the votes has turned up a reported net one possible vote for Kavanaugh. 

As the current chief assistant district attorney, Kavanaugh will assume the DA title—and presumably the salary—and command of the office on January 1.  If the recount confirms Clegg’s win, Kavanaugh will step down and allow the transition to the Democrat’s administration, a transition that is now held in abeyance by the recount. 

Or will he step down?  Kavanaugh’s team has suggested that an appeal of the judge’s rulings on absentee and affidavit ballots—a judge both sides approved—could be launched, extending his tenure in the DA office.  His legal costs would come from his pocket, or perhaps more likely, from GOP committee coffers.

Kavanaugh can’t claim that an appeal is mandated or demanded by voters, who can ask:  what or who would be satisfied by a Hail Mary attempt to reverse what is no doubt a difficult loss?  Kavanaugh has served Ulster County residents for years.  What decisions will he make to serve their interests now?

Publishing history:

Daily Freeman          12/30/19

Hudson Valley One   1/1/20

"It’s Too Late, Baby" Letter to the editor Tom Denton

As Donald Trump’s impeachment moves to the Senate, it’s a time to reflect on what might have been.

From the first week of Trump’s presidency, Republican voters and their representatives in Washington had ample reasons to weigh carefully the degree to which they would support him.  His attacks--on the press, on the courts, on government agencies, and more broadly on unspoken but accepted norms in governance—augured a reckoning they would have to face.  There were times they could have made a stand against Trump’s abuses, perhaps nudged him toward a more reasonable path, but at every step of the way they chose the course of deference.  Now, after the Ukrainian escapade was exposed, they find themselves defending the indefensible, and their choice is roped into history and an uncertain verdict in 2020 and beyond.

Imagine a President Donald Trump who pursued a different political strategy by reaching out to the 50%+ of voters who did not elect him.  Imagine that his first legislative priority was rebuilding American infrastructure, and his first major signed bill brought more health care security to many additional Americans.  Imagine a tax bill that marginally satisfied his donors but addressed glaring inequalities and gave people some legitimate hope for the future.  With Republican majorities, he could have done these things, and Democrats would have scrambled to define their own relevance.  His “base” would look different from today’s, but it could have been broader and longer lasting.  With the economy in its current state of health, Democrats in 2020 might be casting about for the most likely sacrificial lamb in the election.

Imagine.  But we have the Donald Trump that we have.  The Republican party is now its own RINO; it’s the Trump party.  And Democrats, aware that their good fortune comes at the cost of a damaged nation, get another shot at convincing Americans that they can lead with policies and people worthy of support.  How will they use the opportunity?

Publishing history:

New Paltz Times        12/26/19

Shawangunk Journal   1/2/20

"Case for Trump impeachment is open and shut" Letter to the editor Jeff Akins

Dear Editor:

The same day House Democrats released articles of impeachment, President Trump met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Like at their May 2017 Oval Office meeting, the American press was denied attendance. An official White House meeting readout states Trump warned Lavrov against election interference. When a reporter asked about that, Lavrov replied, “We haven't even actually discussed elections.”

Trump repeatedly acts in Vladimir Putin’s benefit and against America’s national security interests. The 2017 Lavrov meeting happened the day after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey over “this Russia thing,” as Trump described it during a live TV interview. During the 2017 meeting, Trump divulged classified information that precipitated urgent exfiltration of a Kremlin spy one month later. That spy worked close to Putin for a decade and confirmed to 17 U.S. intelligence agencies that Putin directed 2016 election meddling.

Trump should be impeached as two impeachment articles define. He abused the presidential office’s power for personal/political gain and obstructed Congress’ investigation. Trump withheld Ukraine aid, approved by Congress in February 2019. Trump denied President Volodymyr Zelensky a head-of-state Oval Office meeting and withheld $390 million in aid, demanding Zelensky publicly announce investigations into the Bidens AND a Putin false narrative that Ukraine, not Russia, meddled in America’s 2016 election.

The aid was released September 2019, but only after the whistleblower report became public. To date, Zelensky awaits his Oval Office meeting while Lavrov was given his second.

It’s obvious Trump should be impeached and removed from office.

Publishing history:

Daily Freeman: 12/12/19

"Delgado's stance on Green New Deal alarming" Letter to the editor Ted Millar

 Dear Editor,

Two weeks ago, I asked U.S. Rep. Antonio Delgado, D-Rhinebeck, at a town hall event in Gardiner where he stands on the Green New Deal, already knowing he does not not support it. I wanted him to publicly admit it, though, which he did. I appreciate his candor.

However, the congressman made a couple of alarming points in his response. First, he stated his own "Green Jobs Act" focuses on "solutions that work." Second, he said the Green New Deal "doesn't reduce emissions."

These responses, particularly the latter, are surprising, considering there is already a precedent in United States history of massively transforming our economy and public sector toward ambitious national goals. President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal helped lift us out of the Great Depression of the 1930s and defeat fascism in Europe during the Second World War. It's no coincidence it's part of the Green New Deal's title.

I find it curious Rep. Delgado proposed the Green New Deal would not reduce emissions when it serves to transform our energy grid away from fossil fuels, decarbonize manufacturing, retrofit existing construction for energy efficiency, support new zero-carbon construction, and revolutionize our agricultural sector, all while creating hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs.

I campaigned for Rep. Delgado last year. I am happy he successfully unseated former Rep. John Faso, R-Kinderhook, and I hope he wins re-election next year.

I urge Rep. Delgado to reconsider his stance on the Green New Deal. We do not have time for incremental measures to appease the fossil fuel industry. The climate crisis is already wreaking havoc on our country and the world. Failure to act boldly now will make later mitigation efforts more expensive — if we have time to implement them at all.

Publishing history:

Daily Freeman: 12/1/19