DV Journal

(For another point of view, see: “Trump’s Big Oil Cronies Poised to Prop up Fossil Fuel“)

The debate over fossil fuels has produced a narrative that is long on rhetoric and short on realism.

Those who argue for a complete transition from coal, natural gas and oil ask us to do what John Lennon suggested: “Imagine.” Imagine the world they want and not engage with the world as it is. However, producing enough energy to meet our needs and balancing this against environmental concerns requires far more than just imagination.

The reality is: The types of “renewable” energy that advocates usually have in mind — solar and wind power, hydroelectric power, “bio” energy, tidal and wave energy — can’t do what fossil fuels do, now or in the near future. Fossil fuels are here to stay, and policy should reflect that.

Since the 1970s, “transitioning” away from fossil fuels has been a significant goal of environmental groups and their allies. According to Department of Energy data, after 50 years of rhetoric and many trillions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies and private investment, renewables produced just over 20 percent of U.S. electricity and 9 percent of U.S. energy last year.

A much-needed reality check shows instead that 83 percent of U.S. energy and 60 percent of electricity came from fossil fuels in 2023. These numbers should give pause to anyone suggesting that the transition from fossil fuels to wind, solar, geothermal and biomass will be quick, easy, or affordable.

Instead, we still rely on fossil fuels for nearly all our daily activities. Whether lighting, heating and cooling our homes and businesses, traveling by plane or car, delivering produce and manufactured goods, growing crops, or the myriad other seemingly pedestrian activities that take place daily, they all rely heavily on fossil fuels.

Proponents of renewables will look at those numbers and ask you to “Imagine” all the ways we could transition and how much better the world would be if we did. However,  a study by researchers at Baylor University found that the policy goals currently advocated are unrealistic. Their work suggests that there’s no feasible way to transition completely, or even significantly, to renewables because current alternative energy sources cannot reliably meet demand and, absent large government subsidies, are far more costly than fossil fuels. As is always the case with imagining, because we imagine something doesn’t mean it will happen.

Consumers expect that when they flip a switch, the lights will come on every time. In terms of  energy policy, we talk about this expectation as the “necessity of reliability.” Fossil fuels are more reliable because they can produce energy day and night when the wind is howling and when it’s calm, when the river’s waters are rushing toward their destination, and during long dry spells when it barely flows.

In contrast, the wind and the sun, which account for most renewable energy, produce no energy when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun doesn’t shine.

This leaves supporters with a problem: either the suggestion that we build costly grid-size battery storage facilities to compensate for the “down” times, or we add rapid-cycle natural gas generators to the mix — which involves the strange reality that implementing a reliable renewable strategy requires the use of fossil fuels.

These backup requirements also increase costs.  For example, researchers at the University of Chicago estimate electricity prices have risen as much as 17 percent thanks to the mandatory inclusion of renewable energy, costing consumers more than $125.2 billion more than they would have paid had they stayed with fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels store energy efficiently and produce energy independent of weather. For more than 150 years, they have demonstrated their reliability and affordability. Renewable energy today does neither.

There is a form of “green” energy that could fill this need: nuclear power. However, that remains unacceptable to many in the environmental movement. The movement would instead continue subsidizing wind and solar power.

So, instead of imagining what we want the world to be, we should look at the world as it is, and allow the usual process of consumer demand, entrepreneurial innovation and an assessment of costs to give us the energy we need.

U.S. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Chester/Berks) and Republican challenger Neil Young debated Wednesday.

Reading NAACP President Stacy Taylor moderated the discussion on Berks Community TV.  The two candidates discussed war, inflation, immigration, the border, and tax policy.

Young, a high school social studies teacher, made the case that he’s the person to represent the 6th District. Higher prices, increased chaos abroad, and an education system that has traded “excellence for equity” are issues he’d handle differently than Houlahan.

Houlahan, who has represented the district since 2019, defended her record of voting for various Biden-Harris administration bills like the Inflation Reduction Act and the Chips and Science Act, which added trillions to the national debt.

Houlahan, a former Air Force officer and business owner, argued she has the experience needed to keep the country strong.

She wrote legislation to combat inflation and gun violence. A bill she authored to stop fentanyl from coming into the U.S. was signed into law, she said.

Neil Young

“I’m recognized as one of our most bipartisan legislators in Congress,” said Houlahan.

Young began the forum by introducing himself in Spanish.

He said the Biden-Harris administration has redefined Title IX and “intentionally hid critical information from parents.”

“The truth is that we could have secured our border.  The truth is there was a House bill but it wasn’t voted for by my opponent. We could have protected our girls on the sports field. We could have kept them from being drafted onto the battlefield. We could have sanctioned Iran and reduced their ability to fund terrorism. We could have passed the parents’ bill of rights.  We could have distanced ourselves from anti-police, anti-Israel colleagues, like AOC, who was on the steps of Reading High School just this past weekend. We could have been honest about what the Inflation Reduction Act actually was. And that was a backdoor Green New Deal that has driven inflation and restricted American energy,” said Young.

Asked about the three most important issues, Young cited foreign wars, inflation, and illegal immigration.

“We’ve crept precipitously close to World War III,” said Young.

“Inflation is completely out of control,” he said, adding that groceries now cost 21 percent more in Pennsylvania, and gas prices have doubled.

“We’ve got over 10 million people who have come into this country. We don’t know who they are. We don’t know if their asylum claims are correct. And we’ve lost 300,000 unaccompanied minors. We’ve got a disaster at our southern border.”

Houlahan agreed that “we are in a precarious time in terms of our peace on the global stage.

“I believe in precipitous time in terms of what’s going on in Ukraine, what’s happening in Israel, what could possibly happen in the Indo-Pacific. And as a consequence, I believe we are at an important time to have people at the table, myself included, who have deep background on this issue. I serve on the Armed Services Committee, I’ve served on the Foreign Affairs Committee, I now serve  on the Intelligence Committee.”

Houlahan said the COVID pandemic was “a big shock to our economy.”

“But luckily, we’re at a place where inflation is abating, largely because of some of the things that we did to make sure we could keep our roofs over our heads, to make sure that we could put food in our stomachs, to make sure that we kept the schools safe with things like the Inflation Reduction Act, with things like the American Rescue Plan, and things like all of the funding we did for the paycheck protection program.”

America must continue to grow its economy, she said.

“And some of the things we’re doing with the Chips and Science Act, for example, reshoring, onshoring, peer-shoring, all of the jobs we need to, the technologies that we need to aggressively seek, the things we’re also doing to make sure that we complete on the stage with the skills and jobs that will bring us into the next century.”

Asked what she would do about systemic racism, Houlahan said the federal government should make sure “we have equal access to education” and that the criminal justice system treats everyone equally. Adults need to have the skills for jobs, she added.

Young said, “Our schools are failing” –including those in Chester and Berks Counties, where most have decreased in performance.

“There’s nothing that is exasperating wealth gaps and wealth divides more than a lack of school choice,” he said.

Houlahan opposes school choice.

“I am not in favor [of sending] money to follow a child into a faith-based school. I don’t believe that is the role of the government. The government’s role is to educate all children and keep them [in] a very strong public school system.”

They also sparred on abortion.

Houlahan’s daughter was about to give birth to her granddaughter.

“And the idea that she is going to be born into a world where she has fewer rights, fewer bodily [autonomy] rights than I do, is something that’s really, really worrisome,” said Houlahan.  “This is a conversation a person should have with their family, their faith, their doctor, and our government should stay out of this.” She said 30 percent of military women do not have access to birth control.

Young agrees with the late liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that Roe v. Wade was “on shaky legal ground.” And while he is personally pro-life, he would leave the abortion decisions to the states. Since Roe was overturned, there are now more elective abortions than ever, and most are chemical abortions in the early months of pregnancy, he said.

“I’m always going to fight that we are a family-friendly environment,” he said. “That we’re not struggling with the cost of groceries, with the cost of gas.”

The U.S. is experiencing a population decline, he said.

Young noted 10 million people have illegally crossed the border since Biden-Harris took office.

“That House bill my opponent voted against had a provision, remain in Mexico. This [provision] takes care of a whole lot -to see if your asylum claim is going to be granted. That saves us a whole lot of resources. It would have increased border patrol agents. It would have criminalized visa overstays. It would have resumed construction of a border wall.”

Houlahan said she voted against that bill because it would allow children crossing illegally to be held for a month, “which I felt was an atrocity,” but she supports a “bipartisan” bill that failed to pass in the Senate.

Young said the bill’s author said the final bill was “unrecognizable” and voted against it, as did six Democrats. It would have allowed 5,000 people a day to cross the border and permitted them to claim asylum.

“Sometimes bipartisan only serves two parties, and it doesn’t serve the American people,” said Young.

Asked to discuss the high cost of housing, the pair differed on the causes.

Young said the average cost of a house in Pennsylvania has risen from $195,000 to $300,000.

He believes that the Biden-Harris “war on fossil fuels that we use to transport 90 percent of everything we make” is the main cause. He pointed to restrictions on drilling on federal land and on exporting natural gas, along with “massive government spending.”

Also, illegal immigrants compete for rental housing in Reading and Coatesville, he said.

“Rental prices and home prices are inextricably tried,” Young said.

Houlahan disagreed, saying migrants play no role in housing costs.

She’s met with organizations like Habitat for Humanity that receive government funding to help people with affordable housing. She said Vice President Kamal Harris proposed government help with down payments.

Houlahan said the “Biden administration has done a wonderful job bringing allies in” to help with the Ukraine War.

“These are very dangerous times, and we need to be working with our allies to make sure we are as safe and secure as possible,” said Houlahan.

Young said Russian President Putin annexed Crimea when President Obama was in office. And now he’s invaded Ukraine under Biden.

“There is a penalty to weak leadership,” said Young, who brought up “the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan.” That withdrawal had “long-lasting foreign policy effects in places like Russia (and) in empowering Hamas.”

Please follow DVJournal on social mediaX@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Minnesota Nice wasn’t enough for Democrat Gov. Tim Walz in Wednesday night’s vice presidential debate.

While U.S. Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio) delivered a smooth performance that largely avoided the contentious rhetoric many associate with him, Walz offered a gaffe-filled series of difficult to follow answers.

At one point, Walz called himself a “knucklehead.”

“JD Vance wins by knockout,” said Guy Ciarrocchi with the Commonwealth Foundation.

Walz, 60, was elected governor of Minnesota in 2018 and reelected in 2022. He won his first election to the United States House of Representatives in 2006 and served six terms.

Vance, 40, was first elected to public office in 2022 when he won the race for U.S. Senate in Ohio.

From the first question, Vance appeared to have the upper hand. The CBS News rules did not give the candidates the opportunity to make an introductory statement, but Vance used the first question to deliver one, anyway. He seemed comfortable and confident the entire night.

Walz, on the other hand, spoke fast and appeared flustered. During a question on gun control, he mistakenly said he “made friends with school shooters.” And he compared his support for censorship of political speech on social media to “shouting fire in a crowded theater.”

The wheels nearly came off for Walz when he was confronted about his repeated false claims that he was in China in 1989 during the Tiananmen Square pro-democracy protests.

Offering a word salad that would have made Kamala Harris blush, Walz rambled from his childhood in a small Nebraska town to his National Guard service to his career as a teacher to his support for a bipartisan farm bill. But eventually he conceded, “I will talk a lot. I will get caught up in the rhetoric.”

Walz added, “I’ve not been perfect, and I’m a knucklehead at times.”

As in previous debates, the Republican faced tougher questions than the Democrat, and Vance was repeatedly asked to defend controversial statements made by his running mate, Donald Trump. And as in earlier debates, the moderators only “fact-checked” the Republican, never the Democrat.

Vance was unfazed. He even turned the tables on the moderators when Margaret Brennen attempted to mislead viewers about the legal status of the thousands of Haitian migrants in Springfield, Ohio.

“Just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio, does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status, temporary protected status,” Brennan said. When she tried to move onto another topic, Vance interrupted her.

“The rules were that you got a fact check, and since you’re fact-checking me, I think it’s important to say what’s actually going on,” Vance said. “So there’s an application called the CBP One app where you can go on as an illegal migrant, apply for asylum or apply for parole and be granted legal status at the wave of a Kamala Harris open border wand.”

As Vance continued to speak, CBS News cut off his microphone.

In a reflection of how the night was going overall, Walz then jumped in to claim that what Vance described “has been on the books since 1990.” He was wrong.

The Biden administration began using the CBP One app, which wasn’t released until 2020, for widespread asylum requests like those used by many Haitians in Springfield, in January 2023.

“It’s three against one,” said National Review’s Andy McCarthy. “And the one is winning.”

And Walz may have created a headache for himself by denying that the Minnesota abortion law he signed allows doctors to legally deny care to babies that survive abortion procedures.

“That’s not what the law says,” Walz claimed, adding, “There’s a continuation of these guys to try and tell women [what to do]. I use this line: ‘Just mind your own business’ on this.”

In fact, as The Dispatch reported, Walz signed a bill repealing nearly all of the state’s protections for those infants. Minnesota “recorded eight deaths among infants who survived abortion attempts during Tim Walz’s tenure as governor,” The Dispatch confirmed.

In a drastic turn from recent political debates, both candidates went out of their way to treat each other with respect and even graciousness. During the debate over gun control, for example, Walz mentioned that his 17-year-old son witnessed a shooting at a community center.

“I didn’t know that your 17-year-old witnessed a shooting,” Vance said. “I’m sorry about that. That is awful.”

And Walz repeatedly mentioned he agreed with points Vance was making, on issues like bringing manufacturing back to the U.S.

But nice wasn’t enough.

“Governor Walz was a deer in headlights for the first several minutes of the debate,” said Republican strategist Vince Galko, a former executive director of the Pennsylvania Republican Party.

“The Harris leadership team has to be seething behind closed doors. If Governor Walz wasn’t agreeing with Senator Vance then he was bragging about Minnesota. Can anyone remember one positive thing he said about Kamala Harris?”

The reaction from Keystone State Democrats was muted, though a few did speak up in defense of Walz via social media.

“Tim Walz tonight was plain spoken and powerful in laying out a future with more freedom, opportunity, and decency with Kamala Harris as president,” posted Democratic nominee for Auditor General Malcolm Kenyatta.  “JD Vance couldn’t say Donald Trump lost the 2020 election and tried to convince us that Trump wasn’t Trump.”

And U.S. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan also weighed in.

“Way to go, Coach! Tim Walz showed up tonight to talk about a New Way Forward for America where everyone, everywhere can get ahead. Vance showed us the dystopian future he and Trump are intentionally designing. Move forward together or get dragged backward–the choice is clear.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: X@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Tuesday’s debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris continues to trigger reaction from Delaware Valley voters. Most tell DVJournal they think Trump missed an opportunity to win undecided voters.

Philadelphia resident John Featherman, a Republican who ran for mayor in 2011 and Congress in 2012, said, “Harris won on debate points, but I’m not sure it will make any difference in how people vote. Most people watching this debate already had their minds made up. The question is whether it had any effect — even marginal — on undecided voters.”

Skippack resident Debbie Jr. “D.J.” McGinley said, “There were so many lies with Kamala. Why do they continue letting her lie? It won’t change my vote even though Trump was flustered: Trump 2024. She had three and a half years and has done nothing. Also, it’s 9/11 today. This should’ve been a conversation last night between the two of them (to) close the borders.”

“Both candidates were losers as neither did anything to convince undecided voters that they were the better choice,” said Tim Daly, of Lower Makefield. “Harris was overly rehearsed and confirmed again to the public she is disingenuous. Trump was Trump, acting boorish while taking the bait with stupid responses to Harris’ prepared script about rallies and getting money from Fred Trump. Nobody cares and she did this to use up time and get the spotlight off her.

“The biggest loser of the night was (moderator) David Muir, who carried out the orders of ABC execs to gang up on Trump to demand answers to questions of and fact check Trump, while not doing the same to Harris when she did the same,” said Daly. “Worse, Muir pushed liberal false narratives on the fact checks as there is badge cam video of the Haitian migrant arrest over the cat and the National Crime Victimization Survey data produced by the BJS (Bureau of Justice Statistics), which details the increased crime seen across the nation.”

Felice Fein of West Goshen also believes the moderators were unfair to Trump.

“Having watched the CNN debate between Biden and Trump, which I thought was well done, I was disappointed to see that the ABC moderators did not press Harris to provide specifics like they did Trump. There are some very simple facts regarding policies, economic numbers, and immigration about which moderators could have questioned Harris’ record, yet they did not. Overall, she seemed well rehearsed, ready with bait to draw Trump’s ire, and he took it. Had Trump stuck to the Biden-Harris record and juxtaposed it to his own, then Trump could have wrapped up the election last night. As it is, voters still have more candidate and policy research to do and potentially another debate to make decisions about the future of this constitutional republic,” said Fein.

New Hope resident Gee Moses said, “It plays into the Democrats’ side for sure. Kamala and the Democrat operatives from ABC baited Trump over and over. It was clear he wasn’t prepared, seemed frazzled and rambling. Pushing things that may be true but (they) seemed exaggerated, especially to a majority of the country who gets its news from MSM (mainstream media). So, they would not of heard of the realities on the ground, like animals being eaten. The 21 million-plus illegals, and other comments will seem like a lie especially after MSM will claim they are.

“Trump blew his opportunity to define Kamala for 31 percent of people who said they need to learn more about her,” said Moses. “He missed his opportunity to challenge her and put her on the defensive, exposing what a weak and flawed candidate she is.

“The Democrats have exposed the American public for being shallow and easily manipulated,” said Moses. “They turned Harris from an extremely unlikable anchor on the party to the next coming of Obama without her doing interviews or having policies. It was a pure PR campaign, and they learned from COVID if you just tell the lies enough, people will not only believe them but pass them along as truth. Trump needed to push back and expose this hollow shell of a human, and he failed miserably.”

Springfield’s Joy Schwartz ran for Delaware County Council last year.

“Trump appeared somber and pre-occupied,” said Schwartz. “His demeanor may not have been attractive to some, but it was completely appropriate given the gravity of the problems facing our country, and his obvious frustration with having to debate the two biased moderators as well as the candidate. Trump won on the issues.”

“Vice President Harris’s fake gravitas, smugness, and over-rehearsed facial expressions did not enhance her otherwise confident and polished delivery.  As usual, she was short on substance. All fluff, no stuff,” Schwartz added.

Scott Presler isn’t a Delaware Valley resident, but he’s been active in getting Republicans in the area registered to vote. He’s widely credited with helping Bucks County GOP registrations pass the Democrats for the first time since George W. Bush was president.

“What I saw during the debate is a Vice President — Kamala — who currently has the power to make changes & has failed to use her position for the last 3 and 1/2 years,” Presler posted on social media.

“I saw a politician who doesn’t care that her failure from the Afghanistan withdrawal killed 13 soldiers; her failure to secure the border killed daughters, like Laken Riley; her failure to cut our bloated spending budget has resulted in crushing working class families; her failure to show strength lead to Putin invading Ukraine; & her plans to increase taxes are going to drive Americans into homelessness. Kamala came off as pompous, smug, & arrogant.”

But Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) posted about Trump’s mention of reports of immigrants eating pets in Ohio: “I don’t know who needs to hear this but stop asking me about fracking when the other side’s call-to-arms is people eating dogs.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: X@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris had their moments during their debate Tuesday evening. It could be argued that Harris got under Trump’s skin at times. When he called her a “Marxist,” Trump appeared to anger her.

But both sides were quick to claim victory.

“Good night, Kamala! Your campaign is over. I just stepped off the stage with Comrade Kamala Harris – and I wiped the floor with her,” Trump said in an email. “She tried to run away from her record. She thought she could deceive the entire country into believing she’s a moderate. But we exposed her for the dangerous liberal that she is.”

Harris-Walz campaign chair Jen O’Malley Dillon sent this message, “Tonight, Vice President Harris commanded the stage on every single issue that matters to the American people. Americans saw exactly what kind of president Kamala Harris will be: one who offers a New Way Forward for the country, who will be a president for all Americans, and who will turn the page once and for all on the darkness and division of Donald Trump. And she reminded the American people that she is the only candidate in this race ready to serve as our next commander-in-chief.”

More locally, Democrats and Republicans reacted to the debate.

Pat Poprik, Bucks County GOP chair, said, “In tonight’s debate President Trump was not only facing Kamala Harris, but also a clear bias from the ABC moderators. They never went back at her to force her to answer a question that she didn’t answer yet they did with him. I don’t see how anyone can vote for a candidate other than Donald Trump after watching this debate. Only one candidate will fix our economy, close our borders, strengthen our nation, and make life better for all Americans and that is President Trump.”

Charlotte Valyo, chair of the Chester County Democratic Committee said, “America just saw a rambling and confused lie-filled rant from, as Vice President Harris has said, the same old Trump playbook. The contrast presented by Kamala Harris was unmistakable. Her poise, policy details, and professionalism are what Pennsylvania and America need right now.  We’re not going back to that!”

“Vice President Kamala Harris dodged questions about the poor state of the economy, the cost of living, and her past statements on bans on fracking. Meanwhile, President Trump laid out a plan that would get our economy back on track for Pennsylvanians and protect Pennsylvania jobs. In the end, Vice President Harris refused to take responsibility for anything of the Biden-Harris administration and acted like she wasn’t an incumbent. In reality, she was called out as someone who’s done nothing to combat inflation and the cost of living,” said Michael Straw, RNC Delegate from PA-05 and chairman for the Media Borough Republican Committee.

Guy Ciarrocchi, a writer and Commonwealth Foundation senior fellow, said, “This debate began with the candidates tied in the polls and the nation divided. We likely leave this debate with the race still tied, but the nation, perhaps, even further divided. The overt, undeniable bias by the ABC moderators in criticizing President Trump, never criticizing or ‘fact checking’ Vice President Harris and posing questions to put him—not her—on the defensive will further divide the nation, sadly lowering trust in the legacy media.”

Dave McCormick, the Republican running for the Senate said on X, “Kamala Harris, along with Bob Casey, repeatedly vowed to ban fracking and “transition” Pennsylvania energy workers. Her denial just now is insulting and not believable to PA energy workers. Roll the tape:”

Democratic strategist TJ Rooney believes Harris was the clear winner.

“Her preparation was amazing – and it showed,” said Rooney. “She pushed every button and the former president reacted accordingly. When you’re angry and on your heels, you’re losing. Trump was on defense from the start. For dug in partisans, they saw what they wanted. Independent voters will notice a profound difference. And she continues to energize Democrats.”

Regarding whether Harris’ comments on fracking (she is for it now) and Israel (she said she supports the Jewish country but also mentioned a ceasefire so innocent Palestinian lives aren’t lost) would her hurt her with the Democratic base, Rooney said, “No. In truth, I believe her performance will continue to energize the base.  She stood toe-to-toe with him and owned him.”

Longtime Republican strategist Charlie Gerow said, “The most important moment of the debate was President Trump’s closing question. Asking where she has been for the last three and a half years is the question every American should be demanding an answer to. Kamala Harris spent the entire night trying to run away from her own positions. She never explained why she has changed her positions as she promised to do. Sadly the moderators never required her to do so.”

Asked about undecided voters, Gerow said, “Undecided voters didn’t get much from Kamala Harris so not likely that many came to her. President Trump looked and sounded stronger and more like a leader which reinforces the key distinction between the two. That will help.”

Vince Galko, a senior vice president at Mercury and GOP strategist, said  with undecided voters, Harris “did a good job dispelling the notion that she was some kind of leftist with a radical agenda for the time being. ”

“Vice President Harris was more prepared and polished,” said Galko. “The opinions will differ on if it came across as too polished. President Trump was President Trump. He spoke in a simple and relatable manner. It was clear that Trump’s strategy was too galvanize his base support while Harris attempted to appeal to undecideds while risking  the alienation of some in her base.”

And Jeff Jubelirer, vice president with Bellevue Communications, called the debate “unbelievably nasty, probably at this point amping up each candidate’s bases without changing many minds.”

“Trump is by no means helping himself, though, beyond his diehard supporters as he’s all over the place and meandering going off topic and going back to his tired lies about the 2020 election and only spewing his hateful and false rhetoric. He’s unable to talk about any policy specifics. He’s more interested in saluting dictators like Viktor Orban. How does this help him?”

Asked if Harris was playing ‘prevent defense,’ Jubelirer said, “A little, but she can’t afford to do that. She needs to make the 30 or so percent who don’t know enough about her comfortable enough to support her even if they don’t agree with her on everything but don’t want to support Trump.”

He added, “When every Trump apologist online is blaming the moderators for his performance you know he lost the debate. It’s gotten worse for Trump as it’s gone on. [Harris] hasn’t hurt herself as much. Could have been challenged more to directly answer some questions although same can be said for Trump. They just spin. Trump lost it. More than anyone winning it.

As far as undecided voters or the debate changing voters’  minds, Jubelirer said, “Maybe. Not so much changed their mind as got off the fence of being undecided. Again, could be very small number but that could be enough to sway the outcome.”

As Americans continue to struggle with higher costs, they look to President Biden and former president Donald Trump to articulate their plans to combat inflation during their Thursday debate.

Reliable, affordable energy should be a pillar of any serious plan to fight inflation. Yet, misguided policies and heavy-handed regulations from Washington threaten to undermine America’s existing energy advantage — built on abundant oil and natural gas — and potentially increase costs further.

Here are five actions that Americans watching the debate should be looking for from each candidate.

—Leverage our abundant natural resources. Developing oil and natural gas on public lands and waters is a bedrock of the energy needed to power the economy and help keep energy-related consumer costs in check. It’s also critical to American energy security. For affordability and security, we must harness our vast energy resources, starting with oil and natural gas.

But the current administration needs to do that. For example, its five-year offshore oil and natural gas leasing program offers no sales in 2024 and a maximum of three through 2029. This is the weakest program ever proposed, especially when Americans and the world need more energy.

A more robust and predictable offshore leasing program is essential to an affordable energy future.

—Fix the broken federal permitting system. Building all infrastructure, not just essential energy projects, is too long and cumbersome. And it’s more than potholes and crumbling bridges. Building renewable energy projects, oil pipelines, airports and other needed improvements is nearly impossible due to the broken permitting system.

Reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act already take four and a half years, delaying billions in investment, making it harder to get affordable energy from where it’s produced to where it’s needed, and ultimately affecting families and businesses.

Comprehensive permitting reform is needed to expedite the process and benefit all sectors of the economy.

—Protect consumer choice. When it comes to energy, consumers deserve more freedom, not less. Government mandates don’t work. Over the last four years, Washington bureaucrats have considered banning new gas stoves and furnaces. What’s next?

Now, they’re targeting cars and trucks through the EPA’s recent tailpipe emissions rule and the Transportation Department’s fuel-economy standards — both of which should be rolled back.

If not, the government will force automakers to produce more electric vehicles, even as gasoline-powered vehicles become less accessible and more costly.

—Restore America’s geopolitical strength. Energy security is national security. America’s oil and natural gas abundance is the envy of the world. It should be leveraged to protect our citizens and allies.

U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) strengthen our competitive edge against global adversaries. American LNG enables other countries to lower their emissions by replacing dirtier fuels, replicating the success that has made the U.S. a leader in global emissions reduction.

The Energy Department should lift the pause on LNG permits and promptly approve pending export applications to support America’s status as the world’s leading LNG supplier, affirm commitments to allies, unlock billions in investment and create American jobs.

—Advance sensible tax policy. The U.S. oil and natural gas industry supports more than 11 million jobs and drives billions in annual domestic investment. However, capital flows where capital is welcome, and U.S. tax policy must be competitive with other countries to ensure the next chapter of our energy future is written in America.

Specifically, our nation’s tax policy must ensure taxpayers reap the benefits of continued investments in America’s energy resources. At a time when the American people and small businesses feel the sting of inflation, we cannot afford to raise taxes that undermine our economic and energy security.

Moving forward, Americans are tired of the punishing increases in the cost of living and basic necessities.

Our five-point roadmap offers a clear path to strengthen our nation’s energy advantage and deliver economic benefits to the American people. It’s time to work together on solutions that could help mitigate inflation while securing America’s energy future.

The following is a suggested opening statement for President Joe Bide at the upcoming June 27 debate with former President Donald Trump.

For an opposing viewpoint see: “Counterpoint: What Trump Should Say at the Debate (But Probably Won’t)

My fellow Americans,

Every four years, you hear this is the most important election ever. These claims pale compared to what we now face. Our very democracy is at risk.

The Republican Party, a formerly great institution, has been corrupted by my opponent. While I may not have agreed with all their policies in the past, I respected their integrity. This is no longer true.

Past Republicans and Democrats differed in philosophy but not in allegiance to the Constitution. They aspired to honesty and justice. At the federal level, that is gone. We now have a Trump party. If Donald Trump disagrees, the issue is dead.

After much work by Democrats and Republicans on our Mexican border’s complex problem, we appeared to have reached an agreement. The agreement included everything that Republicans previously wanted. Unfortunately, Trump, concerned that he might lose a political edge, advised his party against it, and they obeyed. So solid, non-partisan legislation in the country’s best interest, but not in the interest of Donald Trump, died.

My opponent has all the makings of an authoritarian president. Do we want a leader like those he admires — Russia’s Vladimir Putin, North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, or Hungary’s Viktor Orban? Like them, Trump’s supreme requirement is loyalty — unquestioning loyalty.

Trump believes he is above the law, laws that are pillars of our Constitution and of civil society. He is corrupt and corrupts people around him. His former lawyers and advisers have been convicted of criminal acts while serving him. Many are currently in prison; others have admitted their guilt and await trial. And, at the head of the pack is the former president, a convicted felon awaiting sentencing. Can you imagine? Is this the legacy we want to vote for, to tell our children we support?

The man is now running on a platform of retaliation and vengeance. His goal is to punish his enemies, and he has been very clear about this. Is this democracy?

The potential damage of a Trump win in November would be enormous, including the power to fill Supreme Court vacancies with extreme conservatives.

You may not see me as the ideal age for a president. Still, my staff knows I listen, am intellectually sharp, and bring a wealth of experience. I’m a thoughtful, careful, critical decision-maker. With me, you will, once again, be electing a president with a solid team of dedicated public servants who work not to please my ego but for all Americans.

In contrast, Trump’s Cabinet and White House advisers had the highest turnover rate of any administration in American history. Many who have worked with him believe him to be incompetent and unethical. And they have forcefully said so.

I am proud of our accomplishments in the last four years. We reduced the deficit, capped Medicare drug costs, passed an infrastructure bill with many of its benefits yet to come, deployed more border agents, increased police funding, raised taxes on the rich, sent aid to Ukraine, canceled student debt for thousands, and, very significantly, supported women’s rights in every way we could. Not bad for an old guy, huh?

At the end of Trump’s term, unemployment stood at 6.2 percent, and on my watch, it has been below 4 percent for the last two years. Inflation rose to over 13.5 percent at its peak two years ago but has dropped to less than 3 percent in recent reports.

But that’s not good enough. The economy may look good on paper, but it doesn’t feel that way for many Americans. The cost of food, rent, home purchases and energy are stressing many. I will specifically work to reduce the areas of inflation that most affect everyday Americans.

My fellow Americans. With your vote, you alone can stop Donald Trump from making this country an autocracy. Look closely at this man’s character, egotistical need for admiration and attention, biases, and crude behavior. And yes, the fact that he is already a felon facing sentencing with additional indictments and trials to come. Sitting out this election is not an option.

In Biden, you get a man of integrity who is willing and eager to work across the aisle — who, along with my team, is dedicated to democracy — a democracy in danger. My fellow Americans, we have much to look forward to, but we need the right leader.  I am that person.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

The Delaware Valley Journal erroneously reported that a debate had been scheduled for Sunday night between Republican challenger Mark Houck and Congressman Brian Fritzpatrick (R-Pa.). No debate has been scheduled between them.

The Delaware Valley Journal regrets the error.

Longshot presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy has displayed an abrasive personality in previous debates. But in the NewsNation event in Alabama on  Wednesday night, he took his act even higher, calling Nikki Haley a “neocon fascist” and declaring the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was “likely an inside job” by the government.

“The only conspiracy theory Vivek didn’t endorse on stage was ‘Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer,’” a Republican strategist said after the debate.

Ramaswamy’s polls have been trending downward for the last two months. He never broke out of single digits and is currently hovering around 5 percent in the RealClearPolitics polling average. As a result, he was able to play spoiler, launching attacks on traditional Republicans like Haley and Chris Christie.

On the other hand, Haley has emerged as the most likely serious challenger to Donald Trump. Her support has steadily increased over the past two months, and many observers expected her to be the night’s top target from her fellow competitors.

They didn’t disappoint. Ramaswamy and Gov. Ron DeSantis attacked Haley for receiving support from “rich, Wall Street donors” who, DeSantis said, would influence Haley’s decision-making.

“Nikki will cave to those big donors when it counts,” DeSantis said, to which Haley replied: “He’s mad because those Wall Street donors used to support him, and now they support me.”

Ramaswamy repeatedly insisted Haley is “corrupt,” at one point holding up a handmade sign on the notepad provided reading “Haley = Corrupt.” The audience booed in response.

Ramaswamy also called Haley a “fascist” several times, at one point saying, “You can put lipstick on a Dick Cheney — it is still a fascist neocon.”

The debate took its strangest turn when Ramaswamy reached into the Alex Jones playbook.

“Why am I the only person on the stage who can say that January 6th now does look like it was an inside job?” Ramaswamy said. “That the government lied to us for 20 years about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in 9/11? That the Great Replacement Theory is not some grand, right-wing conspiracy theory but a basic statement of the Democratic Party’s platform? That the 2020 election was indeed stolen by Big Tech?”

Polls show most Americans consider Jan. 6 a disaster and a threat to democracy, and few believe the 2020 election was stolen. The “Great Replacement Theory” — the idea that America’s White, European population is being intentionally replaced by foreigners — inspired the chants of “Jews will not replace us” by White supremacists in Charlottesville, Va., in 2017.

Ramaswamy’s antics came during what many observers considered DeSantis’ best performance. The Florida governor had some effective hits against Haley, particularly on her record of addressing transgender issues in school and her call to end anonymity on social media.

Haley had to backtrack from a previous call for “every person on social media (to) be verified by their name,” but DeSantis kept pressing.

“You can roll the tape. She said, ‘I want your name,’” DeSantis said. “She got massive blowback, and rightfully so.”

DeSantis also had another good moment when Christie, a former governor of New Jersey, laid out his reasons for opposing a ban on transgender surgeries for minors. Christie said he opposed the ban in the name of parental rights. “The minute you start to take those rights away from parents, you know, that’s a slippery slope,” Christie said. “What rights are going to be taken away next?”

DeSantis got a roar of approval from the crowd when he responded, “As a parent, you do not have the right to abuse your kids.”

There were more attacks and insults, like when Ramaswamy told Christie to “just walk yourself off that stage. Enjoy a nice meal, and get the hell out of this race.”

But the consensus is that nothing happened in the fourth debate to change the conditions since the first: Donald Trump has a big lead, and nobody is close to catching him.

“Christie was the adult in the room, but it doesn’t matter because he’s got no market,” said GOP strategist Pat Griffin. “Haley was the night’s punching bag, as expected. She handled herself well. DeSantis had the best night he’s had so far — but is that really a significant compliment? And despite the noise, Vivek was a non-factor. So nothing changes in the poll position.”

University of New Hampshire political science professor Dante Scala said he thought Christie’s straight talk about Trump and the rest of the field’s unwillingness to take Trump on helped him with voters who want an alternative to the former president. But that’s not necessarily good for the “Stop Trump” movement.

“Christie reminded Never Trump voters that he is the real deal. And that hurts Nikki Haley,” Scala said.

And he agreed DeSantis had a good night, too — for what it was worth.

“It’s a funny sort of debate when the two candidates with the least chance of becoming the nominee are the most dominant,” Scala said.

A GOP insider, speaking on background, told InsideSources the debate was a “dumpster fire” for the Republican Party, “bringing the brand to a new low.”

“It’s another step in Trump’s march to winning the party’s nomination in a landslide.”

I’m not the kind of person that cottons to the idea of “girl power.” I am woman, you will not hear me roar. I will not be seeing the Barbie movie. I do not believe all women. MeToo is not only a lie; it’s bad grammar. And the worst “F” word for me is Feminist.

Just to get that out of the way.

But every now and then, I do look at myself in the mirror and appreciate the fact that I have two X chromosomes instead of that pesky “Y.”

Debate night was one of those times.

Ambassador Barbie

I had just come from a fantastic dinner with four women I’d gone to school with at Merion Mercy Academy in the last century. (Literally, it was the last century, although they looked fabulous.) We’d reminisced about old friends, and older nuns, and the wine and affection flowed freely. It occurred to me that having gone to a girls’ Catholic school was one of the best things that ever happened to me.

And then I went home and turned on the TV so I could watch the gladiatorial debates between all of the GOP candidates not named Donald Trump. I say “gladiatorial” with tongue in cheek because I wasn’t expecting fireworks from a panel that included Asa Hutchinson, Mike Pence, the guy from North Dakota, and Tim Scott, all very nice and accomplished men who don’t scream. I was expecting Chris Christie to do his “I’m The CNN Avenger Come To Take Out Trump” schtick, and I also thought that Vivek Ramaswamy and Ron DeSantis would get into it a bit (which didn’t happen.)

What I wasn’t expecting was to be wowed by the woman who did, in fact, do Helen Reddy justice and roared.

Former South Carolina governor and UN Ambassador Nikki Haley was loud, proud, and quite brilliant when it came to putting her male opponents in their places regarding foreign affairs. And that makes sense, given her pedigree and her experience screaming at tyrants from across the table at the UN. None of the other candidates had a chance, at least concerning international relations.

I know that a lot of people hold a lot of different opinions on our relationship with Russia and the war in Ukraine. I am personally in the anti-Putin-Russia dictator who invaded another country camp, and I am not opposed to additional aid to a Western ally.

But even if I was, I could have taken a step back and simply admired the forthright courage of a woman who didn’t mince words about a man who very likely, earlier that day, had orchestrated the murder of another of his opponents, Wagner CEO Yevgeny Preghozin. Haley actually referenced that when it seemed that the boys weren’t in the mood to speak truths to power. That alone made me feel proud to have angry ovaries.

The GOP has always been the party of international strength, of standing up to tyrants, of ripping a giant hole in the Iron Curtain. Reagan didn’t do it by himself, and he stood on the shoulders of other conservative giants who believed that you deal with despots from a position of strength, not conciliatory gestures. Haley reminded me of them and the tradition of politicians, often derisively called “neo-con.” And while I do not believe we should be going around the world as Human Rights Policeman without any assistance from our allies, I am also convinced that ridiculing the efforts to end the war in Ukraine is not in any way, shape, or form conservative.

That sets me apart from many in my tribe, and I don’t actually care. Neither does Haley. She showed that Wednesday night with aplomb and eloquence.

I don’t know if Nikki will make it to the finish line. It’s too far away to make any predictions, and the Trump card, so to speak, has not played out. But I can tell you that watching her on stage was a revelation, and it made me, for a brief moment, want to dig out my old Ambassador Barbie (yes, there was one) and hug her.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal