Do individuals in positions of authority have an obligation to admit when they have been wrong? Ideally speaking the answer should be ‘yes,’ but as we all are aware, this happens very rarely. Take for example Janet Yellen telling us that inflation was only going to be temporary! Because she is the Secretary of the Treasury, we would have expected that she would know what she is talking about. However, she could not have been further off base as inflation continues, now many years later. Did Janet Yellen ever apologize or recant her wildly wrong prediction about inflation? … Err, not that I am aware of!
So again back to my original question … Do individuals in positions of authority have an obligation to admit when they have been wrong?
My answer would be, “yes, if they are honest.”
And this gets me to J.D. Vance and his criticisms of Donald Trump many years ago. Vance called himself a “never-Trump guy” in 2016, but his perception of Trump transformed and he endorsed the Republican nominee for president in 2020. The vice presidential nominee issued a formal apology in 2021 for his previous statement about Trump.
Are you listening, Janet Yellen?! … A formal apology!
I think that J.D. Vance is an honest guy and I think he is a good choice. Pollster Frank Luntz appears to agree, but for a different reason. He said on 7/28/24 that former President Donald Trump’s selection of Republican Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance as his vice presidential candidate could be crucial to winning the election.
From the Daily Caller:
Trump picked Vance as his running mate, and has stressed the senator’s dedication to “fight for the worker.” Luntz, on “Inside Politics,” said Vance appeals to “paycheck to paycheck voters,” who he described as “the most important segment of the population” for the election.
“J.D. Vance comes from the background that Trump’s focusing on, so he’s credible. And he’s got the language because this is how he grew up,” Luntz said. “To me, the most important segment of the population, the one that makes or breaks, are these paycheck to paycheck voters, people who have jobs, they’ve been working, they may not be college graduates and they’re struggling. And it represents one-fourth of the American electorate. Normally, they vote Democrat over Republican by about two to one. Trump brought it to three to two, even closer. That segment, if they break for Harris, she’s the next president. If Trump can keep them, he’s the next president.”
“J.D. Vance appeals to them because … it’s who he was. It’s not a segment we talk about. It’s not a segment we see. I get them in focus groups because I go out to these states, but they are really suffering,” he continued. “The economy is not doing well for them. These are not shareholders, these are not people who have a cushion. If they get fired or one check doesn’t work, they could lose their homes, they could lose their cars. And we are very sympathetic towards them as a country. Watch, because I think that’s going to be the focus going forward.”
It seems to me that while Kamala Harris will appeal to those without a paycheck and to the coastal elites, I agree with Luntz that J.D.Vance will appeal to those living from paycheck to paycheck.
7/29/24
californiacontrarian.com