Are we about to install as President a business executive with prior duly elected and positive experience in that highly visible role – or a former courtroom prosecutor atypically party-selected as running mate for a sitting President unexpectedly destined to be afflicted by debilitating health issues? Many political observers view this late-stage 2024 election pairing as a matter of expedient race, gender and personality symbolism versus proven leadership accomplishment from 2017-21. Newcomer Harris’ “joy” of a newcomer suddenly on stage has dissipated in only three months of abbreviated campaigning and intentionally limited public exposure to the normal rigors of candidate-testing interviews and appearances. Challenger Trump’s strategy of largely avoiding policy confrontation and allowing the incumbent to self-destruct in limited and selective venues has proven successful. Her party’s desperate lawfare actions and so far spurious claims of alleged “threats to democracy” if the former President should be victorious have proven to be costly voter distractions. This exercise is turning out to be an extraordinarily costly and shameful corruption of the valued historical influence of a formerly principled and respected political party. Extremist rule-changing talk of amending our foundational Constitution has receded in favor of more immediate candidate focus on ‘buying’ special-interest votes and reserving administration ‘plums’ for an imposing array of major donors. The exorbitant cost of electioneering for both parties would have overcome an enormous amount of recent devastating storm damage. Phil Osifer