March 30, 2018--Stormy Weather

The two most watched TV shows in at least a decade were aired last week--the return of Rosanne (18.2 million viewers) and the Stormy Daniels interview on 60 Minutes (22 million tuned in). 

They had one thing in common: Donald Trump. 

One thing he is good at is attracting a crowd. Sort of like watching a car wreck.

Since Rosanne Barr is an enthusiastic Trump supporter and the "Rosanne" character on the show is as well (she talks about how America has been made great again)  she received a congratulatory phone call from him. 

Stormy Daniels, in contrast, didn't even get a tweet. In fact, as I write this, it has been about a week since Trump has had something to say about anything having to do with Stormy. That in itself is remarkable since the president has never before been shy about making comments about anything that he perceives to be affecting him.

It appears remaining silent about her is one of the very few things his lawyers, actually, his one remaining lawyer, has been able to convince him to do.

Wondering about this and also, I confess, coming away feeling disappointed that the 60 Minutes interview turned out to be boring, that it wasn't salacious enough, I had been hoping that she would reveal what was on that threatening-feeling DVD disc that her lawyer, Michael Avanatti, had hyped in advance--maybe pictures--wondering, I concluded that what she and he concocted was brilliant--

They weren't thinking about what would appeal to an audience of 22 million, but to an audience of one--Donald Trump. The only audience that mattered to them.

Their entire strategy is to smoke him out. To get him on the record carelessly saying something defamatory. If they could get under his skin enough as the result of the daily media barrage Avanatti is engaged in, they might have a chance to sue him for defamation and thereby make him liable to being deposed, to force him to answer questions in open court rather than in the secrecy of an arbitration procedure where typically individuals who have signed an NDA (non-disclosure agreement) wind up.

They focused most of their jabs on Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, who says he paid Stormy $130,000 in hush money out of his own pocket--money he claimes he got from a personal home equity loan--without Trump's knowledge or approval. 

How believable is that? Anyone have a lawyer who doesn't want to get paid?

So Daniels, and especially Avenatti, have been making the rounds of every possible cable talk show other than those on Fox, using Trump's own scorched earth approach against Cohen and especially Trump himself.

Thus far they managed to get Cohen and his lawyers (with anything having to do with Trump's lawyers need lawyers to protect and defend them) to step in it enough to get at least one defamation suite working it's way toward federal court.

It's still a long shot that they will succeed. But if they do, as with Bill Clinton it will be sex that brings Trump down, not collusion with the Russians or obstructing justice.

Stay tuned. Literally.    

Michael Cohen

March 29, 2018--The 42%

There is a recent CNN poll that has Donald Trump with a 42% approval rating. Up a few percentage points from four weeks ago.

This after what would appear to have been Trump's stormiest month ever.

It was the month during which Stormy Daniels and other women surfaced who claimed to have had intimate relations with our randy president.

It was a month in which Trump disposed of his Secretary of State and National Security Advisor, among various others.

It was a month in which he launched a trade war with some of our closest allies and then a couple of weeks later basically backed off from his threats.

It was a month that saw the stock market drop up to 10% in value.

It was another month in which more evidence accumulated that the Russians and his own operatives meddled (successfully) in the 2016 election, with Facebook and Cambridge Analytica providing the ammunition.

And of course the seemingly and continuingly popular Robert Mueller (with a 72% approval rating) and his investigators tightened the noose around Trump and his inner circle.

And yet Trump's approval rating went up nearly five points.

Forget Teflon Ronald Reagan.

When I mentioned this to Rona, she said, he is more popular because he provided Americans with a mega-dose of political entertainment.

"Love him, hate him (and you know where I stand) don't you wake up in the morning eager to see what he tweeted overnight and don't you turn on the TV every afternoon to find out who he fired or if anther woman has stepped forward waving an NDA, a non disparagement agreement? And don't you every night, before trying to get some sleep, one more time check your favorite news sites to see who else Mueller has flipped?

"I'm embarrassed to admit it, but, yes, I do, I do" I said, "I have grown accustomed to receiving my daily Donald Trump fixes."

"David Frum, liberals' favorite Republican, said that there is a 'conservative entertainment complex,' a place where members of the GOP either inadvertently or intentionally go to provide entertainment for the electorate."

"What does that have to do with Trump's approval rating?"

"The more entertaining he is the more popular he is among a wide swatch of voters. If he's at 42% that means a lot more than just his rock-solid base of fanatics is approving of him. I'd say, the more amusing he becomes there's at last 10% of the public up for political grabs. So, his base is maybe 35% and the additional seven percent in the poll you mentioned, are with him recently because he's had a very entertaining month."

"So, by your logic, Stormy Daniels rather than harming him among the electorate is actually contributing to his approval ratings?"

"Yes."

"And?"

"And, how pathetic are we to have allowed ourselves to become addicted to this political circus? And by 'we' I mean that 42% and . . . you and I. How far have we fallen?"

March 28, 2018--North Korea Again

Considering the remarkable, just completed meeting in Beijing between Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-un, here is something I posted on March 9th--

Finally, maybe, perhaps, could it be at last that there is some good news from Korea?

Change often comes about in unexpected ways.

South Korean leaders worked hard to convince North Korea to join an all-Korean contingent of athletes at the recent Olympics. 

Even maxim-leader Kim Jong-un's sister attended, sitting in the VIP box fewer than 10 feet from Vice President Pence, who did not even have the manners to smile in her direction. (His wife travels with him wherever he goes to keep him from paying attention to beautiful young women.)

Things felt so frosty that it seemed as if Trump couldn't wait for Pence to leave so he could get on with the business of nuking Pyongyang.

For the new president of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, having North Koreans participating in figure skating and ice hockey was less about sports or medal counts than high-stakes geopolitical politics.   

Moon ran for office as a new-style leader who would not wake up every morning with his marching orders delivered to him by our ambassador (assuming we ever again have one) but as one who would find his own way on the Korean peninsular, especially testing to see if there is any chance to make a deal for some sort of rapprochement before we, "fire and fury," incinerate both Koreas.

That opportunity may be coming into focus. Earlier this week high-level South Koreans travelled north where they had substantive discussions with their North Korean counterparts, including in the North Korean delegation, Kim's sister--the "Korean Ivanka." 

After the two days of meetings Kim announced that he would order the suspension of missile and nuclear testing during any talks Moon might be able to broker between the North and the United States. Further, Kim hinted, he is willing to discuss the denuclearization of North Korea, America's and the world's ultimate objective.

Trump's response? Moderate. Reasonable. Rational. No tweets about "Little Rocket Man" and "whack job." Just indications of appropriately skeptical openness to Kim's initiative.

Could this be, might this be, perhaps this represents . . .

I am reluctant to compete these sentences and jinx the situation.

But here's the framework for a deal. Admittedly, a stretch--

We agree to discussions (remember during the campaign how Trump said he would be willing to meet with Kim, that to do so would be "his honor"). South Korea, China and even Russia eagerly await the results and, back-channel, encourage Kim to be negotiable. 

After a couple of months, there is the outline of the deal--

In exchange for ratcheting-back their nuclear program, on route to reducing it, the North agrees not to develop nuclear weapons that are small and dependable enough to be delivered by their ICBM missiles that already have the capacity to reach the United States.

In return, we agree to draw down our military presence in South Korea, withdrawing the bulk of our current contingent of 23,500 troops. The UN agrees to deploy inspectors on both sides of the border to guarantee that North Korea and the U.S. fulfill their commitments.

Longer term, the country is unified, following the examples of Vietnam where there is now one Vietnam, and Germany where there is now one Germany. To help in the process, the economic behemoth, South Korea, devotes trillions to the modernization of North Korea, which in turn over time also becomes an economic powerhouse.

Trump one way or the other is forced to give up carrying out any tail-wag-the-dog actions in a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the now rapidly encroaching Mueller investigation. He has to settle for stumbling into helping to promote world peace.

Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump share the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump finally, with this at least, reaches parity with his predecessor. 

OK, too much, scratch that. But they are widely adulated. Enough so that Trump decides not to run for reelection, reminding us endlessly how he fulfilled all his promises. How the mission has been accomplished.

In fact, if anything like this plays out, unlikely partners as Kim and Trump are, they would deserve a lot of credit.

March 27, 2018--Still A Long Way, Baby

Until yesterday I didn't pay much attention to NFL cheerleaders. Not the ones that Debbie did, but the actual ones such as Bailey Davis who was recently fired by the New Orleans Saints.

As reported by the New York Times, here's the story--

 
She was fired for allegedly not following team rules, which, among many other prohibitions, forbids its cheerleaders from having public social media pages. In Davis' case, she failed to make her Instagram page private and on it posted a picture of herself in a slinky one-piece swimsuit.

As silly as this may seem, considering what NFL cheerleaders are expected to do and look like on the filed ( a lot of T&A), it is beyond silly that the NFL and most of its teams have two very different sets of rules for the deportment of its players (many of whom are sexual and spousal abusers) and its cheerleaders (who, at their worst, since it is forbidden by team rules, have dated a player or two).

The Saints have to avoid contact with players, though players are not disciplined for equivalent behavior with cheerleaders. They are required to block players from following them on Facebook and the like though, again, players are not required to do the same.

Incredibly, cheerleaders are not allowed to dine in the same restaurants or speak to players if they find themselves in the same watering hole. If a cheerleader shows up and a player is present, she is required to turn around and leave. Most outrageous, if a cheerleader is already seated at a table and a player appears, she is required to stop eating, immediately get up, and leave!

The team says, these and other similar rules are designed to "protect cheerleaders from players preying on them."

Knowing their players all too well, protecting cheerleaders from them is not that bad an idea. But the Saints' rules put the onus on its cheerleaders to protect themselves from testosterone-suffused players.

To view this another way, while 350-pound players make millions a year for slamming into each other and administering concussions, cheerleaders basically make minimum wage (in New Orleans, $10.55 an hour) for jiggling around even in freezing weather half naked in team-designed outfits. 

Again, think about the Dallas Cowgirls, not Bailey Davis on Instagram. 

March 26, 2018--"Give Melania A Gun"

My second favorite sign at Saturday's New York City's March For Our Lives march was--

"The only thing easier to buy than a gun is a Republican politician."

My favorite--"Give Melania a Gun." This even before Stormy Daniels appeared on 60 Minutes.

Along the route, at Columbus Circle, we came upon the Trump International Hotel & Tower, a gilded blot on the landscape just across from one of the grandest entrances to Central Park. A tower of brass and glass as tasteless as its eponymous owner. Shame on anyone visiting New York who checked in. Certainly to call it anything International" is a boastful reach. It's more Atlantic City than Manhattan.

The kids who brilliantly organized the march paused there to chant abuse in its soulless direction--"Lock him up. Lock him up." And did the same a few blocks later when the marchers swung east onto Central Park South and, slowing, turn to face another eyesore, Trump Parc Condominium. A residential tower on which, for a hefty fee, the actual owners were able to affix Trump's tarnishing name.

Hooking south down sun-filled Avenue of the Americas, which every real New Yorker still refers to as 6th Avenue, one of the organizer kids noticed at 48th Street there was the headquarters of Fox News and, at street level, the studio where Fox & Friends is broadcast.

In a prepubescent voice not yet changed, he began to chant--

Hey, hey
Ho, ho
Fake News
Fox & Friends 
has got to go.

Hey, hey . . .

Soon, all of his classmates and the rest of us stopped in the street to join the now soaring, angry chant. "Hey, hey . . ."

"Isn't it something," Rona said with welling eyes, "that these kids know all about Fox & Friends. Six weeks ago, back in Florida, they were thinking about the upcoming prom."

March 23, 2018--Trump & Friends

Donald Trump's appointment of John Bolton to serve as his National Security Advisor is the most dangerous in a long series of high-level hirings.

Bolton does have the semblance of an appropriate resumé--he served for a time as Ambassador to the UN during the George W. Bush presidency (though because of his extreme hawkish views he was never confirmed by the Senate: his was a seemingly endless "recess" appointment)--his positions on Iran and North Korea are such that it will be difficult to sleep through the night.

He favors withdrawing from the nuclear weapons deal with Iran and recently attempted to make the case for a first-strike military attack on North Korea.

The National Security Advisor does not have to be confirmed by the Senate so we will have to figure out a way to live with his having the unraveling Trump's ear. This will not be easy.

To quote Rona again, she says that what's going on is that Trump is setting up a version of Fox & Friends in the White House. With CNBC's Larry Kudlow as his new chief economic advisor, with Fox News' Joe diGenova as his new chief lawyer, and with Fox's John Bolton as his new National Security Advisor, right there in the Oval Office he has his very own Trump & Friends.

My question is who from Fox will be his next Secretary of Defense (Sean Hannity?) and weather "girl"?

March 22, 2018--BREAKING NEWS!!!

Rona is making predictions again. This time about Stormy Daniels.

Not about what she will reveal Sunday evening on 60 Minutes. Not about the headlines she will inspire, even if she brings along a picture or two of a certain gentleman caller in flagrante delicto. 

But rather her prediction is about the headlines that gentleman caller will inspire.

Headlines Monday morning of the most shocking kind that, in a banner, will span all six columns at the top of the front page of the New York Times and every other paper in the United States and western world and will lead to 24/7-days of Breaking News on the three cable news channels.

TRUMP FIRES SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER!!!

In the case of the New York Post, over a photo of Trump, pointing at the camera, in his Apprentice pose--

YOU'RE FIRED!!!

"Expect that to occur," Rona says, "Sunday afternoon to allow editors to get their stories written and typeset. To scoop Stormy. She'll be relegated to page 14, below the fold, and will be mired there for as long as it takes for this Sunday massacre to play out. Probably for the whole week after Republican members of Congress emerge from their bunkers and join Democrats in expressing upset about the 'constitutional crisis,' which, by the way, you can explain to me when you have a moment,"

When I overcome my shock, I ask, "Explain what?"

"'Constitutional crisis.' I have no idea what that means."

"It means," I stammer, "It means . . .  you know I really don't know. Maybe until they get the impeachment process going?"

"Dream on," Rona says, "You really think Republicans in Paul Ryan's House are going to impeach Trump? Enrage his base? They'd all get tossed out of office in November."

"Dream on," I cynically say.

"Maybe the crisis will result from what gets unearthed by various congressional committees."

"Dream on," I say. 

"You're right. There will be no committee investigations with the GOP in the majority."

"Correct. The Dems can jump up and down and scream about the need to get to the bottom of things but unless Ryan and Mitch McConnell allow it to happen there will be no meaningful investigations. The way Congress works the leaders and committee chairman totally control the agenda, including not allowing members of the minority, Democrats, to even call witnesses. It's almost as totalitarian as the Russian or Chinese legislatures. We've seen those in action. Members behave like zombies."

"This is very scary stuff. Is it the beginning of the end of our democracy? What if nothing can be done about this?"

"I have a crazy idea," I say, "Organize a Guerilla Congress."

"You're making light of this? We're in a crisis and you're cracking jokes?"

"I'm totally scared by what you said about Trump firing Mueller this weekend. I'm trying to keep myself from going crazy because what you are predicting sounds more than plausible to me. Look at the new lawyers he's hiring. That Joe diGenova is a killer."

"So what's your idea about Congress?"

"Since the Democrats have no power whatsoever, while waiting for the midterm elections in November, they should rent a big conference room in a Washington DC hotel and hold a Rump or Guerrilla Congress there. Do their  own investigations, try to get witnesses to show up, take testimony, issue findings. All of it unofficial, of course, but if they invite people carefully they could get quite a few to come before them. For example, by mid April, former CIA director Jim Comey will be on the talkshow circuit to publicize his new book and I suspect would appear before the Guerrilla Congress. As would another former head of the CIA, John Brennan, who went off yesterday on Morning Joe when he implied that the Russians may have personal dirt on Trump."

"Not a bad idea," Rona said, "I'll bet MSNBC and CNN would give it some coverage. It would break the mold and in its own way be entertaining. Which is sadly required by the news these days."

"There was a Rump Parliament in England in the middle of the 17th century. I think it has something to do with Charles I."

"Yours may be a crazy idea," Rona says, ignoring my historical example, "but we'll have to come up with things of this kind to keep Trump's and his sycophants' feet to the fire."

"Back to your prediction."

"You know I don't make them often, but about this one . . ."

"Please, for the sake of my sanity, don't finish the thought."

Rump Parliament

March 21, 2018--Fakebook: Psychographics

Here's the worst part about Facebook's turning over to Cambridge Analytica intimate data about 50 million of its subscribers. 50 million of us.

It's not that by doing so they violated our privacy or that this then allowed CA to precision-market products, services, and political candidates to us. Not just, in one example, enabling them to zap ads to us about books in general but books about the history of the American presidency to someone, like me, who bought on line a shelf of presidential biographies. This is not what is most concerning.

This sort of focused marketing predates by decades the invention of the Internet. Most powerful at the time was direct marketing, where one could purchase lists of "pre-qualified" potential customers who might be interested in, say, fishing equipment because they subscribed to Field & Stream.

And what's worst is not how, with the all-powerful Internet, marketers are able to make their pitches in micro-focused and cost-effective ways.

By aggregating and analyzing big data that Amazon and Google and Facebook have about each of us, marketing firms can construct psychological profiles of us--psychographics--that help guide their sales strategies in extraordinarily targeted ways. 

But again, this is not the worst part of what is being exposed as the current Cambridge Analytica scandal, with Facebook, Fakebook's clumsy enablement, unfolds. 

Also still not the worst thing is the direct involvement of deep stater Trumpians such as the scary Mercer family of billionaires or their previously bought-and-paid-for poodle, Steve Bannon. As reprehensible as their attempts have been to undermine American democracy (we would be wise to remember this is their goal), no, what is worst is our willing complicity in this. 

Allow me to repeat that--It's about our complicity. About how if it weren't for us there would be no Cambridge Analytica, no cyber-meddling to fraudulently strengthen Trump's side in the 2016 election, and no big data to make this possible.

The reason CA and others can, for their scurrilous purposes, put their hands on intimate information about tens of millions of us is because we have willingly and eagerly shared this data about ourselves.

For example, Facebook users casually reveal how old they are, how much education they have, where they live, what they "like" when it comes to music and books and food and clothing and movies and the entertainments we download on line. 

When we click "like" on a "friend's" posting we reveal something about what is important to us, whether it be cultural, political, and even spiritual. We casually reveal what medications we use when ordering drugs on line, where we vacation, how much money we have, what kind of car we drive, how we earn a living, how we recreate, what languages we speak, our sexual orientation and preferences as well as the kinds of families we belong to and our world of friend.

I could go on for thousands of words just making this list of the kinds of information we "share" about ourselves without much persuasion or thought. 

We tell all to Facebook and other social network and e-commerce sites. And then this data, in the hands of the likes of Amazon and Cambridge Analytica become essential to fueling their metastasizing reach and power.

In our post-privacy world most of us do not think twice before revealing intimate details about ourselves. In fact, many Facebook members who are comfortable indulging their narcissism or gossipy side enjoy letting it all hang out on line and can't get enough of listening in, so the speak, to the details of their "friend's" lives, they are so casual about this that they seemingly do not care about what in the process, even unintentionally, they reveal about themselves.

It is dangerous that in addition to being indiscriminate about what we share, while oblivious to what bottom-feeding operations such as Cambridge Analytica can mash together to create a psychographic portrait of each of us that is so detailed it can be deployed not only to sell us stuff we don't need but also can be used to influence our vote. 

In large part, as a result, we have Donald Trump as our president.

March 20, 2018--Tuesday

Too involved with other matters to have had the time to think or write so I will return tomorrow with a posting about Psychographics. 

March 19, 2018--Hell Hath No Fury . . .

Since Friday when Attorney General Jeff Sessions, under intense pressure from President Trump, fired F.B.I. deputy director Andrew McCabe two days before he was eligible for a full government pension, there have been a series of angry crescendos from the president and his lawyers claiming it is now time to shut down Robert Mueller's investigation of potential collusion between Russians and the Trumps to tip the 2016 election by undermining the Clinton campaign. And in retaliation there have been threatening statements from McCabe and previously-fired F.B.I. directer James Comey.  

The latter two asserted ominously that very soon they will spill the goods they have regarding Trump's direct involvement in a potential criminal conspiracy. Comey  for example, who has a tell-all book about to be published, on Saturday tweeted, "Mr. Presidnet, the American people will hear my story very soon. And they can judge for themselves who is honorable and who is not."

This is ominous because Comey, we already know, wrote and secured contemporaneous memos to the file about encounters with Trump during which the president attempted to get him to agree to back off from his investigation of Michael Flynn, then National Security Adviser, now self-confessed felon. 

Drawing on these Comey surely has quite a story to tell.

Then, over the weekend, McCabe, implied there is the likelihood that he did the same thing, memorializing in real time, also via memos to F.B.I. files, conversations he had with director Comey, who seemingly and wisely for corroboration purposes filled him in about Trump's attempts to pressure him to end all investigations of Flynn and the Russian subversion of the 2016 election. Likely indictable offenses.

What with all of this and the Stormy Daniels situation spinning out of Trump control, there is good reason for the president and his enablers in and out of the White House and Congress to be more than a little worried. It would be understandable if there was out-and-out panic. Thus the flailing about, the leaks, the threats, the rushing to any media outlet that will welcome hearing about the opining and spiraling charges and countercharges. 

Of course, all of this is a Trumpian campaign to attempt to further erode public confidence in all parts of the federal justice system, from the integrity and nonpartisan history of the F.B.I. to the Mueller investigation, where there are again assertions that his senior team of invesitagors is biased (it is true that though Mueller himself is a Republican, almost all of his senior investigators are Democrats) to of course the alleged liberal bias of the media.

The real danger is the constitutional crisis that will result from any active moves to dismiss Mueller. How many Republicans would protest? I suspect only a few and that the outcry would be at most a week-long story, with Stormy Daniels again dominating the headlines  

Or is this too cynical?  

If not, the best hope for justice would be a Democratic sweep in November with the House flipping and with the then new chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff immediately cranking up a real congressional investigation.

Nothing focuses a politician's mind more than the possibility of not being reelected.

In the meantime, some related news--apparently Andrew McCabe has already received four or five job offers from Democratic congressmen who have things they would like him to do for them, which would, not coincidentally, restart his pension clock. If he worked for just a few days for any of them, because these would be government jobs, it is felt he would become entitled to a pension that could pay him as much as $60,000 a year. 

Putting aside for the moment the question of any government worker being able to receive a pension after only 20 years in federal employ, whereas almost all other workers have to put in many more years than that for a lot less money, let's think of this as a warm and ironic story.

Andrew McCabe

March 16, 2018--Step Aside, Nancy

An important promise that congressman-elect Conor Lamb made during his campaign in southwestern Pennsylvania was the promise that if elected and the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, he would not vote for Nancy Pelosi to again become Speaker. 

In his calm if convoluted style, Lamb said, "I think it's clear that this Congress is not working for people. We need new leadership on both sides. It's not personal" he continued, "It's more about the fact that I expect leaders to get results, and the result of our congressional leadership has been to have people in the district dissatisfied with their performance."

Early in the campaign, with millions of out-of-district money flooding in to underwrite Republican Rick Saccone's efforts, most of the TV ads were about how beneficial the Trump tax cuts are for working people. When it became clear that voters were not buying this "white lie"--they knew the tax cuts were tipped to benefit big corporations and the wealthiest five percent--the Saccone campaign ran no more adds about taxes and switched tactics, airing new ones that claimed if Lamb were elected he would become one of Nancy Pelosi's sheep.

We know how that worked out. 

But, come the fall, in all congressional districts up for grabs, perhaps as many as 125, we know that there will be an avalanche of anti-Pelosi ads. 

GOP campaigns will focus on the few issues that remain for them to try to hoodwink voters--the evils of immigration, guns, and God. But front and center will be ads about aspiring-Speaker Pelosi who they will demonologize  

One thing we know they won't be doing is inviting Donald Trump to come campaign for them as the more he did for Saccone the worse it became for him. His lead in the polls evaporated.

Lamb is right. Pelosi is no longer an effective leader. She had her turn in 2009-2013 and with it made history--as the first female Speaker she presided over a productive House of Representatives where she was essential to the passage of Obamacare legislation.

Now, she is more political liability than asset. For the sake of her party, as her best contribution to resisting Trump's agenda come November, she should step aside now and in so doing reap all the accolades she has earned. This is a better exit from the spotlight than being voted out as Lamb and his-soon-to-be-gathering colleagues will surely do.

There comes a time for all of us.

March 15, 2018--Trumpian Sans Trump

I've been arguing for some time that if Democrats want to recapture Congress, much less the White House, we have to erect a big tent that in fact is widely welcoming. Not just a tent for appearances sake.

This means we need to select and support candidates who in addition to sharing our social justice concerns are likely to believe in some things that are Trumpian. Especially in congressional districts in the vital middle of the country where Electoral votes are in play and incumbents can be flipped.

Case in point this week was the election in southwestern Pennsylvania of Democrat Conor Lamb.

He won in a squeaker but astonishingly in a district that went for Trump in 2016 by 20 percentage points. A district where in the previous two congressional elections a Republican was elected unopposed. It's that Republican, that red.

Lamb in his first TV commercial was pictured handling and firing an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. It was not just to remind us that he had been a Marine but also to signal to his gun-oriented potential constituents that he not only believes in the "right" to bear arms but is comfortable with them. More specifically that he's not a Democrat who if elected will descend in a black helicopter to take away people's guns.

To most of my Manhattan friends this would be enough to lead to disdain for him and doom for his candidacy.

If my friends could somehow manage to get by his comfort with guns what would they think about the fact that as a practicing Catholic he does not believe in abortions?

For pretty much everyone I know in New York City failing these two litmus tests (pro guns and pro "life") would make it impossible to vote for him. And so Rick Saccone (Lamb's opponent) would easily have won and there would be one more Republican in Congress lending enthusiastic support to Donald Trump's regressive agenda. (Saccone Tuesday night claimed that Democrats "hate America and hate God.")

On the other hand, Lamb is dovish and a strong supporter of strengthening and protecting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and various other social safety nets. He also is a fervent friend to organized labor and was endorsed by virtually all the unions that have a large presence in his district.

And, I almost forgot, though he personally does not support abortions, he unequivocally opposes any efforts to limit them.

In some ways he is Trumpian but his version does not include the actual Trump. Just a congruence of views on a few social issues. Important ones, to be sure, but ones we have to get comfortable with tolerating if we want to win in much of America.

There are 435 congressional districts in the United States, each with a member in the House of Representatives. To take control of the House, Democrats need to flip at least 24 seats. Tuesday night Keystone Staters flipped one. To win the others, and perhaps a dozen more, will require that our tent welcomes and we vote for candidates such as Conor Lamb. 

Like Lamb most middle-of-the-road Democrats will fail some of our traditional litmus tests. But if we want to again became the majority party, we need to attract similar candidates who appeal to their local constituencies and thereby have a chance of winning.

We claim we embrace diversity. If that is more than just words, it is imperative that we put our votes where our mouths are.

March 14, 2018--Our First Female President

At first I didn't know if I should take her seriously. 

When Rona said, "Remember when Toni Morrison referred to Bill Clinton as our first black president?"

"I do remember that and how I thought at the time that though I sort of got it, it sounded way over the top."

"Right," Rona said, "In the New Yorker she said something like, 'In spite of his white skin, he's our first black president. Blacker then any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime.'"

"Back then many people thought this was a compliment to Clinton. Later, most came to feel it wasn't that at all but rather a sad commentary that America was so unready to elect an actual African-American person that he was the closest thing to a black person we could elect to the presidency since he at least had some soul."

"You're remembering correctly."

"So what's on your mind about this?"

"As long as you understand in advance that what I am about to say isn't something I agree with--quite the contrary--but rather a perception based on refutable stereotypes."

"This sounds mysterious. I can't wait to hear."

"Not unlike what Morrison said about Clinton, it occurs to me, again, if you believe the stereotypes, that Donald Trump is our first female president."

"What!" I screamed, leaping from my chair as if I had been electrocuted.

Waiting for me to calm down, Rona said, "Make a list of the stereotypes that are applied to women and I think you'll see what I mean."

I couldn't begin to find words to enter into this discussion. So Rona proceeded to make the list--

Children come first (certainly, Ivanka)
Works from home (in Trump Tower or the White House)
Cares more then most men about appearance 
Is vain (Trump's obsession with his hair)
Is Narcissistic
He's fearful
Not as strong as typical men (Trump was a draft avoider)
Is flirty
Emotional
Impulsive
Intuitive
Instinctual

"Especially," Rona said, "in regard to his inclination to make emotional and impulsive decisions, his behavior as president is stereotypically 'female.' In fact, he prides himself on having the 'best' instincts."

I was flabergasted. "And so?"

"And so what?" I finally managed to stammer.

"So, by these stereotypes he comes off as pretty feminine. Again, not that I agree with stereotyping. But as they apply to Trump or to men and women in general, though they are becoming more and more outdated, he's as much like a 'traditional' woman as a stereotypical man."

"But he also fits some male stereotypes," I said, "Like he's macho, a braggart, chauvinistic, a male supremacist, thinks with his genitals  and is full of bluster and bravado.  How, for example, he preposterously said after the Parkland School shootings that he would have entered the building to protect the children even if he was unarmed."

"In any case, it's another way to think about him. Another way to help understand his appeal to so many."

"True."

"But most important, and ironic, is that the very qualities he has in abundance--his impulsiveness, his inclination to lead by emotion and instinct (alleged female characteristics)--are the very things men used to cite--and many continue to do so--as the reasons why women are unfit to be trusted to serve as CEO's much less commander-in-chief."

"Interesting," I said. 

"In other words," Rona said, "how it was felt that by nature, by temperament, women are not qualified to be president, especially when menstruating. Remember all that about PMS? But here we have Trump, who is more emotion-driven than almost anyone I know--male or especially female--sitting at the head of the table in the Situation Room."

March 13, 2018--Spatting With Friends

I'm spatting again with some of my liberal friends. 

This time about the potential meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un.

They are sharply critical of Trump for so impetuously agreeing to meet while I, though I too have my reservations, have been asking them what are the better alternatives--Not talking? Exchanging insults? ("Little Rocket Man," "Dotard") Saber rattling? All-out war where everyone agrees hundreds of thousands would die within minutes?

Most frequently, my friends, though they generally feel direct talks are ultimately a good idea, contend it is premature for Trump to agree to meet before traditional forms of negotiation and diplomacy prepare the way for a presidential meeting.

As one put it, "Countries such as North Korea, rogue countries seeking the imprimatur of legitimacy, see being invited to a face-to-face encounter in itself to be a major goal. Trump meeting with Kim would be a sign of welcoming him and North Korea into the company of credible nations. Kim craves a seat at that table. And so for Trump to trade it away, getting nothing substantial in return, is not the way to make a deal with the likes of Kim."

All good points, I concede but continue to ask what are the alternatives. My friends say, "None of the above."

So again I ask, "What should we do?"

My friends continue to say have Secretary of State Tillerson and what little staff he has work on what they would discuss when meeting, preparing the way for it, very much including what the two leaders will say and do when they finally get together. What agreements they can endorse and literally sign off on. Come up with agreements about step-by-step plans for the North that include ratcheting back their nuclear program while we agree to drawdown our military forces that are stationed in South Korea. 

And, of course, my friends say, to make sure before Kim and Trump meet that there will be verifiable stipulations regarding how the various drawdowns will be verified. To quote Ronald Regan when dealing with the Soviet Union, "Trust, but verify." In Russian, Doveryay, no proveryay.

"Sounds good," I say, "But the sad reality is that Trump does not have a diplomatic team in place or anyone for that matter in his administration who knows anything about East Asia much less Korea. We don't even have an ambassador to South Korea. And so, considering all of this and the reality of North Korea's nuclear weapons and ICBMs, what's the best way to proceed?"

At this point conversation begins to lose velocity with my friends and I at least agreeing that there are no precedents to draw upon and, considering the type of leaders they and we are afflicted with, maybe we have no choice but to try it Kim's and Trump's way--roll the dice and hope for the best. 

With that hope based precariously on the very fact of who are our leaders. One, in Kim, whose favorite American seems to be the preposterous Dennis Rodman while those most on our president's mind also come from the media and popular culture--"Alex" Baldwin and Chuck Todd. 

Before we move on, to underscore why I am attempting to cling to hope, I ask my friends why they believe with a Kim and a Trump traditional approaches, traditional forms of diplomacy have any chance of succeeding. Even if there were the usual Republican foreign policy folks serving in the Trump administration or, for that matter, if Hillary Clinton had been elected and with her there was the usual army of Democratic foreign policy experts, with Trump and Kim why would we expect any of the traditional approaches to foreign policy to work.

"Didn't we try that?" I ask, "Republicans as well as Democrats, when they or we were in power? What evidence of success can we point to from the approaches of the previous four presidents, who, over more than 25 years, tried various strategies, from cajoling and threatening to buying-off (bribing) the North Korean leadership?" 

Pressing further, I also ask, "What did George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, or Barack Obama for that matter accomplish with regard to North Korea?" 

And concluding, I say, "During those two-plus decades the North Koreans became a major nuclear power. That's what got accomplished."

One more troubling thing--a friend, who I suspect represents a somewhat widespread feeling in progressive circles, acknowledged that a big part of him doesn't want this approach to work because he doesn't want anything positive to happen during Trump's presidency. Not to the economy and not in world affairs.

"So," I said, "If Kim and Trump roll the dice and that fails won't we then wind up going to nuclear war? If this is where we're already headed, maybe, just maybe . . ."

March 12, 2018--Distractions

We needed some laughs without Donald Trump being the source of them and so we turned to TV. 

Not CNN, MSNBC, or Fox. We needed a break from that.

Of course, though late last week the North Korean business was being played out in screaming headlines and Breaking News was constantly interrupting normal broadcasting--with Breaking News the new normal--Fox & Friends, that idiotic morning show, dredged up a few new things about O.J. Simpson to yack about to distract their viewers. The "gloves don't fit" and whatnot.

We almost never watch entertainment programming on network TV--I confess I had not seen a full episode of Seinfeld until about six months ago and now am addicted to it, though not unhappily, I still have been unable to find a way to like Friends--not wanting more shows to become compulsive about--we try to read and talk to each other when seeking distraction from news of the day, news of the hour, or news of the last five minutes.

At lunch with a friend last week, sensing our agitation about all things Trump, he asked if we had ever watched Episodes.

"Episodes of what?" I asked.

"The TV series. Episodes the TV series, which ran for five seasons on Showtime."

Never even having heard of it should give you some idea of how out of touch we are. Much of that out-of-touchness, I should confess, intentional.

When he said it was created by the co-creator of Friends, I stopped listening and tried to turn the conversation back to why Hope Hicks was quitting her White House job. "That's like a sitcom," I said.

But desperate, the other night, having run out of things to talk about, Rona said, "Why don't we give in and take a look at that show Lee mentioned. He has a life so any TV show he mentions might actually be fun."

And so we did. By Sunday evening we had watched all five seasons, about 40 half-hour episodes.

We love them and are already feeling blue that soon we will miss the extra-vivid characters and hilarious situations and will have nothing to do but return to talking about Trump and Kim Jong-un.

Oh, I forgot to mention, Episodes is about . . . 

And it stars Matt LeBlanc from Fr . . .

March 9, 2018--Denuclearization?

The blog posting after this one was written before the announcement that Donald Trump and North Korean president Kim Jong-un plan to meet in May to discuss the possible end of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program. 

This note is to indicate that I am not ignoring that potentially world-changing event. Though like other liberals who detest Trump, I haven't yet figured out what tone to take when discussing it. Caught off guard by the announcement, the late night MSNBC hosts from Rachel Maddow to Lawrence O'Donnell couldn't stop dealing with Trump in a begrudging, joking way. Their shows were planned to be about Stormy Daniels and such. For my views about North Korea see Wednesday's blog (two below) which ahead of the news about North Korea, I feel, pretty much rings true.

March 9, 2018--My 3,333rd Blog Posting: Suicide Is Painless

The one thing thus far missing from the Trump Show is a murder or suicide. 

In regard to that he's not keeping up with the Clintons who, according to the conspiracy-minded, as early as their first year in the White House, already had a few.

Vince Foster comes to mind.

He was a colleague of Hillary's in the Rose law firm in Little Rock and her suspected lover. He followed the Clintons to Washington and during the first six months of Bill's presidency served in the administration as deputy White House counsel.

One day, after not showing up for work, Foster was found dead in Fort Marcy Park, shot in the head. 

Many on the lunatic fringe claimed that the Clintons murdered him, though five separate investigations found that Foster, unhappy in Washington, had grown despondent and killed himself. 

For years afterward, Clinton haters did not accept that verdict, including Jerry Falwell, who, through the Arkansas Project, alleged that there were two witnesses who had incontrovertible evidence that Foster was murdered by Bill and Hillary. However, before they could testify, Falwell claimed they were killed in two separate plane crashes.

On late-night talk radio, along with a continuing drumbeat of accusation about Hillary's role in the death of our embassy workers in Benghazi, one can still hear ranting about the murder of Vince Foster.

Thus far with Trump, we hear about Playboy centerfolds and porn stars, but nothing yet about suicides or murders. 

Give them time. He's been in office only 14 months.

As things close in tighter and tighter on Trump and his inner circles, I anticipate there will be a few. 

Would one be surprised if Trump's so-called "outside" lawyer, Michael Cohen, who has created a fiasco out of attempting to obscure and silence talk about Trump's longterm extra-marital affair with porn star Stormy Daniels, took a handful of pills? 

He is clearly one of those Trump enablers who has been with him for years, cleaning up his messes, who feels as if he would take a bullet for Trump. Barring that, killing himself would serve. 

And, of course, this would have the additional benefit of Sean Hannity blaming it on Hillary. 

Then there is the strange case of Sam Nunberg, another Trump hanger-on, who until recently was also available to take a bullet for the big guy and who became a household name earlier this week among cable news devotees as he made the rounds of talk shows, muttering semi-coherently about being subpoenaed by one of Robert Mueller's grand juries. On the Ari Melber show, for example, he was so agitated that Melber and his panelists suspended normal interviewing and tried to talk him down from the ledge. 

As of this morning Nunberg says he will cooperate with Mueller, his is not off the wagon, and though he's still alive, he's on my watch list. 

And, of course, if he does do himself in, Rush Limbaugh can always blame it on Obama.

Would anyone be surprised if Paul Manafort was found dead soon after imbibing some exotic Russian potion? Either administered by the same operative who poisoned the Russian defector and his daughter earlier this week in London (he could have had an open-jaw plane ticket from Moscow to London to Washington to Moscow) or the polonium-210 could have been self-administered by Manafort who at age 68 is looking at 80 years in federal prison. That would make him even older than my 107-year-old mother if he managed to serve his entire sentence.

What with his literal million-dollar custom wardrobe, which he paid for with Ukrainian money, living the rest of his life in a 50 square foot jail in an orange jumpsuit with no belt or shoelaces is not that GQ. 

But again, if Manafort is no more, his demise can be blamed on Huma Abedin or Susan Rice or Eric Holder. 

And, finally, there is Trump himself. From the current look of him it appears as if he is eating himself to death. A few more supersized Big Macs, with his clogged arteries, who knows. 

On the other hand he'll have no one to blame but himself.

March 7, 2018--Korea

Finally, maybe, perhaps, could it be at last that there is some good news from Korea?

Change often comes about in unexpected ways.

South Korean leaders worked hard to convince North Korea to join an all-Korean contingent of athletes at the recent Olympics. 

Even maxim-leader Kim Jong-un's sister attended, sitting in the VIP box fewer than 10 feet from Vice President Pence, who did not even have the manners to smile in her direction. (His wife travels with him wherever he goes to keep him from paying attention to beautiful young women.)

Things felt so frosty that it seemed as if Trump couldn't wait for Pence to leave so he could get on with the business of nuking Pyongyang.

For the new president of South Korea, Moon Jae-in, having North Koreans participating in figure skating and ice hockey was less about sports or medal counts than high-stakes geopolitical politics.   

Moon ran for office as a new-style leader who would not wake up every morning with his marching orders delivered to him by our ambassador (assuming we ever again have one) but as one who would find his own way on the Korean peninsular, especially testing to see if there is any chance to make a deal for some sort of rapprochement before we, "fire and fury," incinerate both Koreas.

That opportunity may be coming into focus. Earlier this week high-level South Koreans travelled north where they had substantive discussions with their North Korean counterparts, including in the North Korean delegation, Kim's sister--the "Korean Ivanka." 

After the two days of meetings Kim announced that he would order the suspension of missile and nuclear testing during any talks Moon might be able to broker between the North and the United States. Further, Kim hinted, he is willing to discuss the denuclearization of North Korea, America's and the world's ultimate objective.

Trump's response? Moderate. Reasonable. Rational. No tweets about "Little Rocket Man" and "whack job." Just indications of appropriately skeptical openness to Kim's initiative.

Could this be, might this be, perhaps this represents . . .

I am reluctant to compete these sentences and jinx the situation.

But here's the framework for a deal. Admittedly, a stretch--

We agree to discussions (remember during the campaign how Trump said he would be willing to meet with Kim, that to do so would be "his honor"). South Korea, China and even Russia eagerly await the results and, back-channel, encourage Kim to be negotiable. 

After a couple of months, there is the outline of the deal--

In exchange for ratcheting-back their nuclear program, on route to reducing it, the North agrees not to develop nuclear weapons that are small and dependable enough to be delivered by their ICBM missiles that already have the capacity to reach the United States.

In return, we agree to draw down our military presence in South Korea, withdrawing the bulk of our current contingent of 23,500 troops. The UN agrees to deploy inspectors on both sides of the border to guarantee that North Korea and the U.S. fulfill their commitments.

Longer term, the country is unified, following the examples of Vietnam where there is now one Vietnam, and Germany where there is now one Germany. To help in the process, the economic behemoth, South Korea, devotes trillions to the modernization of North Korea, which in turn over time also becomes an economic powerhouse.

Trump one way or the other is forced to give up carrying out any tail-wag-the-dog actions in a desperate attempt to deflect attention from the now rapidly encroaching Mueller investigation. He has to settle for stumbling into helping to promote world peace.

Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump share the Nobel Peace Prize. Trump finally, with this at least, reaches parity with his predecessor. 

OK, too much, scratch that. But they are widely adulated. Enough so that Trump decides not to run for reelection, reminding us endlessly how he fulfilled all his promises. How the mission has been accomplished.

In fact, if anything like this plays out, unlikely partners as Kim and Trump are, they would deserve a lot of credit.

March 6, 2018--A Labyrinth With No Center

While continuing to root around looking for more insight about why and how Donald Trump managed to get elected president of the United States, in David Frum's Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic, I came across this posting from last February from the 4chan bulletin board. It is one of the venues the alt-right used to slink into existence--

Since these men [Trump supporters], like Trump, wear their insecurities on their sleeve, they fling insults in wild rabid bursts at everyone else. 

Trump the loser, the outsider, the hot mess, the pathetic joke, embodies this duality. Trump represents both the alpha and the beta. He is a successful person who, as the left often notes, is also the exact opposite--a grotesque loser, sensitive and prideful about outsider status, ready at the drop of a hat to go on the attack, self-obsessed, selfish, abrogating, unquestioning of his own mansplaining and spreading, so insecure that he must brag about assaulting women . . . . 

But what the left doesn't realize is that this is not a problem for Trump's younger supporters--rather it's the reason why they support him. [My emphasis] 

Trump supporters voted for the con-man, the labyrinth with no center, because the labyrinth with no center is how they feel the world works around them. A labyrinth with no center is how they feel , how they feel the world works around them. A labyrinth with no center is a perfect description of their mother's basement with a terminal to an endless array of escapist fantasy worlds. 

Trump's bizarre, inconsistent, incompetent, embarrassing, ridiculous behavior--what the left (naturally) perceives as his weaknesses--are to his supporters his strengths. . . .
Trump is loserdom embraced. Trump is the loser who has won.

This was written and posted by Dale Beran who writes about how the Internet shapes politics.

March 5, 2018--Trump: "Pure Madness"

Saturday night I violated Rona's 7:30 PM rule--No Internet surfing after 7:30--and paid the price. 

I didn't sleep much after reading the Washington Post's, "'Pure Madness': Dark Days Inside the White House as Trump Shocks and Rages."

Based on 22 interviews of White House staff and Trump friends, some of them on the record, it paints a deeply disturbing picture of Trump--

At times angry and increasingly isolated. He fumes in private that just about every time he looks up at a television screen, the cable news headlines are trumpeting yet another scandal. He voices frustration that son-in-law Jared Kushner has few on-air defenders. He revives old grudges. And he confides to friends that he is uncertain about whom to trust. . . 

Friends are increasingly concerned about his well-being, worried that the president's obsession with cable commentary and perceived slights is taking a toll on the 71-year-old. "Pure madness," lamented one exasperated ally.  

Retrired four-star general Barry McCaffrey said the American people--and Congress especially--should be alarmed. 

"I think the president is starting to wobble in his emotional stability and this is not going to end well. Trump's judgement is fundamentally flawed, and the more pressure put on him and the more isolated he becomes, I think his ability to do harm is going to increase.

There's more, but this should offer a flavor of the full article and an indication as to why I tossed and turned Saturday night. His "ability to do harm" made me think, of course, about where next and what--North Korea? Nuclear war?

"Pure madness" is not the best orientation for a president in an increasingly dangerous world.

Before my attempt to sleep a friend called, all excited.

"Did you see the piece in the Post?" I said nothing. "Very exciting, no? He's going down! We got him! He's unravelling, which is great. I'm so excited. I think it's terrific that they have him and his family in pincers. The sooner they take them away in handcuffs or, in his case, a straight jacket, the better."

I continued to say nothing, letting him go on and he eventually hung up, laughing gleefully.

The call was disturbing for reasons I at first did not fully understand. Why was I not also feeling gleeful? I have been coming to despise Trump since early in the campaign and later enjoyed watching and chronicling his decline as Robert Mueller and his investigators pressed closer to Trump's inner circle, his family of grifters, and especially Trump himself.

So the report in the Post was good news, no?

Yes, but also, I came to feel, no. 

The "yes" is obvious--Trump has been a political and cultural disaster, driving wedges of fear and hatred between Americans. Along racial lines. Along gender lines. Along religious lines. And of course he has taken the lead in coarsening political discourse, whatever little of it that remains.

The "no" case, less so. On a personal level I do not enjoy seeing any form of human suffering even, as in Trump's case, when deserved. And so to see him being driven literally mad has not given me much pleasure. OK, I admit, some.

And I have been enjoying the spectacle of his political implosion. The more things that contribute to that the better. He brought this and more upon himself. To be destroyed by the forces he himself largely unleashed seems Aristotelian, Shakespearean, Freudian. 

At some highest level of human retribution the self-imposed form of being held accountable is most just and satisfying. It also, in political terms, suggests that even when fully tested the "system" has the capacity to work.

Nothing that new here. 

But then why the continuing rub and agitation?  The sense that something extra-dangerous is happening? The very things I was feeing most satisfied about--the ways in which retribution was wicking out--after reading the Post article felt as if the very devolution of that reckoning has been contributing to the danger.

How, I wondered, would pushing Trump over the edge, watching, gleefully or not, as he approached the edge of his own capacity to survive, why was it feeling as if these facts themselves were contributing to making things worse, more dangerous?

His decline into pure madness increased the likelihood of Trump doing additional harm. Back to that.

By 2:00 AM Sunday morning I came to feel we should be focusing on how to help Trump no longer be president.

I use the passive voice intentionally. To suggest that it no longer primarily should be about seeking to remove him from office, from invoking the 25th Amendment to pressing for impeachment. Since the Republicans control Congress all of these strategies are likely to fail. It is thus urgent to find other strategies that lead to not having Trump any longer serving as our president. A subtle distinction.

About this I have not as yet formulated many things to suggest to contribute to this. But, I am coming to feel that the ceaseless attacking may no longer be effective. Perhaps it is having the opposite effect. He is digging in deeper, doubling down.

I sense we are not any longer helping by spending hours each day eager to pounce on, comment about, or make mocking reference to his every unhinged tweet ("Alec," not "Alex" Baldwin). 

No matter how satisfying it feels, inciting him will only contribute to his further unravelling and the likelihood that as he is further isolated and cornered he will, as General McCaffrey warns, do more actual harm.

Let things topple under their own weight. They already are and they will continue to do so.

And so we should encourage "Alex," as much as he tickles us, to put aside his version of Donald Trump and let things run their current course. 

In many ways the Trump presidency is already over. Where it isn't, however, where as commander-in-chief he can act unilaterally, dangers lurk. Thus we should seek ways to not inadvertently contribute to unleashing them.