January 31, 2019--Go Figure

In response to my prediction yesterday that Kamala Harris will either win the Democratic nomination for president outright or wind up on Joe Biden's ticket, a friend wrote--

Biden/Harris? Never going to happen. I don't see anyone under 40 voting for Biden at all.

Then I wrote--

It's not always easy to figure out who will vote for whom. 

Who would have thought that Trump would get 42% of the female vote and 52% of the white female vote. Or 39% of the 25-29 year old vote or 40% of the 30-39 year olds. Much less 50% of 39-50 year olds. 

Not me. 

And so I wouldn't confidently predict how many and who might vote for Biden or Biden/Harris. My guess is that he'd do quite well with everyone. But maybe not enough to win the nomination much less the election.

In response, another friend chimed in--

Let's not forget Bernie-loving folks my age and younger, and he's nearly 80.

January 30, 2019--Kamala's Got the Goods

My early impressions had not been positive. I got the appeal but not the substance. The sizzle but very little steak.

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee she participated a couple of weeks ago in the interrogation of Robert Barr, Trump's nominee to replace Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. It was a star-turn opportunity and so I tuned in hoping to be impressed but came away disappointed.

She spoke too much from notes and did not light up the room with her smarts or tenacity. A ho-hum performance  Not much evidence of fire in the belly. She seemed already too much a member of the Senate club after having been there a scant two years.

But, for me, Sunday changed all that. 

After informally announcing she was running for president two weeks ago while interviewed by Rachael Maddow she organized a rally in her home town, Oakland, CA, where she offered a full-throated declaration she was running for the highest office in the land.

With crowd size an important metric in assessing the strength of candidates (remember Trump's obsession with how many showed up for his inauguration?) it was impressive that at least 20,000 turned out for Harris. To organize such a massive rally is no mean trick, especially so early in a national campaign.

And then there was the speech itself. Unlike other candidates (think Hillary Clinton) who struggle for up to two years on the campaign trail to offer a convincing answer to the classic Roger Mudd question, the one back in 1979 he popped on Ted Kennedy who was seeking to unseat Jimmy Carter: "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy effectively lost any chance of securing the nomination after struggling to offer a coherent answer.

With a nod to rhetoric at times used by Barack Obama, Senator Harris at the Sunday rally kept it simple and eloquent.

She concluded-- 

“We are here because the American dream and our American democracy are under attack and on the line like never before. And we are here at this moment in time because we must answer a fundamental question: ‘Who are we? Who are we as Americans?’ So, let’s answer that question to the world and each other, right here and right now: ‘America, we are better than this.’’’ 

As they say, the crowd went wild and her polling numbers a day or two later soared--Biden had it all his way in the polls until then. His numbers lingered comfortably in the high 20 percents, hers languished at 5 percent or less. 

But as of now they are in a statistical deadbeat. Yes, it is still very, very early but this suggests Harris is tapping into a powerful vein of national aspiration. 

People are still longing to be optimistic, to have hope for a better future.

Further, she was radiant. Unlike so many others who on the trail feel as if they are campaigning begrudgingly, Kamala Harris seemed totally in her element and appeared to be having a deeply-felt joyous time. A star was being born.

And so, an early prediction--

Kamala Harris will win the nomination or wind up as the vice presidential candidate on Joe Biden's ticket. Far out on a limb I see the former to be more likely.

January 29, 2019--The Wimp Factor

I'm sure you remember that during the campaign Trump frequently said it's all about "winning." 

He got in trouble when draft-avoider Trump said he didn't respect war hero John McCain because being shot down and held prisoner for years was evidence that he was a loser.

He told us if he was elected there would be so much winning that we'd get tired of winning.

Thus far, considering Trump's short list of accomplishments, I am managing to avoid winning fatigue.

He set this dialectic in motion so it is only fair that he is now being brought down because these days he seems to be doing a lot more losing than winning. And to be perversely consistent, he is looking tired of so much losing.

Catching myself enjoying his evolving fate I thought a bit more about this winning and losing business. Employing it as a prism through which to sum up how he is doing, vis-à-vis, say, Nancy Pelosi may not be the best rubric to be using.

During the 35-day government shutdown most of the stories in the media were about who was up (Nancy) and who was down (Trump). Most of the polling cited in the coverage focused on who was to blame (mainly Trump and the Republicans) and how Trump's approval ratings were faring (badly).

A special focus of much of this reporting was how Trump was being regarded by his Fox News followers, principally how he was being treated by conservative columnists and radio talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

Coulter especially got under his skin. This could be because among other taunts she called his (fragile) manhood into question.

On one occasion she said we thought we were electing Trump but instead "got Jeb."

In a weekend tweet, after Trump gave in to Pelosi, Coulter wrote--

"Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States."

Trump was being savaged by his old friends who said that while seeking to build a wall he wound up with a cave. As in "he caved" to Nancy and the Dems.

One obvious common denominator--it has been primarily strong women who have made him crazy.

If true, maybe we should back off from some of the winning and losing talk. Especially if there are significant gender aspects connected to it. As there are. Do we want a hyper-riled-up Trump, worrying about his manhood, as we move though more and more perilous times?

War could be looming in Venezuela, Israel, and North Korea. And of course Syria, with us unwisely withdrawing, is in danger of further unravelment. All places where in wag-the-dog terms Trump might be tempted to have us intervene.

I'm not suggesting that Nancy and her supporters back off but just that we should continue to look for opportunities to weaken him politically (to "win") but not make too big a deal of the personal contest that is at the heart of the matter.

I have always felt that in many hotly contested situations winning without gloating is the preferred way to go. This is a glaring and frightening example.

January 28, 2019--Joe: "I Like Republicans"

Writing these as I frequently do in real time, sometimes my words tumble out faster than my brain operates and I wind up embarrassing myself. 

Friday was such an occasion and so I want to apologize and set my version of the record straight.

I wrote a snarky piece about Joe Biden speaking in October to a "Republican-leaning" group in Michigan for which he received a $200,000 fee.

I can make myself live with the fee. Ex-president Ronald Regan raked in an astrological $2.0 million in 1989 dollars for addressing some Japanese group and Michelle and Barack Obama are in the process of becoming wealthy with money flooding to them from Netflix and various book publishers.

In addition to playing golf, with the exception of Jimmy Carter, it's what former presidents do after leaving office.

But what I couldn't abide was Joe Biden's shout out at the event shortly before Election Day to Fred Upton, a Republican congressman who was in a tight reelection battle. With the outcome too close to call, helping Upton win could have upset the Democrat's move to retake control of the House. As it turned out Upton won as did the Dems. But still . . .

In my piece I more than implied that Joe pocketed the 200 grand with the, wink-wink, understanding that he would help Upton, who is a big supporter of cancer research, a subject understandably close to Biden's heart.

I get it, but Biden did overlook the fact that Upton is also a leading and ongoing opponent of the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, legislation for which Biden helped work through the system by twisting congressional arms. Then, after it passed, at the signing ceremony a hot mic picked up Biden whispering to Obama, "This is a fucking big deal."

But confronted by the Times front-page story, rather than backing down, claiming as politicians almost always do, that he was quoted "out of context," Biden doubled down and wth a light spirit said he has no inclination to "blunt his instinct toward bipartisanship and compromise."

"I like Republicans!" he said, staking out a moderate position as he thinks about running for president in a field already full of very progressive candidates.

He joked, "O.K., well bless me father, for I have sinned."

Upton said that the praise for him was unexpected and that "it was an immense honor."

Since politically I care only about weakening Trump and defeating him in 2020, if this helps Biden win the nomination and then the election, we can deal with other policy issues subsequently.

In the meantime, I apologize for speaking too soon.

January 25, 2019--Joe, Say It Isn't So!

Just as I was about to throw my support (such as it is) behind the still non-candidate, Joe Biden, feeling desperate, though it is still almost two years before the next presidential election, to find someone who can win (forget fall in love with), just as I was about to ignore or rationalize his limitations and faults, including the fact that he'll be 78 in two years, there was a front-page story in Thursday's New York Times which revealed that Joe gave a speech at the Economic Club of Southwestern Michigan, to a "Republican-leaning audience" for which he received $200,000 and, at his insistence, was flown in and out on a private jet (forget carbon footprint issues), now confused and totally depressed I don't think I any longer have a candidate who can win and who doesn't make me nauseous when thinking about her or him in the Oval Office.

Two hundred thousand is an obscene amount of money for any speech other than the Gettysburg Address (you had to be there to really appreciate it), and though I hate it, the corruption and hypocrisy it reveals is not what has me bent out of shape (more or less straight-shooter Biden who grew up poor in Scranton now cashing in and flying around in private planes after a lifetime of public service is not my major problem), it's why Joe was addressing a Republican-leaning audience.

It appears he was there to, wink-wink, endorse for reelection, GOP Representative Fred Upton. Upton is not a troglodyte member of the House--there are much worse: think white supremacist Steve King of Kansas--but the recent midterm election is one in which Democrats put aside differences to regain control of the House and thereby reduce Trump's stranglehold on the nation's government. In other words every vote counted more than usual and there was pay-for-play Biden weighing in on Upton's side.

And it likely helped--Upton won in a squeaker by only four and a half percentage points. Luckily the Dems flipped enough other seats to take control of the House so perhaps Biden can claim he did no ultimate harm. After all, Biden said at the talk, Upton is an alleged "champion" in the fight against cancer and is thus "one of the finest guys I've ever worked with." I know fighting cancer is what Biden is largely about but it feels as if Joe was motivated to endorse him as much for the 200 grand he pocketed as for the cancer fighting. 

Closer to the scene, Eric Lester, who chaired the Democratic Party in Berrien County during the midterms, said he considered Biden's "supportive remarks" about Upton "a betrayal."

Sounds right to me.

January 24, 2019--Trump's Day

Peter Baker of the New York Times reported yesterday about what Trump's presidential life is like now that he is ignoring his domestic and international agendas while focusing exclusively on how to manage the politics of the government shutdown.

On Tuesday, for example, the president's public schedule listed only two things--his daily intelligence briefing (we know from other sources that he does not read the written summaries and spends perhaps 10 minutes listening to his National Security Council briefer before drifting off in boredom) and lunch with Veep Mike Pence (how long does it take to gobble down a Big Mac or two?)

Baker sees this to be a bad thing and cites what critics, for example, are saying about Trump's cancelled trip to Davos. It's the place where governmental and business high rollers gather annually to hobnob and come away feeling good about themselves and each other after, for a couple of days of not talking about exerting more power or making more money, they commit themselves to also doing some good in the world. 

Others are saying that this is also traditionally the time of year when a few days before the State of the Union address presidents and their cabinet members float ideas for new domestic programming to see if thy will fly before inserting them in the speech. Like what Trump's plans for infrastructure would look like.

But do we want Trump to be more engaged in the world and domestic affairs than he currently is? That would be not engaged at all.

The last thing Trump wants is to have to share the world stage with the likes of Jami Dimon of JP MorganChase or Bill Gates. He showed up at Davos last year for half a day and after insulting a few people, including Angela Merkel, headed off to Mar-a-Lago. 

Loner Trump doesn't do group.

And thus isn't Davos the last place in the world we'd like Trump to be? Or worse, at a NATO meeting? And shouldn't we be happiest when he is not saying anything about his domestic agenda? 

In Trump's case less is much more. 

I'd be thrilled if he locked himself away in his bedroom all day to watch Fox&Friends and reruns of The Apprentice. Like it says in the Hippocratic Oath, so he would do no harm. A totally disengaged Trump is thus the way to go. 

Therefore, I wish the New York Times and CNN would stop chiding him for doing so little since Trump doing nothing should be the plan.

January 23, 2019--Down Wednesday

I will return on Thursday.

January 22, 2019--Democrats: How's It Looking So Far?

How's the 2020 campaign shaping up for you now that five or six of the 35 Democratic candidates who will eventually join the race are announced, sort of announced, are out and about in Iowa, or haunting CNN and MSNBC?

I just listened to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand who was being interviewed by Jake Tapper. He popped the Roger Mudd question--the one in which Mudd asked candidate Teddy Kennedy, "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy's stumbling response ended his candidacy on the spot. 

Gillibrand said, she's a mother of young children and wants all children in America to have the same opportunities as hers. So she's the Mommy Candidate.

Earlier in the week Chuck Todd asked former HUD secretary Julián Castro the same question. He said he wanted all Americans to have the same opportunities he had. He has children and wants the same for them. So he's the Daddy Candidate.

Beto O'Rourke is on some sort of Jack-Kerouac stream-of-consciousness road trip from which he occasionally sends out videos. One was while he was having his teeth cleaned. Another where he said he's doing this to "clear my head." Explitives included. I guess he's the Existential Candidate. 

Let's see, who else? Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown got a new, very kempt-looking haircut. His signature tousled mop some consultant must've convinced him didn't look presidential. Senatorial? Fine. But Oval Office? Not so much, especially considering the hair mess currently occupying it. So he's looking lean and all moussed up.

Three candidates last week who are on the Senate Judiciary Committee--Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Kamala Harris--had opportunities to demonstrate gravitas when questioning Attorney General designee Robert Barr during his confirmation hearing.

Each had prepared written questions and mumbled them, not able to look up from their papers and pretty much all failed to make eye contact. So he came off feeling more presidential than they.

Then poor Bernie Sanders is under pressure not to run--he had his turn, some are saying, and should turn his supporters over to 69 year-old Elizabeth Warren, who wasn't impressive last week while trying to look comfortable away from the Harvard Faculty Club when out in Iowa hanging with "ordinary" Americans. 

Bernie was forced to be in Vermont for three days of confrontational meetings last week about how his campaign is apparently riddled with sexual abuse. That should finish him off especially since, oblivious, he seemed to be hearing about this for the first time.

I don't know about you but thus far I am not impressed. 

Am I missing something? Does 100 year-old Joe Biden feel like our best option? Or will this gaggle of undistinguished candidates encourage John Kerry, Al Gore, and Hillary to jump into the race? That way there could be a subset of geriatric candidates while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) and her gang of Furies (too young to run) bop around the Capital in search of Mitch McConnell. I know he's looking forward to hosting them. At the moment, though, he's hiding from them and Trump.

January 21, 2019--BuzzardFeed

Late on Friday did you, like me, feel the air rushing into the balloon and then just as quickly flowing out?

I'm referring to the reaction to the BuzzFeed report that claimed President Trump explicitly instructed his fixer, Michael Cohen, to lie to Congress when he testified before them. 

If true (remember these two little words), this would have Trump pinned in the crosshairs of having committed at least two felonies--witness tampering (technically, suborning perjury) and conspiring to cover up evidence of a crime. Both almost automatically impeachable offenses. 

And so, the responsible media, numerous Democrats in Congress, and almost everyone I know immediately cheered that it was time to stop fooling around with investigations and such and get to the main event--impeachment--as there was now more than ample evidence that Trump was, yes, a crook.

Then a funny thing happened.

The Mueller investigation's spokesperson took the very unusual step of calling aspects of the BuzzFeed report into question. He usually says nothing about everything. So let me quote this--

BuzzFeed’s description of specific statements to the Special Counsel’s Office, and characterization of documents and testimony obtained by this office, regarding Michael Cohen’s Congressional testimony are not accurate.

Trump and his people were gleeful while I and most everyone I know moped. We had thought it was about to be all over and now Trump is taking a victory lap. The head of the witch hunt, he claimed, had just slipped him a get-out-of-jail card.

Not so fast.

Nothing of much consequence happened except a glimpse at the political leanings of most in the media and how beneficial this mess is to Trump as he struggles to save his skin--"You see, witch hunt, fake news, corrupt judiciary. It's all about Democrats trying to overturn the results of the last presidential election."

But I digress. Back to Mueller's spokesman. He did not say that Cohen hadn't lied and he didn't say that Trump is in the clear. Mueller also isn't saying that his office hasn't gathered powerful evidence about Trump and collusion with the Russians. Rather, it is and only is that BuzzFeed's characterization of documents and testimony obtained by the Mueller office are not fully accurate.

This means that Cohen may have lied to Congress (in fact, he already pled guilty to that) and might have documents that he shared that provide corroboration. Which, if true (if true), would be of great consequence.

But friends, there is not yet a smoking gun. We need to be patient, calm down. Grinding is the nature of investigations of this kind.

One further thing--

With Dems in control of the House and investigations about to pop up expect much more leaking as congressional staff learn more about what is to be learned. This is not entirely a bad thing even though much of what is leaked will be discredited. 

The reason it is a good thing, however, is that the more the public gets to know about what went on inside the Trump organization and campaign the less likely it will be that the new Attorney General, Robert Barr, if inclined (and I don't think he will be), will choose not to release the Mueller report as a good portion of it will in this informal way already have been made public and any attempts to obscure it will fail. The politics on the ground will not allow that.

January 18, 2019--Next Under the Bus

Two nights ago, on CNN, Rudy Giuliani unleashed another drunken rant. As with previous ones, embedded in the incoherent parts was genuine news. 

This time it was back to the persistent subject of collusion, Trump's default bête noire. It appears to be the one thing that always gives him grief.

Running out of cards to play, collusion is a clever thing for Trump to obsess about because (1) it is not a crime, and (2) it keeps folks from focusing on conspiracy, which is related to collusion but is a crime. A serious one.

Wednesday night Rudy took Trump one step further down the path to impeachment. And with BuzzFeed's overnight report that Trump instructed Michael Cohen to lie to Congress about plans for a Trump condo in Moscow, things are looking precarious for the president.

"I never said that there was no collusion," Rudy in effect said, "In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there was collusion. I've said that before [lie] and I said if there was the president wasn't involved in it [lie]. About senior campaign staff? That I couldn't say. [lie]"

There's a pattern here, which I suspect will play out again next week when Mueller likely moves to reveal more of his findings. The pattern is that every time Rudy reveals something new shortly thereafter the Mueller team takes some serious action. Rudy serves as a kind of harbinger.

This may be because as a courtesy and possible requirement that prosecutors through the discovery process share their allegations and exhibits with the defense, Rudy in that way earlier this week may have gained a preview of what is to come--perhaps even that Trump himself did in fact collude with the Russians or, minimally, knew that senior members of his campaign staff did. Thus, the need to distract, obfuscate, and blame others.

In regard to who those others might turn out to be take note of the "senior staff" reference because they are the ones who Trump will attempt to blame. In other words, throw under the bus to save his own skin.

Like me are you thinking these senior campaign staff may include Paul Manafort (who was campaign manager for months), son-in-law Jared Kushner, and oldest son, Don Junior? If not them, who else?

If I had been a senior member of the Trump campaign staff at about now I'd be taking to drink. Or thinking about a pardon. We may be getting close to pardon time.

January 17, 2019--Dotty

Between June 2015 and now in hundreds of postings, I have struggled to understand the Trump phenomenon. 

As unlikely as his candidacy was, and how except on FOX and late night radio it was thought of as more a joke or an egotistical act of self-branding than a political force, the grinding process did reveal it had enough power to propel Trump to the White House where he sits as the nation's 45th president.

Though many of my friends and regular readers criticized me, often severely, accusing me of "normalizing" Trump rather than dismissing and deriding him outright, claiming that by taking him seriously I was contributing to legitimatizing him and his presidency. And, by doing so, I was overlooking his totalitarian, fascistic inclinations.

If we would wake up one morning with tanks in the streets and everyone in the White House wearing black shirts and jackboots, it would be because people like me were aiding and abetting his worst instincts, too casually certain he would be brought down by our mockery and constitutional system of checks and balances. We survived Charles Lindbergh and Joe McCarthy. So not to worry, they claimed I was saying. At least not too much.

I responded as over the months all the other Republican presidential candidates fell by the wayside--16, 17 of them--and Trump inexorably crept into the lead, got nominated, and, though a series of relentless one-man hate-filled rallies (Nuremberg?), defeated the inevitable candidate, Hillary Clinton. Observing this I said it was dangerous not to take Trump seriously and thereby ignore the opportunity to understand what was going on in that part of the country about which I and my friends and readers did not know enough about to take seriously.

I added, at our peril. If we don't figure out Trump's political power we will remain susceptible to him and other Trumps.

But, spending half the year in rural Maine, a part of fly-over America, I encountered many wonderful people who were enthusiastic Trump supporters and over many long breakfasts came to learn a great deal about Trump's appeal. 

Yes, much of it was fueled by fear and some of it, sadly, racism; but his appeal was also the result of his grim optimism. Many people believed that he and he alone could a restore an America where too many felt left out by professional elites who knew better than the people themselves what was good for them. For these people, and there were many, Trump alone would bring about a return to their lost America. With him as president they would no longer be looked down upon as deplorables. They would be in charge

No matter that his vision was mostly ahistorical fiction but it did tap into a stream of hope and belief. Both essential to successful presidential aspirants of all ideological persuasions. 

The differences are about what constitutes the hope--a white America or a socialist America. Then there is the belief, a powerful human propensity, belief itself, that affects us all. About this particularly we need to learn more. It above everything it drives our thinking and behavior.

That is what I was attempting to do. To learn from his followers. And to do so I needed to be genuinely inquisitive and respectful. I needed to do a lot of listening. Above all, I needed to be open to changing my views when that seemed appropriate.

This did not prove difficult as I liked my coffee companions so much. They were not defined by just their political views. And, hopefully, neither was I.

But many of my non-Maine friends found me to be a Trump enabler. I struggled with that.

Then recently, after daily revelations about Trump's felonious behavior--including the incredible speculation by the FBI, not cable news polemicists, that Trump may be an "asset" or agent of Russia's, everything changed. I no longer wanted to "learn" more about Trump and his appeal. I just wanted to see the end of him. And, as much as possible, his followers. I didn't want to discuss politics with anyone who could simply write that off as fake news.

When I saw something a Trumpian friend, Dotty, who tweeted that she didn't care that he might by a Russian operative--I was distraught. She wrote, "I don't care what he says or does He's the president we need now to assure our survival." When I saw that I thought there is no hope of reaching any understanding with someone like that--fortunately maybe only 25 percent of the population--there is nothing any longer worth learning from Dotty. But I know I have to search for a way to remain her friend.  

January 15, 2019--One More Day?

I hope that by tomorrow I will feel well enough to post something. It's hard to be on the sidelines when a storm of stories about Trump's perfidies is filling the media zeitgeist.

January 14, 2019--Still Sick

Coughing, wheezing. So I will try to feel better and have something to post tomorrow.

January 11, 2019--About to Be Snookered

The Democrats are about to be snookered. By, who else, Trump.

Here's how it will work--

First Trump finds himself in a losing face-off with Nancy Pelosi about reopening the government. The polls at the moment show Trump to be the intransigent one as well as the principal advocate for an unpopular concrete or steel wall.

As the crisis builds and the implications for nearly one million federal workers and contractors become dramatically clear--many do not have enough money to put food on the table or get their children desperately needed health care--and so the focus shifts from the wall and settles on dozens of disturbing human interest stories. At this stage it becomes all about "humanitarian" concerns. Even the unempathetic Trump indicated he shares these feelings during his Oval Office speech.

At this stage Trump begins to talk more and more about his power, in a fabricated "crisis," to declare a national emergency. And here's where it starts to get tricky for the Dems.

If he does declare an emergency (and, running out of options, it looks as if he will) it will effectively include the redeployment of Pentagon money and troops for the fabrication of a few miles of wall. Enough to enable Trump to declare victory and get a few photos of himself at the border in a hard hat, "supervising" the construction. 

Also, as a corollary, by invoking emergency powers Trump will in effect end the shutdown. This way he will co-opt the Democrats' agenda to reopen the government and not authorize one dollar for the wall. 

As a result, all the contested issues will become moot. The government will reopen and Defense Department money for the wall will be made available.

But here's the trickiest situation--will the Dems take Trump to court in a likely losing attempt to bock this? If they do, won't it appear that Trump wants the government to open while the grinchy Dems will in effect be calling for the courts to keep it closed?

Politically, who wins this one?

It's pretty obvious. 

Since the Dems for the moment have the upper hand I'd urge them to play it. In other words, make a deal. Look like the adults. Move on and focus on investigating Trump.

January 10, 2019--Down for the Count

I have a thick chest and head cold that makes thinking and typing difficult. I will try to return on Friday, more likely Monday.

January 8, 2019--Trump's Emergency

With the Mueller report likely to surface soon, Trump is experiencing his own private emergency and now he appears to want to drag the rest of us into a much larger, generalized one. A national emergency.

His is real, the one he has in store for us concocted.

At first, hearing about the possibility that Trump was finally trumped, with some Democratic friends I was gleeful.

"This only shows Trump's desperation," one said. Another, that "He's finally painted himself into a corner from which there is no way out."

But then I thought more about this. Yes, there may be no easy exit from the trap he clumsily set for himself, with Nancy Pelosi playing him subtly like a well-tuned piano. And on the other side, to his base, there is more trouble represented by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, both of whom warned that they would call his manhood into question if he caved in to the Dems by agreeing to reopen the government as part of a deal that would get him a pittance more for his cement, steel, tissue paper wall, fence, barrier, curtain, whatever. Call it anything you like. He just wanted out of the trap.

For the man whose ghostwriter wrote the book on the art of the deals it was looking bleak. No deal in sight. Just plunging poll numbers.

But then there is the potential game-changing idea for Trump to declare a national emergency--he would claim, as he did last night in an Oval Office speech, that the country is threatened by caravans of murderers, rapists, gang members, and drug dealers, augmented by tens of thousands of terrorists sneaking annually across the border. And, oh yes, there is a humanitarian crisis.

Never mind that there were just six (6) potential terrorists who were intercepted by the border patrol during the first half of 2018. Compounding this lie, Trump went on, claiming most of the opioids threatening our young people are coming though the same way--strapped to Mexican MS-13 gang members, while in fact they are hidden in and smuggled across the border by otherwise legitimate big-rig truckers.

If Trump declares a national emergency (and he has the power to do so), he will no longer need Congress (read Democrats in the House of Representatives) to pass a Homeland Security Department budget with $5.0 million allocated for the wall because he will just redeploy those and many more billions from the Pentagon budget (in an official emergency he likely has the power to do that as well as deploy soldiers to take the lead in building the wall).

By this scenario Nancy and Chuck will become irrelevant, Trump will look extra macho to Ann Coulter, Rush will be re-smitten, and too much of the public will think that Trump did the bold and right thing to protect us from all those dangerous brown people heading north on moonless nights.

And then the final irony--since it will cost $50 to $100 billion to build a 500-mile wall, because the money will have come from the Pentagon budget, Trump will demagog Chuck and Nancy into coming up with enough to replace it. The last thing Dems want is to appear wimpy when it comes to military spending. You know--"support our troops."

This strategy is so perversely brilliant that it could have come from only one source. Trump's current senior staff and advisors are incapable of thinking about how to get themselves out of a paper bag and so a play this multi-layered and intricate is beyond their devious capacities.

Therefore this has to be the idea of only one possible person. One evil genius--

Steve Bannon. Remember him?

The only problem--it won't work. 

Trump's favorables will continue to hover in the 35 percent range. His act is becoming boring to all except his relatively few dead-ender followers. Even Steve Bannon will not be able to think his way out of that.

January 8, 2019--Know-It-All Trump

During Trump's rambling spritz of a news conference late last week, when talking about various ways to secure the border, to show his mastery of using concrete or steel as wall-building materials, while also acknowledging the need for more high-tech methods to intercept immigrants and asylum seekers, he said, "I know more about technology then anyone."

He has been using this trope--about being more expert about [fill in the blank] than anyone since even before he was elected. In fact, I have been gathering a list of things he claims to know more about than anyone in history. 

Drones and TV Ratings and ISIS made my list, but then yesterday morning AXIOS published a much more inclusive list.

Below are selections from their list--

• Campaign finance: "I think nobody knows more about campaign finance than I do, because I'm the biggest contributor." (1999.) 
• TV ratings: "I know more about people who get ratings than anyone." (October 2012.)
• ISIS: "I know more about ISIS than the generals do." (November 2015.)
• Social media: "I understand social media. I understand the power of Twitter. I understand the power of Facebook maybe better than almost anybody, based on my results, right?" (November 2015.)
• Courts: "I know more about courts than any human being on Earth." (November 2015.)
• Lawsuits: "[W]ho knows more about lawsuits than I do? I'm the king." (January 2016.)
• Politicians: "I understand politicians better than anybody." 
• The visa system: "[N]obody knows the system better than me. I know the H1B. I know the H2B. . . Nobody else on this dais knows how to change it like I do, believe me." (March 2016.) 
• Trade: "Nobody knows more about trade than me." (March 2016.) 
• The U.S. government system: "[N]obody knows the system better than I do." (April 2016.) 
• Renewable energy: "I know more about renewables than any human being on Earth." (April 2016.) 
• Taxes: "I think nobody knows more about taxes than I do, maybe in the history of the world." (May 2016.)
• Debt: "I’m the king of debt. I’m great with debt. Nobody knows debt better than me." (June 2016.)
• Money: "I understand money better than anybody." (June 2016.) 
• Infrastructure: "[L]ook, as a builder, nobody in the history of this country has ever known so much about infrastructure as Donald Trump." (July 2016.) 
• Sen. Cory Booker: "I know more about Cory than he knows about himself." (July 2016.) 
• Borders: Trump said in 2016 that Sheriff Joe Arpaio said he was endorsing him for president because "you know more about this stuff than anybody." 
• Democrats: "I think I know more about the other side than almost anybody." (November 2016.) 
• Construction: "[N]obody knows more about construction than I do." (May 2018.)
• The economy: "I think I know about it better than [the Federal Reserve]." (October 2018.) 
• Technology: "Technology — nobody knows more about technology than me." (December 2018.) 
• Drones: "I know more about drones than anybody. I know about every form of safety that you can have." (January 2019.) 

My hands-down favorite--

How he knows more about Cory Booker than Cory Booker knows about himself.

January 7, 2019--Happy New Year From Jack

"I was wondering if I'd ever hear from you again."

Without even a happy new year Jack moved on to his favorite subject--Donald Trump: "2019's going to be one wonderful year," he bubbled. He called less than five minutes after midnight new year's eve, "The way I see things, having Nancy as Speaker is a political gift that will keep on giving."

"We'll see," I said, "Remember who won the recent midterms in spite of the fact that Republicans tried to make it a referendum about San Fransisco's--wink, wink--Nancy Pelosi. How did that work out for you? The Democrats picked up 40 seats and took control of the House. Which will mean that for Trump, who never had to deal with congressional opposition, it's no longer Ryan and McConnell time. He had them in his hip pocket. Pelosi is a whole other matter. She may be 78 but she's at the top of her game and knows how to use power. Just ask George W. Bush, who had to compromise with House Democrats when she was Speaker during the last two years of his presidency and ask John Boehner who as House Minority leader during the first two years of the Obama administration was regularly rolled over by her. Think about the Affordable Care Act--no Nancy, no Obamacare. Twenty million without healthcare insurance."

Jack said, "Don't you think Trump is licking his chops when thinking about running for reelection against Elizabeth Warren while at the same time Nancy is Speaker? Both are red meat for his base. If he was a drinking man Trump would be popping corks tonight."

"I have to remind you of one thing--his base is about 30, 35 percent of likely voters. The last time I checked that's nowhere near 51 percent. Though I'll admit that Trump managed to get elected this time while losing the popular vote to Hillary by about 3.0 million votes. He likes breaking records. Well that's a record he in fact owns, unlike most of the others he claimed to have broken. Like having the most productive first two years of all presidents in history."

"Let's talk in a few days," Jack smirked, "After she actually takes over. Let's see how she's doing then. In the meantime, have a happy year."

True to his promise Jack called again on Saturday morning, less than 48 hours after Pelosi and the Democrats took control of the House.

"If I had called you 12 hours ago it would have been a whole different story."

"What do you mean?" I asked.

"Thursday was a big and I'll admit good day for Democrats. Especially Nancy. She had a bounce in her step that made her seem 58 rather than 78 and looked very hot on the floor of the House in a red sheath dress--red/blue am I reading something into the color of her outfit--surrounded by what looked like 20 grandchildren. They were more excited than she was. It was great TV time for your Dems. Even Fox didn't have talking points about how to trash her. Very kumbaya. And she and other Dem leaders cleverly fended off reporters' questions about impeaching Trump. How there are no current plans to do so--sure--and that we should wait for the Mueller report before thinking about what to do or not do. All very responsible sounding."

"This seems about right," I said, wondering warily about where Jack was headed with this. He sounded too self-satisfied to believe half the positive things he was saying. I didn't have long to wait.

"And then, thank you God, to take over the headlines along came the new Palestinian-American congresswoman from Michigan, Rashida Tlaib. One of two first-time-ever female Muslim members of Congress. Talk about political gifts."

"Oh, her," I said, feeling air slowly begin to leak out of my balloon.

"Yeah, one of the two Muslim members who Nancy changed the House rules for so they could wear head scarves, hijabs I think they're called, on the floor of the House. Rules didn't allow that. But Nancy got them changed as part of the first order of business, thank you very much."

I let him rant on.

"So what did the honorable gentlewoman Tlaib do to thank Nancy? Let me quote her. I wrote it down because you're always lecturing me about ignoring and making up facts. But here's a fact for you, right from Tlaib's potty mouth."

Jack read--"This is from your New York Times as recorded on someone's smartphone:

"People love you and you win," Ms. Tlaib told the crowd Thursday night. And when your son looks at you and says: 'Momma, look, you won. Bullies don't win.' And I said, 'Baby, they don't.' Because we're going to go in there, and we're going to impeach the motherfucker."

"The Times actually dropped the MF bomb in its front-page article. Not an M and a F with a whole lot of asterisks in-between. But 'motherfucker' itself. In print. But before you tell me how to think about this, let me add one more thing--Muslims don't drink alcohol, right? So what was she doing celebrating in a bar Thursday night on Capital Hill?"

"To tell you the truth," I said, "I was unhappy with her. Less than a day after being sworn in she comes out with this? Not that it would have mattered if she said it a month from now. It's inappropriate and, if we're serious about winning in 2020, she should be criticized, including by Democrats. Especially by Democrats. It's not enough to claim, as I am hearing many Democrats doing, that Trump said worse things. He did but shouldn't be the one to set the bar on appropriate behavior.

"And, one more thing--how politically stupid can she be. Teeing this up for Trump and Trumpians? So in 2020, rather than Trump running against Pelosi as the boogyman he can run against someone even better--a Muslim with a foul mouth who says she would talk this way to her six-year-old son."

"What can I say?" Jack said. I could almost see him grinning. "I couldn't have said it better myself. And then from my perspective, to make matters better, Nancy Pelosi, I mean Speaker Pelosi refused to criticize Tlaib, saying, 'I'm not in the censorship business.' I wrote that down too," 

He added, "I can see Trump's people already producing TV ads featuring Congresswoman Tlaib. Mind you, I'm not happy with some of the things he's been up to, including his shutting the government to get the money to build his stupid wall. But you guys can be even stupider. You always seem to shoot yourselves in the foot. Like Hillary calling Trump people 'deplorables.' There was no recovering from that. So 2020--bring it on."

"You guys can't stop running against Hillary. You need to move on. And be sure to call me," I said, "as soon as you get your hand-delivered copy of the Mueller report. I don't think anyone will be able to distract voters by mocking Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's dancing. Which, by the way, is pretty good."