March 29, 2019--Road Trip

We're about to head out on a two-week road trip, including to some remote paces such as Elko, Nevada and Moab, Utah. Likely I will not get that much writing done. If you're inclined, though, you might check in here occasionally to see what we've been up to as I'm sure that from time to time I'll have the inclination to do a little writing.

March 28, 2019--Randy Paul

Did I hear or was I hallucinating that Kentucky Senator Rand Paul wants the Senate to investigate Barack Obama's alleged role in launching the Mueller investigation?

If you've noticed that some of the crazies who wait outside federal courts or the Department of Justice, the one's who wear clothes made from American flags, carrying FISA signs, they are alluding to Obama supposedly getting the FISA court to authorize illegal wiretaps of Trump associates in order to trap Trump in one nefarious scheme or another.

Paul must be having fantasies of hauling Obama before the Foreign Relations Committee and grilling him about his roll in getting the investigation of Trump going.

This would assure that Paul would be welcomed back to Mar-a-Lago after being banned from Palm Beach as the result of leading the opposition to Trump's trumped-up national border emergency. Remember that one?

Jilted Paul, shivering in Kentucky, sees Lindsay Graham hanging in the sun with the Trumps and it makes him crazy. He knows, though, that any attacks on the Clintons and Obamas gets one a ticket south on Air Force One.

Even if Paul has to caddy for his beloved Mr. President it also assures him some attention from Trump's people and a leg up on another (disastrous) run for the Oval.

Actually, I'd love for this to happen. Can you imagine the mincemeat Obama would make of that committee and especially the pathetic Paul? Just ask Mitt Romney what it's like to debate Obama. 

That would be worth the price of admission.

March 27, 2019--Methinks The Attorney General Doth Protest Too Much

In less than one page of William Barr's three-page letter (it is three pages of text and one page of addresses and signatures), he mentions three times that neither Trump nor members of the Trump campaign "conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

In the section of the letter, "Russian Interference in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election," the Attorney General obsessively drives home this conclusion. 

First mention--

"The Special Counsel's investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. As the report states: “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

Second mention--

"As noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that any U.S. person or Trump campaign official or associate conspired or knowingly coordinated with the IRA in its efforts, although the Special Counsel brought criminal charges against a number of Russian nationals and entities in connection with these activities."

Third mention--

"But as noted above, the Special Counsel did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple offers from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign."

And then in the "Obstruction of Justice" section, the AG and his deputy, Ron Rosenstein, again in less than one page, repeat their questionable determination that Trump did not obstruct justice.

In both cases once was clearly not enough. Why might that be?

As with Hamlet's protesting mother the truth lies elsewhere than claimed.

March 26, 2019--The Three Twilights

In search of distractions I stumbled on this--the three twilights. Did you know there are three? Three each day? If not, see below. (No metaphoric meaning necessarily intended.)

Civil Twilight

Each twilight phase is defined by the solar elevation angle, which is the position of the Sun in relation to the horizon. During civil twilight, the geometric center of the Sun's disk is at most 6 degrees below the horizon. In the morning, this twilight phase ends at sunrise; in the evening it begins at sunset. Sunrise and sunset are the moments when the Sun's upper edge touches the horizon.

As the Earth's atmosphere scatters and reflects much of the Sun's rays, coloring the sky bright yellow and orange, artificial lighting is generally not required in clear weather conditions to carry out most outdoor activities. Only the brightest stars and planets, like Venus and Jupiter, can be seen with the naked eye.

Nautical Twilight

Each twilight phase is defined by the solar elevation angle, which is the position of the Sun in relation to the horizon. During nautical twilight, the geometric center of the Sun's disk is between 6 and 12 degrees below the horizon.

In clear weather conditions, the horizon is faintly visible during this twilight phase. Many of the brighter stars can also be seen, making it possible to use the position of the stars in relation to the horizon to navigate at sea. This is why it is called nautical twilight.

Astronomical Twilight

Each twilight phase is defined by the solar elevation angle, which is the position of the Sun in relation to the horizon. During astronomical twilight, the geometric center of the Sun's disk is between 12 and 18 degrees below the horizon.

To the naked eye, and especially in areas with light pollution, it may be difficult to distinguish astronomical twilight from night time. Most stars and other celestial objects can be seen during this phase.

However, astronomers may be unable to observe some of the fainter stars and galaxies as long as the Sun is less than 18 degrees below the horizon – hence the name of this twilight phase.

March 25, 2019--Barr Report: Blessing In Disguise?

To say I am disappointment is an understatement. 

I was hoping that the Mueller Report massaged and published by Attorney General William Barr would find that Trump and his gang conspired with Russians to undermine the 2016 election and that Trump like Nixon before him would be found to have directly led the effort to cover up that collusion, which in turn would mean that they obstructed justice. And thus the denouement would be history.

For Mueller and Barr to conclude there was no such conspiracy made it effectively moot that there was obstruction of justice because if there is no crime to obstruct there can be no justice to obstruct.

I say this in spite of the fact that it appears that Mueller, in fact, concluded that it's 50/50 that Trump was involved in obstruction. That it was Barr himself who disagreed with that assessment and "determined," after barely 48 hours, that Mueller was wrong and that there was no obstruction crime. Thus, the Mueller Report morphed into the Barr Report.

Out of this disappointment, what I next have to say may be more spin and wishful thinking than the truth.

And so on. 

As many have said and I have asserted here for well over a year, politically Trump in 2020 would be best dealt with by the voting public. He would not, perhaps should not be driven out of office by the press or even by the impeachment process. Yes, with Democrats controlling the House there was and still is the possibility that Trump could be impeached, but with the sycophantic Senate there is no way he would be voted out of office. To round up 67 votes for that is more than impossible.

So the focus has to be on nominating someone who can beat Trump in the Electoral College (he will again lose the popular vote) and for voters to work hard starting today to defeat him at the polls.

All polls show that voters do not care about collusion with Russia. A majority do not want to see the country obsessed with impeachment. Indeed, realizing this, Nancy Pelosi had her caucus back off from talking about impeachment 24/7. She knows from having lived through the Clinton impeachment how that is a losing strategy. It's likely that Trump, as with Clinton, would see his approval rating rise as he, victim-like, gets dragged through the process.

Voters are concerned about health care, the economic future of their families, the larger economy and how it is being permanently affected by artificial intelligence. They want to see the end of endless wars, the changing climate confronted, and of course education.

The media hates covering these issues because they are boring compared to the soap opera that Trump engenders. Would most people rather talk about Stormy Daniels or how much debt their college-age children are amassing? 

But with investigations and congressional hearings likely to slip back a notch or two in importance and entertainment value after a couple of weeks of us collectively exhausting ourselves with March Madness and Barr v. Mueller, with Democratic presidential candidates shifting focus to the issues that voters actually care about, that will present opportunities for them to scrutinize Trump's policy failures. How, for example, his tax cuts not only mainly benefitted the very wealthy but that they contributed to record budget deficits and the national debt reached an all time high on Trump's watch. Also, and related, that we recently saw the largest trade deficit in history.

We'll have the chance in the public eye to debate expanding heath care coverage and how to confront climate change. Potentially all good issues for Dems who, with less Mueller on the air, might be able to break through and actually talk about their ideas for how to deal with them.

Again, spin? Wishful thinking? Perhaps but this is what I'm thinking.

March 24, 2019--Queen Trump

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and his wife were visiting Lebanon late last week during Purim season.

While there, in an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network, he was asked if "Mr. Trump was put on earth [by God] as a modern day Queen Esther, who saved the Jews from a Persian official [Haman] in ancient times."

Pompeo, who is an evangelical Christian said, "As a Christian, I certainly believe that's possible."

March 23, 2019--Rats: Hope Springs Eternal

Let's hope Alexander Pope has it right because if Hope cooperates with the House Judiciary Committee, considering what she likely knows, a pack of frenzied rats will be pushing others out of the way as they race to the gangplank of the sinking SS Trump.

I am referring to Hope Hicks. Trump's most devoted aide. Whatever her title, at the White House she was Communications Director, her real job was to be Trump's unquestioning, totally loyal, always available, willing to do anything right-hand "girl."

Only 29 when she left him, in effect she grew up in his offices, brought there by daughter Ivanka for whom she also worked. Over time she became Trump's favorite "daughter." Many say he trusted her even more than biological Ivanka.

Ivanka knew what would work for Daddy, what he required. She, after all, before venturing forth, played pretty much the same role. She also knew he liked his women glamorous, with full faces of makeup, and well plastic-surgeried. (Melania, Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, and of course Ivanka herself.)

When working for the Trump Organization, Hope was situated right outside his open office door and would show up in a instant when he would bellow, "Get in here." They had a similar set up and arrangement in the Oval Office.

Now the Democratic leadership of the House Judiciary Committee is interested in seeing everything she has--personal and work diaries and note books, emails, texts, and phone logs as it investigates possible obstruction of justice and conspiracy.  

The committee is also interested in any materials she may have that pertain to Michael Flynn, any evidence that Trump paid hush money to former girlfriends, potential notes and documents about the firing of James Comey, and any information she may have about the infamous June, 2016 meting with the Russians at Trump Tower. Again, where she was prominently ensconced. 

Rather than resist the committee's request for documents, which, by claiming executive privilege she could do and thereby slow down the investigative process, Hope herself has apparently agreed to willingly turn over whatever she has directly to the Nadler Committee. She isn't having her attorneys nor the White House counsel serve as obstructionist intermediaries. At least this is how it looks at the moment.

These are ominous signs for Trump because if she flips or even just voluntarily turns over what she has, a smoking gun could easily turn up. 

It is clear she does not want to spend years in an orange jumpsuit. 

As often is the case when conspiracies are investigated it is the "little people" who contribute most to exposing and bringing them down. The Michael Cohens, the Hope Hicks, the John Deans, and soon Trump's personal accountant, Allen Weisselberg.

March 22, 2019--Conways On A Hot Tin Roof

A cousin and I with whom I used to be very close have not exchanged a work with each other for more than two years. Another cousin has refused to spend Thanksgivings with his parents and siblings, also for the past two years.

Then there are the shattered family stories I have been hearing from friends for about as long.

And there are the sad stories of what has happened to so many who somehow believed in him, went to work in the White House, and by now have become lifelong enemies.

These stories, and perhaps millions more, have one thing in common--Donald Trump.

Now, in plain sight, we are witnesses to the breakup of a longterm marriage.

Attorney and constitutional authority George Conway and his wife, presidential advisor Kellyanne Conway's relationship is coming apart in tweets, live on social media and cable news.

In this regard they can be thought of as surrogates for the unravelling of civility and the social fabric of American life.

Some time ago someone, I think Joe Scarborough, said that everyone who gets involved with Trump inevitably is "slimed." And the rest of us, even if at a great distance, in frustration and rage, are being brought low when we descend to the use of mockery and vitriol, sadly severing relationships, especially with those we have loved, because we so despise, even have come to hate our president.

The most recent Conway flareup began with husband George blatantly questioning Trump's sanity. Among other things he tweeted--

"Americans should be thinking seriously now about Trump's mental condition and psychological state."

Then, after Trump's smackdown response George Conway, further turning up the heat, posted a link to the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, and about Trump wrote: "You. Are. Nuts."

Trump snapped--

“George Conway, often referred to as Mr. Kellyanne Conway by those who know him, is VERY jealous of his wife’s success & angry that I, with her help, didn’t give him the job he so desperately wanted. I barely know him but just take a look, a stone cold LOSER & husband from hell!”

Coming to Trump's defense, Kellyanne told Politico--

"He (Trump) left it alone for months out of respect for me. But you think he shouldn't respond when somebody, a non-medical professional accuses him of having a mental disorder? You think he should just take that sitting down????"

And so here we are. What began as a joke of a political soap opera is now destroying lives. Including, in many cases, of people with whom we have been close to us.

We are all being slimed.

March 21, 2019--Mayor Pete

I didn't have enough time yesterday to write something. But I did have time to get to know more about South Bend, Indiana's mayor and Democratic challenger, Pete Buttigieg.

I did some reading about him and indulged myself by watching on YouTube his appearance on "Morning Joe" and his town meeting on CNN via CNN On Demand.

If you haven't seen these I urge you to do so and after that tell me if there is a better candidate for Democrats to nominate to run against Trump, of for that matter serve as president.

And, if you agree, urgently send him some money.

I know he is a very long shot for various reasons, but so was Barack Obama.

March 20, 2019--Trump: How It Will End

On July 27, 2017, nearly twenty months ago, I posted a piece of informed speculation about Donald Trump's ultimate denouement. 

As with everything else having to do with him, it will be about the money.

I thought, with the blockbuster piece about Trump's relationship to the Deutsche Bank in yesterday's New York Times, I would repost my piece because the paper of record forgot to include one thing--where the bank's money came from. 

About that, here is what I wrote--

No one should be surprised. Least of all Donald Trump. It has been clear for a half year or more where all this is headed.

It's always been about the money.

The denouement will not be about Paul Manafort's money or Michael Flynn's or Jared Kushner's or Ivanka's money, nor even Don Junior's.

It will be about Donald Trump's money.

A good question--if he is so proud of his wealth how come he has refused to reveal his tax filings?

On the simplest level, he has resisted because he lies about how much money he has. He has a lot, about a billion or two, enough for most of us, but not the 5 to 10 billion he has long claimed.

Remember how Marco Rubio's crack during the primary debates about his small hands got under his skin? Well, this is the same sort of thing. Manhood. Size always mattered more to guys than to women.

But, he somehow managed to get elected and reluctantly moved to Washington and into the White House. Back in New York, in his Trump, Inc. operation, which was and still is a mom-and-pop business, he was used to being the only one whose ideas counted and he had no one ever pushing back on him when he went off and did something stupid. Like getting involved with gambling casinos in Atlantic City and Miss Universe pageants.

Over time, with the big boost The Apprentice gave to his image, he effectively became a brand. Selling his name and endorsement to the highest bidders, raking in the licensing money with little effort other than keeping his name and gold-foil life style in public view. Thus, even the parade of girlfriends and wives, as he aged and swelled, ones younger and younger, were a part of that charade.

Zeroing in--

When Trump needed to ante up money for a project or bail himself out of an impending bankruptcy, where do we think he turned for money? Citibank? Chase? Wells Fargo? Goldman Sachs? No chance.

We're talking chop shops like loan sharks, offshore money, and especially money from laundries such as Deutsche Bank, which until a few years ago was a favorite place for Russian kleptocrats to sanitize their dirty lucre.

In 2008, Trump Jr. on the record said that, "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

At least someone in his family is capable of letting the truth slip out.

Even a casual perusal of Trump's tax returns would reveal the sources of his money and income. Would it surprise anyone if we in this way discovered that he engaged in all sorts of shady deals and shenanigans with lots of money coming from Russia?

So when it finally dawned on Trump that special counsel Robert Mueller has the power to demand his tax and other financial documents, something Trump incredibly seems to have begun to pay attention to just this week, bells and whistles went off and that immediately became Trump's line in the sand--he told the New York Times he might fire Mueller if he pressed to scrutinize his or his family's finances.

We know for sure following the money trail is looming. It's Special Counsel 101.

And then, of course, Mueller would also see son Junior's and son-in-law Kushner's tax filings, which would make matters even worse.

What we'd be likely see is the inner financial machinations of a crime family.

Donald Junior is reported to be whining that he can't wait for this presidency to be over.

Well, he may soon get his wish. He may not have to wait an endless three-and-a-half years.

If Junior is unravelling as quickly as it appears, Trump's oldest son, feeling squeezed by the implosion, may follow in the footsteps of one of Bernie Madoff's sons. I can't bring myself to spell this out. If you don't remember the details, you're on your own to look them up.

So, here are the final steps. They will happen quickly because we have a talented and mobilized press corps. Much more so than during Watergate. Trump is getting back in kind for what he dished out to the "fake-news" press. I wouldn't have recommended messing with that sleeping giant.

I suspect he'll skip the firing-Mueller step and move right to the pardons. Sacking Mueller, assuming Trump has the power to do that, would bring down the wrath of not only Democrats (that would be predictable) but also rouse the up-to-now hypocritical Republicans who despise Trump but support his agenda, such as it is.

Thus, Trump has been asking about what pardon powers he has and boasting about it. They are constitutionally wide ranging. He'll pardon Flynn and Manafort, which should keep them from throwing Trump under the bus (elegant metaphor), and he'll pardon all his family members. Then, and he is looking into this as well, unlike Nixon who had his successor Jerry Ford pardon him, Trump will try to get away with pardoning himself.

This will go to the Supreme Court and, who knows, with Gorsuch recently nominated by Trump, he might prevail, 5-4. Remember Bush v Gore in 2000. Or then again, he may not.

Then we'll see what happens in the streets. Progressives will demonstrate once or twice but use most of their energy appearing on and watching CNN and The News Hour.

Trump people (that hardcore 35 percent) will go crazy. They'll see this crucifixion of Trump (that will become their preferred point of reference) as part of the ongoing liberal conspiracy. Tune into late-night talk radio if you want a preview of that. It will make Benghazi look like a tea party. 

March 19, 2019--Two Predictions

For the Democratic presidential nomination I predict it will come down to three finalists--

In third place, Kamala Harris; the runner up will be Bernie Sanders; and the winner--Joe Biden (assuming he cuts out the rapidly wearing-thin coy act and gets in the race).

Biden will select Harris to be his running mate and they will go on to defeat Trump or Mike Pence.

Can we vote now?

Second prediction--

The Mueller report is about to land and, as a courtesy, the special counsel informed Trump's attorneys that he and members of his family are about to be indicted. Trump as an un-indicted co-conspirator.

The FBI will not break into Eric's, Don Junior's, or Jared's homes because as big-game hunters the sons' places are likely armed to the teeth with elephant guns. They will thus be invited to turn themselves in by the end of the month.

So Trump will be faced with pressure to pardon them and perhaps Paul Manafort and others while he's at it. To obviate this, we will learn that Mueller has referred their cases and turned over the evidence he has amassed to the pardon-proof prosecutors of the New-York-City-based Court of the Southern District of New York.

These impending arrests have Trump crazed, off his pins, and thus he has been launching a record number of vitriolic tweets, including two this weekend again about John McCain and five about suspended Fox News personality, Janine Piro. In total, a clinically-concerning 50. 

Further evidence of his desperation is the fact that he and Melania went to church last Sunday.

If there is a just God, that will not help.

March 18, 2019--The College Retention Game

For the past week we've understandably been focusing on college admissions. 

The public is learning about how our society's ultimate expression of meritocracy, where if you have the goods, no matter your background, opportunities await, is in large part a corrupt, hypocritical scam. 

Pay-for-play in its many forms is how college admissions works when it comes to admitting students to many of the nation's elite colleges. The truth is that the process is not a competition on a level playing field where merit wins out, but a rigged system where the already successful and entitled have two legs up.

But then there is another game--how students admitted to the Ivies and similar institutions are coddled and protected even when they don't deserve it.

Allow me to illustrate by an example from my own undergraduate years at Columbia.

What did I know. I was an inexperienced, striver kid from a Brooklyn immigrant family. But I did notice that a few of my classmates, who associated with each other, had family names that were familiar.

There was Arthur MacArthur IV (the general's son), Peter Fairchild (whose family were scions of the aircraft industry), and others whose people founded some of America's most successful businesses and whose surnames revealed that they came from the world of Who's-Who.

At freshman orientation the dean welcomed us by among things indicating that now that we were Columbia Men (women were not yet admitted) the college would do all it could to help us succeed. 

He went on to tell a story about an orientation he attended at a large state university. Its dean told the assembled class, "Look to your left," which everyone did, "Now look to your right," which the freshmen did. "By this time next year, one of you will have dropped out or been expelled."

The Columbia dean continued, "Though this was that university's policy--admit many and then prune the class based on academic progress, or lack thereof--Columbia's policy was just the opposite. "We expect all of you, 100 percent of you, to thrive. And we will do what we can to help assure that."

To already cynical me this sounded like cheerleading. I intended to work hard and do well all on my own and not wind up in academic trouble.

But this was not true for all my classmates. In fact, I came to know a few, including some from prominent families (neither Peter nor Arthur, who did well), who majored more in carousing and beer drinking than literature or mathematics or sociology.

I knew one quite well. At the end of the first semester he had not completed all his courses and for the ones he did finish he earned straight Ds.

He was summoned to meet with the dean who told him though it is not unusual for freshman to fall pray to campus enticements, he needed to work harder and do better or he would find himself at the end of the academic year on probation.

Which is precisely what my friend did not do--he continued to get Ds and was as promised placed on probation.

He did not do much better during his sophomore year and once again was invited to meet with the dean, who informed him that unless he improved he would be faced with the possibility of academic dismissal.

The dean this time remind my friend that his family sent generations of their sons to Columbia and all had done well and graduated. For that reason, and because of his family's generosity to the college, he was making an exception. He would get one final chance to raise his grades.

But again my classmate failed to do so and he (and I) expected him to be expelled. 

He wasn't.

The dean one final time time told him that since he was going into his third year and that the college had a policy of not expelling students who were versions of juniors. "Versions" because he had not completed enough courses to be an actual junior. 

The dean shrugged and told him that he therefore could continue until he graduated.

I wondered about how my friend would have fared in that midwestern university we heard about at orientation. The answer is obvious. And I wondered about his family's generosity. What they must have been doing to show their "appreciation" to the dean and the college for their "understanding" treatment of the son who was expected to enter the family business after four years at Columbia. 

The answer to that is equally obvious. 

If I had thought to search, I likely would have found a lecture hall newly inscribed with his family name.

March 16, 2019--Rat's Non-Denial-Denial

For the second week in a row Matt Whitaker muscled his way to the top of the gangplank, desperate to abandon the listing SS Trump and in the process hoping to save his own tokhes.

Last Saturday I reported there was much competition among a number of rats but that Whitaker won. He comes in first again this week because he realized that if he doesn't try to clean up the lies he told under oath to the House Judiciary Committee he could find himself in a jumpsuit up the proverbial river.

In spite of his promise to "jump on a grenade" for Trump, for which he was rewarded by being named acting attorney general after poor Jeff Sessions was fired (on Election Day, no less), when he realized the extent of his exposure, including possible disbarment, he disappeared for a couple of weeks to wander in the wilderness to think things over, only to resurface on Wednesday when he agreed to meet with Judiciary Committee chair, Jerry Nadler, ranking member, Georgia Republican congressman, Doug Collins, and a few staff members to go over some of the untruths he told when testifying about Trump's allegedly leaning on him to pull the plug on the Southern District of New York prosecutor who was hot on the Michael Cohen Trail. 

Trump knew that if Cohen continued to flip he might pose a mortal threat to the president. 

The U.S. attorney the president wanted to run the Cohen investigation is a Trump loyalist. In spite of this he is also an ethical jurist and thus recused himself. Trump wanted him un-recused and pressured the acting attorney general to make that happen.

The acting AG subsequently lied under oath to the Nadler committee when he denied he had ever spoken to Trump about this preposterous idea. There is no such thing, even in Trump World, as un-recusals. 

But that lie and a related possible perjury charge hung over Whitaker and thus he sought a follow-up meeting with Nadler on Wednesday.

When they met this time Whitaker offered a classic non-denial-denial, saying he wouldn't deny nor admit that he spoke with Trump about rigging the investigation in Manhattan. 

The next logical step, under relentless pressure, will likely be for Whitaker to tell more of the whole truth. And so, when he comes fully clean, expect him again to be named rat of the week. 

March 15, 2019--BETO: Born to Run

Here's my quick initial impression of BETO O'Rourke's long anticipated announcement that he is running for president--

I begin with a confession:

I want to fall in love with this guy. I want to be convinced that he can beat Trump in 2020. I want to believe he has the chops as well as the obvious buzz and charisma. I want to find he's not just sizzle. That there is also steak.

I've been hoping to see these qualities in Kamala Harris, but she thus far seems more surface than substance. And as of now I see it as unlikely that she can successfully take on and unseat Trump. That is all I care about. Defeating Trump.

Then there is the Democrats' Hamlet--Joe Biden. 

To run, or not to run. That is the question. 

This soliloquy is not working. His tease of a dance makes it look as if he, at 76, doesn't have the energy or stamina to take on the rigors of a national campaign. This public coyness, this flirtation is already wearing thin. He feels out of gas even though he hasn't really started!

Bernie or Warren could win the nomination but would struggle to find a strategy to challenge Trump in the general. He's already half figured out how to get under their skin. And wouldn't he relish running against a socialist. He'd make that equivalent to competing with a terrorist who snuck into the United States across the Mexican border in a cargo container.

So then, what about BETO?

Get out your copy of Vanity Fair magazine. By an amazing coincidence the latest issue, with him on the cover, dropped just a day before he announced. What remarkable timing. As I said, amazing.

Take a close look at the photos. How surprising is it that they were taken by glamorizing celebrity photographer Annie Leibowitz and that the subtitle of the accompanying article is, "Man, I'm Just Born To Be In It."

This notion of his natural right to run laid out in VF with Annie's perfect pictures is too bicoastal. It doesn't sound like Rust Belt. It would be better to have been written about in some Wisconsin magazine, if any still exist.

In sum, BETO's problem appears to be a certain tone deafness. It's as if he can't wait to get into the spotlight and out of El Paso.  

He has time to get it right, but in the meantime I need to figure out how to fall in love with Kamala.

March 14, 2019--Admissions-Gate

There may be nothing so pervasively hypocritical than the way elite colleges admit students.

We are reminded of that just now. Two days ago the federal court in Boston indicted 50 people from admissions officers to coaches to college-advisor hucksters and to nearly three dozen wealthy parents who cheated in various ways to secure places for their children in the freshman classes of some of the nation's most selective undergraduate schools. 

For many decades these and other comparable colleges have found inventive ways to shape the profile of those they sought to enroll and, more than equally, to deflect and reject others whom they did not want to welcome to their campuses.

I used to participated by knowing about scams of these kinds many years ago when I was an administrator at a unit of the City University of New York and then later, at other institutions. In no instances, in spite of what I knew, did I speak out about the corruption I witnessed.

And, earlier, I experienced the tawdry rules of the admissions game when I applied to and was accepted to a number of Ivy League colleges, and, after that, two medical schools.

Anyone following how college admissions works knows about how so-called "legacies," children of alums, are given preferential treatment, as are gifted athletes, geographically-diverse students (it is easier to be admitted to the Ivy League if you're from North Dakota), and members of certain demographic groups who are admitted via affirmative action programs.

We also know that there are soft quotas systems at work. If admission was determined by the cold calculus of just numbers--high school averages, SAT test scores, and grades on AP courses--many elite campuses, including all in California, would have students bodies where Asian students would constitute more than half the campus population. For this reason, Asian-American students, to those in the admissions business, are often referred to as "the new Jews."

Speaking of Jews, until the 1960s all highly selective colleges had and enforced Jewish quotas. As with today's Asians there was concern that places such as Harvard and Yale and my Columbia, if they admitted students only by the numbers, would become "Jew colleges." And so they all set low limits on how many would be admitted. At Harvard, for example, just five (5) Jews per year were admitted. This was also true for the other Ivy League colleges. 

Even somewhat less selective institutions had severe limits on the number of "Hebrews" that they would admit. At NYU, for example, about 10 percent of the entering class, following quota guidelines, were Jewish. 

This was true as well for professional schools. I was a pre-med and when it came time to apply to medical school my WASPY advisor subtly steered me away from applying to P&S (Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia's medical school). Though I did not in truth have the grades to be admitted there, being pushy (admittedly a stereotype) I pressed him to tell me why he was guiding me in a different direction. Hemming and hawing, he finally revealed that there was a quota and I should be realistic and apply to places such as the Jew-friendly University of Chicago.

When I told my Uncle Jac about my plans he encouraged me to apply to Chicago and generously offered to pay my tuition, revealing in the process that he was a major donor and that would help lubricate the process as it does today in many colleges--a $2.5 million dollar naming gift can go a long way when it comes to Jews being acceptable. Just ask Jared Kushner how he got into Harvard. Like his father-in-law he had mediocre prep school grades and wasn't much of a basketball player. His Daddy, like the parents of those just indicted, wrote checks.

(I, by the way, though accepted to two medical schools, not including Chicago to which I did not apply, decided not to attend, preferring to work on graduate degrees in English and comparative literature.)

So what we are seeing is nothing new.

Finally, what do I have to confess? 

Among a number of things retrospectively I do not feel good about discussing, at "Big City University," where I was a dean, one of the programs for which I was responsible was for traditional-age undergraduates. That program was directed by an enterprising administrator who reported to me. 

Among other things, I noticed that slowly the program was filling up with varsity athletes, especially baseball players. When I asked "Jim" about this he told me the coach's daughter worked for him and that he was just trying to be collegial. If I had probed he might have told me the true story--that this program for which I was ultimately responsible was a back door into the university for student-athletes who didn't have the grades or SAT scores to be admitted to the "regular" college. He also told me that our program was a financial beneficiary of enrolling athletes. The university's policy was, on paper, to credit us the equivalent of full tuition for each athlete we admitted. This amounted to a number of million dollars a year.

So, there you have it. Ivy towers aside, the admissions game has traditionally been tainted and though there are periodic exposes of the sort we are currently hearing about things quickly revert to "normal." 

March 13, 2019--He's Just Not Worth It

In truth I had mixed feelings when Nancy Pelosi said that impeaching Trump  would be "horrible for the country" and that she would not be willing to go through it unless there is "overwhelming and bipartisan justification."

In a wide-ranging interview with the Washington Post, she also said that "impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling . . . I don't think we should go down that path because it divides the country." And," she added, "He's just not worth it."

One part of me has been relishing the prospect of Trump's impeachment. Considering the harm and divisiveness he has engendered I was eager for his comeuppance. I wanted retribution. I wanted to see him in the dock in the Senate. I couldn't wait for him, his grifter family, and his flimsy financial empire to be brought down.

But knowing that Speaker Pelosi for decades has been about the smartest political operative in Washington and is as adept at running things as was Tip O'Neill, calming down from what I at first felt was capitulation, I gave what she said more thought.

I am now seeing her strategy as more brilliant than not.

When Bill Clinton went through impeachment and trial in the Senate, rather than losing the support of the American people, his approval ratings soared. As each day of his trial proceeded he became more and more popular. Many in the country felt that the Republicans were overreaching. Of course they were, and politically Clinton benefitted.

Even though she called Trump "unfit" to be president, Pelosi is concerned that this time it would be the Democrats who would be accused of being obsessed with impeachment and Trump's poll numbers would rise. 

As House Tea Partier Jim Jordan claimed untruthfully, from the first day of Trump's presidency Jerry Nadler, then the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, was talking about the need to impeach Trump.

Pelosi doesn't want to see her Democratic colleagues, by ignoring history, fall into the same trap.

She feels the best way to deal with Trump is to allow the Mueller report to lead the way. If it describes high crimes and misdemeanors and includes enough corroborative evidence to justify impeachment and even prosecution, with other evidence gathered by hearings in the House, she and the Democrats at that point, perhaps with some Republican support, could return to the subject of impeachment.

Until that time, she argues that Democrats in the House should get on with their legislative agenda, showing the electorate why they should vote in 2020 to allow Democrats to retain control of the House, compete for leadership of the Senate, and most important, defeat Trump himself at the polls.

So, I am with Pelosi.

One final point. My favorite part of what the Speaker said to the Post is how she concluded her remarks--

"He's just not worth it."

What a subtle, devastating putdown. And how appropriate for a women to say that about an overbearing man.

How many women, stuck in destructive relationships, have had this thought? 

Too many.

But the bells and whistles this will set off among women will hopefully motivate more of them to vote this time than did in 2016 when, inexplicably, more than half the women who voted, in spite of the Access Hollywood tape and many other affronts, voted for Trump.

In that sense women elected him, but with Pelosi clearing the way, women will have the chance in 19 months to send him packing.

March 12, 2019--The Best No-Show Jobs in America

How does this sound to you?

The job pays $174K a year. Your work schedule is three days a week, 25-30 weeks a year. Benefits are generous. Heath care insurance and a version of a 401(k) is paid for by your employer, and there are healthcare plans you can opt for that require almost no copays. Retirement opportunities are equally generous. You can collect your pension (up to 80% of your salary) at age 50 after just 20 years on the job.

Best of all you work autonomously since you do not have a supervisor. Depending on your job title your work is reviewed either every two or six years.

Actually, best, it's up to you if you want to show up for work at all.

By now you know I am talking about the working conditions of members of Congress.

There is no other salaried job in or out of government that is as generous. In spite of our Founders' vision that our representatives would contribute their time for a year or two as semi-volunteers and that members of Congress should not view serving in the House or Senate as one's primary work, we have evolved to quite the opposite.

The drive for power and the more than generous working conditions and compensation have transformed doing one's civic duty into well-paid careers. A version of the same is true for some governors and mayors.

It is not unusual for members of the House or Senate to seek reelection a dozen or more times and serve for 20, 30 or more years. The current longest-serving member of the House of Representatives is Don Young, R-Al, who has been in office 46 years. And in the Senate, the most senior member is Patrick Leahy, D-Vt, who has represented Vermont for 44 years. 

Among Democrats currently seeking the 2020 presidential nomination, six are senators, one is a member of the House, another is a sitting mayor, and thus far there is one governor.

All have basically taken self-assigned taxpayer-paid leaves of absence to enable them to campaign full time. In Bernie Sanders' case, while remaining on the government payroll, he has been running for the nomination full time for more than five years. 

He and the others show up in Congress only when there is a major piece of legislation to vote on that they see to be in their own best interest. Otherwise they are to be found in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, the first three states to hold either caucuses or primary elections. They also spend a lot of time hat in hand in New York or LA.

I know, where do we sign up. 

March 9, 2019--Saturday's Rats

This past week saw heated competition for Saturday's Rat. Who among Trump's closest people tried to push their way to the top of the gangplank in a panic to get off his sinking ship? 

First there was House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, whose anti-Semitic trope last November claimed that Jewish money provided by George Soros, Mike Bloomberg, and Tom Steyer was being deployed to "buy" the midterm elections. He tweeted this anti-Semitic canard and then a day later deleted it--

"We cannot allow Soros, Steyer, and Bloomberg to BUY this election! Get out and vote Republican November 6th"

McCarthy had been on a campaign to cultivate Trump in the hope that he would allow the California congressman to ascend to and keep the House leadership seat abandoned by Paul Ryan.

But McCarthy could take only so much. Especially after seeing the disastrous results of the midterm election and then sensing Republican members of Congress acting friskier and friskier, wavering somewhat in their blind devotion to Trump.

Fearing for his own fate, McCarthy screwed up what little courage he has to squeak out a statement that though he agreed that Trump has the authority to declare a national emergency wouldn't it be better not to do so. 

Trump smacked him and as with the Jewish-money allegation he quickly backed off. No profile of courage here.

So McCarthy was a contender, but there were other Republicans who showed a bit more independence. Senator Rand Paul, for instance. He led the effort in the Senate to reject Trump's emergency declaration, speaking more forcefully and not willing to back off even if it meant no more visits to Mar-a-Lago. 

Paul sounded genuine and it was clear that establishing a few degrees of separation from Trump is perhaps a good strategy for him if he intends one more run at the presidency. 

Here is a little of what Paul said--

"I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits.”

Moving quickly down the list of aspirants, there are a couple of others scrambling for the title--Mat Drudge in the Drudge Report declared Trump "swamped" after the Cohen testimony and the collapsed summit with Kim Jong-un; and Trump fave, Lou Dobbs who excoriated the president for his failed immigration and economic policies. He said Trump and the White House, "have lost their way."

Runner up though in the rat race is Ty Cobb. Not a household name, he was among Trump's first small group of lawyers hired to deal with the Mueller investigation. He is one of Washington's most esteemed attorneys and some wondered why he would want to sully himself by association with the likes of Trump. 

A fair question but one with an easy answer--even the most reprehensible individuals are entitled to strong legal representation. 

But Cobb, after leaving Trump, seeking to reestablish his reputation among the Washington establishment, in an interview with ABC News, felt the need to clarify why he agreed to be involved with Trump.

Among other things he said-- 

Mueller is an "American hero" and the probe he is leading is not a "witch hunt." He rejected the president's repeated characterizations of the Russia investigation and the man leading it.

This week's Saturday Rat, though, is Matt Whitaker. 

Remember him? Trump appointed Whitaker acting Attorney General after he finally tortured Jeff Sessions enough that he quit. At the time, as Whitaker was so obviously unqualified, it was thought that he got the job because he publicly boasted that he, like Michael Cohen and others, would "take a bullet" for Mr. Trump. This led Trump to assume he would take the initiative to fire Mueller.

That even a dunderhead such as Whitaker refused to do, but he may have perjured himself when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

The Wall Street Journal reported--

"The House Judiciary Committee believes it has evidence that President Trump asked Matthew Whitaker, at the time the acting attorney general, whether Manhattan U.S. attorney Geoffrey Berman could regain control of his office’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and his real-estate business, according to people familiar with the matter."

After the next Attorney General, Robert Barr, was confirmed and took office, Whitaker was given a no-show job at the DOJ. But after just a few weeks, under cover of darkness, like Omarosa, he departed. No one seems to know where he is and what he might be up to.

My favorite speculation, which I am attempting to promulgate is that he is in a safe house somewhere, spilling what he knows to Mueller's investigators in the hope they will grant him immunity from prosecution for lying to Congress. 

Wouldn't it be confirming if he could provide corroborating evidence that Trump did in fact try to get him to assign a Trump-friendly U.S. attorney who would back off from investigating Trump and his family's nefarious business dealings in New York City?

Therefore, though there are other strong contenders, Matt Whitaker is this week's Rat!