February 28, 2020--Go, Mike, Go

Mike Bloomberg says he entered the race for the Democratic nomination because Joe Biden was faltering and it looked as if Bernie, a self-declared socialist, anathema to an uber-capitalist such as Bloomberg, was likely to become the nominee. 

So he wrote a check to himself for a billion dollars to spend on a media campaign in support of his own candidacy. As of today, he has not secured a single delegate and sits at 10-15 percent in the polls.

His bet is to go all in on Super Tuesday, March 2nd, three days from now, hoping he will prevail in enough of the 14 states that will be holding primaries to begin to block Sanders' path to the nomination.

This is unlikely to happen. Actually, from where Bloomberg currently stands with voters it is virtually certain he will come in second or even third in a few of the smaller states. To make matters worse, he is doing poorly in delegate-rich big states such as California and Texas.

The situation in the Lone Star State exemplifies Bloomberg's problem.

The latest polling from Texas is instructive. 

It has Biden and Sanders tied at 24 percent. Bloomberg is in third place with 17 percent and Warren is next at 14 percent. Buttigieg sits at 10 percent and Klobuchar languishes at just 4 percent.

But here's the most interesting part--in Texas, if Bloomberg was not in the race, Biden would have a comfortable 31 to 25 point lead over Sanders. Without Bloomberg in the race Warren would pick up 3 points, rising to 17 percent; Mayor Pete would add 1 point and Klobuchar 3.

Here's the irony and the way forward--

Bloomberg entered the race, he says, to keep Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination. But it appears that by joining the contest he is bringing Biden down and clearing a path to the nomination for Bernie. 

A prime example of unintended consequences.

The solution, though, is clear--Bloomberg should drop out of the race Saturday night after Biden wins the South Carolina primary by as much as 20 percentage points. 

That would resuscitate Joe's campaign and perhaps begin the process, with a revived and reenergized Biden leading the way, in denying Sanders the nomination.

Perhaps.

February 26, 2020--Fidel & Bernie

With less than a week to go before the crucial Super Tuesday primaries where 40 percent of the Democratic delegates will be up for grabs,  Bernie Sanders, who has been running for president for many years is finally being vetted by his opponents and the media.

For example, until last weekend during a 60 Minutes interview, he had not been pressed about the cost to taxpayers of his ambitious social programs, including how he would pay for them. 

He fumbled around in his response and it was clear he didn't have those numbers readily at hand. He finally said Medicare for All would cost $30 trillion but when asked what about other programs such as free college tuition and forgiving student debt, testily he said--"Well, I can't--you know, I can't rattle off to you every nickel and every dime." 

Nickels and dimes?

This was an irresponsible version of an answer for programs that would cost Americans many trillions more.

When a few months ago Elizabeth Warren was pressed to reveal the cost of her healthcare program, also Medicare for All, when she released a detailed budget, with costs also running into tens of trillions and no meaningful plan for how to play for them, she was rightfully excoriated and her poll numbers--she had been in first place--began to slip. To a point where she is no longer realistically viable. 

Sanders, just a few days ago, for the first time, was asked about his comments some years back that appeared to show support for Fidel Castro's agenda and spoke about how the first thing Fidel did in 1959 when he took power was institute an island-wide literacy program. Not a word about the brutal side of Castro's rule. Bernie came off sounding as if he was an apologist for the communist presidente.

Rather than saying his views about Castro were expressed some years ago, that they have "evolved," and he no longer has such a favorable opinion of Fidel--though that would be a fib--a day or two later he doubled-down in another interview while his advisors shrugged, claiming this was just an example of Bernie being Bernie. Unlike traditional politicians he is not a hypocrite and is "consistent" in his views. (Some would say rigid.)

Though there is something attractive about a presidential candidate being a truth teller, doesn't Sanders recognize that this time around it's all about winning and that some prevaricating is a small price to pay if it contributes to ridding us of Trump?

Also lurking, waiting to be exposed and mocked are his favorable views of the Sandinistas and Soviets. Apparently while on his honeymoon trip to Moscow he came away a fervent admirer of the chandeliers in the Moscow subway and by implication the USSR system.

This positive assessment of Castro and the Soviets may cost him the election because by giving Fidel a pass, it is hard to see Sanders carrying Florida and in a close Electoral College election it could again come down to Florida, Florida, Florida.

Sanders is making it too easy for Trump to caricature him.

If you think I am being unfair to Sanders by demagoguing Castro, back in my college days I helped establish a Fair Play for Cuba chapter in New York City, met Castro and Che Guevara, and read Jean-Paul Sartre's On Cuba cover-to-cover three times!

This is not about Cuba but Sanders' candidacy.

I got over my infatuation with the Cuban Revolution before I turned 25. Bernie at 78, not so much.

Fidel Castro in New York 1959

February 24, 2020--Jack: Trump's Head Fake

"At the risk of losing your appetite, for a moment make believe you're Trump."

Jack has the ability, though limited, to be playful. So I went along with him, thinking maybe this was one of those times. He hadn't called in a few weeks and I must admit, in a limited way, I missed hearing from him. 

"Proceed."

"Go back in time to maybe three years ago when Trump turned most of his attention to his reelection campaign."

"If you want to be historically correct," I said, "he began to think about his reelection the day after he was inaugurated. Maybe even right after taking the oath of office."

"Whatever," Jack said, "I imagine the first thing on his mind was to think about which Democrats would be running and who he wanted to run against. By then anyone paying attention could come up with a list of the 25 or so Democrats who were thinking about it or already running. That started even earlier than the Inauguration but on  Election Day right after the results were known and Trump was declared the winner."

"I agree with that. It's never too soon to be ambitious."

"So, again, make believe you're Trump and are psyching out the opposition. Thinking about who it might be easiest to defeat."

"You want me to come up with that? Who I think Trump wanted to run against?"

"Correct," Jack said, "I think it's a pretty easy one."

I thought for a few moments while he went to get another cup of coffee.

"OK. Of the major candidates, excluding people like Colorado senator Michael Bennet or Maryland congressman John Delaney, who had no chance whatsoever to win, easiest for Trump to beat--in his own mind--is, was Bernie the socialist."

"Exactly. I knew you were a smart boy."

"Get on with it," I said, "I don't have all day."

"So Trump zeros in on Bernie and thinks about how he can help bring about his nomination."

"That too is an easy one. Call Putin and tell him to get his boys to begin undermining Sanders' campaign."

"Wrong," Jack said, "He calls who the president of Ukraine was at that time and asks him to dig for dirt about Joe Biden, who back then everyone thought was going to be the nominee and the strongest Democrat. All the early polls had Biden with a wide lead. Including over Trump."

"I'm confused," I said, "You asked me to imagine what Trump was thinking and doing three or more years ago, but he didn't talk with the Ukraine president, Zelensky, until July 2019. Seven or eight months ago."

"You're so naive. If you want to be a convincing Trump you have to think outside the box and come up with stuff that no one yet is thinking about. For example, I'm sure Trump called the previous Ukrainian president, the one before Zelensky, and asked him to work on bringing down Biden. That president was such a crook that I'm sure he didn't require too much bribing."

"Please continue. This is going to take forever."

"It works. With Trump tweeting and making fun of Biden and whatever Fox News and the Ukrainians came up with, Biden's numbers began to come down and it looked like he wasn't going to be a real threat to Trump. But again, we began with me asking who you thought would be easiest to beat. The one Trump wanted to run against."

"Again, it feels as if we're going around in circles. Can you speed this up?"

"So most of the election coverage on cable news was devoted to Biden and his son, including the impeachment business, you remember that--the impeachment?"

I said, "It feels like that was ten years ago."

"There was very little about 'Crazy Bernie.' It was all about Biden and Trump. But what's really on Trump's mind is Bernie. The one he wants to run against, feeling he'd be the easiest to beat. All Trump would have to do is talk about his heart attack and how he's a communist."

"If I agree with any of this, I still don't know what Trump did to help Bernie win."

"For one thing he got his friends the Russians to do what they could to help Bernie get the nomination. We just learned about that late last week."

"True."

"Tell me what you make of that."

"What's the 'that'? I can't wait to hear the latest conspiracy theory."

"Why did Sanders sit on this information for at least month? For the first time a few days ago he disclosed he was briefed about the Russians helping with his campaign."

"I think I know what you're implying. So out with it."

"Maybe Bernie was happy getting the Russians' help."

"Inconceivable."

"So tell me why he didn't make it public immediately. And if you in your Trump impersonation wanted the Russians to do their thing to help Bernie, wouldn't you wink at your best friend Putin to arrange for that help for Bernie?"

I confessed, "My head is spinning."

"And so," Jack asked, "where do things stand now with the Democrats?"

"Meaning?"

"Who looks now like he has the clearest shot at the nomination?"

"After Nevada, likely Bernie."

"Just what you, if you were like Trump, would have wanted and would have done to help make it happen." He paused to catch his breath. He was all excited. 

"Like a head fake Trump made it look as if it was about Biden while in reality it was about Bernie. Trump helped bring Biden down and by doing so opened a lane for Bernie to secure the Democratic nomination. It was a Trump twofer."

Exhausted, I said, "Here's my final word--this could turn out for Trump to be a case of being careful about what you wish for. I think Bernie is going to turn out to be a formidable general election candidate. Maybe the strongest Democrat.  Which means he may be the best one positioned to defeat Trump."

Jack moaned, "I'll have to think about that."

February 20, 2020--The Debate

I don't want to vote for any of these people.

OK, maybe Mayor Pete.

OK, maybe Joe Biden.

I can't believe I said that. Joe Biden?

February 19, 2020--Newbie Bloomberg

Among many people I know, mainly older friends, I am sensing a building enthusiasm for the candidacy of Mike Bloomberg.

They are in general high-information folks who are well aware of Stop and Frisk, redlining, and his too frequent misoginy. They were antiwar protesters in their youth and have been politically active in progressive causes in many ways through the years.

Thus, they are reluctant to be quoted but are quickly coming to support Bloomberg.

Not because they feel he will be a great president, not because they believe he will unify the country or inspire the young but because they feel he is the only one who can defeat Sanders, who they see to be unelectable, and because he is electable and thus has the best chance to save us from four more years of Trump.

So, I did some calling around and almost everyone I spoke with reported feeling optimistic for the first time in what feels to them like forever.

One told me, as a life-long feminist and Democratic activist, she is embarrassed to tell her friends how she is inclining. She also said, as with Trump in 2016, people like her if surveyed will not acknowledge they is planning to vote for someone so flawed. And vote with growing enthusiasm and hope.

So we'll see how tonight goes at the Democratic debate. If Bloomberg is able to deal with the wave of criticism that will inevitably come his way we may see the election transformed.

Minimally, it will not be boring.

February 18, 2020--The Final Seven

If the remaining seven Democratic candidates for the presidential nomination want to win, they need to make some midcourse corrections.

Amy Klobuchar needs to make a 30 minute speech in which she tells us who she is and why she is running for the highest office in the land. It needs to be what she would do as president beyond working with Congress to get bills passed. At the moment she is making a better case for herself to continue in the Senate than move into the Oval Office.

Elizabeth Warren is the most puzzling of the candidates. Just weeks ago ago she was the front runner and now she is struggling to hang on to fourth place. She needs to figure out how to make herself more likable by showing her human side. Her problem is not that she is pushing Medicare for All and lacks a plausible plan for how to pay for it (this is true for Bernie as well and he is doing fine) but rather that in spite of all her energy, effort, and brilliance she has been turning voters off and her numbers have shown it. 

Tom Steyer has been creeping up. With Biden losing support among African Americans, a surprising number have been turning to him. Many who know the inclinations of voters of color see him to be a practical alternative to the former Vice President. But if he wants to continue to rise he too needs to make a major speech about who he is and why he has such a political fire in his belly. At the moment, he is a more effective critic of Trump than an advocate for himself.

Mayor Pete may be the smartest of the candidates but that very smartness at times makes him sound programmed and robotic.

And then of course there is his on-going problem with voters of color. He needs to take that on directly. Think the speech Obama delivered in 2008 about race and his relationship with his former pastor, the black nationalist, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. 

Then there is Joe Biden. Those counting him out shouldn't do so prematurely. In most national polls he is still in second place. Just 5 or so points behind Sanders. Though he has lost some African-American support, a plurality still say they plan to vote for him. Strong showings in Nevada and South Carolina would put him back in the thick of things.

But he needs some reinvention. He needs to show he has a pulse and the best way to do that is in yet another speech. This one has to put Hunter Biden back in the middle of the narrative. This time not in a conspiratorial one concocted by Trump and Fox News.

Do you remember how back in 1988 Michael Dukakis, the Democratic nominee was leading Vice President George H.W. Bush by double digits until the the race card was played? During one of the presidential debates he was asked how he would feel about the death penalty (he was opposed to it) if his wife Kitty was raped and murdered. Rather than showing any emotion he spoke with sociological detachment and that did him in.

Biden needs to learn from that. Thus far, when asked about what his son was up to in Ukraine, he has spoken about it dispassionately. This makes it feel as if there are things to hide, that he is trying to finesse the situation, or that he is too over the hill and lacks the energy to take on what will await him if he manages to win the nomination and the general election. Someone this passive and seemingly unwilling to defend his family appears to be too weak for the race and ultimately the presidency. He doesn't feel as if he's ready to be commander in chief.

He too needs to make a speech or grant an interview to Sixty Minutes in which he demonstrates he has the capacity to fight and win with appropriate passion. 

More than anything else Sanders has to buy a half hour of TV time to address the voting public about just one topic--he needs to tell us what he means when he calls himself a "democratic socialist."

I suspect that fewer than 10 percent of the electorate know. But we do know that if he is the nominee Trump and his Fox supporters will turn Sanders into a cartoon. They have already begun to do so. It is essential for Bernie to get ahead of this and address it directly. It is at the center of his political philosophy but he has yet to make a clear case for why he embraces socialism and why it would be good for America. 

Finally, there is the case of the complicated Mike Bloomberg. If he wasn't  compromised in regard to some of his attitudes about race and gender, after decades of philanthropy and public service in support of women's rights and racial justice he would likely win the nomination and even the presidency.

But there is Stop and Frisk, redlining, and too many examples of misogyny.

Thus far he has fumbled his explanations and apologies. He needs to do better, much better. He too needs to address this directly, forcefully, and convincingly in another speech similar to Obama's on race. He also needs to be ready to deal with this during Wednesday's debate.

If the final seven were to do this, we would have a nominee who could win since three or four are viable.

February 17, 2020--Buying the Election

As Mike Bloomberg rises in the polls to perhaps second place behind Sanders, his opponents, none more than Bernie, accuse him of trying to "buy the election." 

Bloomberg is worth $62 billion, is America's 6th richest person, and has said he will spend at least $2.0 billion of this fortune on his campaign for the presidency  

Anyone who watches TV or has a smart phone no matter where in America they live can get a sense of what $2.0 billion buys you--endless ads approved and paid for by Bloomberg, a mammoth social media blitz, and a flood of Bloomberg-generated memes to chew on.

In addition, it buys you a well-paid team of operatives to carry out your ground game.

And ultimately, it may help get you the presidency.

It is true on one important level (having virtually limitless money available to fund a campaign for the presidency) that money may help "buy" Bloomberg the election.

I placed quotation marks around "buy" because there are additional ways to think about the purchasing power of money in elections. 

A glaring example--Bernie Sanders also is trying to mobilize a fortune's worth of money to help him win the presidency.

Not his money, but yours and mine. Taxpayers' money. The key word to how this works is "mobilize," which is different than "spend."

No one asked us to approve this money, Bernie just appropriated it and plans to use it to pay for all the social programs he is promising.

Thirty to $50 trillion worth (trillion), with a whopping $30 of it for his Medicare for All plan. 

This is money we and our children and grandchildren will need during the next 25 years to fund our Social Security and whatever government-funded health care plan we will be required to live with.

Bernie's programs, of course, will not actually be paid for. Assuming Congress approves them (unlikely) their cost will get assigned to our compounding national debt. Like Bush's prescription drug plan and Trump's tax cuts for the wealthy.

There is, though, a significant difference between what Bloomberg is spending and Sanders is mobilizing--Bloomberg's money is his; Bernie's is ours.

February 14, 2020-Trump's Week

Last week was Trump's best ever.

First, with the almost unanimous vote of Republican senators he was found "not guilty" of committing high crimes and misdemeanors.

He immediately took off on an exoneration tour to bask in the regard of his most fervent followers. The crowds at his rallies were standing room only.

The stock market, his favorite economic barometer, reached record levels.

Also last week there was the jobs report. 225,000 new jobs were created, 65,000 more than expected. He took credit for this (though he doesn't deserve it--what we are experiencing is the ongoing extension of the Obama recovery) and used the good news to underscore how we are beneficiaries of the "best economy in history." (Also, not true).

And he delivered a politically effective State of the Union address, almost sounding like a normal president.

Even his approval ratings (perpetually stuck in the low 40s) crept up a bit. Just a bit.

Gullible (or craven) Republican senators such as Susan Collins claimed that impeachment would chasten him. As a result, they said he will change, become more "presidential."


We see already how that is working out. 

Also during the week it appeared that Joe Biden's campaign was collapsing. So Trump could see that his blackmailing Ukraine was working out.

Just as everything seemed to be going his way, three days ago, the credible Quinnipiac Poll published a spate of findings that was full of bad news for Trump.

From all the good news Tump was expecting a bump up in his favorabilities. As Bill Clinton did. Perhaps in a poll or two he would enter 50 percent land. 

But the opposite happened.

Of the Q Poll results the one that must have been most frustrating to him were the numbers from the head-to-head comparisons between him and each of his main rivals.

He "lost" to each of them. A few, widely--

Bloomberg topped Trump by 51 to 42 percent.  

Sanders beat Trump by 8 points, 51 to 43. 

Biden won 50 to 43.  

Klobuchar prevailed by 49 to 43 percent.

Warren led by 4 points, 48 to 44 percent. 

And Buttigieg won narrowly, 47 to 43 percent.

These numbers I am certain will shift when the results of the New Hampshire primary are factored in--Klobuchar, for example, will pick up at least a percent or two and Warren will continue to slip. None of this is good news for Trump. It shows the deep desire of people to see him voted out of office.

So, it's time for us to emerge from our fear and malaise and get on with our efforts to build on this. We're just at the beginning of the process. Our very country is at stake. 

February 12, 2020--A Squeaker

For those concerned about Bernie Sanders' ability to defeat Trump in November, for those who are concerned that Bernie seems unstoppable on the road to the nomination, the results yesterday in New Hampshire should be a bit of a relief.

Bernie, in a state next door to his Vermont, managed to squeak by Peter Buttigieg by a scant 1.3 percentage points. A
state Sanders carried four years ago by 20 points.

And, if you combine Amy Klobuchar's votes with Mayor Pete's (44 percent) and contrast them to the total the socialists Bernie and Elizabeth Warren garnered (35 percent), Bernie looks even more vulnerable.

So moderation was the story of the night. Not Bernie's victory.

What is yet to unfold will be very interesting.

February 7, 2020--Calm Down

Calm down everybody. As maddening as the situation is in Iowa, by Tuesday at the latest everyone will be talking about how Pete Buttigieg did in New Hampshire (very well) and how poorly Biden faired (very poorly).

The good news is that November is nine months from now and matters are in our hands. It has been and still is all about voting. 

February 6, 2020--Enough Already

Before they do more harm to themselves, the Democrats need to get to where they're going. And fast.

By this I mean to their final two. 

After all the polling, debates, and now Iowa, it is becoming obvious that among current strivers for the nomination only two are viable--Bernie Sanders and Mike Bloomberg.

They are making powerful and effective cases for their ideas and electability. And they are the only two who have all the money needed to run a 21st century campaign. No one else comes even close.

Pete Guttigieg is clearly attractive, has some money, but with essentially no support in the African-American community doesn't have much of a chance to be nominated much less win in November. Bernie also has his own version of this problem. As, in fact, does Bloomberg (recall Stop and Frisk).

I do not understand why Warren's support has been shrinking for nearly two months--perhaps because of her Medicare For All ideas and their cost. Bernie has this problem as well and then some but for some reason is getting away with it. Probably sexism has something to do with that.

On the other hand, I think I know why Biden is turning out not to be viable. Mainly because he feels like a fragile old man whose time has come and gone. In addition, recall, the other times he ran for president. Though he was far from old, he was an unsuccessful candidate, securing 0.5 percent of the votes in Iowa and New Hampshire and never rising above 5 percent in the polls. When he aspires for the presidency there is clearly something about him that deters voters.

All the other candidates are mired in or close to one-digit territory. Amy Klobuchar is the one exception, now hovering in the 10 percent range.

In other words, the Democratic candidates are either flawed or politically weak. All the more reason to clear the field and let the final two hone their messages, get out of the business of self-destructive bickering, and compete meaningfully with each other. An on-going crowded field is not helping.

As to ultimate electability, can a 78 year-old Jewish socialist who wants to eliminate private health care insurance win a national election? 

Then, assuming by some version of a miracle Bloomberg can win the nomination (the process is rigged to undermine an outsider's chances to do so), can another 77 year-old New York Jew who is fervent about protecting a woman's right to choose, can he win in enough blue-collar swing states to achieve a majority in the Electoral College?

Bernie versus Bloomberg could turn out to be a great contest with clear and stark ideological differences separating them--can Bernie, the representative of the anti-capitalist ninety-nine percent defeat one of the most successful capitalists in American history (whose most profitable product is financial software) with enough wealth to place him in the top one-tenth of one percent?

I know my friends who are eager supporters of Mayor Pete or Elizabeth Warren will not welcome this ultra-practical suggestion. But we're in a dog fight with Trump, who is very good at this, while  also busy shooting ourselves in the foot.

February 4, 2020--Impeachment Post Mortem

As our president once so eloquently put it, "Who gives a shit about Ukraine?"

Other countries were on his shit list, but it turned out that Ukraine would wind up in the headlines and at the center of his impeachment, which will be resolved tomorrow when the Senate votes to find him not guilty of having committed high crimes and misdemeanors. 

He will have the boys over for a beer and then jump onboard Air Force One and head south and west on his exoneration tour.

It is likely to be nauseating so I recommend pulling the plug on your TV to block out MSNBC and CNN for at least a month. It will take more than that to recover.

While tuning out I suggest we force ourselves to do an impeachment forensic to ask how we got into this mess, especially how the Dems, sorry, screwed up and helped to bring it about. How we got snookered by Trump into impeaching him so he could take advantage of the foregone conclusion, knowing, as we should have, that the disposition would be that Trump would walk. 

Trump knew that, Mitch McConnell especially knew that, and even we knew that. 

It didn't take a neurosurgeon to add up how many votes the Democrats had (51) and that the Constitution stipulates two-thirds plus one senator (67) need to vote guilty to remove a president.

So what were we up to while seeking to find grounds to impeach and try Trump?

The usual--doing all we could to show how smart we are and how stupid the Republicans are. So by any rational measure we turned out to be clever and lost while the Republicans, not interested in rational measures, proved to be stupid and won. 

Great.

We knew that at most we'd get perhaps two Republicans to break ranks and that Mitch would get all but two from his caucus. (Though I suspect Susan Collins will vote with her colleagues to acquit Trump. Mitch in return will pay her off with a couple of more Zumwalt-class destroyers to be built at the Iron Works in Bath, Maine.)

Here's how Trump did it--

He knew Dems in the House had their eyes wide open, looking for something to grab onto, anything to launch the impeachment process. Trump knew that whatever they came up with for their Articles wouldn't matter. With Mitch fulminating and twisting arms, he'd easily defeat them in the Senate and remain in office. He was gambling that getting impeached, especially for something exotic like hanky-panky in Ukraine, would sound like a witch hunt to his fervent base and assure he would be exonerated and his favorability poll numbers, like Clinton's, would rise.

Nancy Pelosi knew Trump was setting a trap and for months resisted allowing her committee chairmen and women to begin an inquiry.

Her strategy was working until Trump dangled Ukraine in front of them.

Here's how that worked--

Trump learned that there was a whistle-blower report that outlined how Trump and his senior staff were attempting to blackmail the new president of Ukraine, holding up the delivery of already approved military equipment until President Zelensky announced that he was going to begin an investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden's allegedly corrupt dealings in Ukraine.

To ensnare the Democrats, who were eager to initiate their own investigation--this one into Trump--he declassified notes of a phone call with Zelensky in which he asked the Ukrainian president to do "us a favor, though" by looking into what the Bidens were up to.

In other words he got the impeachment process going by revealing the smoking gun at the outset. That was brilliant. He turned Watergate on its head by in effect confessing up front. This released him from needing to concentrate on every aspect of the prosecution's case and thus he was free to lash out unfettered.

The Democrats took that bait and Nancy Pelosi had no recourse but to allow the inquiry. 

The Democratic House managers were well prepared and presented an open-and-shut case. The only problem was that more than half the "jurors," all the Republicans in the House, had their minds already made up and his attacks on the process were unrelenting. (For the sake of fairness, virtually all the Democrats also had their minds made up before the inquiry began.)

So it became a reality show. Something about which Trump knows more than a little.

Again, none is this is arcane or difficult to figure out. The difference is that the Dems got lost in the details of the narrative and the evidence that they unearthed and wove into their Articles of Impeachment. The Republicans ignored the evidence and didn't challenge Trump's lawyers' lies. The GOP kept their eyes on the prize--again, winning. Feeling good about our virtue, many progressives assumed our familiar role as losers in these kinds of ugly confrontations.

As disturbing as it is, it is essential to do the forensics because if we are to rescue our country from Trump and his crowd, we need to know how this happened and how we became our own worst enemies. An all too familiar phenomenon.

February 3, 2020--Vetting Bernie

Elizabeth Warren has been put through the ringer ever since she revealed details about how she was proposing to pay for her version of Medicare for All.

As she should have been. As all the leading candidates should have been. We need to know if they are offering pie in the sky or policies that make sense and are affordable.

This sort of scrutiny comes with the territory when running for president. Especially when taxpayers assess the highlights of a candidates' domestic agenda that would cost us tens of trillions in additional taxes or increased debt.

Warren was second or third in the national polls when she showed voters her numbers; but since getting into the budgetary weeds about her plans she has slipped. She's now locked in fourth place as her numbers continue to slide.

The main political beneficiary of her descent is the other most progressive candidate--Bernie Sanders. Depending on the poll, he has moved solidly into second or even first place. Tied with or ahead of Biden.

In spite of his rise Bernie has not been seriously vetted. He got this far on a pass. It might be good to wonder why.

For example, according to Steve Rattner, though Warren disclosed her health plan would cost tens of trillions of dollars more than currently being spent on Medicare, the additional cost to taxpayers for Sanders' Medicare for All proposal over ten years, rarely discussed, could be as much as twice that.  ($30-40 trillion versus her $20.5 trillion).

Looking at the cost of some of their other plans Bernie's continue to be much more expensive--

For the Green New Deal, Warren would spend $3.0 trillion more than we currently budget for environmental  programs whereas Sanders' additional spending would reach $16.3 trillion. More than five times as much.

For free college tuition, Warren budgets $610 billion while Bernie would spend less--"only" $480 billion.

To eliminate student debt, Warren would allocate $640 billion, while Sanders would increase the budget by $1.6 trillion. Four times as much.

When asked to explain how they would pay for these and other programs they both talk about instituting wealth taxes. When one looks at the numbers, however, Warren's increased taxes on the very rich would yield $3.75 trillion while Bernie's would net just a little more--$4.35 trillion.

In both cases additional trillions would be required to make their proposals revenue neutral. Good luck with that.

We all know that if any of these programs could be approved by Congress their cost would be added to the federal debt. The same place where Trump's trillions in tax cuts for the mega-rich fester.

If we want to defeat Tump at the polls in November we had better do some of own vetting before Trump and his henchmen do it for us.