April 30, 2020--Who Was that Masked Man?

Masked Man?  Clearly not Mike Pence. 

He was maskless at the Mayo Clinic the other day when he and a delegation of Trump administration officials visited to thank doctors for their work on combating the virus.

The Mayo has a firm policy that anyone working there or visiting MUST wear a mask. When Pence showed up without one and declined to use one his hosts offered to provide, they pressed him and he continued to demure, asserting that the masks are to protect people from spreading the virus and since he is not infected (he claimed to be tested "regularly") he didn't need to wear one.  

And didn't. 

His hosts were gracious enough not to turn him away, as I would have.

What conceit, what arrogance. Or was it vanity--that he didn't want to mess up his $500 haircut?

Wondering about this, a panel of guests on Morning Joe Wednesday, searched for an explanation about why Pence insisted on going without a mask.

They came up with all sots of complicated speculation while a simple one was obvious.

It is not just because the person he is making a career out of sucking up to, Trump, also refuses to wear one. Though they both insist on never being seen with one.

Let me suggest a stretch of a comparison to how President Franklin Roosevelt, who was paralyzed from the waist down from polio, did all he could never to reveal the steel braces he needed to wear on his legs.

Doing so was political--FDR wanted to project strength and thus this "cover up."

The last thing Pence and Trump want is to appear fallible. And they do not want to remind voters that there are complicitous in the spread of the coronavirus. Their agenda is to deny its reality and obscure their series of policies that have it much worse, much deadlier.

Wearing a mask would underscore that the pandemic is still very much with us and until and before there are effective treatments, including vaccinations, they are desperate to vamp their way though the crisis by using theatrics, distortions, and lies to cover up their failures.

For them, business as usual.

As Jared Kushner just said, It's a "great success story." 

December 13, 2019--It's In Their Hands

Earlier in the week there was a blizzard of presidential poll results. 

Mainly about how the candidates were faring in Iowa and New Hampshire and how, nationally, individual Dems were doing in head-to-head contests with Trump.

The upper tier could not but feel encouraged. Even Amy Klobuchar, who was in about 8th place overall at four or five percent, appeared to be leading Trump by five or six percentage points. In first place, holding steady, Joe Biden was nine percentage point ahead of Trump.

Yes, the election is still nearly a year away, though almost everyone I know would like it to be next Tuesday, or tomorrow, and we know from the 2016 polling and results that people who eventually voted for Trump didn't reliably show up in the polls--apparently many people were and perhaps are reluctant to admit, perhaps are embarrassed to reveal they plan to vote for Trump--Biden's numbers especially are looking encouraging to anyone who wants to send Trump packing to Mar-a-Lago.

There was also a trickle of related poll and election results chat in the media that was both encouraging and concerning.

Some of the polls broke out data about how women are thinking about Trump and a generic Democratic opponent. Encouraging, 60 percent said they planned to vote for Trump's opponent, but concerning, 34 percent of polled women said they planned to vote to reelect him.

I know 60-34 represents a landslide and I'll take it, but how can one account for the fact that more than a third of American women say they will vote for Trump in spite of all the outrages he has committed when it comes to women.  From Stormy Daniels to the Access Hollywood tape to the way he characterizes any women with whom he disagrees. Ask Congresswoman Maxine Waters how he has smeared her.

And then, when discussing the polling results someone on "Morning Joe" reminded the panel and viewers that in 2016 only 19 percent of young people voted. Not for Trump, not for Hillary but did not vote at all. 

Also, someone pointed out that three years ago 4.4 million of Obama's 2012 voters did not vote.

So, looking toward 2020, unless women turn out, especially if black women vote at close to Obama levels, unless young people turn out, Trump could win a close Electoral College victory.

The good news though--it's all in our hands. 

June 13, 2019--Trump Slump

We've been in Maine more than five weeks and I have spent about five minutes watching Morning Joe. 

Not each day, but five minutes totally. And for at least half that time I wasn't paying attention.

This is me who back in the city was about addicted to Joe Scarborough's early morning show and Nicole Wallace's on MSNBC later in the day.

My rationalization for tuning out is that the 2020 election is more than 17 months away and I do not want to peak too soon in my effort to help dispose of Trump.

But though I may be pooping out, or, as I prefer to think about it, pausing, Trump at 73 is tirelessly racing around the country appearing at pep rallies and spending hours each day tweeting up storms of noxious abuse that he hurls against his opponents. Mainly recently, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. 

Forgotten for the moment is that the week before there were others who bedeviled Trump and as a result were mocked by him--remember Robert Mueller and Bette Midler among others? Yes, "Boogie-Woogie Bugle Boy" Bette Milder, who he called from the beaches of Normandy, on D Day, a "washed-up psycho."

And that's sort of the point--he sends out such a continuous stream of political gas that he creates a new norm, and unless one is careful it is easy to get sucked into it or want to retreat to the sidelines.

So I am finding, not just anecdotally, that many people are seeking distractions. Even Trump people. His rallies are less well attended and somewhat less rapturous. But just as I expect Democrats to return to the fold, or minimally resume following the campaign, I expect most of Trump's people will as well. So I don't see much of an edge there.

Conventional wisdom (which with Trump has not always been that wise) suggests that in national elections people do not start paying attention until the Labor Day before Election Day. And in the current case, if this holds true, we're talking about two Labor Days from now. The one this year and another in September 2020.

Yes, the Democratic nomination process kicks into high gear in 13 days when there is the first debate, spread over two days, among the 20 or 75 candidates seeking the nomination. (Another debate will follow in July so by August I'm afraid that hardly anyone will be paying attention to the Democrats.)

Party activists, though, will track what is happening as the debates are viewed as elimination rounds where those who languish in one-percent land at the end of June will begin to drop out. New York City mayor, Bill de Blasio, for example.

And, yes, on the other side of the equation the debate is an opportunity for someone or two to emerge from the pack. Elizabeth Warren or Pete Buttigieg, for example, who recently have been doing well in the polls. In Iowa at least. 

Many Dems seem to be looking for an alternative to oldsters Sanders and Biden, both of whom are looking as if they are readier to move into a care facility than the White House. Though 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is the ultimate care facility. The president even has his own in-house physician and emergency room.

In spite of what I've just said, I suspect for some time I won't be tuning in to "Morning Joe." Except, perhaps, for a couple of days later in the month just before and after the first debate. 

Though it appears that Joe himself these days hardly ever turns up for his own show.

May 14, 2019--Checked Out

A week into our Maine season one thing I noticed is that hardly anyone wants to talk politics. Not even many of the people we know who are Democrats and hate the idea that Trump is our president.

Mention Trump, mention Mueller, mention Mitch McConnell, and people avert their eyes and quickly change the subject. 

Mention Biden, mention the Green New Deal, mention Bernie and people want to talk about all the rain we're having.

I get it.

Everyone's exhausted, including me. Everyone is frustrated, everyone wants distractions. I'm embarrassed to admit that we've become obsessed with "Jeopardy" and the current superstar contestant, James Holzhauer, who has won almost $2.0 million. 

Many of the people I talk with want to ignore what's going on in Washington and the wider world. It's too depressing. I feel the same way.

I haven't watched "Morning Joe" since arriving. Never-mind Rachael

This is making me nervous. It's one thing if there's Trump Fatigue. One recovers from that. He wears you out, you take a step backward to recharge, lay low, and after a few days get back to exposing his lies, his dangerous moves, and you reengage in the struggle to find a Democratic challenger who can take him on and win in 2020.

On the other hand, what has me really worried is that he may be more than wearing us out but could be winning.

That his will to survive, his manic energy is a force of nature that some may feel is fundamentally irresistible. Perhaps transformative.

If I'm right about this, if I'm reading these vibes correctly, we need to make the effort to rouse ourselves and get back into the struggle. The consequences of allowing ourselves to be beaten down, of relenting, are too cataclysmic, too consequential to justify checking out. If only for a few weeks.

Then there is the good news--we have more than a year to get done what needs to get done. The polls suggest that some Trump supporters are experiencing their own version of Trump Fatigue. In this case, from their perspective, it is even more perilous because they have nowhere to go but with Trump. If they run out of interest and patience with him there is no one to replace them. Politically, they are the soft underbelly of his followers. They aren't making any more of themselves. Their's is a small pool that has no capacity for replenishment.

The bottom line, though, is that we had better keep our act together and pace ourselves for the long haul. After November 3, 2020 there will be time to rest and recoup. And hopefully celebrate.

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 6, 2019--Jack: T-PAC

It's that time of year when conservatives gather for the annual CPAC conference. 

The highlight this time was the appearance Sunday afternoon of Donald Trump who spoke for nearly two-and-a-half hours! Fidel-Castro, Mussolini-length, and surely a CPAC record for the longest expletive-larded speech ever. 

Trump had a lot on his mind. Most of it from agita. 

Just a few days earlier, while Michael Cohen was testifying before the House Oversight Committee, he was on Air Force One heading back to Washington from the collapsed summit with Kim Jong-un. At about the same time the New York Times was reporting that he personally countermanded his senior intelligence advisers and granted his son-in-law top secret security clearance.

And so he seized the opportunity to get many grievances off his chest and the audience loved every minute of it. They were as one. So much so that they stood and cheered for more than a disgraceful minute when he proclaimed John McCain dead. Tearfully, it will be a moment they will share with their Republican grandchildren.

Slumped and weary-looking as if he were bearing the weight of the world on his shoulders, Trump entered stage right where a lonely American flag stood, forlorn and limp on its pole. As if just happening to notice the flag, slowly he approached it, bending to embrace it. He coddled and rocked it in his arms as if he was comforting a loved one. With a sad smile, moving his lips dramatically so all could read them, he said, "My baby."

While streaming his remarks a day or two later to see if my eyes had deceived me on Sunday, the phone rang, and, as if he knew what I was up to, I was not surprised that it was Jack.


"I was watching your favorite show," he said, without even a greeting. "'Morning Joe.' All they could talk about was that speech. To tell you the truth I agreed with Joe and his guests that the slur about John McCain was way off base. Especially coming from someone who managed to dodge the draft."

"That was the lowest of many low points," I said.

Jack said, "But off that performance, if you guys are not careful you could be looking at six more years of our president." He chuckled at the prospect.

"Enlighten me."

"One of Joe Scarborough's quests, someone from the Washington Post, called Trump insane. He said if you had an old grandfather that crazy you'd lock him up in the attic. Another guest accused Trump of being 'unhinged.'"

"That was Eugene Robinson," I muttered.

"And then Mike Barnicle chimed is to say that the only thing missing was for Trump to show up wearing paper slippers."

"He's a regular," I said.

"I actually thought that was pretty funny. But he and the others totally missed the bigger point."

"Which is?"

"Look, who am I to tell you guys what to do, but if you want to win in 2020 you need to get your act together. Not only have you given Trump a perfect person to run against . . ."

"Spare me. It's a long time before we have a candidate. Now it's just a couple of dozen hopefuls looking to gain traction. It's premature to talk about running against Trump. We first have to sort things out."

"I mean,"Jack said, "We used to have Nancy Pelosi to run against--which I admit didn't work out so well in 2018--but now we have that girl from the Bronx. I can never remember her name . . ."

"Alexander Ocasio-Cortez."

"You have initials for her, right?"

"Some people refer to her as AOC. What's your problem with her?"

"Actually it's the opposite of a problem. She's a gift that keeps on giving. Isn't she the one who wants to ban hamburgers to reduce global warming?"

"Not really, but your guys are accusing her of that."

"She's perfect to run against. She's a socialist and her ego is so large that she can't get enough air time on TV. I know she turns a lot of your people on but she's too far out for the people I assume you are hoping will vote your way. If she's the new face of the Democrat Party, Trump will be a shoe in."

"Before we declare him the winner let's see what Mueller and the House committees come up with."

"You need to remember that the more dirt that came up about Clinton the more popular he became. And he won a second term. But OAC is not your major problem. The fact that after maybe the worst month of his presidency, Trump, like Clinton is seeing his favorables going up. Just this week by three points. To 46 percent or so."

"What then is our major problem?"

"You're doing it again."

"What again?"

"Just like last time around when you thought Trump was just a joke. You couldn't imagine him beating Hillary. And guess what--he did. Mainly because she and the rest of you wouldn't take Trump seriously and looked down your noses at him and his supporters. And now you're doing a version of the same thing. Again take CPAC. Rather than trying to figure them out and especially Trump' appeal to them--they listened and cheered for him for two-and-a-half hours--you're busy making fun of him. How his speech was incoherent and that he's crazy. Things like that. By doing this you're motivating his people to stay loyal to him and are turning off a lot of people who are on the fence about him."

"I don't disagree with that," I conceded. "All during the last presidential campaign I thought Hillary and the liberal media were missing what was happening in the middle of the country and therefore we made a huge mistake by not showing respect for people who live and vote there. Rather, we too frequently mocked and disparaged Trump and those who turned out to be his voters."

Jack said, "And your reaction to CPAC shows me you're doing the same thing all over again. Which, for me is just fine. But to win you need to recognize that Trump, when it comes to politics and marketing himself, is crazy like a fox. He's totally brilliant at that. I know you think he's dumb and maybe about things you care about he is. But about appealing to his base and a lot of independents he's a version of a political genius. 

"If you want to win, first, you need to not nominate one of your crazies who Trump will mock 24/7. But you also need to get more comfortable with at least a segment of his followers. To see them as fellow Americans who have some legitimate issues, including some you share. Like worrying about how their children and grandchildren will fare as the economy changes and how the demographics of America are becoming more diverse than even some of your people are comfortable with. Don't fool yourself into believing all your liberal friends are so happy about these changes. 

"So you need to find a way to talk about this that's not bigoted and condemning. You need to have and show more understanding of the views and fears of people who you disagree with. You have to stop pointing fingers of contempt at them. Again, I'm talking about just some of Trump's people. From your perspective most are, to quote Hillary who was right about this, irredeemable. One of your problems is that you assume everyone is or should be as tolerant as you try to be. Well, you know what, in this regard you and your friends are far from perfect. You need to take a hard look at what's really in your heart." 

I finally said, "I've been attempting to make that argument for years. Liberals are more tolerant, every poll shows that, but there are a lot of closeted progressives who aren't happy about all the changes you mentioned. But in regard to immigrants and people of color Trump and the CPAC crowd are way out of line. There's no way to paper over that"

"I'll tell you what was really going on with the CPACers."

"I'm all ears."

"They were marking the end of the traditional Republican Party. It's now Trump's party. They could call themselves T-PAC. And his speech, if you can call it that, was like an inaugural address or a comedian's stand-up spritz to celebrate the victory of this new party. That explains the John McCain crack. They saw his death as if it signaled the end of the old Republican Party. A party that they saw him as representing. But again what they did was disgraceful. No two ways about that. 

"But here's the bottom line," Jack continued, "Trump and many of his people are really anarchists. You should call them out for that just as they accuse all of you of being socialists. But you should make a distinction between that part of T-PAC and the others who aren't so radical. As I've been saying, you need to find a way to reach out to and appeal to some of them. You also need to recognize that a large part of Trump's appeal is that he's entertaining. Which politically is not a bad thing. We are an entertainment-obsessed nation and you should look for someone to run against him who average people can enjoy listening to."

"I agree with that."

"Otherwise you're cooked."

November 21, 2018--IvankaGate

According to a story in yesterday's Washington Post, presidential First Daughter and official senior advisor to the president (her daddy), using a personal account, Ivanka Trump, sent hundreds of emails last year to White House staff and Cabinet officials. 

According to sources, "hundreds" violated federal rules about the dissemination and retention of official papers and correspondence. 

Sound familiar? Do you hear "Lock her up. Lock her up" being chanted in the background? This from rabid Trump supporters who packed themselves into mass rallies during the primary and general election campaigns of 2016-17, the same time Ivanka was using personal email for official business  

If you were paying attention, so must have been Ivanka. And she as well as we knew the "her" bing chanted was Hillary Clinton and the reason Trump claimed that Hillary should be locked up was because, while secretary of state, she used a private email system rather than one provided by the government.

Also like Hillary, Ivanka is now asserting she did not know that by doing so she violated well established rules.

Clearly she wasn't paying attention. Or, more likely, felt that federal rules about official papers did not apply to her or, for that matter, her princely husband, Jared Kushner, also a senior presidential advisor, with whom she shared a personal network or domain.

As might be imagined, the mainstream media are having a field day with this example of blatant hypocrisy. How delicious it must seem to Democrats (very much including Hillary Clinton) who have had to endure Trump's mocking while blaming the former First Lady for all our troubles. He did so as recently as Sunday while trying to deflect probing questions from Chris Wallace on Fox News.

By Tuesday morning, on CNN and MSNBC, chat was all about Ivanka's let-them-eat-cake hauteur. But, on both networks, while gleefulness was universal, Jeffery Toobin, CNN's chief legal analyst, and John Harwood, Washington correspondent for CNBC, on Morning Joe expressed second thoughts. Both claimed that this was not that big a deal. Nor for that matter, retrospectively, was what Hillary did, though both confessed to having spent too much time on the Hillary flap. They cautioned that we should not to make the same mistake again. 

Mika, Joe, and Alisyn Camerota went ballistic. It would be irresponsible to give the story short shrift since is was such an open-and-shut opportunity to get back at the Trumps.

I agree with Joe, Mika, and Alisyn, but perhaps for somewhat different reasons.

Progressives need to take this on aggressively. Not only to get even with the Trump crime family but to demonstrate that like Republicans we are capable of fighting aggressively. 

There is a tendency within the educated, professional class to reason rather than fight. In many instances this is the appropriate option but in most political situations it needs to be more about winning than reasoning.

One reason Republicans have done as well as they have (including electing Trump) is because they have the capacity to battle relentless for things they want to achieve. Like getting nominees confirmed for federal judgeships. Change the rules if necessary. Keep an eye on the goal--winning.

Progressives often lose because they are too quick to be understanding and reasonable.

This is not an argument to emulate Mitch McConnell but to stop being such wusses when it comes to confrontations and political battles. A cold political war is underway and we demur at our peril.

September 5, 2018--Boooooring

Mika got it right yesterday morning.

I dosed off Morning Joe for a couple of weeks, needing respite from all-Trump-all-the-time, but with the onset of the new season (the "year" starts up again the day after Labor Day) I felt the atavistic compulsion to reconnect to what is going on. Including trolling for subjects to write about that do not have anything to do with Trump.

Lots of luck with that I realized on Tuesday as early as five-after-six, with the first five minutes of MJ devoted to Joe and Willie exchanging barbs about the crumbling fate of the Yankees and the Red Sox's historic run.

Just two minutes into their joshing you could see Mika cringing. Up to their old schtick. If looks could wound her look would draw blood.

"Can we get on with things?" exasperated, she said. They ignored her. "There's lots going on and we need to talk about that."

"Yes, John McCain. His funeral," Joe said without enthusiasm, still more interested in baseball gossip.

"It's over," Mika said, cryptically.

"Not until it's over," Joe said, he thought slyly, quoting Yogi Berra, winking at Wille, with baseball still more on his mind than McCain.

"Not the funeral, but the presidency."

"Over?" Joe said, paying attention to his cohost and fiancée for a rare moment. 

"This show is so boring," she said. 

I grew excited, expecting a family spat. Mika pops off a few times a year and videos of her meltdowns usually go viral. I thought--what an inventive way for her to launch the year. Trashing her own show.

Having the floor she pressed on. "Nothing is new. In fact, nothing can be new. Everything is predictable. We know exactly what he is going to say. Or tweet. His whole presidency depends on a steady stream of surprises. In there own way, excitements. Engaging outrages. He's the producer of his own reality TV presidency and it's about to be cancelled."

"You know, Mika's half right," one of their panelists, off camera, said. You could sense he was worried that the "half right" could be misinterpreted, come off as patronizing. Which it did. Though smacking of enough truth that she and the others let it go. She was happy just being paid attention to.

As a result there was no more sports talk. They were off and running, making being boring interesting. 

"If his people start to get bored with him," Sam Stein of the Daily Beast said, "he's cooked. Don't mishear me, they believe him, more important they believe in him. They are also there for the show. If you live in some, forgive me, godforsaken place like Fargo, North Dakota, where the most exciting thing is the Charley Pride concert, it doesn't get any better than going to one of his rallies after standing in line for hours to get a seat for his political standup spritz. But before we get giddy about this, at the Fargo rally Trump people claimed 6,000 turned out, though the local press had the number much less than that."

"Like the ongoing numbers game about the size of the crowd at his inauguration," MSNBC's Kasie Hunt chimed in.

"One thing Trump knows for certain," this from WAPO columnist and editor Eugene Robinson, "Is how to pay attention to ratings. The Apprentice didn't go off the air because Trump was running for president but because the ratings were heading south. If the ratings and demographics had continued to be strong NBC would probably still have it on the air. I don't believe the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution forbids that. Making money from a TV show. Look, he's still getting away with making a killing from his hotels and resorts. I'm not hearing about anyone giving up their Mar-a-Lago membership or the Trump hotel in Washington offering weekend discounts."

Willie said, "There are reports that attendance at his rallies is declining. It's not such a hot ticket anymore. And more than a few who show up appear to filter out before his act is over."

"You're right," Joe jumped in,"politics is all about numbers. And enthusiasm. He could be slipping in both realms. If he is, as Mika said, it's all over."

"Well," Mika said, now all smiles, "at the beginning of being over."

Glancing at the clock, also smiling, Joe said, "We made it to six-thirty without being boring. I think we're off to a good start for the year."

July 18, 2018--President Munchausen

We were in New York City most of last week to do some routine doctoring and to see a few close friends and family members.

Good news on all fronts though it seems, without symptoms, I may have Lyme Disease again and either had or have Shingles.

One other thing--we were reminded again that while up in Maine we spend very little time watching cable news or pretty much anything else but when in NYC we watch too much. And, so, in town we did some reverting. At 6 a.m. I automatically turned on Morning Joe and we found ourselves watching Nicole Wallace's show later in the day.

This brought Trump front and center back into our lives. 

Halfway into Morning Joe Monday morning we realized why we keep the TV off most of the time during the six months we spend in Maine--what's available is too boring and/or too depressing.

Monday was all about Trump in Europe. First, there was a live feed from the NATO meeting in Brussels where over what appeared to be breakfast without food Trump in a monologue berated NATO members for not spending enough on their own defense. How they take advantage of us, expecting America to pick up the tab while they devote much of their GNP to overgenerous welfare programs for their citizens and the millions of refugees they foolishly allow to flood into their countries. 

The headline from that meeting was Trump slandering Germany and chancellor Angela Merkel for being held "captive" by Russia since Germany spends "billions and billions, many billions" of dollars for natural gas that flows into Germany from Russia. Germans, Trump claimed, get "70 percent" of their energy this way and thus are in effect hostages of Russia.

When I said to Rona that this figure is much too high (it turns out to be that "only" 13 percent of German's energy is supplied by Russia), she said, "More Munchausen Syndrome."

"You've referred to that before," I said, "Since I never heard of this I should have looked it up. Tell me, what is it?"

"It's a fictitious disorder, a mental disorder in which a person repeatedly and deliberately acts as if they have an illness when he or she isn't really sick."

"Like being a hypochondriac."

"Similar but there's a key difference--people with Munchausen's know they are faking it whereas hypochondriacs believe they are sick."

"So how does this work with Trump, who you say has a version of Munchausen's?"

"In many cases people with Munchausen's make illnesses up in part to elicit sympathy but also to 'cure' themselves when they want to boast by 'getting over' illnesses which they in fact never had. Like Trump does with facts or the truth. Unless he is more pathological than most people think, he knows he's making this stuff up. Like with Germany and Russian gas."

"Interesting but are their also parallels between classic Munchausen's where people 'cure' the illnesses they made up and Trump's relationship to the truth?"

"Take the business with Angela Merkel. He made up the 70 percent number, using it to verbally beat her up all day and then after they met one-on-one later that day or on Tuesday, he backed off from criticizing her and was full of praise for her and Germany. So among his followers he got credit for what he claimed while lying (his people hate the Europeans) and then later among the better informed, more serious crowd, he got some begrudging credit for appearing to have listened and moderated his position."

"I like this," I said.

"He did the same thing with British prime minister Theresa May. First he mocked her for getting in trouble when trying to implement Brexit because she didn't 'take his advice' but then after private meetings with her later in the week in England, he took much of it back, praising her for the way she is struggling with this complicated issue. First he made up the situation (her not taking his advice) and then took it back--in a sense overcame it in true Munchausen fashion."

"Is Munchausen a real person?"

"Of course not! That's half the fun. There's a fictional Baron Munchausen, an 18th century German nobleman who made up stories about the remarkable feats he performed like riding a cannonball or fighting a 40-foot long crocodile. Much like Trump's boasting. Then when caught in the lie that he knew was a lie he simply backed off.

"And when in the 1950s it came time to study and then name a new syndrome that had Munchausen-like aspects to it the psychiatrists named it for him. If they were doing that now I suppose it could be called Trump Syndrome."

Now, back in Maine, the TV is off except for Wimbledon and the World Cup. Thankfully, both are over.

But then there was the disastrous meeting with Vladimir Putin and . . .

Baron Munchausen

May 14, 2018--"Rudy" Awakening

During our first week in Maine we turned the TV on exactly one time and at that for a total of only about half an hour--last Sunday night to watch a little American Idol. We would have watched more but fell asleep after driving seven hours to get here.

So it was a rude awakening or, forgive the pun, a Rudy awakening when we finally turned it on again this past Saturday after pretty much a full week of no TV. 

It was all Rudy of Rudy Giuliani all the time because his antics as Trump's new lead attorney were splashed all over the news. None of it good. All off it tumultuous, out-of-control, or just plain crazy. 

Whoever said this has it right--he's lost a step. Though from all the messes he created or stepped into during the past two weeks working for Trump, I'd say he's lost more than that. It looks as if he's lost his entire mind.

First, when pooh-poohing Trump's other personal lawyer, Michael Cohn's paying off Stormy Daniels, Rudy said that was no big deal. It's the sort of thing he and his firm routinely do for his and their famous and wealthy clients. Shrugging, he boasted, we just write the women "a couple of checks." What's $130,000? No big deal.

It appears, though, that it is a big deal to the law firm in which Rudy is (or should is say, was) a partner. The other partners met and voted to force him to resign. We don't do that kind of thing, they said.

But he appears to continue to serve as Trump's butt-boy lawyer, slamming Stormy Daniels' attorney, Michael Avenatti, who challenged Rudy to a one-on-one debate (I'd pay to watch that), sneering, "I don't get involved with pimps."

Avenatti couldn't restrain himself from noting the obvious--in effect saying, "You pay off women for your rich and famous clients and you call me a pimp?"

Just as this was reminded me what I've been missing since cutting the cable, along came more breaking news--what White House aide Kelly Sadler cruelly said at a meeting in the West Wing about critically ill John McCain.

The meeting included a discussion about the upcoming vote to confirm or reject the nomination of Gina Haspel to head the CIA. Her appointment is controversial since as a high-level CIA staffer she presided over one or more so-called "black sites" where accused terrorists were tortured.

McCain, having been tortured in a North Vietnam prison for years, is on record as opposing her nomination and this may mean she will not be confirmed. Not willing to vote for her, Sadler said, "doesn't matter. He's dying anyway."

So here it is early Monday morning and I'm torn. 

I know Trump is about to start tweeting and Rudy is soon to crawl out of bed after dreaming about all the outrageous things he can do to stir the pot and make everyone crazy. Should I turn on Morning Joe? Should I  . . . ?

But no. I think I'll take a pass and watch the sun rise over Johns Bay.

Left to Right--Rudy and Donald Trump

May 9, 2018--Now A Word From Lynne Roth

Good friend Lynne Roth is a regular reader of my stuff and every month or so sends me a note which is really a riff on some of the things I've been writing about.

With her permission, here's the most recent email. I though you might like to see it as I love her sensibility. 


Glad to read you and Rona will soon be in your quiet place. 

To counteract the stress created by current events I restrain myself and save a few of your blogs to read.  The blogs have become a bandage for my brain.  On alternate days I have also increased my meds.

For years I have been intrigued with elvers and their story.  Not many are aware of how they breed and evolve.  Someone once misunderstood me, "corrected" me and asked if I was discussing elves. 

Thanks for the blog. Now I feel less like a nerd and am satisfied being a generalist.

You made me smile with your use of schneid.

Today I learned a record number of appellate judges have been placed. Very disturbing when contemplating all the cases and achievements that may be rolled back.

While living in Delray I began to follow "Morning Joe."  In recent years I suspected Joe might run for office. However,  I felt incidents in his personal life would make it impossible.  

Since Donald J. Trump was elected my thoughts have changed. Watching Joe evolve has been amusing. Both he and Mika appear to have been conspiring to put in a change of address. My suspicion heightened when Joe started wearing suits on the show more often than not. It's a pleasure to watch the scripted method they use to poke and provoke DJT into reacting.

I agree with your prediction.

When  you, Rona and Jack get into your routine I hope you make an appointment to have your hearing checked.  Perhaps you will become inspired to recreate your mystery series, "Audiological Tales."

But you know me well enough, I will read anything you write.

Safe travels.

May 1, 2018--Jack: Trump Delivers

It felt like forever since I had heard from Jack and so, concerned about him, I called.

"I appreciated your being worried," he said.

"Actually concerned. A little concerned," I said to correct the record.

"It's funny you called. I was just thinking about you."

"Really? What were you thinking?"

"What else do we talk about? Trump."  Without waiting for my reaction, he raced ahead, "I was just watching Morning Joe. Thanks to you I tune them in once in awhile to see what the Commies are up to." He chuckled as if to indicate this wasn't going to be one of his stress-inducing rants.

"I was watching as well," I said, "To get a morning dose of the truth. There's so much spinning."

"From Joe and Mika as well," Jack said, "She's got him totally wimped out. Every day he's sounding more and more like Elizabeth Warren. It's the price of her agreeing to marry him. The next thing you know he'll be wearing an apron."

"Now I see why I resist calling you. If this is a bad time to talk we can . . ."

"It's as good a time as ever. You dropped the dime. So what's on your mind?"

"The last time we talked, in early February, I sensed a little doubt about him. About, as you used to refer to him, 'your boy.' It was when they fired his close aide, Rob Porter after he was caught having lied about abusing his wives. You told me about your growing up, about how your parents . . ."

Softly, he said, "No need to go there again. What's past is . . ."

"I wasn't going there except that I got the impression that you weren't happy that Trump had a spousal abuser working right next to him in the Oval Office because of your own . . ."

"I'd rather talk about Morning Joe."

"OK by me," I said, "I don't have an agenda. I just wanted to check in with you. To see how you are. So, what struck you from this morning's show?"

"Did you see that woman who wrote a book about what she called 'flyover country'?"

"I did," I said, "In fact, I just ordered it, The View from Flyover Country. By Sarah Kendzior. Sounds interesting. Good title."

"It was more what some of Scarborough's panelists had to say."

"I'm listening."

"You remember that book you mentioned to me a couple of years ago, What's the Matter With Kansas? Well, I got it out of the library and actually read it."

"What did you think?"

"You'll probably be surprised that I pretty much agreed with most of it. How conservative politicians in Kansas ignored economic issues like sinking wages and unemployment and fed people there a steady diet of what the writer called cultural issues. Back then, abortion, evolution, and gay marriage. You know I'm a libertarian and believe in all of these things. That government shouldn't say who can and cannot get married and get in the way of a woman wanting to have an abortion."

"I do know that about you. If you weren't that way I wouldn't be able to consider you a friend."

He ignore that and continued, "And then when they got elected, ultraconservatives, now in the majority at the state and federal level in Kansas, ignored people's concerns about those cultural issues and voted for tax cuts and things like that that favored rich people and big corporations. In other words the politicians again screwed the little people."

"And with Trump?"

"Maybe you weren't paying attention to Morning Joe, but that woman Kend-something and the others were saying that Trump also ran on a lot of conservative cultural issues but rather than selling out the people who voted for him he actually delivered. Or is in the process of doing so. And this included Evangelicals who overlooked all his misbehavior because they believed in what he was saying about immigrants and guns and science and Muslims and climate change and transgender people serving in the military." 

Jack continued, "More than anything else getting Gorsuch on the Supreme Court said it all. You would think that people who probably don't even know how many judges there are on the Court wouldn't be so crazed about Gorsuch. Most probably don't even know his name, but they believe he has their interests at heart. And that Trump put him there for them. In other words, unlike in Kansas and elsewhere, Trump is keeping his promises. And at his rallies talks to his people as if he's confiding in them. Paying attention to them and what's on their minds."

"And you mean they're not being screwed by Trump and his appointees? You mean that there is a real benefit to average people from the tax cuts that will add trillions to the debt? That Trump lied to his followers, that he continues to do so by focusing the vast bulk of the tax cuts on the richest 5 percent and the biggest businesses that are already doing very well? That doesn't sound like delivering to me."

"I will concede," Jack said, "that nothing and nobody's perfect but with Trump people feel he's on their side. Including when he creates what his opponents label chaos. He claims that he does this intentionally to shake up the system. To bring about new and better ways to do things. The old ways from traditional welfare kinds of programs to the way diplomacy has been practiced forever have only made things worse."

"I will agree with some of that. Especially that big government and big government programs haven't been that effective. I know about federal education programs and most of them haven't produced positive results."

"That's the understatement of the year," Jack said. "But my best case is what might be happening in Korea. Even you have written about how if things work out Trump will be entitled to a lot of credit. Minimally by scaring everyone who thinks he's crazy and if they don't make a deal he'll nuke them. That seems to have gotten Kim's attention."

"I did write about that and if things in fact do get better I'll be happy to see the credit shared. But that's about it. The rest of his agenda is either going nowhere or has already collapsed. Like making life better for working people--a majority of whom voted for him. The economy is growing but not at above-expected rates and people are not seeing a whole lot of additional money in their paychecks. So much so that Republicans are no longer running around patting themselves on their backs for passing that tax bill. So the one thing they accomplished is blowing up in their faces."

"Some of this may be true," Jack said, "But, I remind you, a good third of the population cares more about guns and abortion and being able to pray where and when they want, and, for those people, Trump is delivering."

"God help us," I muttered under my breath.

March 22, 2018--BREAKING NEWS!!!

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

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

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

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

TRUMP FIRES SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER!!!

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

YOU'RE FIRED!!!

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

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

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

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

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

"Dream on," I cynically say.

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

"Dream on," I say. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

"So what's your idea about Congress?"

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

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

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

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

"Back to your prediction."

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

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

Rump Parliament

February 15, 2018--Gilded Age

A friend who seems to know about almost everything that's on TV--knowing her is better than subscribing to TV Guide--recommend that we watch "The Gilded Age," part of the American Experience series broadcast on PBS.

I confess that I rarely (that means never) watch PBS. I like my TV at its raw, unrefined worst (when I can't stand any more Morning Joe, for example, I switch over to reruns of Married With Children)--television for me is for escape or to keep up to the minute about the latest high school shooting massacre (yesterday, therefore, involved switching back and forth between Olympic figure skating and the horrendous story of mass murder in a high school in South Florida not too far from where we used to winter.

But before that, we watched about half of "Gilded Age" (I kept nodding off since I'm not that good at taking in information other than by reading or talking).

What I saw of it was OK, full of well chosen photographs of the then vulgarians who made up the conspicuous worst of that era. The point, in part, was to remind us that we're living in a similar age and that we need to protect ourselves if we want to preserve what's left of our democracy. 

Dealing with gross inequality must become our highest priority. It was good, though, to be reminded that no matter how bad we think things are today they could be worse. Like during the Gilded Age of 1880 to 1920.

You know how these documentaries work--they depend mainly on vintage photos, film from back then, and talking-head historians who set the context. The ones who get me snoozing.

Last night, one of the historian experts who wrote definitive books about John D. Rockefeller, Sr., Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, and William Randolph Hearst (all Gilded Agers), was David Nasaw, an old friend. I hired him for his first academic job in 1978 at Staten Island Community College. Some years before he had produced a neat book, Starting Your Own High School, derived from his experiences teaching at the Elizabeth Cleaners Street School. It was written by the kids and edited by David. He was just the kind of "radical" educator we were eager to bring on board at SICC for our "experimental college," which I directed.

He turned out to be the great teacher we were hoping for and after Staten Island went on to bigger but not necessarily better things. He's now a distinguished professor at the City University of New York's Graduate Center, where, after serving in President Kennedy's administration, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. was affiliated. So David is doing very well as a cultural and social historian and was perfect for setting context for "The Gilded Age."

He and it were good enough so the next time my friend recommends something serious to watch on TV, I'll think about giving it a try.

January 9, 2018--Jack: One Helluva Book

"I've been watching MSNBC non-stop . . ."

I interrupted, "What? MSNBC? I thought you hated them."

"I do, but I wanted to get a taste of where you and your friends get your news. Or should I say, your opinions."  I hadn't heard from Jack in a few weeks and wasn't unhappy about that. He can get under my skin and cause me agita. "And what a week it's been!"

He's not a drinker but sounded intoxicated. I said, "I'll bet you've had your fill about that book." I didn't think I needed to identify it further.

"It's one helluva book, that I'll give you. But of course it's mainly based on fake news." He chuckled at that.

"In a moment I'll want you to give me examples of where it's fake. I'm sure the Fox News people, who I know you watch, have filled you with their talking points. Amazing, isn't it, that all the Fox people sound the same. From that really mindless show in the morning, Fox & Friends, all the way through the day until Trump's brain has his show--Sean Hannity. At least they dumped that sexual predator, Bill O'Reilly. Not to mention Rojer Ailes."

"You mean like with your guys--Matt Lauer, Mark Halperin, and Charlie Rose? I could go on."

"You got me there," I admitted. 

"And are you trying to deny that everyone on MSNBC has the same opinions? Is there any daylight between the views of Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, Rachael Maddow, and Lawrence O'Brien?"

"I agree about that and its not my favorite thing. But you're distracting me. I thought we were talking about the Wolff book and comparing our opinions. Not Fox's, not MSNBC's."

"You're the one who started this by slamming Fox News and their alleged talking points."

"Enough about that," I said, "Let's move on. I want your overall opinion of the book. Assuming you've read it. Even many Trumpers are admitting that though there are lots of specific errors and examples of sloppiness--they rushed to publish it and didn't do a great job of fact checking and editing--they don't detract from the overall story: that everyone agrees that Trump is like a nine-year-old child who needs constant attention and adulation. And, it would appear, is not too smart. Doesn't read, doesn't listen."

"Again, you guys are missing the bigger point."

"I'm listening," I said without intended irony.

"How this book is actually helping Trump."

"This I have to hear."

"Simple. First, who loves this book?" Without waiting Jack added, "The mainstream media. On MSNBC and even CNN it's Michael Wolff nearly 24/7. He was just on Morning Joe for a patty-cake interview that went on uninterrupted for about half an hour. He didn't have to defend himself about factual errors since Joe and Mika did it for him, including sloughing over things he wrote about them and the show that were errors."

"I saw that and that's true. But, again, you're missing the bigger picture--that even with errors of this kind Wolff got the larger story essentially correct. It's in the nature of books of this kind. They live in the world between day-to-day news reporting and more reflective histories."

"Trump's people don't think in these professorial-type terms. What they know is that their boy is being unfairly hounded by the media--of course except by Fox--and they are rising to protect him from them. Wait for his next favorability numbers. I'm betting they'll be up five points."

"That would be pathetic," I said. "How sad that these people still are oblivious to the truth."

"You're deluding yourself," Jack said, "But OK, let's move on to others who are helping Trump shrug off the book."

"Shrug off? That's not what I'm hearing. That Trump's ranting and raving. Especially about Wolff saying Don Junior committed treason. Even you have to admit that's a serious charge."

"Actually, it was Wolff quoting Steve Bannon. And about the charge, not necessarily. If Don Junior was involved in helping the Russians undermine our presidential election, what would you call it? Collusion? Collusion, by the way, is not a legal term or potential crime."

Ignoring my point Jack moved to redirect the conversation. He said, "And then the GOP establishment also loves the book. It may be that they'll pay for that by getting shellacked in the November midterm elections, but for the moment they like the idea that it pulls Trump closer to them and further under their influence. Wounded and vulnerable he needs their endorsement and protective cover. In other words, he's weaker and therefore more pliable. He'll sign anything Congress passes. And he already indicated he'll support all Republican incumbents and not go up against them by campaigning for anti-establishment insurgents as Bannon had him doing."

"That may be true," I acknowledged. "But that's pretty pathetic too."

"Speaking of Bannon," Jack said, "There's also benefit to Trump by the book bringing down Bannon. Nothing else has been able to do that but all the anti-Trump quotes from Bannon will be like driving a stake through his heart. Minimally, it will drive him back to drink. 

"I'm not sure I'm following your point. Nor that when he's desperate Trump will not seek Bannon out."

"It's again a simple point--Trump is better off without Bannon hovering around than he is with him always whispering in his ear. Bannonlessness makes Trump seem more independent, more his own person. His base will eat that up. They like macho."

"Boy, you've gotten cynical."

"That's what hanging around with the likes of you does to me," Jack guffawed. "But, seriously, the bottom line is that to Trump followers the book looks like a hatchet job written by the kind of people they despise, including east coast snobs who think they're smarter than everyone. The see them to be hypocrites who, when on their high horses, criticize conservatives for not telling the whole truth but rationalize it when their people--like Wolff--engage in fake news."

I was reluctant to admit it, but he had some good points. He managed to get under my skin again, but I felt, to be credible, I needed to have my views checked out and challenged. Even by the likes of Jack. If there's something to learn, the source shouldn't matter. Though I sure feel like not answering when I see it's Jack calling!