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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, I am with Pelosi.

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

"He's just not worth it."

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

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

Too many.

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

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

March 7, 2019--How to Lose In 2020

Right now, in real time, House Democrats are busy tearing themselves apart and working hard to lose the 2020 election.

The Washington Post is reporting that House Democrats erupted into a full-scale brawl Wednesday, challenging leaders over indirectly sanctioning freshman Representative Ilhan Omar for alleged anti-Semitic remarks amid an outcry over party inaction to President Trump’s divisive comments on race. 

In a closed-door session, Democrats protested plans to vote this week on a resolution condemning religious hatred, a measure prompted by Omar’s comments last week suggesting supporters of Israel have “allegiance to a foreign country.” 

House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) said Wednesday there may not be a vote this week on any resolution. “We’re discussing what is the best way to address it." 

Many of those speaking out Wednesday were members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who bristled at the notion that Omar would be targeted for a rebuke--even an indirect one, as Democratic leaders had planned--while lawmakers remain silent about Republican behavior, especially that of Trump. 

“I think there’s a big rise in anti-Semitism and racism, and that’s a bigger conversation we need to be having,” said Rep. Cedric L. Richmond (D-La.). “But it starts at 1600 Pennsylvania. It doesn’t start with one member out of 435 members of Congress.” 

It is my view that also at issue is what is implied by the "indirect" rebuke to Omar in the resolution which, originally spoke only about anti-Semitism but subsequently, to broaden the criticism and take some of the onus off Omar, was redrafted to include condemnation of anti-Moslem, racist, and homophobic behavior. 

It is just this kind of identity politics that will ironically fuel the great divider's, Trump's claim that Democrats are about dividing rather than unifying people and how this exposes that Democrats will pander to any interest group in a desperate search for votes.

It also will contribute to making it more difficult for Democrats to nominate a moderate, which in turn means it will be more likely that Trump will find a way in 2020 to secure 270 Electoral votes.

We need to keep our eyes on the prize--winning in 2020. After winning, we can get back to struggling with legitimate and productive disagreements about social policy.

February 25, 2019--Mitt Who??

Rona said--"Do you remember someone named Mitt something-or-other?"

"You must mean Mitt Romney."

"That could be. I think he ran for president a few years ago and then disappeared only to resurface when he had some tough things to say about Trump and Trump University."

"Yeah, he called Trump a phony and that his promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University."

"I remember that," Rona said, "Romney also said that Trump was playing Americans for suckers. If I have this right, he also said that Trump was getting a free ride to the White House and all we're getting in return is a lousy MAGA hat."

"That's why I thought he'd be a maverick once he got to the Senate. In the mold of John McCain."

"Then, if I have this straight, he ran for the Senate from Utah where I think he won."

"Yes, it's coming back to me," I said, "I remember seeing Mike Pence swearing him in. I assumed they hated each other and I enjoyed, I'll admit, watching Pence squirm."

"It was as if Romney had him targeted in crosshairs. Though I shouldn't put it that way since clueless Roger Stone got himself in trouble last week for threatening his judge when he tweeted about her being in crosshairs."

"It seemed obvious that Romney got himself elected to position himself for another go at the presidency, either running in 2020, if Trump decides not to seek reelection or, if he thinks he can win the nomination, he decides to challenge Trump in the primaries." 

"And of course Pence is thinking the same thing."

"So," I said, "we expected to enjoy watching Romney and Trump going at each other and of course waiting for more Trump criticism from Senator Romney."

"It's all coming back to me," Rona said.

"And?"

"And nothing. Literally nothing. I was beginning to think, since he's been so invisible, that I was hallucinating about Romney winning Orrin Hatch's old Senate seat."

"It is weird," I said, "One would have expected Romney to have a few choice things to say about Trump's bogus national emergency."

"I can't explain it," Rona said. "What kind of power does Trump have over even someone like Romney who has more money than Trump and very few skeletons in his closet that Trump can threaten him about?"

"It's scary. If someone like Romney is too intimidated to speak out, to at least say something, I'm afraid we may be cooked."

Rona said, "My thoughts exactly."

February 13, 2019--Trump: Size Maters

A dozen years ago a friend bought an apartment in one of Trump's glittering New York City residential towers. 

The first time we visited the concierge stationed at the gold lamé reception desk directed us to apartment 8C. 

In the elevator we struggled with what button to push to get us there. Struggled because there were no buttons for 1 through 8. Just one for 8 and others for higher floors.

"Don't worry about it," Rona said, "Just press 8 and we'll see what happens. Worst case scenario we'll go back down to the lobby and ask them how to get to the lower floors. I mean in a situation where many floors seem to be missing. If you live on 7, for example, what do you do?"

I shrugged and pressed 8. Silently, the doors slid shut. Then, almost instantly a bell pinged, the elevator glided to a smooth stop, and the doors opened. Tentatively, we got out and searched from door to door in the dimly lit hall before finding 8C.

Once inside the apartment, still wondering how we got to 8 so quickly, while getting the grand tour, I looked out the window toward East 62nd Street and noticed we weren't all that high up. In fact, it looked as if we were on the first or, at most, the second floor. One or two levels above the lobby entrance.

After settling in with a drink, I asked my friend about being on the eighth floor while it seemed that we in fact were at most on the second.

Smiling, he said, "That's Donald Trump for you. Always exaggerating, always hustling. He's brilliant at that. You pay a lot more for being on the eighth floor than the second."

I recalled that yesterday when reading about Trump's rally in El Paso.

About 30 minutes into it, he said he was being challenged by "a young man who's got very little going for himself except he's got a great first name." He was referring to Beto O'Rourke who was leading a counter rally and is thinking about running for president. 

Trump said, "So we have, let's say, 35,000 people tonight. He has 200 people, 300 people. Not too good," Trump claimed, "That may be the end of his presidential bid."

Trump as we know is not that good at estimating crowd size. Or, referencing Marco Rubio, dealing with size in general. Recall how Trump claimed, still contends that his inauguration had the largest crowd in history, even though the Mall in Washington was more than half empty. And about what Rubio implied about the size of Trump's hands, the less said the better.

The El Paso County Coliseum where Trump had his rally holds 6,500 and was full. In addition the El Paso fire department estimated that another 5,000 who couldn't get in watched on big screen TVs. 

O'Rourke's rally, which was a half mile away was outdoors, occurred at the same time as Trump's, and, the police estimated, attracted up to 10,000. In other words, at least as many as Trump's.

I suspect Beto will join the race (among other things he needs a job) and though I think he has little chance of winning the nomination, political rockstar that he is, he sure can draw a crowd. At least in his hometown.

   

February 12, 2019--The One Person Who Can Defeat Trump

I spent much of the weekend agitating about the 2020 election. 

Two more aspirants formally announced that they are seeking the Democratic nomination. Neither was unexpected--Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar. The latter without hat or gloves declared her candidacy in a blinding snowstorm. That image more than what she said proclaimed I'm ready to run no matter the obstacles. 

And then, waiting in the wings was Beto O'Rourke who held a counter-rally in El Paso last night at the same time as Trump's.

With respect for these three who joined at least seven others and after that perhaps there will be ten more candidates, none make me feel they can beat Trump, assuming by Election Day he's not deposed or imprisoned. Though like other popular candidates such as Ron Reynolds from Texas, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump, running from Sing Sing, wouldn't manage to find a way to win. Such is the fervor of his dead-ender 35 percent. 

There is, though, at least one heavyweight already in the ring, Kamala Harris, who might find a path to 270 electoral votes, and one more-- the ever-coy Joe Biden, who, if he wasn't 100 years-old, could be nominated and win. 


But the passion among Democrats and Independents is tipped to the progressive, youthful wing of the party. What else explains the excitement about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? Or, for that matter, Beto. The good news, at only 29, AOC is constitutionally too young to serve as president. Otherwise, heaven help us, infatuated Dems might suicidally nominate her.


There is though a solution to our search for a winning candidate who also, to quote a popular TV commercial, knows a thing or two. Also, how to go high and low.

Michelle Obama.

I know, she says no way. But I say, let's get to work drafting her. Let's get a petition drive going with a target of at least 10 million signatures. That could attract her attention.

On a personal note, she has seen the Obama legacy largely obliterated from changes in the Affordable Care Act to the abandonment of the nuclear treaty with Iran. She has also seen devastating attacks on the environment (remember the Paris Agreement?) and as a Harvard Law School graduate has witnessed equally ferocious challenges to the rule of law itself. And don't overlook what she must feel about Trump and the birther business.

Her book, Becoming, has thus far sold nearly three million hard-cover copies (an all-time record for a First Lady memoir) and all polls show her by far to be the most admired American woman (she is most admired by 15% of the population, three times higher than number two, Oprah), who if she ran would sign up in a second to be her media advisor and spokesperson. 

(Also helping, husband Barack is most admired by 19% while Trump languishes at 13%.)

If Michelle would agree to run all Democratic money would flow to her and she could early next year begin to measure the Oval Office for new drapes. (Anything but gold.)

The one concern--complacency.  Look what happened to Hillary as she waited around for the coronation that never happened. But Michelle is smarter than that and appears to actually like people.

January 31, 2019--Go Figure

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

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

Then I wrote--

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

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

Not me. 

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

In response, another friend chimed in--

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

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

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

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

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

But, for me, Sunday changed all that. 

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

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

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

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

She concluded-- 

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

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

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

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

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

And so, an early prediction--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the meantime, I apologize for speaking too soon.

January 7, 2019--Happy New Year From Jack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"What do you mean?" I asked.

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

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

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

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

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

I let him rant on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 7, 2018--Off And Running

Below is a list of the 35 or so 2020 potential Democratic nominees for the presidency.

Does anyone look like a winner to you? I don't mean capable of winning the nomination but becoming president?

My favorite, Joe Biden, is approaching 100 and thus I am worried.

Alphabetical list of individuals who have expressed an interest in running for president:

• Michael Bennet, U.S. Senator from Colorado since 2009
• Joe Biden, Vice President of the United States 2009–2017; U.S. Senator from Delaware 1973–2009; candidate for President in 1988 and in 2008
• Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor of New York City 2002–2013
• Cory Booker, U.S. Senator from New Jersey since 2013; Mayor of Newark 2006–2013
• Sherrod Brown, U.S. Senator from Ohio since 2007; U.S. Representative 1993–2007
• Pete Buttigieg, Mayor of South Bend since 2012
• Bob Casey Jr., U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania since 2007
• Julian Castro, U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 2014–2017; Mayor of San Antonio, Texas 2009–2014
• Oscar De La Hoya, boxing champion from California
• Tulsi Gabbard, U.S. Representative from Hawaii since 2013
• Eric Garcetti, Mayor of Los Angeles, California since 2013
• Kirsten Gillibrand, U.S. Senator from New York since 2009 U.S. Representative from 2007–2009
• Kamala Harris, U.S. Senator from California since 2017
• John Hickenlooper, Governor of Colorado since 2011; Mayor of Denver 2003–2011
• Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General 2009–2015; Acting U.S. Attorney General in 200 from Washington, D.C.
• Jay Inslee, Governor of Washington since 2013
• John Kerry, 2004 Democratic nominee; U.S. Secretary of State 2013–2017; U.S. Senator from Massachusetts 1985–2013
• Amy Klobuchar, U.S. Senator from Minnesota since 2007
• Terry McAuliffe, Governor of Virginia 2014–2018
• Jeff Merkley, U.S. Senator from Oregon since 2009
• Martin O'Malley, former Governor of Maryland from 2007-2015, former Mayor of Baltimore 1999-2007, candidate for President in 2016
• Duval Patrick, Governor of Massachusetts 2007-2015
• Beto O'Rourke, U.S. Representative from Texas since 2013 Democratic nominee for United States Senate election in Texas in 2018
• Tim Ryan, U.S. Representative from Ohio since 2003
• Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont since 2007; U.S. Representative 1991–2007; candidate for President in 2016
• Tom Steyer, billionaire hedge fund manager, philanthropist, environmentalist, liberal activist, and fundraiser from California
• Eric Swalwell, U.S. Representative from California since 2013
• Elizabeth Warren, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts since 2013

The following people have been subjects of speculation about their potential candidacy within the last six months, although they have neither personally expressed interest nor declined to run:

• Steve Bullock, Governor of Montana since 2013
• Andrew Gillum, Mayor of Tallahassee 2014-2018, Democratic nominee for Governor of Florida in 2018
• William H. McRaven,  retired United States Navy Admiral
• Adam Schiff, U.S. Representative since 2001, from California
• Howard Schultz, former CEO of Starbucks, from Washington
• Mark Warner, U.S. Senator from Virginia since 2009, former Governor of Virginia 2002–2006

You can use this as a scorecard, as I did, by crossing Duval Patrick's name off the list of contenders. He withdraw from consideration as I was working on this. I hope that's not a case of cause and effect.

More soon will begin to drop like flies and others, like New York City mayor Bill de Blasio, will declare. He, like almost all the others, has no chance, but running, going forward, can be good for one's brand.

November 13, 2018--Pour It On Mr. President

I know this sounds counterintuitive but I welcome the appointment of Matt (The Hulk) Whittaker to be acting attorney general.

I love the idea that he is totally unqualified to hold that office for even a day. I love the fact that he is somehow implicated in a scheme to defraud clients who were paying a company for which he was an official a fee to secure patents they never received. (Sound familiar?) I especially love that he has been a flunky for Trump for at least two years and seems eager to do his bidding, including and perhaps especially shutting down the Mueller investigation. 

I love this since even firing the special counsel will not thwart the investigation, only further sully Whitaker and Trump by piling on additional counts of obstruction of justice. With Democrats about to control the House, this guarantees that Mueller's report in one way or another will become public and lead to Trump's impeachment. If the Pentagon Papers leaked out so will the ultimate Mueller report. 

And I love the fact that Trump is in open warfare with journalists, acting like a bully and in the case of black women exposing his deep racism. Wouldn't it be great, I am thinking if he would ban a few more from the White House.

To keep his opposition motivated, the worse the better.

On the international front, I like the way Trump behaved over the weekend in France at the gathering of world leaders to mark the 100th anniversary of the end of the First World War.

It was perfect that he arrived late and left early. (As did his best friend and handler, Vladimir Putin.) Since the gathering was not about him, he saw no purpose in being there and was not shy about letting everyone take note of his petulance. 

I can't tell you, though, how happy I am that he did come to Paris and am overjoyed that he didn't show up for a memorial gathering at a cemetery for American soldiers killed in action, claiming that since it was drizzling he would have to be driven to the site rather than helicoptered in and that it was too foggy even for that.

I suspect that the real reason Trump skipped the ceremony was because if he got wet his orange-dyed face might run. Also, in his twisted cosmology, as a perverse commander-in-chief, he deems men killed in action "losers," not unlike John McCain was a loser because he was captured. He likes only winners such as himself who couldn't hold onto the House of Representatives. 

I do not need to speculate what veterans might be feeling about this draft dodger who didn't serve in Vietnam because he got five deferments and allegedly had a bone spur in one of his feet. But if as a result fewer vets vote for him in 2020, so much the better.

Do not worry that the alliances he is undermining can never be reestablished. Quite the contrary. Our true allies know the problem is Trump, not America nor the American people. Days after he is defeated two years from now French, German, and English leaders will be be on the first flight out to meet with the president-elect to begin the reconciliation process.

The more Trump does things of this kind the better it is. And so I say, bring it on. 

Please Mister President, keep up your outrageous behavior because the more you do things of this kind the more likely it is that you will not be reelected. Keep up the hissy fits and white supremacist talk because the more you behave this way the more likely you lose.

That's the next prize to keep eyes on. We did good work last week in regard to the House and local elections around the country, but that was the intermediate prize. The big one is now teed up.

Acting Attorney General Matt Whitaker

This is my 3,500 blog posting. The first one appeared August 26, 2005.

November 8, 2018--A Note To Some of My Liberal Friends

I have been hearing from a number of friends that they are disappointed with the results of the midterm election.

That though Democrats regained control of the House and all that that will allow, Stacey Abrams lost the governor's race in Georgia and in Florida not only did Andrew Gillum not win the governorship but also incumbent Democrat senator Bill Nelson failed to be reelected  But to many of my friends, equally disappointing, Beto O'Rourke in Texas failed to unseat Ted Cruz.

Certainly it would have been wonderful if they had come through and thus I share their disappointment. But it concerns me that as a result some friends are disappointed with the overall results.

"I'm spoiled," one friend said, "I'm greedy and want to win everything."

I get it but is the best way to think about the results? 

It would have been exhilarating if they had won, but electoral politics is not about generating exhilaration. It is about electing people who share our values, have the ability to set needed agendas, win, and then (the hard part) are skillful enough to carry them out.

When I heard about this unhappiness I attempted to push back, saying we have to keep our eyes on the prize. In this case the prize is not only diminishing Trump (this week's election has already begun to do that) but to thwart the worst of his plans and (even more important) reduce his 2020 reelection chances.

And now with Jeff Sessions fired and who knows what else Trump will do in a panic to save himself, Democrats controlling the House is even more of an imperative and very good news.

I argue to my friends that politics is the art of the possible, not the perfect, and to be effective one needs to be able to compromise, set longterm goals, be strategic-minded, persist, and accept the reality that almost everything we contribute to accomplishing not only takes too much time to achieve but, even when we do, will never be fully satisfying. It is often frustrating. It's the grinding nature of the process.

My late friend Flash put it this way. He used to say when we saw this tendency among the people with whom we were working (most were progressives), "Though understandable and based on good intentions, when seeking to bring about change it is imperative to avoid the tendency to be satisfied only with the perfect solution. Unfortunately, since we never can achieve that we run the risk of winding up frustrated and ultimately powerless. Feeling pure may make us feel good about ourselves," he would add, "but if we are seeking to make as much a positive difference as possible, being satisfied only with the ideal we run the danger of rendering ourselves ineffectual."

In some circumstances this could feel as if he was calling for compromising in advance (it can have elements of that) but I continue to think at its heart it is true.

Thus, with all the disappointments, Tuesday's election may turn out to be historic. 

Trump had us on the road to an American version of autocracy. If he (yes he) had maintained control of the House, one more essential check built into our constitutional system would have been blunted and an even more emboldened Trump would have felt empowered to chip away at an accelerated pace at the protections thankfully hardwired into our constitutional system.

That we voted successfully to resist this is the headline from Tuesday, not that Beto and the others lost. In fact, looked at it another way he and they might be thought of as actually having won. 

Frequently, in a process that takes years to culminate, blazing trails and coming close is not only essential--it is often the most difficult part--but also can include elements of exhilaration.

The implications and complexity of this are worth more thought.