March 8, 2017--Ivanka Time

I've been holding off on suggesting this until things got desperate.

They are now that desperate and so--

Have you noticed that President Trump's tweets are at their most outrageous on Saturday mornings? The Jewish sabbath. A sabbath observed by daughter Ivanka and her family since she converted to "modern orthodox" Judaism in 2009.

The orthodox on Saturdays do no work, including turning on anything electrical. Things such as lights, electric ovens, and smart phones. So by posting his most outlandish thoughts and rants on Saturdays Trump figured out that in this way he can avoid the censorious scrutiny of son-in-law Jared and favorite child, Ivanka.

But now with his presidency unravelling and their own lives heading toward decline (economic as well as social--their New York friends are pretty much all liberals, including Chelsea Clinton), it is time for the children to intervene and become the parents of their parent.

When doing so they need to tell Dad over and over how much they love him, how remarkable he is, how magnificent his political assent, and emphasize all the good things he has already accomplished. But, they also need to tell him with affection and love, that his reign is about to come undone and he is in danger of slipping into irrelevancy or worse.

More than anything else, they need to tell him that he has to, desperately needs to get rid of Steve Bannon. That he is a radical anarchist and is in the process of destroying our most cherished institutions, from diplomacy to an independent judiciary to economic fairness to basic human compassion. Among other things, his ideas and influence will bring America to the brink of war. Or worse. All on Dad's watch.

What kind of legacy would he leave, they need to tell him, for his cherished children and grandchildren? What would a war, likely a nuclear war with North Korea, look like and what would remain of all they he literally and figuratively built?

He needs to listen to and bring to the forefront his best and brightest aides and cabinet members--Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Secretary of Defense Jim Maddis, Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. They are mature and loyal (for a few more months at least) and will offer good advice while watching his back.

They need to emphasize that there is still time to begin to become a great president (I choke on these words), but not more than a few more months. The knives are already out. They know most people in the government including Congress either do not feel any loyalty to him or in more fundamental ways care about him.They see him mainly as someone available to sign legislation that he barely understands or cares about. So he really can't count on the Paul Ryans to stand by him and protect him. In many instances, just the opposite.

And then there is the nuclear option (and I am not talking about North Korea)--if Trump resists what they are urging they need to tell him that they will resign, return to New York City, which they already miss, and not be there to prop him up or console him when he screws up, as he did in spades in last Saturday's tweets.

And we know wife Melania has no interest in being in Washington. So he will be alone, for narcissistic types the worst of fates.

With tears and genuine feeling Ivanka and Jared need to say that it's their lives too that are being affected by the outrageous ways in which he is conducting himself. And, more important, their children's lives will be diminished. His grandchildren's.

In the meantime, I'm stocking up on bottled water and dried beans.

April 18, 2016--No to Hillary

It may be a small matter when seen in the context of what to do about ISIS, Israel, or the minimum wage, but for me it's a metaphor for why I cannot bring myself to vote for Hillary in tomorrow's New York primary.

I am not feeling the Bern, but I am not comfortable voting for a candidate who lies so blatantly, so frequently, so casually.

I know "they" all do it to some extent--exaggerate, spin, tell half truths, and sometimes just out-and-out make things up. But there are lies and then there are lies, and Hillary last week calculatedly engaged in a whopper.

Here, in her spoken words (as distinguished from a statement issued by a dismissible staffer or surrogate) is what Clinton had to say about Vermont's, and by clear implication, Bernie Sanders' position on guns.

With feigned deep concern, looking censoriously into the camera, from a carefully crafted script, here is what Hillary Clinton had to say--

When challenged on his gun stances [Sanders] frequently says, "Well, you know, I represent Vermont. It's a small, rural state. We have no gun laws." Here's what I want you to know. Most of the guns that are used in crimes of violence and killings in New York come from out of state. And the state that has the highest per capita number of those guns that wind up committing crimes in New York come from Vermont. [Emphasis added.]

Now, here are the facts as reported by the Associated Press--

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms compiles data about weapons recovered from crime scenes nationwide, along with data, where possible, about where those guns were originally sold by licensed dealers. The agency reports that in 2014, law enforcement official in New York recovered and traced 7,686 guns. 

[New York] itself was the source for 1,397 of the weapons, making it the leader in absolute numbers. Virginia was runner-up with 395. Vermont ranked 15th on the list, accounting for 55 of the weapons--less than 1 percent of the total. [Emphasis added.]

A radically different story that exposes Clinton's slander. One still not apologized for nor withdrawn. And, by the way, underreported in the media.

For me, exaggerating or lying about oneself in a political campaign is sadly familiar and comes with the partisan territory. But to make up "facts" of this serious sort about an opponent crosses a line.

The false story Clinton told during the 2008 campaign about the "sniper fire" she came under at the airport during a 1996 First-Lady trip to Bosnia--a story she repeated frequently--is for me by comparison benign. It says something not good, even desperate about her character, but lacks viscousness.

I am incapable of voting for someone who is so loose with the truth. And so, at least for tomorrow, as flawed as he is, I'll be voting for Bernie.

Hillary and Chelsea Clinton---1996 Spring-Break in Bosnia

February 9, 2016--The "Establishment"

During last Thursday's debate, Bernie Sanders accused Hillary Clinton of being part of the Establishment.

He said--

"Secretary Clinton does represent the Establishment. I represent, I hope, ordinary Americans, and by the way--who are not all that enamored with the Establishment."

In response, Hillary Clinton said--

"Well look, I've got to jump in here because, honestly, Senator Sanders is the only person who I think would characterize me, a woman running to be the first woman president, as exemplifying the Establishment. And I've got to tell you that it is really quite amusing to me."

It may be amusing to her, but if Hillary Clinton isn't a part of the Establishment, I don't know who is.

Let me count the ways--

Wife of the former governor of Arkansas, former First Lady of the United States, former U.S. senator from New York, presidential candidate finalist in 2008, Secretary of State and then as a former Secretary able to command $250,000-a-pop speaker fees from the likes of Goldman Sachs, someone who with her husband has accumulated assets of more than $200 million after being "broke" when they left the White House, someone who received advances for books in excess of $5.0 million each, a principal in the Clinton Global Initiative, mother of a daughter-of-little-accomplishment who is able to garner highly-paid no-show jobs at McKinsey and Company and NBC ($600,000 a year!), and mother of a daughter who on her own commands speaker fees of $65,000.

(As and aside, someone needs to explain Chelsea's career to me, including that $65K.)

Hillary Clinton is not a member of the Establishment?

Not a member, she claimed the other night, ignoring all of this, because by definition she is not part of the Establishment because she is a woman. A woman running, audaciously I assume she would say, to become the first "woman president."

It appears this is working less and less well.

A female college student interviewed by MSNBC right after the debate visibly cringed when asked if Clinton's claim resonated with her.

She said, "That's irrelevant to me. What I care about is if she or anyone else would make a good president. In that regard, her being a woman doesn't mean much to me." She paused, took a visible deep breath and added, "Her feminism doesn't represent my feminism."

Nor apparently did it mean much to young voters in Iowa where Sanders led Clinton by 85 to 15 percent among people between the ages of 17 and 24. Fully half of them young women. We'll see what happens later today in NH.

Hillary Clinton's default position whenever challenged or feeling threatened is to blame, as she did in the past, the "right-wing conspiracy" or, more commonly now, that this is because she is a woman.

Not to be outdone, husband, white knight Bill has been all over New Hampshire this week coming to his wife's rescue, including to claim that Sanders' alleged attacks on Hillary are sexist. Talk about chutzpa. Bill Clinton in the Oval Office wrote the book on that.

In addition, Bernie Sanders himself is a comfortable member of the Establishment.

He is almost as much a career politician as Marco Rubio. By the numbers more so. His political career stretches back 35 years when in 1981, at age 39, he was elected mayor of Burlington. After being reelected three times, in 1990, he ran successfully for the House of Representatives, and then, in 2006, was elected to the U.S. Senate.

Sanders has been comfortably ensconced in Congress for 26 years. Including, during the past year, when he has been as much a no-show at his day job as Rubio and Ted Cruz.

That to me feels very Establishment.

Though I am more and more liking what he has to say about the "rigged" economy and am inclining to vote for him, let's not forget who he really is and how he has, at taxpayer expense, made his way in the world.

April 24, 2014--The Clinton Grandchild

Last week, at a public event attended by her mother, Chelsea Clinton announced that she is with child. As it played out in the press, she might well have said she is with grandchild.

A member of the media in the room where Chelsea shared the good news asked if it's expected birth date was politically timed.

Chelsea pretending she did not understand, smiled and shrugged. But then added that she looks forward to her daughter or son growing up "in a world with so many strong female leaders."

It was obvious what her smile and wink suggested. At her side, mom glowed.

The fact that that question was raised was telling, as is my snarky tone.

What should have been about a blessed event (there I go again) at the moment of the announcement and subsequently was treated as a political calculation. From the relatively-gossip-free New York Times to Rush Limbaugh to just about everyone on Fox News it was smirkingly assumed that it was yet another example of the Clinton's doing everything they could to advance their personal agenda. In this case, Chelsea arranging the timing of her pregnancy to help Hillary secure the nomination and then, with a grandchild on her hip, be elected president.

Shades of Sarah Palin moving about the country with special-needs grandchild Trig (for trigger--get it) schlepped along to help shape her aw-shucks, soccer-mom image.

And with Hillary still lacking the likeability factor (remember Obama during the 2008 campaign with  shrug of his own saying she was "likable enough") what better way to humanize her?

With politics becoming fully political theater and a form of mass entertainment--who doesn't wish Herman (Ducky-Ducky) Cain will run again next year--it is not beyond reason that timing the birth of a child-grandchild could be as stage managed as adhering to talking points and TV ads produced by friendly PAC groups. With appearances on the Tonight Show, the Daily Show, Colbert Report, and SNL essential.