January 8, 2020--"Imminent Attack"

Do you remember the Gulf of Tonkin resolution? Back in 1964 it authorized then president Lyndon Johnson to expand our military involvement in the Vietnam War. 

The U.S. command claimed that one of our ships, a destroyer, in international waters, was attacked by three North Vietnam torpedo boats. Based on this assertion, Congress voted to allow LBJ and the Pentagon to enlarge our footprint in the region and the resolution was cited frequently during subsequent years to justify direct attacks on North Korean cities, harbors, and military facilities.

Then do you remember how George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and his senior national security and military staff claimed that the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq in January, 2003 was justified because Iraq was actively building weapons of mass destruction and would soon have the means to deploy them against the American homeland and our European allies? Recall how National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice spoke vividly about how if we failed to attack Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein it would lead to "mushroom clouds" over European capitals.

Though seemingly unrelated, these two incidents have a number of things in common--most significant the threats they identified were  largely untrue. 

The North Vietnamese had not initiated an attack on one of our naval vessels in the Gulf of Tonkin, and Iraq was found after our invasion and occupation not to have WMDs.

This brings us to today where the current administration is unleashing the dogs of war.

Trump authorized "taking out" Iranian general Qassim Soleimani because he was allegedly plotting an "imminent attack" on U.S. military and diplomatic assets in the Middle East.

Since neither Trump nor his national security team have provided credible intelligence evidence to justify this explanation it sounds suspiciously like the way the Gulf of Tonkin incident and WMD claims were represented. 

Perhaps in coming days we will hear more, but I remain skeptical. This feels all too familiar and Trump of course is constitutionally incapable of telling the truth.

November 8, 2019--Run, Mike, Run

I was in the middle of preparing a blog for Friday morning about how progressives shouldn't get complacent when thinking about the results of this week's elections in Virginia and Kentucky.

Yes, Democrats now control all branches of the Virginia government and the Bluegrass State again has a Democratic governor, but in Kentucky all other statewide contests were won by Republicans and Virginia has been turning blue for a number of years. 

In the middle of writing a blog about political paranoia there was dramatic Breaking News--it appears that the sixth richest American and former mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, on Friday will enter the race for the Democratic nomination for president.

I have a lot to say about Mayor Mike, including a number of positive and negative things I learned about him when I worked with him on a variety of projects when I was at the Ford Foundation--speaking about this will be for another day--but, in spite of very mixed feelings about him, my first reaction was excitement.

Why excitement? Isn't he a plutocrat who at the advanced age of 77 is looking to buy his way to the White House? Yes, but why was I, in spite of this, feeling so good about his potential candidacy?

Largely because like so many other liberals I am dissatisfied with our current choices. In fact, distraught.

Biden feels over the hill, Warren just unveiled a non-starter of a multi-trillion dollar healthcare plan that will if implemented finish the job of bankrupting America. The only good thing I've thus far heard about the plan is that it has no chance of being enacted by whatever Congress emerges after the 2020 election. And, as Biden and Sanders are too old to be president, Mayor Pete, who I like, is much too young and inexperienced. 

Bloomberg could write a check for $2.0 billion and in that way fully self-finance his campaign and still have more than $50 billion. With the exception of his own big money (largely amassed by the incredible Bloomberg company he built from scratch) that would eliminate the need to raise money from the wealthy and thereby free him from their influence and control. Like Franklin Roosevelt, he could be "a traitor to his class."

And as a genuine billionaire who not only has his own fleet of planes but also pilots them, he is just the type to get under Trump's jealous skin and take him down in the debates.

Also, as a former Republican, Independent, and Democrat, he knows everyone and where all the bodies are buried. And just think about the kind of talented and experienced people he could draw into public service.

But above all, he could win next November. More than anything, that's what I'm not proud to crave--someone, anyone who can beat Trump.

Think also about a bipartisan ticket with Bloomberg running with Nikki Haley or, think about this one, Condoleezza Rice.

This adds up to exciting to me. You?

July 13, 2016--Trump's VEEP

Even after the FBI director essentially indicted Hillary Clinton, according to yesterday's NBC tracking poll, she still leads Donald Trump by three percentage points. Though this is within the margin of effort, Clinton remains in the lead. And a lead is a lead.

With the GOP convention only five days away, to overtake Clinton, Trump needs to do at least three things--

The convention itself needs to be engaging, even entertaining since so much of what got Trump here in the first place was, how else to put it, amusing. Even his frequent but unpredictable gaffs.

Then he has to deliver a vice presidential candidate who is relatively uncontroversial--which should rule out Chris Christie (Bridgegate) and Newt Gingrich (forced to resign the House speakership). Trump needs a VEEP who has gravitas, knows the world, and could credibly step into the presidency if Trump is in one way or the other unable to serve.

Third, equally important, he has to stop being a jerk.

This latter requirement will likely prove to be most difficult because just by not inviting Clint Eastwood to speak to a stool will assure he has a better convention than Mitt Romney. And almost any VP candidate, compared to Trump, will add seriousness to the ticket.

But a jerk he will likely still continue to be.

In regard to his vice president, without Christie and Gingrich, the consensus seems to be swinging toward Mike Pence, the governor of Indiana.

He has the right kind of congressional and gubernatorial experience to fill in some of those gaps for Trump, but he is unknown and so boooooring.

This has some advantages considering that Trump now might benefit politically by being a bit more boring--to demonstrate that he is not devoid of gravitas--but Pence would not bring any sizzle to the ticket. And some sizzle, some energy could be useful as Trump's act begins to feel stale.

With Jack at the Bristol Diner, like us a liberal, we discussed Trump's VEEP conundrum, made much more challenging because of his alienating so many senior Republicans. To the point that every day one or another announces he or she will not attend the convention or vote for him.

Of course, with the GOP and Trump's base having the Bushes stand him up and hint they will not be voting for him, this alone to many on the right is encouragement enough to firm up their decision to vote for him.

But this election, like most, will be determined by the five-to-10 percent who are truly independent and undecided. What Trump VEEP would appeal to them?

"Easy," I said, "Condi Rice." Feeling proud of myself for this long-shot prediction, I looked from Jack to Rona.

"She'd never agree to it," Jack said, "The Bushes would never talk to her again."

"The Bushes are finished," Rona said. "Who cares if they won't talk with her?"

"Doesn't she feel any loyalty to them?" Jack said.

"Look, she thought seriously about running for the GOP nomination in 2008 and Jeb had his eye on that. There's loyalist and then there's ambition."

"What does that mean?" I wondered, thinking further about what Jack had said.

"She's only 61," Rona pressed on, "Prime time for anyone who wants to be president. At the moment she's on the faculty of Stanford and on a few corporate boards and after being George W. Bush's National Security Council advisor and then his Secretary of State, life must feel boring to her."

"She could help continue to fight the wars that Bush and his team started."

"She's actually less hawkish than Hillary," I said.

"And if she agreed to do this for the party," Jack said, getting into the possibility, "it would help line up support for her for 2020 if they lose or for that matter if they win and Trump gets bored after one term and decides not to run for reelection."

"Of course," Rona said, "there are the obvious demographics she would bring to the ticket."

"Another thing that would appeal to Trump is that she's a football fanatic and loves golf."

"She's one of only two female members of the Augusta National course. She might even be able to sneak Trump in for a round or two. For certain he's not a member. They wouldn't have him even if he somehow managed to become president."

"I like it," Jack said, "I don't mean I like it enough to vote for them, but from an excitement, gravitas and political junky perspective, it would be a home run."

"And satisfy Trump's and the public's desire to shake things up," I said, rising to my own idea, "To do the unexpected since the same-old-same-old isn't getting the job done."

"Maybe it's making things worse," Rona said.

"I still think it's a long shot. But it's fun to speculate."

"It could prove to be an interesting week."

"He'll probably go for Pence," Rona said, sounding glum.