January 2, 2020--Jack: Impeachment

"I can't believe you guys stepped in it."

"Make it quick Jack, I only have a few minutes for you." 

This was not true, I had time on my hands as I usually do during the holiday season, but I was in no mood to get involved with him. I'd rather be staring at the ceiling. 

"I'm talking about impeachment. Especially what your Dems are up to."

"Going after Trump, that's what we're up to. And I say, it's about time."

"So he's got you snookered too. I love that." I could hear him chuckling. 

"I repeat--I only have a few minutes for you."

"I'll bet you never heard of this one." I stifled myself, not responding, and so Jack continued, "She fell right into his trap. Trump's" He paused, trying to engage me. I continued to hold my tongue, "How did this whole impeachment thing get started?"

"Enlighten me." I didn't know where he was going with this.

"By Trump ordering the release of the written transcript of his conversation with the newly-elected president of Ukraine. The so-called extortion or bribery conversation where he told Zelensky he would release the authorized military assistance money to Ukraine if they agreed to dig up dirt about the Bidens."

"Of course I know about that. It was pretty stupid for your boy to try to get away with that."

"At the time a lot of media people and liberals were also gleeful, thinking he gave them the smoking gun up front. With Nixon the smoking gun was at the end of the impeachment process with Trump it was up front. Your people thought he shot himself in the foot and off they raced to get impeachment going. You remember, I'm sure, that Nancy didn't want to go there. She was worried that like with Clinton if Trump got impeached by only the Democrats his favorables would go up. It would help him get reelected. But when he released the transcript Pelosi couldn't continue to duck going for impeachment. She had no choice but to unleash Schiff."

"So far, we agree."

"Good. Now let's look at this from where the situation is going rather than where it is--stalled in the House because Nancy doesn't want to send the articles of impeachment to Mitch in the Senate until she has rules in place to call witnesses and examine subpoenaed documents. Mitch is happy about her slowing the process down because as soon as he gets back from New Years he'll start to claim the Dems are engaged in a coverup. They know Trump is not going to be voted out of office. That the Democrats are engaged in a witch hunt. Blah, blah. You've heard all this before. But best of all Nancy is playing right into his hands. She's been smart up to this point but very soon her political strategy is going to come crashing down."

I said, "About this we disagree. Mitch is going to have to allow a few witnesses since if he doesn't it will look like what it is--that he and his senators are engaged in a coordinated coverup. Can you imagine what Bolton and Rudy have to say as witnesses? They may turn out to be the real smoking guns."

"Some of this could happen," Jack said, "but it won't matter. Whatever the Dems come up with--witnesses, emails, stuff like that--Trump is not getting kicked out of office. He's going to be found not guilty and ten minutes after that vote he'll embark on a 10-city Exoneration Tour, boasting there was no collusion, no bribery, no obstruction. Then he'll get the Clinton bump."

"What a nightmare," I said under me breath.

"If you see things unfolding that way--and I'm sure you do," he chuckled again, "it's obvious Trump is behind the whole thing. He's the only one smart enough to come up with this scenario and sucker the Democrats into moving against him. He wanted to be impeached. He engineered the whole thing. And now he'll expose Nancy's failed strategy and take Biden down at the same time. Sort of like a trick shot in pool. Two for one. And that will leave the Democrats with Bernie as their candidate. A trifecta for our president."

My head was throbbing. Was I ever sorry I answered the phone. I swore that next time . . .

July 19, 2019--"Spare Me the Revolution"

Tom Friedman is not my favorite columnist. For example, to me he can be a little giddy when it comes to extolling the wonders of globalization.  

But earlier this week he wrote a meaningful op ed, most of which I have included below. It is the best piece I've read about how Democrats are inadvertently conspiring to lose the election to Donald Trump.

It will likely make you angry but it also provides a plausible roadmap for how to win--

I’m struck at how many people have come up to me recently and said, “Trump’s going to get re-elected, isn’t he?” And in each case, when I drilled down to ask why, I bumped into the Democratic presidential debates in June. I think a lot of Americans were shocked by some of the things they heard there. I was.

I was shocked that so many candidates in the party whose nominee I was planning to support want to get rid of the private health insurance covering some 250 million Americans and have “Medicare for all” instead. I think we should strengthen Obamacare and eventually add a public option.

I was shocked that so many were ready to decriminalize illegal entry into our country. I think people should have to ring the doorbell before they enter my house or my country.

I was shocked at all those hands raised in support of providing comprehensive health coverage to undocumented immigrants. I think promises we’ve made to our fellow Americans should take priority, like to veterans in need of better health care.

And I was shocked by how feeble was front-runner Joe Biden’s response to the attack from Kamala Harris — and to the more extreme ideas promoted by those to his left.

So, I wasn’t surprised to hear so many people expressing fear that the racist, divisive, climate-change-denying, woman-abusing jerk who is our president was going to get re-elected, and was even seeing his poll numbers rise.

Dear Democrats: This is not complicated! Just nominate a decent, sane person, one committed to reunifying the country and creating more good jobs, a person who can gain the support of the independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women who abandoned Donald Trump in the midterms and thus swung the House of Representatives to the Democrats and could do the same for the presidency. And that candidate can win!

But please, spare me the revolution! It can wait. Win the presidency, hold the House and narrow the spread in the Senate, and a lot of good things still can be accomplished. “No,” you say, “the left wants a revolution now!” O.K., I’ll give the left a revolution now: four more years of Donald Trump.

That will be a revolution.

Four years of Trump feeling validated in all the crazy stuff he’s done and said. Four years of Trump unburdened by the need to run for re-election and able to amplify his racism, make Ivanka secretary of state, appoint even more crackpots to his cabinet and likely get to name two right-wing Supreme Court justices under the age of 40.

Yes sir, that will be a revolution!

It will be an overthrow of all the norms, values, rules and institutions that we cherish, that made us who we are and that have united us in this common project called the United States of America.

If the fear of that doesn’t motivate the Democratic Party’s base, then shame on those people. Not all elections are equal. Some elections are a vote for great changes — like the Great Society. Others are a vote to save the country. This election is the latter.

That doesn’t mean a Democratic candidate should stand for nothing, just keep it simple: Focus on building national unity and good jobs.

I say national unity because many Americans are terrified and troubled by how bitterly divided, and therefore paralyzed, the country has become. There is an opening for a unifier.

And I say good jobs because when the wealth of the top 1 percent equals that of the bottom 90 percent, we do have to redivide the pie. I favor raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to subsidize universal pre-K education and to reduce the burden of student loans. Let’s give kids a head start and college grads a fresh start.

But I’m disturbed that so few of the Democratic candidates don’t also talk about growing the pie, let alone celebrating American entrepreneurs and risk-takers. Where do they think jobs come from?

The winning message is to double down on redividing the pie in ways that give everyone an opportunity for a slice while also growing the pie sustainably.

Trump is growing the pie by cannibalizing the future. He is creating a growth spurt by building up enormous financial and carbon debts that our kids will pay for.

Democrats should focus on how we create sustainable wealth and good jobs, which is the American public-private partnership model: Government enriches the soil and entrepreneurs grow the companies.

It has always been what’s made us rich, and we’ve drifted away from it: investing in quality education and basic scientific research; promulgating the right laws and regulations to incentivize risk-taking and prevent recklessness and monopolies that can cripple free markets; encouraging legal immigration of both high-energy and high-I.Q. foreigners; and building the world’s best enabling infrastructure — ports, roads, bandwidth and basic social safety nets.

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.

April 23, 2018--Contortions

It has been painful to witness progressives, Democrats twisting themselves into contortions as they attempt to come to grips with what is happening with the North Koreans.

Their problem is less with Kim Jong-un and the North Koreans than with how to think about and react to Donald Trump's involvement.

Remember how during the 2016 primaries he said it would be his "honor" to meet face-to-face with Kim? He was roundly criticized and mocked by both his Republican and Democratic opponents as being naive and inexperienced in the world of global diplomacy. He was chastised for asserting that traditional forms of diplomacy (which included many months of pre-summit negotiations between lower-level staffs) were the necessary prerequisites to meetings between heads of states. Particularly hostile ones.

Think Kissinger meeting privately with Zhou Enlai before Nixon would consider getting together with Zhou much less Mao.

Failing to recall how neophyte Barack Obama was roundly criticized and mocked by his political opponents (Hillary Clinton leading the pack) during the 2008 campaign when he declared he would be willing to meet face-to-face with the leaders of Iran and North Korea in the search for peace, progressives, opposing Trump now in such ahistorical, knee-jerk fashion are being, well, intentionally forgetful, hypocritical, or both.  

So now we not only have a heads-of-state meeting on the books for late May/early June, but we appear to have Kim making all sorts of preemptive concessions about his nuclear weapons program.

First he announced he was suspending all testing of missiles and nuclear warheads. Then, again without demanding anything in return, he announced over the weekend that he will be shutting down his nuclear weapons research and fabrication facilities. He wants, he says, to turn his focus to the collapsed North Korean economy.

This latter promise is discombobulating progressives. On Saturday and Sunday, for example, on CNN and especially MSNBC, former senior Obama national security advisors and staff have been all over the airwaves struggling with how to think about and respond to these overtures.

First, and most appropriately, they expressed skepticism, warning that the North Koreans for decades have made promises of this sort that they haven't kept. Then they dismissed the evidence that the extra-severe sanctions imposed on the North Koreans, mainly by the U.S. and China, have led to the further hollowing out of the North Korean economy, such as it is, and this is forcing Kim to the table. 

They are ignoring this evidence because, as with Kim's pledge to scale back his weapons program, not to have criticized what seems to be unfolding would give tacit if not overt credit to Trump, as unlikely and crazy and as confounding as what may be happening might turn out to be. 

Liberals so despise Trump that they cannot bear to give some credit, much less offer any praise for his leading the effort to bring this about.

Most outrageously, if Trump pulls this off he would be a leading candidate to receive a Nobel Peace Prize. If the unthinkable were to occur, he as well as Obama would have one. 

Worse--all of us in our heart-of-hearts know Obama didn't really deserve his whereas if we manage to make a verifiable deal with the North Koreans, Trump will have earned his.

Sometimes the world is too confounding to deal with. This may turn out to be one of those occasions.

Kissinger and Zhou Enlai

October 13, 2017--Harvey Weinstein--"That's What Woman Are Asking For."

I've been wanting to write about Harvey Weinstein but pretty much everything I have to say has been said. 

And he is so disgusting, what he did was so disgusting, the world he trolls is so disgusting, the politics of this is so disgusting, that I am inclined to take a pass. 

I don't want to have anything to do with him, even if it's only to write something. I feel that I will be slimed by any involvement.

But when I read what fashion designer Donna Karan said, I couldn't ignore this and leave it to others to rant. 

Self-proclaimed feminist Karan offered the traditional sexist rape defense:

"You look at everything all over the world today and how women are dressing and what they asking by just presenting themselves the way they do. What are they asking for?" 

She answered her own question--"Trouble."

And she is not alone in making excuses for him. Almost everyone in the Hollywood and show business community (I include fashion in that) has for decades been making excuses for him. Even his wife. How could she not have known what a disgrace he is? While his behavior was "secret" she remained with him. When it became public, she took off. More to protect the reputation of her own fashion line than because of her outrage.

One could say pretty much the same thing for most of the B- and A-List stars who were either groped by him or knew about his pathological behavior. They didn't want to spoil the party or their ability to be cast in his movies and make millions a picture.

And what about the politicians? All, by the way, Democrats. They liked to hang with him too and couldn't resist. It took Hillary Clinton six days, six, to express her outrage. And she knows more than anyone else about this kind of alpha-male behavior.

Saturday Night Live ignored this though they have been quick to mock Donald Trump when his grabbing pussy comments went viral or when any GOP congressman got caught fooling around in the men's room.

But Harvey to these bi-coastal elites was too powerful, too much fun to turn away from.

Look, for decades everyone knew what he was up to. As a close friend who is a prominent feature film maker said to me, "What he is has been known for years. It's the industry's dirty little secret. Pretty much all the guys who came to Hollywood to make movies did so to get laid."

I might add, or ran for Congress or the White House. Think Franklin Roosevelt, think Lyndon Johnson, think Bill Clinton, and especially think John Kennedy.

It is just this sort of thing, this hypocrisy that helped elect Donald Trump and will doom Democrats going forward. If there is a going forward. This hits especially hard on liberals because we're supposed to know better. Well, we don't.

This is what the Trump people hate about the rich and famous and powerful--that they're only in it for their own good times. And the cash.

February 3, 2017--Once More, Jack

Though a number of friends recommended I not answer the phone when Jack calls, when he rang me again the other morning I ignored that advice.

I'm not exactly sure why some of my friends were offering such counsel, but I suspect it's largely because what Jack has been saying about me and my fellow Democrats rings truer than any of us would like--that we are in large part the source of our own political problems. That we didn't do enough to help Hillary Clinton get elected. That we took her victory for granted and spent more time talking about the election than becoming directly involved.

Thus far only one person I heard from, "Gala Girl," appears to have done well on Jack's parlor game challenge, Who Do You Know? She claimed to have friends from all of Jack's categories, except that she doesn't know any coal miners!

All the other readers and friends who either called or wrote to me confessed that for the most part they knew as friends very few plumbers, policemen, or waitresses. Some who disagreed with Jack about our being out-of-touch with Americans who elected Donald Trump, had no problem with the fact that they didn't know anyone currently serving in the military or working as a lab technician. And thus, like them, I should ignore Jack's jibes.

"Things are bad enough without us beating ourselves up about the results of the election," one said.

Jack on the other hand said, "I see you have a new obsession."

"How so?"

"With all the things going on this is what you're paying attention to?"

"What might that this be?" From his attitude I was already beginning to regret that I didn't let his call go to voice mail.

"With all that's going on from the immigration ban to Trump's on-going obsession about how many popular votes Hillary secured, you keep coming back to railing about congressional Democrats gathering the other night on the steps of the Supreme Court."

"I'm all in favor of activism of all kinds. In fact, we need more and more of it right now to show Trump that there will be political consequences for his words and deeds. Really, he needed to alienate the Australians? One of our loyalist allies?"

"I agree. But what seems to be sticking in your craw is the fact that that geriatric group of your congresspeople opted to sing This Land Is Your Land. What's with that?"

"It underlined for me how impotent and out of touch my party leaders are. Nancy Pelosi who can't sing is tottering around on her last legs and Chuck Schumer looks like he's ready for Weight Watchers or needs to check into a care facility. These are the people who are going to lead the opposition and help elect Democrats two years from now? I don't think so."

"I watch some MSNBC," Jack said. "That might surprise you, but I want to check out what Rachael is up to and your version of Bill O'Reilly, loud-mouth Chris Mathews. I want to listen in on what the left-wing opposition is saying and plotting. From my perspective, I'm happy to see not much to win over Trump-type voters. Though at least some of them are recognizing that progressives need to get out into the country to find out what's on voters' minds. You know visit some of those 21-percent counties."

"What are those?"

"Like the ones in Iowa and other swing states that voted for Obama in 2008 and again in 2012, giving him 21 percent margins but then this time around voted equally overwhelmingly, by 21 percent, for Trump. There's a whole lot to learn in those places. And there are quite a few of them.

"If you're looking to start a business, consider setting up a tour company that buses Democrats for overnight visits to these districts. Especially tell them which diners to go to to have breakfast with the locals."

"In some ways we're agreeing. Which brings me back to the other night at the Supreme Court. Not only are our leaders totally out of touch and self-involved, but This Land Is Your Land? This old hippie song? I mean, I like it. But do they think it appeals to millennials and Latinos and the working poor? I don't think so. If anything, they made themselves seem irrelevant and ridiculous."

"On top to that," Jack said, "I noticed that they didn't even know the words. They had to read them from a handout."

 "And meanwhile, back at the White House, Trump was firing people and on the phone talking to the Mexican president, warning him that if the Mexican police don't do a better job of securing the border he might just have to have American troops invade Mexico because there are 'bad hombres' there."

January 30, 2017--Jack Again

"I know you think something terrible's going on with me because, you're right, I hate talking on the phone."

It was Jack calling again.

"I read what you wrote about our last conversation," he said, "which you summarized pretty well. You, of course, made yourself come off better than you I fact did when we spoke." I ignored that.

"So, what's it about this time?"

"Things with Trump are happening so fast that I can't wait to May to talk with you. Who knows, by then, we might be at war with Mexico."

"I know you mean this as a joke but it could really happen. He's on such a rampage."

"Well, you know, I can't stand Democrats--present company excepted--but I find myself interested in trying to think what you guys might do to become more competitive. I prefer winning when challenged and at the moment you and your kind are pathetic. Sunday morning, for example, on TV, while criticizing Trump's new immigration policy, like John Boehner, Chuck Schumer, your minority leader, cried his way though his comments. What a wuss."

"I really appreciate your concern about us," I said, attempting not to sound as sarcastic as I was feeling.

"So I watched some of the left-wing Sunday talk shows. Meet the Press, among others, to see what they were saying. Michael Steele was on. He used to be the head of the Republican National Committee and is a smart and decent guy."

"I saw a bit of that too. I think that . . ."

"I didn't call to find out what you think but to tell you what I think." That's my old friend Jack, I thought and was tempted to hang up on him.

"He and Doris Kearns Goodwin, who was also a guest, were saying that the Democrats are in trouble because they don't have an appealing one-paragraph message of what they stand for and would do for the country if elected."

"That's what they said and I sort of agree with them. With emphasis on the sort of."

"I thought," Jack said, "that that's your problem. You not only don't have a clear message about what you're about but you still don't get the main reason why Trump won the election. Part of the reason was that he had a four-word message--Make America Great Again--and then let the voters fill in the blanks about what he meant by that. Including the nasty dog-whistle stuff."

"I agree with that. It was pretty basic and it's own peverse way brilliant."

"What you're all leaving out is the fact that Trump was not elected by Republicans. Sure, a lot voted for him but so did about the same percentage of Independents and, here's the main point, Democrats. If you exclude African-American Democrats, he got more white Democrats than Hillary. Many of them women. In effect, he was elected by Democrats. So to make any progress, Democrats have to recognize that and deal with it. Ask me why."

"OK, why?"

"Because though he's a billionaire who lives in a gold-leaf triplex on Fifth Avenue and has been married three times, he made people in the middle of the country and in small-towns everywhere, even in all the Blue States--New York and California included--he made average Americans feel like he cared about what they cared about and liked mingling with them. In contrast, these people felt that Liberals flew over their counties on their way from one coast to the other and had disdain for them and their concerns. You know, Hillary's deplorables."

"Oh, that again," I said.

"Ignore this at your peril. But I have something to help you and your fellow travelers."

"What's that?"

"You could play it as a parlor game when you get together with your friends for Chardonnay and Brie."

"You mean like Scrabble?"

"Whatever turns you on. But here's how my game works. It requires people to be honest about themselves. Which might be a problem for Liberals." He liked that jibe and I could hear him chuckling.

"The game is called Who Do You Know? and it requires someone to read a list of types of people and for each participant to keep a list of who knows, say, a lawyer or professor. I mean really knows. Not just hires a lawyer to draw up a will or a contract when buying a house. Or their psychology professor from college."

"You're being snarky because you know most coastal liberals will have lawyer friends."

"I confess I was being snarky. Sorry about that. In the meantime you want to play?"

"I'm game. Shoot."

Here's part of the Who Do You Know? list. Do you know, again really know, a plumber or electrician? An assembly line worker? Someone currently serving in the military? A wounded veteran? A nurse? A cashier? A police or fireman? A farmer? A waitress in a diner, not a fancy restaurant like your Balthazar? A body-and-fender man? A short-order cook? A maid? An X-Ray technician? A bookkeeper? A healthcare aide? A gardener? A Walmart employee? A coal miner? A stay-at-home Mom? A doorman? A fisherman? A painter, and I don't mean an artist? A . . ."

"You can stop," I interrupted, "I get your point and where you're going with this."

"How did you do?"

"Do?"

"I assume you were making your own list."

"Well, I sort of was." Without being specific, I said, "I confess to not doing as well as I'd like."

"Give it a try," Jack said, "The next time you get together with your lawyer and professor friends.  Maybe there is hope for you and them. Even though I'm a confirmed right-winger we need all of you socialists to be part of what we think of as Americans and we need to find ways to talk with each other. Not just across party lines but across occupational and cultural ones as well."

"I like that," I said. "You could be right so between now and May feel free to call again."

July 27, 2015--HillaryGate: Drip, Drip, Drip

I recently read Tim Weiner's new biography of Richard Nixon, One Man Against the World: The Tragedy of Richard Nixon, which focuses on the various criminal activities of Nixon and his associates. Especially the climate that existed in the White House and in Nixon's mind that led to the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex and the subsequent coverup and resignation.

Nixon's involvement in the break-in was not direct but the result of his obsession with secrecy and feelings that there were conspiratorial forces at work that would deny his reelection in 1972. His men, thus, carried out his implied agenda.

Nixon got in deep and direct trouble when he tried to have the FBI's investigation of the break-in squelched and then led the cover-up, all the while lying by claiming he knew nothing in advance of the break-in (likely true) and knew nothing about a cover-up (patently and feloniously false).

As a result, he was brought down, named an "unindicted co-conspirator," and forced to resign the presidency.

This brings me to Hillary Clinton and the many problems with her emails while she was Secretary of State.

For whatever reasons, rather than use secure State Department channels of communication, she used her own, personal email account to carry out official business. There is no disputing that.

But under pressure, when news about this began to leak out earlier this year, she denied any wrongdoing, claiming what she did was neither against federal rules nor, much more significant, was not in any way illegal.

Under further pressure, she turned over to the State Department 30,000 official emails from her private server, deleting other thousands of a personal nature--for example, those about plans for her daughter Chelsea's wedding.

All along the way she alleged this was a non-issue, driven more by presidential politics then anything else. She held herself above the fray, claiming she had more important things to focus on--how to build an agenda, for example, to strengthen the economy, one that especially helps the middle class.

But the issue just wouldn't go away.

Daily, it is becoming clear that there are legitimate and substantial issues that were not just the result of Republican saber-rattling. As more and more was leaked and reported about what was in the actual emails, it became clearer and clearer that there is a there there.

Just at the end of last week, the New York Times, which broke the original email story in March, reported that some of Clinton's emails included classified information, which, if true, is potentially illegal.

The State Department inspector general joined by the intelligence community's independent inspector general issued a joint statement which revealed that their review of a random sample of just 40 of the former Secretary's emails revealed that four did in fact contain classified material, "Government secrets."

Clinton's response was again that this is a distraction and that nothing untoward occurred on her watch.

The two inspectors general would disagree. In fact, they recommended that an investigation be launched. A criminal investigation. Clinton didn't quite say, "I am not a crook." But . . .

It is significant to note again that the intelligence community's inspector general is a non-partisan and that though the State Department is Obama's State Department, and thus controlled by Democrats, its inspector general did not hold back.

This is feeling like the same kind of drip, drip, drip that didn't work to defend Nixon. He pretended that he was ignoring the Watergate investigation, claiming he was too busy defending the world and defeating Communism. The tapes of his White House offices and telephones put the lie to that. He was obsessed by Watergate and the judicial and congressional investigations and was active daily counseling and coaching his confederates about what to say and which lies to tell.

I suspect Hillary Clinton in dong much the same thing. I mean obsessing. She knows the truth and we are learning more about it every week. I suspect there will be an outcome similar to Nixon's--her emails are not unlike his tapes. There are likely numerous smoking guns in them and I would be surprised if Clinton is able to stay in the race for the presidential nomination. Polls are already showing she trails Jeb Bush and Scott Walker in key battleground states. This will only get worse as we learn more.

It's time for Democrats to be thinking about serious alternatives. It wouldn't surprise me to see Joe Biden join the race and perhaps John Kerry. Elizabeth Warren may also be rethinking her decision not to run.

Who knows, by fall a Democrat clown car might be revving up.

I am not a crook.

March 5, 2015--Joe Biden Time?

Just when it looked as if the Democrats were going to have a coronation rather than a slugfest for the 2016 presidential nomination, there was another Clinton implosion.

The New York Times reported Tuesday that while she was Secretary of State, rather than using the required government e-mail system, Hillary Clinton used her own personal one.

This means she may have inappropriately (not illegally) communicated in this way about the nation's highest and most sensitive diplomatic issues. Additionally, all correspondence engaged in by public officials is considered public property and Clinton, by using a private system for all her e-mailing, would give her much more control of access to what she wanted known than if she had used the State Department system. About political hot-button Benghazi, for example. But by bypassing the government system, she could limit just how transparent she wanted to be.

It is now being suggested, considering how the Clintons (plural) have been prone to play fast and loose with various regulations and even legal requirements, that Hillary's use of a private e-mail account is outrageous. So much so that regulars on MSNBC are either dumbfounded or full-throttle joining the criticism.

This undoubtedly means that other potential 2016 Democrat candidates are delighted and thus stirring about, reconsidering their reluctance to contest for the nomination.

The pressure on Elizabeth Warren will inevitably build. Former governor of Maryland, Martin O'Malley and Jim Web, former Virginia senator, who have had toes in the water already will probably be making discreet calls to sound out potential funders, being careful to use non-governmental phones.

And of course Joe Biden must be ordering up more hair transplants.

Expect to hear rumblings from Andrew Cuomo (New York governor) and Virginia senator Tim Kaine. There will likely be stirrings from the other Virginia senator Mark Warner, and heavy breathing from Al Franken (Minnesota senator) and his colleague, Amy Klobuchar. All will begin to make plans to visit London and Israel to bulk up their foreign policy cred.

And then there is John Kerry. If he pulls off a decent deal with Iran, don't be surprised to see him in the race after accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. He's only 71, has hundreds of millions of his own money, is tall, and has a full head of hair. But this time around, don't expect to see him windsurfing.

There is even talk about George Clooney. Yes, that George Clooney. He's settled down now that he's married and what a First Lady Amal would make. She already had the gloves for the job.

As a political junkie, I'm excited that a Democrat clown car might soon be revving up.

Sadly, the candidates truly qualified to be president beside Hillary are John Kerry and Joe Biden. They are the only ones who know anything about the larger world. But both are elderly and wired into the Washington establishment and thus would be weak candidates in an antigovernment era. If the Clinton candidacy collapses, as I think it will, neither Kerry nor Biden is likely to win enough primaries to be nominated since they will not be able to make a persuasive case that they represent the future.

I say, therefore, start getting ready for Democrat nominee Elizabeth Warren and, after a close election, President Scott Walker.

November 12, 2104--It's the Middle Class, Stupid

I promise--these will be my final comments about last week's midterm election.

My conclusion--It wasn't the economy, stupid, but the middle class.

The two are entwined, of course, but to understand what happened last Tuesday it's important to think about the economy from a middle-class perspective. This is especially true for Democrats if they, in our lifetimes, are to do better at the congressional and gubernatorial levels.

This time around, tactically, in campaigning, Democrat candidates avoided talking about the economy. This was part of their strategy to run as far away as possible from the unpopular president. The little Barack Obama said during the campaign season--again at Democrats' urging--was about how the economy was improving: unemployment was way down, the annual deficit during his first six years was more than cut in half, and the national debt was growing at a significantly reduced rate.

But if you have a job or are working two or three just to stand still, it doesn't excite or motivate you to learn that someone else, who had been unemployed, now has a job. And that person who now has a job might not be that enthusiastic either. He could be working just 20-30 hours a week, receiving no benefits, and earning only a little more than he would receive from various forms of public assistance.

So, very few in real-life situations are impressed economically, emotionally, or politically that the unemployment rate is down a percent or two. In fact, many don't even believe the numbers since they come from the government and are thus suspect. Because it has been a wageless recovery, what they are experiencing is their own precarious, deteriorating financial situation.

If you were in similar circumstances, what would you care about--the unemployment rate or your household's's bottom line?

Even more, who really cares other than theoretically about the deficit and the debt? This may sound cynical but, again, to people struggling with their own debt what's more real--what the government owes or their mortgage?

Those in the middle who are being squeezed hard--with everyone in the family working--may not know the statistics but they do know their earnings for more than a decade have not even kept pace with rising prices. They feel themselves working harder but slipping further and further behind.

And they are right.

The numbers support that perception. Since Barack Obama assumed the presidency, median inflation-adjusted middle-class income has declined. Last year it was $2,100 lower than it was in 2009. And lower still by $3,600 since 2001 when George W. Bush took office.

Blaming the government, especially those seemingly in charge (Obama and the Democrats, not Bush), is one way to deal with what has been happening to the middle class. They thought they were playing by the rules and that the miracle that has been the American economy would reward them or, more likely, their children. That trust has been betrayed.

Not to talk compassionately about this, as the Democrats didn't, not to focus all their progressive energy on the plight of the shrinking middle class, which they also didn't do, is not just politically ruinous but morally questionable.

It is hard to think what to suggest about this sad situation. What policies, what programs beyond empty promises would make a difference for the middle class? What evidence is there that any realistically realizable government policy might make a positive difference? Perhaps a middle-class tax cut? Anything else?

If true, then at least Democrats should take yet another lesson from Bill Clinton--figure out how to notice and feel people's pain and stop telling people what's good for them.

November 11, 2014--Liberals

Shortly before leaving Maine we had breakfast with two very liberal friends. This was about a week before the recent midterm election and part of what we discussed was how they thought the results would turn out.

"Don't believe the polls," Arnie said, "He may be behind, but I feel certain LePage will be reelected governor. And easily. In fact, I predict we'll see a Republican sweep across the country."

"Why's that?" I asked. My read of things was that the GOP had a good change to take control of the Senate but thought Dems would do well in governors races.

"That's because we liberals don't get off our fat asses for midterm elections. We save our political energy for those years when presidents are elected. But we're good at complaining--in fact we make an art form of it--but when it comes to taking action we're not so good."

"Wouldn't you think," Jim said, "that women, young people, and minorities would be racing to vote this time around? Because if they don't, say goodbye to reproductive health care and, for that matter, health care more generally. And what do you think will happen to voting rights and education funding, especially money to help low-income youngsters pay for college?"

"When all the votes are in," Arnie said, "we'll hear all the whining and moaning and groaning on MSNBC."

"And excuse making," Jim added. "How the system is broken. Blah, blah, blah."

Sure enough, things turned out even worse than Arnie and Jim predicted and, yes, there is now all that liberal finger pointing.

Back in New York, after the election, I took up the conversation with other friends. They too complained that the system is broken. When I asked them what they had done beside sending out some checks to favored candidates and causes they avoided eye contact. I'm not even sure they voted. But they were full of jizzum about, again, the broken system.

When I said that I felt the system was broken only for us liberals, that conservatives are feeling pretty good these days about the system, that they are looking forward to that system getting government out of their lives (that should only be) and out of the business of spending their tax money on people who don't want to get off their duffs and work to feed their kids.

"Well," Sarah said, "that's because they have all these beliefs, unverified ones by the way, about the natural order of things. A version of survival of the fittest where competition and the market will take care of our problems. That is, if we leave things alone. As you know from history, this just doesn't work. But, if they believe," she said sarcastically, "to them it must be true."

"I agree with some of that," I said, "But let me ask you something--in fact, let me also ask myself something."

"What's that?" an equally frustrated Doug asked.

"Are there any beliefs that we have? Liberals I mean. Beliefs that are equally not verifiable from evidence?"

"You mean all the research and talk about the fundamental, even neurological differences between belief-oriented versus evidence-oriented people and how that affects political behavior?"

"Maybe. But not to get into that discussion, which in my view is based on still insufficient evidence, I'm simply asking if we who consider ourselves open-minded and minimally fact- or scientifically-oriented, if there are things we just believe."

Both Sarah and Doug stroked their chins, trying hard too come up with something they believe that was based on something like faith. I too sat sipping my coffee, asking myself the same thing, admitting it's not something I had thought too much about, satisfied as I am with how objective and rational I considered myself to be.

"Wait, I have something," I said all excited.

"I can't wait to hear this one," Doug muttered.

"Here's something I think that goes to our political and ideological core--don't we believe, without supporting objective evidence, that government should play a significant role to help our most vulnerable citizens?" Sarah and Doug stared at me blankly.

"You know, in health care, education, housing, things of that kind?"

"I'm not following you," Doug finally said.

"Look, I support all of these programs. At least the ones that work, which is a whole other conversation. But what hard evidence can we cite to support these beliefs?"

"The evidence that student loans help millions go to college who otherwise couldn't afford to."

"Again, I favor that. But that's about outcomes, not the truth from nature that tells us what must to be done. To support programs of this kind is not written on tablets but is based on following a set of beliefs about how we should behave toward each other. It's the right thing to do, I feel certain about that, but it's justified by how I feel about our various roles as citizens. I believe that's how we should behave as individuals and governments. With 'feel' and 'believe' underlined. Again, these core values are not evidence-driven. Maybe the outcomes are objectively measurable but not the underlying principles about the appropriateness or requirement that we act this way.

"Maybe," I continued, "we don't even having 'inalienable rights,' that these too are not from nature but socially constructed."

"In other words," Sarah offered, "you're saying we're no different than those who believe in a very limited role for government? Let the chips fall where they may in a survival-of-the-fittest mode?" I nodded. "I'm not interested in living in that kind of world."

"Neither am I," I said, "But I think it's a good idea to recognize, to acknowledge that we're not so different than conservatives in that much of our political core is as belief-driven as theirs. We obviously believe very different things and come to very different conclusions, but like them believe we do."

"If this is true," Doug sighed with a sense of resignation, "we are to some extent jerking ourselves around. Thinking about ourselves as superior--intellectually and, worse, morally superior to the Tea Party folks and their GOP enablers."

"Which is why," I said, "we too often sit around analyzing and complaining and excuse making. We're good at all of that and maybe even get it right--at least I believe that," I winked, "But I don't think it's helping us push back or do well at the polls--nationally, at the state level, and locally. We're losing on all those fronts. The other side is now even out-organizing us. They have the energy and momentum. OK, because they are more fervent in their beliefs; but since we share strong beliefs too we had better get up off our couches and turn off our iPhones and get to work.  Especially locally because that 's where the future leaders are coming from."

"I did notice a bit of a generational shift in last week's election results," Sarah said, "The Democrats felt old to me and the Republicans more youthful and energetic."

"Hillary beware," Rona said.

"One more thing," I said. "I know you have to run, but here's another problem that's under-discussed--Evidence is that minorities aside, Democrats, true liberals like us, are better educated and much more affluent than your average middle-class and rural conservatives--excluding billionaires like the Koch brothers of course--and we thus have been big beneficiaries of the Bush-era economic and tax polices, all of which were made permanent during the early Obama years."

Sarah was looking at me skeptically. "You, too have benefitted, " I said to her. "And me as well. Without getting into specifics, I have paid much, much less in taxes the past 14, 15 years than previously. And, I confess, I like that and thus do not feel that motivated to agitate to pay more. Even if it went to programs I believe in and at least theoretically support. I say 'theoretically' because I'm not that much good when it comes to political action and mobilization. I'll confess--I like my lifestyle and don't want to see too much of it change."

Doug said softly, "I think you're right," he glanced at me, "We have been too full of ourselves, believing that if we get the policies right the politics will follow."

"Obama said the same thing Sunday on one of the talk shows," Rona said.

"That view feels a little arrogant to me," Sarah admitted.

"I agree," I said, "I think so-called 'average people' perceive us and our policies this way. To them we come across as knowing better than they do what's best for them."

"I need to think about this some more," Doug said, staring into his empty coffee cup.

October 21, 2014--Midcoast: Independents

Rona asked why is it that half the Republicans we know say they're not Republicans but Independents.

We were with a friend who took us out to a farewell lunch (we're here for two more weeks), and to Rona's question, said he too is an Independent.

"I'm for LePage for governor this time around, but two years ago I voted for Angus King for senator. He's officially an Independent and caucuses with the Democrats."

"But why is it," Rona pressed, "that every time we have this discussion and you say you're an Independent all the examples you give of government programs you don't like are ones supported and defended mainly by Democrats?"

"Could it be," I piled on, "and please don't take this personally, that some Republicans are reluctant to admit they're conservatives and so they pretend to be Independents? Of course I'm only speculating," I hastened to add, winking.

"That's not me," our friend said. "I'm not trying to evade responsibility for my political beliefs."

"But let's get back to my more fundamental question," Rona said, leaning across the booth to get closer to him so she would not be overheard by the people in the adjacent booth, and to keep me at arms distance--this was her issue, "Why do so many Republicans pretend they're Independents when--"

"I'm not sure I'm following you. Give me a few examples since I think I'm pretty balanced."

"How many times have you told the story about the woman you saw in the supermarket who paid with a SNAP card and then got into an expensive car?"

"Well, she did."

"And what about Obamacare? How you claim it's mainly for illegal immigrants--which in fact it isn't. It specifically excludes them."

"Well, if they show up at the ER they get treated, don't they?"

"Not because of Obamacare," I said.

"And," Rona continued, "you talk all the time about people ripping off welfare, when in fact you can't be on it for more than a lifetime total of three years."

"Well, I--"

"And when you talk about people cheating the system the examples you cite are all of poor people, never a Wall Street or hedge fund fat cat. People who are really taking advantage of what they can get away with. Making millions and paying less in taxes than you or I. Which means the rest of us have to pick up the tab for what it costs to pay for their loopholes."

"They're the job creators."

"Now you're sounding like you're friend Mitt. Which is another example of my point--the only politicians you like--and admittedly there are very few of them--are Republicans and--"

"Don't forget Angus." He smiled.

"Point well taken. But, tell the truth, the examples you generally cite of the things you don't like are of things liberals tend to support."

Shifting the subject he asked, "Why is it that when I drive around and see all those political yard signs, if there's one for the Democrat Mike Michaud, all the other signs are for Democrats. Shenna Bellows for the Senate--whoever she is--Chellie Pingree for the House of Representatives, Chris Johnson for the Maine Senate. All Democrats."

He leaned back feeling he had trumped Rona's argument.

"But there you go again,"she said.

"Once more I'm not following you."

"Again your bad example is from the Democrats. When you drive around and see a LePage sign and a Susan Collins sign, and a Les Fossel sign they're all Republicans aren't they?"

"Well, I suppose if you're an Independent," he was still attempting to avoid Rona's point. "I mean a real one, you'd have a mix of signs. Wouldn't you?"

"Fair point," Rona conceded, "But to tell you the truth, with everyone here claiming they're Independents I've never seen that kind of mix of lawn signs."

"We'll, if you want to, you should come to my neighborhood."

After lunch we did, even driving by his house.

In fairness, he didn't have any signs on display.

"That's what I call a real Independent," Rona said, looking sly. "He doesn't support anyone."

October 14, 2014--Gwyneth

The "paper of record," the staid New York Times strives to be objective in its reporting. No matter what the right-wing critics say, though there is a liberal tilt to the editorials, in the news reporting, with rare exceptions, they are fair and balanced.

But then every once in a while something so egregious happens that they can't control themselves and the reporting reads like an editorial or is intentionally satirical.

The latter happened last week in a report about an Obama fundraiser out in California at the home of Gwyneth Paltrow.

OK, I'll admit my own bias--I can't stand her: I don't like her acting, I don't like her looks, I don't like her smarmy politics and so I loved the Times' report.

You know, it was one of those events in Hollywood that Fox News delights in trashing--it costs $1,000 to get in, all right, but $15,000 to have dinner with Him.

How much fun can that be? Look at Obama--to stay that skinny he hardly eats anything.

But, as Rona would say, "It's not about the food."

When the formal part of the evening was about to begin, the Times recounted how Gwyneth "struggled to hold herself back as she stood next to President Obama"; but, after composing herself, told the dozens of Democratic donors who had gathered at her Brentwood house, which, to quote the mean-spirited Times, looked "like something created by Restoration Hardware on a multi-million dollar budget," she "rambled on about why she considers herself his biggest supporter [take that Barbra Streisand]" and how his support for women's issues is "very important to me as a working mother."

In full gush, again transcribed by the Timesman on duty, before she turned the microphone over to him, she giggled, "You're so handsome that I can't speak properly."

Nonplussed, Obama took the mike and proceeded to give the same after-$15,000-dinner talk he gave the night before at the home of some Jeffrey or another. About how everything is getting better at home and abroad. Blah, blah.

Come to think of it, maybe he only picked at his baby lettuces, but from this delusional stump speech he must have been hitting the sauce.

Then, in the very last sentence, returning to the passing-the-mike-to-Obama moment, the Times' Michael Schmidt couldn't resist--

"After handing the microphone to the president, [working-mom Gwyneth] sat down next to her two children--Moses and Apple--to listen."

Moses? Apple? On the other hand, what kind of a name is Gwyneth?

July 3, 2014--Barefoot and Pregnant

I recently read Sean Wilentz's Age of Reagan.

It's a reasonably balanced view of how Reagan emerged on the national political stage in 1964 during Barry Goldwater's quest for the presidency and how, when Reagan was elected president, his administration became a vehicle for the proliferation of neo-conservative thought and action, with players who then and later influenced domestic and foreign policy. He managed to keep the pre-empters isolated, those who wanted to aggress against the collapsing Soviet Union, but allowed supply-siders to take control of economic policy.

Trickle-down became the belief system that guided tax and spending policy and, though it didn't work (the federal debt tripled and the gap between the rich and working poor began to widen dramatically), it continues to dominate, even control current conservative thinking.

Wilentz does a good job of describing the basic Republican strategy, fully on display during the Reagan eight years, to undo the policies of the New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society.

With the significant exception of welfare reform, they never had the votes (as now) to overturn or dramatically transform safety-net programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance, aid to education, federally-subsidized college loans, low-income housing, food stamps, and the like, nor could they get the Supreme Court to declare these unconstitutional. But they did figure out an effective long-term strategy to reduce and even eliminate them--asphyxiate them by cutting off their fiscal oxygen supply.

By refusing to go along with full appropriations, not agreeing to spend the money required to sustain these policies, over decades they have managed to chip away at the size and reach of many of these signature progressive programs.

It's the basic jujitsu approach to legislating--do as little as possible, better, do nothing and in the process watch programs such as Head Start wither.

A few are sacrosanct and have widespread support even among anti-government Tea Party Republicans--cut government to the bone, they chant, but take your hands off my Medicare and Social Security. Both actually forms of socialism!

Tea Party folks may say this, but the Republicans they keep reelecting to Congress continue to vote to make Social Security either discretionary or investable in the stock market and have voted repeatedly for the so-called Ryan budget, which would end Medicare as we have come to know and depend on it.

Democrats have no equivalent long-term plan to preserve and expand policies that reflect their core values and, as a result, the handwriting is on the wall. Even if they manage to keep electing Democrats to the White House this policy erosion will continue.

Beyond congressional tactics, for the moment conservatives have firm control of the Supreme Court and the national federal judiciary and there they are doing a version of the same thing--taking seemingly small regressive steps that have enormous long-term consequences. The recent Hobby Lobby decision is a case in point.

It exempts two small family-owned companies from having to comply with the Obamacare requirement that their health care insurance cover the cost of contraceptives. But legal scholars worry that this is just a foot in the door to other forms of restriction. Few are yet thinking of rolling back the right to buy and use contraceptives--pre-Griswold v. Connecticut days--but one never knows. There are more than a few Republican and Tea Party leaders who would ban all forms of contraception and like to see women again barefoot and pregnant.

May 30, 2014--The Republicans Are Right

The title is not a pun about Republicans being to the right of the political spectrum. But rather about what they are advocating in regard to reforming the Veterans Administration healthcare system.

They are right about that and the Democrats are wrong in what they are proposing.

What was suspected--that corruption, greed, and incompetence at a number of VA hospitals have led to the maltreatment and even the death of many veterans--is now documented.

The acting inspector general of the Veterans Administration has completed his report and, among other findings, reported that more than 1,700 vets seeking appointments at the Phoenix VA alone were either ignored or never entered into the system. In spite of this, to generate bonuses for administrators, a second set of books was kept and submitted to Washington that showed them being treated within 30 days. In the meantime, many hundreds went untreated and scores died while waiting or ignored.

And, I suspect, as more is uncovered, we will see the same kind of malfeasance at other VA facilities as other administrators seeking bonuses cooked the books.

Putting aside for the moment why any government worker should be eligible for a bonus, why has it taken years to get to the bottom of this deadly scandal when alerts were filed by whistle-blowers from within the bloated system?

The head of the VA, General Eric Shinseki, should have been told about this in a timely way (and for all we know he was) and it should have been brought to the president's attention since for years since his first campaign he has been demanding better after-service care for wounded veterans (and, for all we know, he also was).

Minimally, Shinseki should be fired, a VA tsar should be appointed, someone with vast health-administration experience, and the system should be overhauled.

Serious consideration should also be given to the House Republicans' plan to privatize the VA hospitals and clinics. If that is too radical, minimally, as the GOP is proposing, any veteran who has had to wait for care for 30 days or more should be able to seek it through private medical providers at the VA's expense.

This is far better than the Democrats' approach--the Senate is preparing legislation to add 27 new healthcare facilities to the VA system to address the backlog of cases. Beyond the billions in additional cost, this is an unrealistic approach since it would take up to 10 years to get the hospitals built and functioning. For the nearly 8 million vets treated (or not treated) each year this is hardly a solution.

Each month a cousin who is a WW II veteran uses the VA for routine blood work since his out-of-pocket cost is just $15 per test, a third what it would cost if he went to his local hospital.

I asked him if he would prefer to go there if it could match the VA price. "Sure," he said, "It's much closer. And they do a good job."

This is true for most vets who require non-urgent testing and care. So why not give them an eligibility card to enable them to go to any hospital and have the VA cover the difference in cost? Sure this approach would have to be phased in over a number of years, but it would greatly simplify things, especially for service men and women who do not live close to VA treatment centers.

Over time we would no longer need a separate and unequal VA healthcare system. Veterans would get timelier and better care closer to home and taxpayers would save billions.

April 29, 2014--Career Politicians

Congressman Aaron Schook, Republican from Illinois, was a guest on Monday’s Morning Joe.

His current claims to fame? He just returned from a trip to six European countries accompanying Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan. And, more interesting, he had recently posted an Instagram photo of himself surfing in what looked more like Waikiki than Kiev.

When pressed about the photo, the former Cosmo model said that since nothing is private any more, wanting to control how he is perceived by the public, he is now posting things about himself to get control of his own "narrative."

As if there is pent-up desire for anyone to want to know more about him, much less how he looks in a bathing suit. Actually, quite hot, which, I was imagining, was why he was booked for Joe in the first place since when asked about anything involving public policy or foreign affairs, he sputtered innocuously, with a vacant but handsome look from standard Republican talking points.

When asked about immigration reform he said, correctly, that nothing will happen this congressional session unless Republicans and Democrats work together.

“Why is that so difficult?” he was asked.

He shrugged his shoulders and with a sigh said that when you think about running for Congress and then during the early days if elected, your desire to do “the right thing” evaporates when you realize this is “a hard thing to do.”

To this glimpse of insight there was no follow up.

Neither Mika nor any of the others (Joe was not present) asked why it’s hard.

Perhaps because they already knew the answer—new congressmen quickly learn that in the House to get along you have to go along with your party’s leadership (Democrats as well GOPers). And, in order to give yourself the best chance to be reelected every two years you have to tow the party line and not alienate the money people who will provide the cash to fund your campaigns.

Debriefing with Rona over coffee we talked about why neither of us has ever heard a reporter or cable news host probe why seemingly every member of Congress sees getting reelected time after time as his or her highest priority.

Rather than seeing this form of public service to be just that—service—all seemingly are primarily interested in building congressional careers.

Our Founders envisioned participation in the government to be a responsibility, not résumé building. They didn’t call for members of Congress to be paid (for years they weren’t) much less have retirement and health insurance benefits. Or, congressional barbershops, restaurants, and gyms.

They would be horrified to see people lingering in Congress for decades.

Wouldn’t it have been interesting for someone on Morning Joe to have asked Congressman Schook, who is a conservative and reveres the Constitution, how he reconciles his own congressional careerist ambitions with the vision of those who fought our Revolution, wrote our Constitution, and called for citizens to play limited and temporary roles in our government.

I’m not sure there are talking points for that. Either for congressmen or, for that matter, talk show hosts.