February 19, 2019--Master of Distraction

Being the master of distraction can cut two ways. With Trump, adept at this dubious art, it does and then some.

Take the National Emergency.

Trump was on the ropes. The Democrats in Congress (read Nancy Pelosi) were dug in. They were not going to give him even "one dollar" for his Wall. If he didn't agree to compromise (read "fold") the government would come to a halt and as with the December shutdown, Trump would lose politically and again see his poll numbers tank. They were heading then to the low 30s, pretty much for him a potential 2020 electoral disaster. 

The media covered this wall-to-wall. Even Trump's enablers on Fox News and talk radio (read Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh) were restive and cranky, with Ann Coulter, hitting him literally below the belt, when she called him a "weenie."

So Trump rolled out his thus far most ambitious distraction--he made up and then declared a national emergency, knowing, but not really caring, that it will take forever to get through the courts and ultimately wind up with the Supremes who will likely declare it unconstitutional. Even Clarence Thomas might see things that way. Actually, ignore that--there is no way that he will. But expect Roberts to assure that minimally it will be a 5-4 decision.

In truth, for Trump, the more time it takes to work its way through the judicial system, the more we will be taking about nothing but,  which is his hope. It's about distraction and that's the definition of distraction--talking about something else.

As we saw on Friday the media immediately switched from obsessing about the battle Trump was having with Congress and began talking about only the emergency. To help them and to fill time they rolled out professors of constitutional law, former federal prosecutors, and Pulitzer Prize winning columnists. 

I said to Rona, if this keeps up for another two weeks I'm going to learn so much about the law that I'll be prepared to take the Bar Exam.

But there were a couple of sub-headlines buried on page 16 that ground on relentlessly. Stories that were not about the constitutional crisis but rather about Robert Mueller's investigation. 

At about the same time Trump was holding his rambling, sing-song news conference in the Rose Garden where all the questions were about the "emergency," Mueller prosecutors were in court calling for the presiding judge to sentence Trump's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, to 24 years in prison. Effectively a life sentence for the 69 year-old Manafort. 

So expect that we will soon be back to paying 24/7 attention to Trump's legal troubles. Troubles exacerbated ironically by his use of the national emergency distraction because even some Republicans feel Trump by declaring it abused his power. Which is an impeachable offense. It was one of the charges against Nixon.

Thus, the default on all of this is the Mueller investigation. It is not going away. It is ultimately distraction proof.

For example, it is reported that Manafort is already singing like a canary and Roger Stone may be the next to flip.

January 29, 2019--The Wimp Factor

I'm sure you remember that during the campaign Trump frequently said it's all about "winning." 

He got in trouble when draft-avoider Trump said he didn't respect war hero John McCain because being shot down and held prisoner for years was evidence that he was a loser.

He told us if he was elected there would be so much winning that we'd get tired of winning.

Thus far, considering Trump's short list of accomplishments, I am managing to avoid winning fatigue.

He set this dialectic in motion so it is only fair that he is now being brought down because these days he seems to be doing a lot more losing than winning. And to be perversely consistent, he is looking tired of so much losing.

Catching myself enjoying his evolving fate I thought a bit more about this winning and losing business. Employing it as a prism through which to sum up how he is doing, vis-à-vis, say, Nancy Pelosi may not be the best rubric to be using.

During the 35-day government shutdown most of the stories in the media were about who was up (Nancy) and who was down (Trump). Most of the polling cited in the coverage focused on who was to blame (mainly Trump and the Republicans) and how Trump's approval ratings were faring (badly).

A special focus of much of this reporting was how Trump was being regarded by his Fox News followers, principally how he was being treated by conservative columnists and radio talk-show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter.

Coulter especially got under his skin. This could be because among other taunts she called his (fragile) manhood into question.

On one occasion she said we thought we were electing Trump but instead "got Jeb."

In a weekend tweet, after Trump gave in to Pelosi, Coulter wrote--

"Good news for George Herbert Walker Bush: As of today, he is no longer the biggest wimp ever to serve as President of the United States."

Trump was being savaged by his old friends who said that while seeking to build a wall he wound up with a cave. As in "he caved" to Nancy and the Dems.

One obvious common denominator--it has been primarily strong women who have made him crazy.

If true, maybe we should back off from some of the winning and losing talk. Especially if there are significant gender aspects connected to it. As there are. Do we want a hyper-riled-up Trump, worrying about his manhood, as we move though more and more perilous times?

War could be looming in Venezuela, Israel, and North Korea. And of course Syria, with us unwisely withdrawing, is in danger of further unravelment. All places where in wag-the-dog terms Trump might be tempted to have us intervene.

I'm not suggesting that Nancy and her supporters back off but just that we should continue to look for opportunities to weaken him politically (to "win") but not make too big a deal of the personal contest that is at the heart of the matter.

I have always felt that in many hotly contested situations winning without gloating is the preferred way to go. This is a glaring and frightening example.

January 11, 2019--About to Be Snookered

The Democrats are about to be snookered. By, who else, Trump.

Here's how it will work--

First Trump finds himself in a losing face-off with Nancy Pelosi about reopening the government. The polls at the moment show Trump to be the intransigent one as well as the principal advocate for an unpopular concrete or steel wall.

As the crisis builds and the implications for nearly one million federal workers and contractors become dramatically clear--many do not have enough money to put food on the table or get their children desperately needed health care--and so the focus shifts from the wall and settles on dozens of disturbing human interest stories. At this stage it becomes all about "humanitarian" concerns. Even the unempathetic Trump indicated he shares these feelings during his Oval Office speech.

At this stage Trump begins to talk more and more about his power, in a fabricated "crisis," to declare a national emergency. And here's where it starts to get tricky for the Dems.

If he does declare an emergency (and, running out of options, it looks as if he will) it will effectively include the redeployment of Pentagon money and troops for the fabrication of a few miles of wall. Enough to enable Trump to declare victory and get a few photos of himself at the border in a hard hat, "supervising" the construction. 

Also, as a corollary, by invoking emergency powers Trump will in effect end the shutdown. This way he will co-opt the Democrats' agenda to reopen the government and not authorize one dollar for the wall. 

As a result, all the contested issues will become moot. The government will reopen and Defense Department money for the wall will be made available.

But here's the trickiest situation--will the Dems take Trump to court in a likely losing attempt to bock this? If they do, won't it appear that Trump wants the government to open while the grinchy Dems will in effect be calling for the courts to keep it closed?

Politically, who wins this one?

It's pretty obvious. 

Since the Dems for the moment have the upper hand I'd urge them to play it. In other words, make a deal. Look like the adults. Move on and focus on investigating Trump.

January 3, 2019--Weakman Trump

Many on the left, even before he took office, concerned about his authoritarian inclinations, were fearful that Trump would intentionally morph into a Mussolini-style strongman. That he would become an American fascist.

That can still happen as panic sets in, as various investigations press in on him, as it becomes more and more apparent that he is totally corrupt, having committed serious felonies in both his personal and presidential life, a fully authoritarian Trump may emerge. 

But with impeachment and possible criminal indictments looming, instead of Trump the strongman we may see Weakman Trump. 

His signature initiatives, one domestic and two international are collapsing and to preserve them and himself he will be required to do more than compromise--he will need to capitulate.

As I write this he is in the early stages in the process of caving in to the new Democratic leaders of Congress. In the White House Situation Room of all places, they are witnessing Trump in the throughs of trying to wiggle out of the political responsibility for the unpopular government shutdown. 

The real reason for the shutdown has to do with Trump's highest-priority domestic campaign promise--not that the government needs to be slimmed down, but that he will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it. He is the one who linked the two with the shutdown as a bargaining chip that he gambled the Dems would trade away to fund their supposed favorite thing--more big government.

Two-thirds of Americans are unhappy with the shutdown and blame it on Trump while the same two thirds oppose Trump's "nonnegotiable" line drawn in the Rio Grande--his most conspicuous, base-pandering campaign promise--that he will build a "beautiful" wall and Mexico will pay for it.

If nothing else, Trump knows how to read polls and he sees that both the shutdown and the wall are losing political gambits. With the shellacking he took during the recent midterm elections and the current unpopularity of him and his policies, with 2020 looming, not to say a possible Mueller report, he is seeking a way to back down and save a little face. Usually it is the Democrats who cave. This time (thus far) they are hanging tough and enjoying the spectacle of Trump twisting in the proverbial wind.

Then there are the international messes Weakman Trump is desperate to get behind him. In at least two cases, both leading campaign promises--to withdraw from the Middle East, especially Syria, and to get North Korea to denuclearize--his impulsive decision to bring home all American troops from Syria is not working out. Some key Republicans have taken the lead in criticizing him and he has already agreed to allow the withdrawal timetable to swell from 30 days to four months. In fact expect those four months to stretch out further. 

And it is clear that the only deal Trump's real strongman friend, North Korea's Kim Jong-un, will agree to is not to destroy any of their nuclear weapons or delivery systems until the U.S. withdraws American soldiers from South Korea, ends joint military operations with our longtime allies, eliminates sanctions, and removes our nuclear weapons from the region.

A weakened Trump, if he wants to continue to take credit for making a deal with North Korea (and, politically, to feed his base he has to) he will need to do some fancy tap-dancing to cover up the caving that will be required to get out of this dilemma. 

My concern--often weak men are more dangerous than strong ones.

January 24, 2018--Losers & Winners

For days after Congress couldn't agree to a short term budget fix, which resulted in the government going dark, and then after three days it's reopening, if you spent any time watching cable news virtually all the talk was about who won and who lost.

Was the "Schumer-Shutdown," as the Republicans derisively referred to it, evidence that Democrats in the Senate "blinked" when they realized they had overstepped when they refused to make a budget deal?

Or was President Trump the political loser (no equivalent alliterative epithet for this) when he agreed to include six years of child healthcare, CHIP funding in exchange for a three-week continuing resolution?

Losers and winners is the way so much of our public life has come to be construed. Not what gets done but who's up and, especially, who's down.

But with their reporters scurrying around the halls of Congress to take the minute-to-minute pulse--especially of the dozen or so Democratic senators who are already running for president in 2020--these news sources missed the big picture--who actually won and what it may mean going forward. May mean.

The deal finally hammered out more than anything else was the result of a bipartisan group of about two dozen senators working together 10, 12 hours a day on something they and their colleagues could live with.

They met in semi-secrecy in Maine Republican senator Susan Collin's "safe office," her "sanctuary office," talking to each other about substantive issues for the first time in their senatorial lives, some reported, largely because they felt they couldn't depend upon their leaders--Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell--to come up with a deal as they were so immeshed in posturing and spinning the truth before the waiting microphones and CSPAN cameras.

Many of the participants in the "gang or 25" said that they were so fed up by being excluded from the sausage-making process of crafting legislation and so disgusted by the equivocation and mixed messages emanating from the president and his White House, where many felt Trump was being "led around by the nose," as Joe Scarborough put it, by "a 32-year-old kid," presidential advisor Stephen Miller, who looks like a picture of evil right out of central casting, that they took matters into their own hands and for a change earned their $174,00-a-year salaries (which, incidentally continued during the shutdown).

Some, after the agreement was struck, said that the experience of working together across party lines to "get things done" was the reason they originally sought public office--and here's the potential big headline--that not only did they feel good about what they accomplished (though the full story about that will not be known for some weeks as the centripetal political forces struggle to reassert themselves as the 2020 campaign heats ups), they said this is how they plan to work going forward. 

They claimed they will stick together and deal themselves in when it comes to what to do about the so-called "DACA kids," hurricane disaster relief, Obamacare fixes, infrastructure, and border security. Some "big stuff."

Are we at last witnessing an outbreak of comity and moderation?

As my grandmother used to say when any of us brought a new girlfriend home to meet her and perhaps (unlikely) pass her special muster, "We'll see."

Every once in awhile she revealed that she could actually smile. That's what I am planning to hope for now--that we are at a pivotal moment and it will take hold.

We'll see.

December 15, 2014--Backbone

For all the years of his presidency, Barack Obama has been criticized for his reluctance, almost visceral reluctance to confront Republican members of Congress who are devoted to undermining his presidency and thwarting his legislative agenda.

Critics claim that Obama has no appetite for confronting or even working with members of Congress. He is no Lyndon Johnson, they say, nor even a Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton who seemed to have been adept at collaborating with the opposition in order to get at least some of their agenda accomplished. But things are so bad now, it is alleged, that Obama doesn't even like involving himself with Democrat members of Congress.

In fact, he is so reluctant to deal with Congress that he is prone to negotiate with himself, preemptively giving up on programs in which he believes without a struggle or fight to avoid a confrontation and compromise down the road where, if he were inclined to do so, he would get some or all of what he sought.

The best example of this came during the battle over health care reform, over what eventually came to be known as the Affordable Care Act or, more popularly, Obamacare. He was an advocate for a time of the single-payer approach. A version of Medicare for all, but traded away that progressive and more cost-effective option without much of a fight and got nothing in return, no quid pro quo from Republicans. Just grief, which continues.

So, last week, when there was controversy about what to include in the $1.1 trillion bill to appropriate money to run the government, to avoid yet another shut-down, President Obama finally showed some political backbone and worked the phones to urge wavering members of Congress to support the bill before the House of Representatives and Senate. A bill that was passionately opposed by an unlikely coalition of liberals and Tea Party stalwarts, led principally by Nancy Pelosi in the House and Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz in the Senate.

But ironically the arms Obama twisted were those of reluctant Democrats who were upset by a rider stuffed into the 1,600-page bill by financial institution lobbyists that was designed to gut a major provision of Dodd-Frank, legislation passed four years ago to rein in some of the same kinds of risky practices of banks, using taxpayer-insured money, that led to the crash that became the Great Recession and which cost taxpayers hundreds of billions in bailout money.

So, with his new-found gumption, Obama wound up challenging Nancy Pelosi, who carried the congressional water for him for Obamacare and the economic stimulus, and not Mitch McConnell, who said on day-one of the Obama administration that his goal as minority leader was to assure that Obama would be a one-term president.

If he was going to fight for something, why didn't the president stand with fellow Democrats and fight to have that pro-big-bank rider purged from the bill? Even if it meant seeing the government shut down. That would have made Obama look like a leader, shown him supporting Main Street over Wall Street (good politics), and again having the Republicans to blame for pulling the plug on most of the operations of the federal government (even better politics).

Or am I missing something?