May 15, 2018--Midcoast: The Whites of Their Eyes

Let's call him Ralph. He's a retired ferryboat captain and whenever he shows up at the Bristol Diner we enjoy seeing him and catching up with what's on his mind. One thing we know, he's always full of surprises. 

Monday morning he was all excited, talking about a recent visit to one of South Carolina's Sea Islands. It's mainly populated by descendants of former slaves and the people there, the Gullahs, speak a language of their own that's a Creole amalgam of English and several West and Central African languages.

Not knowing much about them, Ralph spoke primarily about the quiet beauty of the place. "I love the sea," he said, "Made my livin' from what the sea, the ocean, and the bays gave up to people like me who never got much education. In my case . . ." he winked, and left the rest unsaid.

"I've never been to the Sea Islands," I said, "If I had a bucket list that would be on it."

"You know, one of the most interesting things there is that they speak Elizabethan English. Can hardly understand a word of it."

I didn't correct him. He was on a roll.

"Nice people, the Sea Islanders. And there's one thing you can say about them for sure"--he paused to see if I was paying attention--"after dark all you can see are their eyes and teeth." He chuckled at that.

Before I could think what to say, he was on to something else.

"Too bad we don't have Mexicans 'round here."

"What!" I said, still thinking about the eyes and teeth.

"I mean, they're looking for help here. A dishwasher, another cook. Too bad Deb can't make a couple of calls and find a Mexican to work for her."

"I assume you mean a legal one," I said.

He smiled. "An illegal would be alright with me."

"Really? That would be alright with you?"

"I just said that," Ralph said. "You got a problem with it?"

"Yes and no," I said.

"That's a surprise coming from you," Ralph said. "I thought all you liberals want to see us have open borders. So let's start with your problem with this."

I said, "But first I need to say I am not in favor of rounding up and deporting 10, 11 million people who are here without documents. That to me would not only be impossible to carry out but cruel. Many undocumented people have been here for decades, work hard, and don't make any trouble. A carefully crafted pathway to legal status--doesn't have to be citizenship--makes sense to me."

"So far I'm with you," Ralph said.

Surprised, I continued, "But then again to be here they broke the law and we should do all we can to make sure there isn't a new flood of illegal immigrants, seeing those already here on a pathway to legal status, entering the country seeking the same kind of deal. From history we know that in 1986 Ronald Reagan of all people signed an immigration reform bill that gave 3.0 million amnesty. It didn't stop people entering the country illegally. Probably did the opposite. I wouldn't want to repeat that."

"We pretty much agree," Ralph said, "Our economy would collapse if they weren't here or if we moved to send them back to where they came from. And it's not just washing dishes and picking lettuce that they do. There'd be a lot less homebuilding going on and lots of new businesses wouldn't exist. We need them here and need to figure out how to get all this fighting about them behind us. It's tearing us apart. Of course that's just what a lot of politicians on both sides want for their own purposes."

"We do agree," I said, admittedly surprised by that.

"Some of my people came here from Eastern Europe," Ralph said, "To tell you the truth maybe not all legally, and here I am to tell the tale. They made their contribution to America and I also tried to. I guess I'm a sort of like one of those Dreamers." At that he laughed, coughing as he did so.

Later that night, when I replayed the tape in my head of our conversation, I though again about how complicated this place is and how much I like that.

January 11, 2018--In A Matter of Minutes

After three excruciating hours of trying to stay awake during the Golden Globes--the pervasive feeling of self-congratulations exhausting my willingness or ability to endure--suddenly on screen there was Oprah! 

She was wearing serious eyeglasses so I assumed we were in for a treat. She wasn't about to announce cars for everyone but something better: Hope.

An immediate feeling of hope that she was not running for president but was about to be inaugurated and thereby release us from our long national nightmare.

Immediately, except for the Fox News channel, all of media lit up. They were already talking about what a Trump-Oprah contest would look like and, since they assumed Oprah would win, who she would name to key positions in her administration.  

Forget getting down to measuring the drapes in the Oval Office, would Dr. Oz become Surgeon General? What about Dr. Phil and best friend Gayle King? A new cabinet position, Secretary of Mental Health, for the doctor and maybe chief of staff for her pal? What about Stedman? First Escort?

These feelings of deliverance persist so I should try to calm down and take this seriously. Unlike Trump Ms. Winfrey is an accomplished and self-made billionaire. A real billionaire. And she could have the right personal qualities to be a healing president. Most important, she could actually win. Which, considering the alternative, is a very big deal. During her presidency I could hold my nose for all the self-esteem building preaching. Over my political lifetime I've held my nose for a lot worse.

It took all of eight minutes for this wave of enthusiasm to build during an otherwise dreary awards show. Going viral doesn't begin to tell the story. We almost elected a president in those few minutes.

Then on Tuesday, on live TV, direct from the Cabinet Room in the White House, there was that bipartisan 55-minute meeting about immigration President Trump held with Republican and Democratic members of Congress. 

During meetings of this kind the press is usually allowed to be in the room for a few minutes of innocuous schmoozing. They are then dismissed and the meeting occurs behind closed doors. Tuesday was different.

The purpose of allowing the press to send out a video feed of the meeting was not to showcase transparency but to allow the country and world to see that Trump was in control of his mental faculties. That he was capable of acting like an adult--in this case talking and listening--not the nine-year-old he was represented as being in Michael Wolff's new book, Fire and Fury. With Trump embodying both the fury and the fire.

The subject was DACA, the move to allow a path to citizenship for the 800,000 young people who, through no fault of their own, were brought to America illegally. This should not be too controversial an issue since many Republicans in Congress favor it. Nonetheless, most of the GOP base of voters resist agreeing to even this commonsensical compromise. So it was actually refreshing to see Trump, who has demagogued the subject of "illegals," mostly coherent and seemingly on board for a quick and just fix. 

And, beyond that, more surprisingly, Trump, who wants to build the Wall and deport pretty much anyone here either illegally or without having undergone what he calls "extreme vetting," Trump appeared open to an even more ambitious solution to the problem--a possible path to legal status for all10 million illegal residents. He spoke about "taking the heat," the political heat for such a tricky issue.

Was this simply telling whoever's in the room what he thinks they want to hear? Perhaps. But, then, maybe not, since a version of amnesty is not any Republican's favorite subject.

So, what's going on with this?

It could be that the "liberal," New-York Trump some people thought they were electing has finally appeared. Perhaps made easier for him with the decline and fall of his Svengali, Steve Bannon. If so, for moderates of all persuasions, this could be a rare dose of good news.

Minimally, he once again managed to change the subject when seemingly cornered--no one was talking about the Wolff book, most of the chatter about the dossier and Mueller was on the back burner, he dispelled some of the talk about the need to get ready to roll out the 25th Amendment, and even Oprah was pushed from the headlines. Minimally, as a tactic, this performance was politically adept. 

Rona suggested that perhaps Trump was able to put on such a good show because he was on camera. His favorite place to be. 

If so, let's set up cameras in the Oval Office, Cabinet Room, and in the room in the residence where he watches TV. In other words, have him on camera 24/7.

The first year of his presidency, or in TV terms, the first season, which ends in 10 days has been Steve Bannon & Friends. This coming season, let's hope it will be Oprah. 

February 24, 2017--Jack, On Immigrants

"So tell me what you and your friends would do about the more than 10 million illegal immigrants."

It was the morning after the Trump administration unveiled a new executive order that outlined plans to round up and deport millions of undocumented workers and their families and Jack was sounding excited.

Before I could respond, he continued, "My boy was back on his heels last week what with the Flynn fiasco, Kellyanne Conway, and that press conference. But with this he's back. And the general he appointed to replace that crazy Flynn is everyone's favorite. Even your crowd's."

"Well I do agree about General McMaster but about the immigration executive order, I'm not so sure."

"Perfect bleeding heart material for you liberals. Feeling sorry for all those displaced Latin Americans. See, I didn't say 'Mexicans.'" I sensed that made him feel good about himself. "But we've got a lot of problems and needs of our own not to have to worry too much about them."

"Well, they're here and for the most part are hard working and law-abiding. I just read that the crime rate among undocumented people is actually lower than among citizens."

"Probably from your New York Times. But aren't they all doing illegal things? I mean, just being in the country without documents or visas is itself illegal."

"So you'd round up everyone? Even the so-called Dreamers? Young people who were brought to America when they were very young children?"

"Maybe not them and as I understand it for some time at least the Trump immigration police will leave them alone."

"Just send their parents back?" I hope he heard my sarcasm.

"You know your American history."

"And?"

"And wasn't it true that when your grandparents as well as mine came to America, because they didn't have the money, many left family members behind? Isn't that a version of the same thing? Isn't it in the nature of immigration itself?"

"I'll have to think about that some more. But it is true that for almost everyone--though they faced a lot of discrimination--they had legal status. They in most cases were sort of welcomed here as laborers, to build railroads, or settle and work on farms in the Midwest."

"Don't we have a guest worker program here that allows people to legally cross borders so they can work on farms and restaurants?"

"We do," I acknowledged.

"But we're getting sidetracked," Jack said. "I come back to my initial question--what would you do about the millions and millions of illegal immigrants? And I should remind you that your president Obama was the deporter-in-chief. He rounded up and sent back about two and a half million. More in total than all his predecessors combined."

"That's true but he didn't do it in the same kind of mean-spirited way. Unlike your president." It upset me that I was beginning to sound like Jack.

"Sure, Obama didn't publicize it because he didn't want to get legal Hispanic-Americans all upset. He wanted their votes. And pretty much got them."

"Can we forget Obama? Trump is now our president, so let's limit ourselves to what he's doing. Not much good as I see things."

"So you're Ok with all the illegals living here, sending their kids to our schools and hospitals, and . . ."

"The evidence is overwhelming that from an economic point of view, from a cost-benefit perspective, immigrants, even undocumented ones, contribute more that they get in government services. In other words, in bottom line terms, we get more in return than we pay out. Also, most of the unassimilated immigrants do work that, forgive the expression, real Americans don't want. Like a lot of the restaurant and field work. How many Americans do you know who want to wash dishes, cut lawns, or pick lettuce?"

Jack was silent so I said, "I take that to mean you don't know too many field hands who are citizens."

"Up here plenty of the farmers are Mainers. But to tell you the truth there are also a lot of Hispanic agricultural workers. Again, we keep getting off the subject. So let me try again--what would you do about the millions of illegals? Just let them be? Make them all citizens?"

"First of all, can you find another name for them. 'Illegals' sounds really nasty."

"Let me come at this another way. You live half the year in New York City, right?"

"Right, but where are you going with this?"

"You're a so-called sanctuary city, right?"

"Right. But again?"

"Which means that you don't cooperate with federal immigration enforcement people."

"Not entirely true because if an undocumented person commits a felony in most cases they do get turned over to the ICE people."

"But basically, if they obey the law, illegals, sorry, illegal immigrants, can stay in the city as long as they want, get drivers licenses, have any kind of job, etcetera."

"Basically true. And most New Yorkers are fine with that. In fact, we feel good about being welcoming and tolerant."

"We're not talking abut refugees, right, but people who came here or overstayed their visas to live and work?"

"Again, I don't have all day so can you get to your point because it feels as if you're building up to some revelation."

"I'll cut to the chase."

"At last." I was feeling exasperated with Jack. I liked him better when he didn't call so much. I did have things I wanted to get to and he has the ability to get under my skin.

"You have any immigrants living in your building?"

"I haven't checked but I assume so."

"They'd have to be rich ones, right, considering how much apartments sell for?"

"That's true," I admitted.

"So you're OK with where you're living?"

"Pretty much."

"It doesn't disturb you that your place isn't diverse?"

"What do you mean by that?"

"That everyone, I assume, is pretty much like you? All rich and . . . "

"There are some who have lived here for decades, before prices shot through the roof, and they are more modest than most of the rest of us. And again, your point is?"

"That you live pretty isolated from your typical illegal immigrant. My guess is, and it's an easy one, that you don't have any Mexicans who snuck across the border living in your building."

"Could be."

"And so this subject for you is pretty theoretical because the only illegals you maybe encounter are working in restaurants, cleaning up after you're finished with dinner?"

"Could be." I was starting to feel defensive.

"I'll bet you don't wake up in the morning and meet any in your elevator when you're heading out for breakfast. Except if someone is renovating their apartment and some of the illegal construction workers are around."

"Could be."

"How would you feel if somehow one morning you woke up and half the apartments in your building were occupied by Guatemalan or Syrian refugees?"

"That is . . . ," I sputtered.

"Go on. You can say it. You'd hate it."

"I don't know. This is all so crazy."

"But it's not theoretical to people here in Lewiston, Maine, where more than 5,000 refugees have been relocated. Altogether, including the refugees, there are only about 35,000 living in Lewiston. Some for generations. They wake up in the morning and see their neighborhoods and downtown turning into Somali enclaves. Ask them, from your Manhattan sanctuary, how they feel about that. And these are good people. But it's not how most want to live."

"But other places like Buffalo, New York, seem to be welcoming refugees and undocumented people because they contribute to their economy. Things are pretty bleak up there and new arrivals rent places, do the work that a lot of local people don't want to do, and buy things from Buffalo merchants. So it appears that it's good all around."

"I read about that too. In your Sunday Times, and I get it. But in just as many places, again like Lewiston, nobody asked the local people what they wanted. Refugees from Somalia just began to show up with the assistance of the U.S. government."

"I can understand that. I want us to be welcoming but local people should have a say in relocation programs. And I'll concede that refugees are not the same as undocumented people."

"As long as they don't move into you building."

I was out of gas and didn't respond.

"I hear you, you've got other things to do. I'll call you next week."

I said to myself, "If you must."

Somalis In Lewiston Maine

May 27, 2016--World War III

In their now daily barrage of anti-Trump articles, the New York Times, on Tuesday finally went all the way--

After helping for months to fuel the belief that a Trump presidency would lead to fascism, one of their columnists, Eduardo Porter, more than implied that if Trump is elected World War III will be one possible result.

In, "We've Seen the Trump Phenomenon Before," he suggests in a subtle way that social and economic conditions are now similar to those that pertained during the years leading up to the outbreak of global warfare in 1914 and 1941. World Wars I and II.

It is worth reading the entire piece, but here is a flavor of the analysis--

Mr. Trump perhaps can best be understood as the face of a broader global dynamic: the resistance to policies that encourage global competition and open borders to people who have lived too long on the losing side. 

The world's "golden age" of globalization around the turn of the 19th century into the 20th was capped by what came to be known as the Great War. [World War I] The discontent bred of the worldwide economic devastation of the 1930s ended in another war. [World War II]

Porter then cites Harold James, an expert on European history at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International affairs--

Backlashes against globalization promoted a zero-sum-game: To protect ourselves, we must do so at the expense of somebody else. It increases nationalism and the willingness to go to war.

Connecting these two dots to the current situation (third dot?) where Trump in his heated nationalism and critique of globalization appeals to "his" people who have lived too long on the losing side and are motivated to see in globalization a zero-sum-game that still has them losing to various somebodies. In Trump's view mainly illegal immigrants.

Porter concludes--

"We shouldn't try to stop globalization, even if we could. But if we don't do a better job managing a changing world economy, it seems clear that it will end badly again."

Should I say fro him, "in World War III"?

March 11, 2106--Gut Check

In a wise column in Wednesday's New York Times, "Only Trump Can Trump Trump," Tom Friedman finally came around to understanding the Trump political phenomena.

He wrote--

Donald Trump is a walking political science course. His meteoric rise is lesson No. 1 on leadership: Most voters do not listen through their ears. They listen through their stomachs. If a leader can connect with them on a gut level, their response is: "Don't bother me with details. I trust your instincts." If a leader can't connect on a gut level, he or she can't show them enough particulars. They'll just keep asking, "Can you show me the details one more time?"

Friedman could have added that there were a number of earlier presidential candidates who also connected viscerally with voters and, while running for office, offered few details. 

It is a distinguished list--

Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan.

Two Democrats and two Republicans.

FDR famously said that he didn't have all the answers, all the specifics about the ways in which he would take the lead to bring America out of the Great Depression. That he would try many things, that he would experiment and then see what worked, expand on that, and abandon the rest. That's more or less how he governed. 

Ike said it was "Time For A Change" after 20 years of Roosevelet and Truman and that was pretty much it.  All he needed to do was connect to people's guts. Which he did. His campaign button said--"I Like Ike." That was enough.

JFK also connected at the gut level. He promised to close the missile gap. He incorrectly, probably deceitfully, pointed to "the fact" that the Soviet Union had more and bigger and better missiles than we. Voters didn't press him for details, and he didn't offer any. But in any case they went on to elect him because they connected with him emotionally and trusted him to do the job.

Ronald Reagan specified even fewer things. People simply liked him and that was sufficient to move them to trust him. They believed he would bring "morning" back to America. Sort of, make America great again. And to his admirers he did.

On the other hand, it doesn't always work--Barry Goldwater's campaign slogan in 1964 was, "In Your Guts You Know He's Right." When a Democrat button appeared, mocking his, "In Your Guts You Know He's Nuts," that helped assure that Goldwater lost 44 of 50 states.

The other day on Morning Joe, a very frustrated Bob Woodward unsuccessfully pressed Trump to be specific about one of his most effective appaluse lines--how he would get Mexico to pay for the border fence.

Trump refused to, saying there are five ways he had in mind. That was it. Woodward, a scion of the Washington Establishment and master of the traditional ways in which to categorize political behavior, was unrelenting, visibly turning red as he asked again and again. Trump didn't budge. "Trust me," he in effect said. "Elect me president and then I'll show you what I'll do."

I suspect that despite that lack of specificity, not one Trump supporter switched allegiance  to Ted Cruz or, for that matter, Hillary Clinton. They both have 15-page, single-spaced proposals about what they would do about illegal immigrants. But no one is listening to them with their ears. Clinton and Cruz are having trouble connecting with voters at the gut level because your gut can turn you off as well as on.

February 25, 2016--Jose the Fanatic

Of the many startling things about Donald TRUMP's decisive victory in Wednesday's Nevada caucuses, beyond the fact that there was an historic turnout and he garnered more votes that Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio combined, was the fact that he also won easily among Latinos.

So much of both parties' campaigns is challenging conventional wisdom--that to win one needs a powerful, big-data-directed ground game (TRUMP has won three of four primaries and caucuses with hardly any ground game at all); that it's all about who can raise the most money (Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz did and look what happened to them--TRUMP raised hardly any, spent even less, and look who's leading); that Americans won't vote for a socialist (Bernie Sanders take note); and Latino voters overwhelmingly vote for Latino candidates (ask Rubio and Cruz about that) the same way blacks tend to vote for blacks, Jews for Jews, and so on.

In Nevada, TRUMP ran away with 45 percent of the Hispanic vote. Note, in 2000, George W. Bush was elected largely as the result of appealing successfully to Latino voters--he got an historic 40 percent nationally.

So TRUMP, who pretty much everyone having access to a microphone said would be lucky to get 10 percent of the Hispanic-American vote considering how he castigated illegal immigrants (mainly, to him, Mexicans) defaming them by labeling them "murderers" and "rapists" and promising that he would deport 12 million, that Donald TRUMP thus far, especially with the Latino-rich voters of Nevada, has run the table. How it might translate to the general election is for the moment another matter.

But his "appeal" to Hispanic voters is worth some thought. Why would any vote for him?

For insight I am reminded of one of my favorite Philip Roth stories--"Eli the Fanatic."

It is also one of his most overlooked, perhaps because of the direct way in which it deals with and excoriates secularized, seemingly-assimilated Jews.

Set in suburban America, it concerns a non-observant Jew, lawyer Eli Peck, who is hired by his Jewish neighbors to convince a recently-arirved group of orthodox Jews to close the yeshiva they established in their midst. The other Jews in town are embarrassed by the visible presence of these Hasids, fearing they will call attention to them and thereby interfere with their desire to blend in among the largely gentile residents of Woodenton.

To make a short story short, Eli fails in his attempts to get the ultra-orthodox to back off, including abandoning their traditional ways of dressing, and, after an epiphany of his own, gives up his normal wardrobe and appears before his stunned and outraged Jewish neighbors in Hasid garb, thereby exposing the ethnic roots of all of them.

Could it be that TRUMP's appeal to a large and growing percentage of Latino voters is because increasing numbers counter-intuitively support his views about illegal immigrants--that many favor building the wall and deporting those here without proper documents?

As in Roth's Woodenton, those Hispanics in the United States for decades and for others in the Southwest for many centuries, from even before Europeans landed at Plymouth Rock, for Latino citizens, for Hispanics who are comfortably "Americanized," having so many other Hispanics here illegally threatens their sense of relatively unobtrusive assimilation.

For Roth's secularized, well-educated, and affluent Jews, having Hasids in their midst, they feared, exposed them to their Christian neighbors who would not distinguish between them and the ultra-orthodox. Seeing them both in the same light and thus out of step with American culture, still rooted in Eastern European beliefs and superstitions, and wanting to live and cling together in self-imposed ghettos.

Perhaps the United States' most successful and assimilated Latinos, who are not self-hating, have some of the same kinds of feelings and support TRUMP as one way of declaring loyalty to the great American immigrant narrative, not wanting their place in society to be confused and conflated with those who came here illegally and live insufficiently in the shadows.

Philip Roth

December 29, 2015--The "Woman's Card"

Though it is still 2015 and neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have selected their nominees, from the political salvoes exchanged over the past few days between Hillary Clinton and Donald TRUMP you could have fooled me--it sounds as if they have declared themselves nominated and already launched the general election campaign.

The initial focus is on sexism.

Both are deeply experienced in that arena, but not as always assumed.

The eruption broke out last week when TRUMP said that back in 2008 Barack Obama had "schlonged" Hillary.

He probably meant that Obama defeated her handily (the connotative meaning of schlonged); she that since schlong is a Yiddish slang term for penis, he was being not just a bully but sexist.

Would he, she probably wondered, have said the same thing about Joe Biden who Obama also schlonged? In my and TRUMP's old neighborhoods, the answer is for sure.

Rising to the bait and seeing an opportunity to get under Clinton's skin (as The Donald has so successful done to Jeb Bush and John Kasich among other opponents) he in effect warned her not to play the sexism card, implying that if she did he would retaliate in kind.

Predictably, thus challenged, to show that he couldn't intimidate her as well as to raise higher the ire of the women who despise TRUMP, Hillary doubled down and continued to accuse him as having "a penchant for sexism."

At the same time she was defending her own honor, Hillary Clinton's people announced that they were about to unleash husband Bill and that he would next week take to the campaign trail in New Hampshire. There is some worry in the Clinton camp that Bernie Sanders may steal that primary and who knows where that might lead.

Seeing the unshackling of Bill Clinton to be an opportunity, TRUMP seized it. First he quoted Hillary back to herself, claiming on Twitter, all in caps, that she "HAS A PENCHANT FOR SEXISM."

And, less playful but potentially more potent, TRUMP began an assault on Bill Clinton, tweeting that he "has a terrible record of women abuse [sic]" and that by using her husband in her campaign, she is "playing the woman's card [sic again]."

This requires a little unpacking--

How does turning "women abuser" Bill loose on the campaign trail constitute playing the "woman's card"? They seem mutually exclusive, minimally contradictory.

This then brings us to Hillary Clinton's problem with young women.

When it comes to middle-age women, head-to-head in the polls against TRUMP, she gets over 80 percent of the vote, but she languishes when it comes to young women--young women who do not reflexively see sexism so commonly on ugly display.

For the younger generation of women getting schlonged, for example, is not as hurtful as it might be for their mothers' generation who needed to fight every step for their liberation. Taking feminism and liberation as a given, younger women tend to see TRUMP's utterances as only stupid while Hillary feels the need to remind them, motivate them, to think of themselves as women first, as vulnerable women, and everything else as secondary.

What she thus may be failing to notice is how these younger women, whose allegiance and votes she covets, are not that enthusiastic about seeing Bill Clinton coming to the aid (or rescue) of his unfairly put-upon wife. Ironically a wife, for whom sexism is her default mode, being shielded by someone who, in his sexual escapades while in the White House--exerting sexual power as president over a 19 year-old intern--had, as TRUMP rightly claims, that "terrible record of women abuse."

#  #  #

While on this subject, remember that less-than-felicitous phrase, "bimbo eruption," that was bantered about during Bill Clinton's first campaign and then later during his years in the Oval Office, a phrase for what his staff and advisors most worried about--that there were more Paula Joneses and Gennifer Flowers rattling around who might at any moment pop up on the front page of the National Inquirer, accusing Bill Clinton of sexual harassment. And then sure enough, up popped Monica Lewinsky.

Where are the TRUMP equivalents? There are big bucks and Gloria Allred waiting to bring their stories to the public. If there were such women wouldn't we by now have heard from them?

And wouldn't we also have heard about all the illegal Mexican immigrants mowing the fairways and greens of TRUMP's numerous golf courses? We learned about poor Mitt Romney's gardeners so, if there are any working for TRUMP, they should by now have been outed. Many mainstream reporters hate him and would love to win Pulitzer Prizes by exposing his hypocrisy.

In the meantime, I can't wait to see what mayhem Bill Clinton will soon be perpetrating. Remember South Carolina back in '08?

#  #  #

Breaking News--with a margin of error of 3 percent, the latest Rasmussen Poll has Clinton and TRUMP in a statistical deadbeat with Hillary at 37 percent and Donald at 36.

Stay tuned.

"I did not have sexual relations . . ."

August 18, 2015--TRUMP: "He's Cooked"

"He's cooked," Joey said.

"What do you mean? I thought you believe he's going all the way."

"I thought so too until Sunday."

"Go on."

"Everything was cool at that stupid Iowa State Fair where all the candidates have to turn out and have their pictures taken hugging the butter pig."

"Butter pig?" This was new to me. But Joey is following the GOP campaign closely and I learn things from him every day. Especially about Donald TRUMP.

"Yeah, they have a pig there made out of butter. Sort of a butter sculpture. And all sorts of horrible food to eat that the candidates are forced to pretend to enjoy in order to appeal to Iowans or whoever.  Apple pie on-a-stick and Kernal Klusters and deep fried cherry pie. Can you believe it? Not that I'm a gourmet," Joey said, rubbing his considerable stomach.

"And your boy TRUMP? He hugged the pig?"

"I think he was intending too but the crowds around him were so big he couldn't get there. In the meantime, though, he arrived in a TRUMP helicopter, which was a big sensation. I mean, hasn't anyone who lives there ever seen a helicopter?'

"Probably not," I said, "And?"

"After TRUMP got off he had the pilot give kids rides. Without even asking their parents to sign consent forms. That tells me he's serious about running. Not just doing it out of ego or wanting all the attention he's getting. Don't get me wrong, he loves that."

"That's obvious."

"Did you listen to what he said to the press? How big money people buy candidates? How Jeb Bush is a 'puppet'--he called him that--because when the people who give him millions want something from him they just pull the strings. There's not much new with that. Every day he takes on another one of his opponents with zingers. Like Carly Fiorina a few days ago, pointing out that she was a failure when she was the CEO of Hewlett-Packard. Which, by the way, is true.

"But what was new was how he talked about himself. He casually confessed he does the same thing. He gives money to politicians and they answer his calls and do what he asked them to do. That that's the way the system works. He's giving voters a perspective from inside the system of the rich and powerful. How it really works and how he knows since he's been a part of it."

"It's like he's being a 'traitor to his class,' as people accused Franklin Roosevelt of being."

"Exactly. That's TRUMP's appeal. He is ripping the veil back to reveal how things are rigged against average people. This is potent political stuff.

 "So then, why is he cooked?"

"Because on Sunday, after hitting a home run at the Iowa Fair, on his Internet page he issued a position paper on immigration. He actually called it that. A three-part plan that calls for building a fence along the border (getting Mexico to pay for it); a commitment to assuring that any immigration plan 'must improve jobs, wages, and security for all Americans'; and, in the words of the New York Times, the plan includes 'strengthening the enforcement arm of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office to be paid for by eliminating tax credit payments to illegal immigrants.' Whatever that means."

"What's so wrong with that? He's trying to sound presidential."

"Does any of this sound like Donald TRUMP?"

"Not really, but doesn't he have to--"

"Doing this sort of thing turns him into an ordinary politician. All the others have dozens of position papers and three- or ten-part plans for everything from education to cutting taxes. The kinds of things consultants write after looking at the poll numbers and, which TRUMP says, the candidates don't believe and abandon right after getting elected. They come up with three-part programs to get elected, not to guide them if they do get elected."

"I think I'm getting your point."

"He has to be careful not to be drawn into their game. If he does, he loses. His game is to be his bigger-than-life self and expose their game. Not play it."

"I think I agree with your analysis, including . . ."

"Or he'll be cooked?"

I nodded.

August 13, 2015--Cojones

I took a peak at the first post-debate poll numbers to see if Donald TRUMP with his bombast and misogynist comments had plummeted and if Carly Fiorina and John Kasich who, it was agreed did well, soared.

Yes and no.

Fiorina, who had been at low single digits (not enough to make the top-ten main event), is now at 6-9 percent and Kasich is at about that same level. He, though, competed at the adult table. Jeb Bush, on the other hand, is commencing his long-expected disappearing act. He's the Fred Thompson of 2016. Thompson, you may recall, was referred to as the Mummy.

Then there is TRUMP. 

I suspected we would see evidence of decline. The show is over. The jokes are getting stale. His 15 minutes or days of fame are beginning to fade.

Well, not exactly. 

He is now in the lead in Iowa while Scott Walker, the early summer leader, is beginning to slip toward well-deserved anonymity. And in New Hampshire, though Kasich is doing well, The Donald is at the head of the pack. We know about South Carolina, the site of the third key primary--TRUMP is trouncing everyone.

The Koch Brothers must be having coronary occlusions, not knowing where to invest their hundreds of millions. Or billions.

TRUMP, meanwhile, according to Bloomberg News, took his roadshow to Birch Run, just north of Detroit, where to an audience of 2,000 (he of course estimated it to be 5,000) he blasted the Ford Motor Company for building more plants in TRUMP's favorite country, Mexico.

He said, "Ford is building a $2.5 billion plant in Mexico." The crowd booed. "I'll give them a good idea. Why don't we just let the illegals drive the cars and trucks right into our country."

He shouted, "If it weren't for me, the words 'illegal immigrant' wouldn't be spoken right now. We have to build a wall."

The crowd began chanting TRUMP, TRUMP, TRUMP. He continued, "You can be a natural born citizen and not get a 10th of the benefits that illegal immigrants do."

A member of the audience said, "We need someone to say what's on their minds and to speak the truth." Even though TRUMP was not speaking the truth about benefits to undocumented immigrants. 

In comments to the press before the speech he claimed that he is "100 percent certain--mark it down" that he could convince Mexico to pay for a wall along the border because, "They're going to be happy about it because the cost of the wall is peanuts compared to the kind of money they're making" off the United States.

What he means by this is anyone's guess, but it went unchallenged by the adoring audience and, for that matter, the titillated media.  "Their leaders are much smarter and sharper and more cunning than our leaders."

About the proposed Mexican Ford plant he warned that as president, "I would say the deal is not going to be approved. I won't allow it. I want that plant in the United Staes. Prefereably here [in Michigan]." 

The crowd rose to its feet, chanting, "U.S.A., U.S.A., U.S.A."

"So then I have only one question--do they move the plant to the United States the same day or a day later?"

Bloomberg quoted Jim Maratta, a Vietnam veteran, sitting in the first row, wearing a VFW cap and an American flag shirt--

"We need someone with guts. I want to see him do something for jobs and get those deadbeats in Congress off their butts." He added, "I've been waiting for someone with cojones for a long time."

His wait may be over.

July 16, 2015--TRUMP

Is Donald (all caps) TRUMP just a joke? In the front seat in the Republican clown car?

Pretty much all Democrats agree that he is someone to make fun of (even David Letterman came out of retirement to make fun of him) and most of the other Republican pretenders to the 2016 nomination hope he is just an egotistic entertainer who can't live without the spotlight and will soon move on.

He may be cartoon like, but in other important ways he is resoundingly not. If he stays in the race for the GOP nomination after the current blast of publicity fades (as it most likely will) and spends a few hundred million of his own money (not likely--he is a tightwad and exaggerates his wealth) not only will he help define the future Republican Party but also give the other front runners fits since he actually has a chance to become the nominee.

He has a chance because his brand of anger and racial hatred appeals to at least a third of the GOP primary-voter base. This is different than the general-election Republicans who are a bit more nuanced and tolerant. But it may be enough to get him very close to or all the way to the nomination since his people tend to come from the activist wing of the party.

People are frustrated and angry about their own prospects and what they rightly see to be the decline of America's standing in the world. This began during the inconclusive Korean War and was brought home to American's consciousness when we lost in Vietnam, the first war in our history in which we were defeated. And more recently we are perceived to be ineffectual in the Middle East and, as many feel, are losing to ISIS.

But TRUMP's appeal, though based on this feeling of national decline, is more the result of stagnant income for most Americans and the haunting belief that the American Dream is over for the middle class, whose children, for the first time in history, are not doing as well as their parents.

Rather than blaming structural causes for these frustrating circumstances (an unfair tax system, a weak regulatory environment, the decline of unions, and the resulting rising rate of inequality), TRUMP's people blame government (especially Obama and liberal Democrats), social welfare programs that they feel encourage and underwrite dependency on the government, and above all else, for these angry folks, the millions of illegal immigrants already in the country and the alleged continuing flow of Latin Americans--Mexicans--across our porous boarders.

And then how lucky can The Donald get--escaped Mexican drug lord, El Chapo's son two days ago threatened his life, tweeting--

"Keep fucking around, and I'll make you eat all of your goddamn words."

This gave TRUMP the opportunity to act the selfless tough guy--

He tweeted, "I'm fighting for much more than myself. I'm fighting for the future of our country which is being overrun by criminals. You can't be intimidated. It's too important."

In addition, most Americans are frustrated that we as a people, our governments, cannot accomplish big things.

The country that built the interstate highway system in the 1950s and 60s can't fix our rusting bridges and crumbling roads. Many may ask, Who do you think is more likely to fix our roads--Scott Walker or Donald TRUMP? Who more likely to rebuild our bridges--Jeb Bush or Donald TRUMP? And what about Hillary Clinton? Do you think she could do a better job than TRUMP in making sure our weapon systems work?

So TRUMP may be a joke, but a potent one at that. And, ultimately, perhaps not a joke at all.

November 24, 2014--A Child Shall Lead Them

Though often misapplied, this from Isaiah 11:6-9, could have been the title of Barack Obama's Thursday night speech about immigration.

No matter what one thinks about his use of executive powers to shield about 5.0 million undocumented immigrants from deportation, one would have to agree that in content it is all about family values. So if Republicans can for a moment stop fulminating about what they claim is Obama's emperor-like behavior, they might see that, politically, he has again snookered them.

Even if they find a way to defund Obama's actions or get the federal court system to overturn them and declare them an abuse of constitutional power (both questionable), they will pay a fierce political price when they are seen to be opposing what Obama did--protect families from being torn apart by the Immigration Service.

Specifically, Obama's executive action (the most ambitious and extensive in American history--Reagan's so-called "amnesty" executive order in 1986 covered only 100,000 illegal immigrants) calls for more border security (he can do this administratively and the GOP loves anything having to do with sealing our borders), taking action to make it easier for immigrants with high-level technical skills to remain in the U.S., and the continuing deportation of undocumented criminals (Obama has done 80 percent more of that than all previous presidents combined); but--and it's a very big but--those 5.0 million affected by his executive orders are all protected from deportation if and only if they belong to family units.

What he is doing pertains just to the 5.0 million or so who have lived in the U.S. for five or more years and are either children or the parents of children who are here legally. Here legally because they were born in the USA and thus are citizens (see the 14th Amendment) or were brought here illegally before the age of four and are now legally protected.

Childless individuals and couples will not be protected.

In other words, the only adults who will not be rounded up and deported are those "illegals" who are parents.

Obama's approach is not amnesty nor a "path to citizenship," but rather a statement about Family Values.

Something always trumpeted by Republicans and emphasized by their religious leaders. Thus, the political brilliance of Obama's move. And, of course, its humanity.

At their political peril, if Republicans continue to ignore the family values that undergird Obama's actions and focus instead on process questions and issues such as the separation of governmental power, they will find themselves in future elections with very few Latino supporters.

My prediction, therefore, is that because some in the Republican Party are smart enough to figure this out and after a few weeks of demonologizing Obama for acting unilaterally they will pass a series of bills to make what Obama did irrelevant, because what he said Thursday evening was that his executive orders are designed to defer deportations so that covered immigrants will be able to "stay in the country temporarily" (the deferring and temporality parts are what will keep his actions from being overturned in the courts)  and that if the Congress presents him with an acceptable bill he will sign it and tear up his executive orders.

Indeed it may turn out that a child will lead us.

July 23, 2014--Suffer Little Children

Governor Rick Perry is sending 1,000 National Guardsmen to the Texas-Mexico border to help round up and deport some of the tens of thousands of children who have made their way to the Rio Grande from Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. They have fled their countries to get away from the brutal gangs that are murdering children in cold blood.

I know this makes for good macho-political photo-ops--and it shows GOP candidate Perry acting presidentially in contrast to the actual president who to many--me included--seems passive in the face of this humanitarian crisis. But you and I know this is more about theatrics than getting the job done.

In the midst of all the blaming and posturing, it might be legitimate to ask what getting the job done means.

To some (including Perry) it means securing the border, making it impenetrable by building walls, having armed patrols (including vigilantes) all along it, and using whatever technology is available to track and pursue those attempting to sneak into the United States.

To others it means deporting every one of these children who make it across without much judicial review--they do not consider them to be refugees from tyranny or political or religious persecution (which would require an assessment of their status and claims to asylum)  but rather just more illegals trying to take advantage of work opportunities and government healthcare and educational programs.

To still others--sadly, a minority--this is a humanitarian crisis and America should be welcoming these refugees and granting them asylum in the spirit of how this country was founded (by religious refugees) and for long has presented itself to the world.

This would be in the spirit of Jesus, who said, "Suffer little children, and forbid them not to come unto me: for such is the kingdom of heaven."

Thinking about this, the other evening during dinner with friends, Rona wondered out loud what Catholic Charities was doing. "And what about the Southern Baptist Convention? Or the Evangelical groups that are so active signing up members in the very countries these children are fleeing. What are they up to?" Rona asked. "And the Salvation Army? The American Jewish Committee? Of for that matter, the Red Cross and Save the Children?"

There was silence at the dinner table.

"Good point," our host finally said.

We all nodded in agreement.

"I think Save the Children has people on the ground," I said.

"I read about that. Good for them," Rona said, "But they're a minor presence. Overall, when it comes to religious organizations, I'm not impressed."

"And what about right-to-life groups?" a dinner companion asked, "They're faith-based and claim to be concerned about the sanctity of life, even a fertilized egg, but not these children?"

"Also not impressive," Rona said.

No one had anything helpful to add.

March 17, 2014--Barack O'Bama

So he didn't get the Obamacare rollout right. It is, after all, a complicated program and bugs should have been expected. No excuses though, it was a mess and shouldn't have been.

So he drew red lines in Syria and then backed away from them when Syria crossed them. No excuses, though it was and is a mess and shouldn't have been.

So he didn't get his political machine into action well or fast enough to help Democrats who are terrified that they will be defeated in November because of their support for his policies. That machine did get Obama elected and then reelected and it is either indifference or incompetence that this current lack of mobilization is true. No excuses, even though it is a difficult thing to pull off. But it really shouldn't have been.

So his N.S.A. was caught spying on foe and friend alike, so much so that Angela Merkel won't talk to him any more. It's a tough and dangerous world out there and perhaps much of this surveillance was necessary. No excuses though, Angela Merkel is not dangerous and spying on her shouldn't have happened.

So he tried to "reset" relations with Russia but that didn't work. Vladimir Putin and many of his supporters and advisers actually want to restart the Cold War. No excuses though--presidents get the big bucks to get these kinds of things right.

I could go on.

But there's a really simple one that's been screwed up that isn't tough or dangerous or even complicated--appointing an ambassador to Ireland.

We have not had one for about 18 months and it's not because the Senate is refusing to confirm the person Obama nominated. It's because Obama, who has Irish ancestors and likes his Guinness, has failed to act.

It's not because there aren't any who the Senate would confirm. It's because Obama, amazing as it may seem, hasn't gotten around to nominating someone. Federal judges I get. Directors of the CIA I get. Surgeon Generals who want to restrict guns I get. Assistant Attorney Generals who believe in a woman's right to have an abortion, in this crazy and perverted world, I get.

But an ambassador to Ireland? Aren't there any Kennedys around he could name? Like Caroline who is our ambassador to Japan?

There are hardly any controversial subjects that have to be skirted around. Incredibly, considering centuries of violent history, in Ireland now there is relative calm and peace between religious and nationalistic factions. So anglophiles and IRA supporters won't be throwing verbal bombs at each other.

But there is one tricky issue that would lead to another tricky issue if it were aired in public, as it very much might be during confirmation hearings--illegal immigrants.

Illegal immigrants, you may say. What do illegal Mexicans have to do with Ireland?

Quite a lot. It seems there are at least 50,000 illegal Irish immigrants living in the shadows in America and it might be awkward to bring this to public attention. It would mess up all the posturing and demagoguing underway about undocumented Mexicans.

In the meantime, many in Ireland are feeling quite dissed. As well they might.

Erin go bragh indeed.