March 2, 2020--Bernie's Ceiling?

After each debate and primary, political pundits make lists of "winners and losers." 

The Washington Post, New York Times, and the cable news channels publish theirs even before all votes are counted and all the crosstalk and shouting subsides.

Saturday evening Biden was declared the winner of the South Carolina primary by all the networks literally seconds after the polls closed. How well he did was that obvious. There was only one winner, and quite a victory it was. Biden by a KO with Bernie the sole loser. Sanders got just 20 percent of the vote while Joe received a resounding 48 percent.

Actually, though Sanders lost in a landslide, the biggest loser of the night might have been his self-proclaimed "movement."

The Sanders' movement, Bernie reminds us many times a day, consists of millions of modest folks contributing on average about $18 to his campaign and they are said to be augmented by millions more who have volunteered to work on his campaign. 

I am certain that most of what he reports is accurate (at least the money-raising part of it is verifiable and the amount raised and the number contributing is truly remarkable), but my sense of something that claims to be a political movement needs to attract more than a fifth of the vote.  

We'll know better tomorrow when the results of the 14 Super Tuesday primaries are tallied, but at the moment I am wondering about the power of Bernie's juggernaut, including how many young people have actually turned out to support him, how many first-time voters he calls forth, and how well organized his volunteers are.

During the past year, in poll after poll, Trump consistently has been shown to be supported by 40 to 42 percent of those surveyed. I can't recall one poll where he dipped lower than 40 percent or was preferred by more than 42 percent.

Some who study these matters say this is his ceiling. Joe Scarborough calls him a "42 percent candidate."

If the ceiling metaphor works for Trump it likely works for the Democratic candidates. Warren appears unable to rise above 10 percent, Klobuchar 5 percent, Buttigieg 15 percent, and until Saturday, Biden's ceiling was about 20 percent.

Again, we will see how this heuristic works on Super Tuesday. It already appears that Sanders will do extremely well in California and that might scramble this analysis. Then again if this occurs but the other 13 primaries stay true to form (even with Mayor Pete out of the race) it may mean that California is an outlier.

One thing that seems likely is that as a result of the vote counts Tuesday night the Democratic race will be scrambled. The most likely outcome is that by the end of the day we will have a two-person race--Biden versus Sanders. Then we would learn if there is in fact a robust Bernie movement or revolution. My current sense of things is that it is considerably less than represented. Most voters appear to want calm and healing not confrontation and uncertainty.

And then there are the huge egos. That could keep everyone in the race until the convention in Milwaukee.

December 18, 2019--Profiles In Courage?

Reading the lead story in yesterday's New York Times, "Key Moderate Democrats Commit to Impeachment," I was struck by the following--

In comments to constituents, interviews and opinion pieces, and statements issued by their offices, the moderate Democrats said they were embracing impeachment fully aware that their decision could cost them their congressional careers.

Call me cynical, but these congress women and men who swept into office as a result of the 2018 midterms and thus have been serving in Congress for less than two years are already thinking about congressional careers?

Call me cynical but Joe Scarborough on "Morning Joe" Tuesday was so moved by these legislators putting their reelection chances on the line that he referred to their decisions as "profiles in courage." 

I'm not sure that John F. Kennedy would have agreed. Weren't they just doing their jobs to defend the Constitution?

And I wonder what our Founders would think.

When they structured our representative government and wrote and ratified our Constitution did they think that the men who served in Congress (there were no women until Montana's Jeannette Rankin in 1917) would think about that as a career? 

In fact, Madison and his colleagues worried about this very thing.

Members of Congress were viewed by them as having a citizen's responsibility to participate in governing. If anything, fearful that our government might turn to tyranny the framers envisioned these men serving for a year or two before returning to their lives as yeoman farmers and merchants. Not forming a permanent government of the sort we have had for at least 100 years. 

(I should note, though, that Madison himself served as Secretary of State for eight years before serving for eight more as our fourth president.)

One of the moderate Democrats who announced they would vote to impeach Trump is former C.I.A. analyst, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan.

Setting my cynicism aside, what she said was impressive--

I didn’t dream of being a politician my whole life. This was not part of my normal plan. And if this district sees fit to elect someone else, then I will accept that and walk away with my head held high that I’ve made decisions based on principle, and not political calculus.

Madison would have been proud.

March 22, 2019--Conways On A Hot Tin Roof

A cousin and I with whom I used to be very close have not exchanged a work with each other for more than two years. Another cousin has refused to spend Thanksgivings with his parents and siblings, also for the past two years.

Then there are the shattered family stories I have been hearing from friends for about as long.

And there are the sad stories of what has happened to so many who somehow believed in him, went to work in the White House, and by now have become lifelong enemies.

These stories, and perhaps millions more, have one thing in common--Donald Trump.

Now, in plain sight, we are witnesses to the breakup of a longterm marriage.

Attorney and constitutional authority George Conway and his wife, presidential advisor Kellyanne Conway's relationship is coming apart in tweets, live on social media and cable news.

In this regard they can be thought of as surrogates for the unravelling of civility and the social fabric of American life.

Some time ago someone, I think Joe Scarborough, said that everyone who gets involved with Trump inevitably is "slimed." And the rest of us, even if at a great distance, in frustration and rage, are being brought low when we descend to the use of mockery and vitriol, sadly severing relationships, especially with those we have loved, because we so despise, even have come to hate our president.

The most recent Conway flareup began with husband George blatantly questioning Trump's sanity. Among other things he tweeted--

"Americans should be thinking seriously now about Trump's mental condition and psychological state."

Then, after Trump's smackdown response George Conway, further turning up the heat, posted a link to the diagnostic criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, and about Trump wrote: "You. Are. Nuts."

Trump snapped--

“George Conway, often referred to as Mr. Kellyanne Conway by those who know him, is VERY jealous of his wife’s success & angry that I, with her help, didn’t give him the job he so desperately wanted. I barely know him but just take a look, a stone cold LOSER & husband from hell!”

Coming to Trump's defense, Kellyanne told Politico--

"He (Trump) left it alone for months out of respect for me. But you think he shouldn't respond when somebody, a non-medical professional accuses him of having a mental disorder? You think he should just take that sitting down????"

And so here we are. What began as a joke of a political soap opera is now destroying lives. Including, in many cases, of people with whom we have been close to us.

We are all being slimed.

March 6, 2019--Jack: T-PAC

It's that time of year when conservatives gather for the annual CPAC conference. 

The highlight this time was the appearance Sunday afternoon of Donald Trump who spoke for nearly two-and-a-half hours! Fidel-Castro, Mussolini-length, and surely a CPAC record for the longest expletive-larded speech ever. 

Trump had a lot on his mind. Most of it from agita. 

Just a few days earlier, while Michael Cohen was testifying before the House Oversight Committee, he was on Air Force One heading back to Washington from the collapsed summit with Kim Jong-un. At about the same time the New York Times was reporting that he personally countermanded his senior intelligence advisers and granted his son-in-law top secret security clearance.

And so he seized the opportunity to get many grievances off his chest and the audience loved every minute of it. They were as one. So much so that they stood and cheered for more than a disgraceful minute when he proclaimed John McCain dead. Tearfully, it will be a moment they will share with their Republican grandchildren.

Slumped and weary-looking as if he were bearing the weight of the world on his shoulders, Trump entered stage right where a lonely American flag stood, forlorn and limp on its pole. As if just happening to notice the flag, slowly he approached it, bending to embrace it. He coddled and rocked it in his arms as if he was comforting a loved one. With a sad smile, moving his lips dramatically so all could read them, he said, "My baby."

While streaming his remarks a day or two later to see if my eyes had deceived me on Sunday, the phone rang, and, as if he knew what I was up to, I was not surprised that it was Jack.


"I was watching your favorite show," he said, without even a greeting. "'Morning Joe.' All they could talk about was that speech. To tell you the truth I agreed with Joe and his guests that the slur about John McCain was way off base. Especially coming from someone who managed to dodge the draft."

"That was the lowest of many low points," I said.

Jack said, "But off that performance, if you guys are not careful you could be looking at six more years of our president." He chuckled at the prospect.

"Enlighten me."

"One of Joe Scarborough's quests, someone from the Washington Post, called Trump insane. He said if you had an old grandfather that crazy you'd lock him up in the attic. Another guest accused Trump of being 'unhinged.'"

"That was Eugene Robinson," I muttered.

"And then Mike Barnicle chimed is to say that the only thing missing was for Trump to show up wearing paper slippers."

"He's a regular," I said.

"I actually thought that was pretty funny. But he and the others totally missed the bigger point."

"Which is?"

"Look, who am I to tell you guys what to do, but if you want to win in 2020 you need to get your act together. Not only have you given Trump a perfect person to run against . . ."

"Spare me. It's a long time before we have a candidate. Now it's just a couple of dozen hopefuls looking to gain traction. It's premature to talk about running against Trump. We first have to sort things out."

"I mean,"Jack said, "We used to have Nancy Pelosi to run against--which I admit didn't work out so well in 2018--but now we have that girl from the Bronx. I can never remember her name . . ."

"Alexander Ocasio-Cortez."

"You have initials for her, right?"

"Some people refer to her as AOC. What's your problem with her?"

"Actually it's the opposite of a problem. She's a gift that keeps on giving. Isn't she the one who wants to ban hamburgers to reduce global warming?"

"Not really, but your guys are accusing her of that."

"She's perfect to run against. She's a socialist and her ego is so large that she can't get enough air time on TV. I know she turns a lot of your people on but she's too far out for the people I assume you are hoping will vote your way. If she's the new face of the Democrat Party, Trump will be a shoe in."

"Before we declare him the winner let's see what Mueller and the House committees come up with."

"You need to remember that the more dirt that came up about Clinton the more popular he became. And he won a second term. But OAC is not your major problem. The fact that after maybe the worst month of his presidency, Trump, like Clinton is seeing his favorables going up. Just this week by three points. To 46 percent or so."

"What then is our major problem?"

"You're doing it again."

"What again?"

"Just like last time around when you thought Trump was just a joke. You couldn't imagine him beating Hillary. And guess what--he did. Mainly because she and the rest of you wouldn't take Trump seriously and looked down your noses at him and his supporters. And now you're doing a version of the same thing. Again take CPAC. Rather than trying to figure them out and especially Trump' appeal to them--they listened and cheered for him for two-and-a-half hours--you're busy making fun of him. How his speech was incoherent and that he's crazy. Things like that. By doing this you're motivating his people to stay loyal to him and are turning off a lot of people who are on the fence about him."

"I don't disagree with that," I conceded. "All during the last presidential campaign I thought Hillary and the liberal media were missing what was happening in the middle of the country and therefore we made a huge mistake by not showing respect for people who live and vote there. Rather, we too frequently mocked and disparaged Trump and those who turned out to be his voters."

Jack said, "And your reaction to CPAC shows me you're doing the same thing all over again. Which, for me is just fine. But to win you need to recognize that Trump, when it comes to politics and marketing himself, is crazy like a fox. He's totally brilliant at that. I know you think he's dumb and maybe about things you care about he is. But about appealing to his base and a lot of independents he's a version of a political genius. 

"If you want to win, first, you need to not nominate one of your crazies who Trump will mock 24/7. But you also need to get more comfortable with at least a segment of his followers. To see them as fellow Americans who have some legitimate issues, including some you share. Like worrying about how their children and grandchildren will fare as the economy changes and how the demographics of America are becoming more diverse than even some of your people are comfortable with. Don't fool yourself into believing all your liberal friends are so happy about these changes. 

"So you need to find a way to talk about this that's not bigoted and condemning. You need to have and show more understanding of the views and fears of people who you disagree with. You have to stop pointing fingers of contempt at them. Again, I'm talking about just some of Trump's people. From your perspective most are, to quote Hillary who was right about this, irredeemable. One of your problems is that you assume everyone is or should be as tolerant as you try to be. Well, you know what, in this regard you and your friends are far from perfect. You need to take a hard look at what's really in your heart." 

I finally said, "I've been attempting to make that argument for years. Liberals are more tolerant, every poll shows that, but there are a lot of closeted progressives who aren't happy about all the changes you mentioned. But in regard to immigrants and people of color Trump and the CPAC crowd are way out of line. There's no way to paper over that"

"I'll tell you what was really going on with the CPACers."

"I'm all ears."

"They were marking the end of the traditional Republican Party. It's now Trump's party. They could call themselves T-PAC. And his speech, if you can call it that, was like an inaugural address or a comedian's stand-up spritz to celebrate the victory of this new party. That explains the John McCain crack. They saw his death as if it signaled the end of the old Republican Party. A party that they saw him as representing. But again what they did was disgraceful. No two ways about that. 

"But here's the bottom line," Jack continued, "Trump and many of his people are really anarchists. You should call them out for that just as they accuse all of you of being socialists. But you should make a distinction between that part of T-PAC and the others who aren't so radical. As I've been saying, you need to find a way to reach out to and appeal to some of them. You also need to recognize that a large part of Trump's appeal is that he's entertaining. Which politically is not a bad thing. We are an entertainment-obsessed nation and you should look for someone to run against him who average people can enjoy listening to."

"I agree with that."

"Otherwise you're cooked."

September 5, 2018--Boooooring

Mika got it right yesterday morning.

I dosed off Morning Joe for a couple of weeks, needing respite from all-Trump-all-the-time, but with the onset of the new season (the "year" starts up again the day after Labor Day) I felt the atavistic compulsion to reconnect to what is going on. Including trolling for subjects to write about that do not have anything to do with Trump.

Lots of luck with that I realized on Tuesday as early as five-after-six, with the first five minutes of MJ devoted to Joe and Willie exchanging barbs about the crumbling fate of the Yankees and the Red Sox's historic run.

Just two minutes into their joshing you could see Mika cringing. Up to their old schtick. If looks could wound her look would draw blood.

"Can we get on with things?" exasperated, she said. They ignored her. "There's lots going on and we need to talk about that."

"Yes, John McCain. His funeral," Joe said without enthusiasm, still more interested in baseball gossip.

"It's over," Mika said, cryptically.

"Not until it's over," Joe said, he thought slyly, quoting Yogi Berra, winking at Wille, with baseball still more on his mind than McCain.

"Not the funeral, but the presidency."

"Over?" Joe said, paying attention to his cohost and fiancée for a rare moment. 

"This show is so boring," she said. 

I grew excited, expecting a family spat. Mika pops off a few times a year and videos of her meltdowns usually go viral. I thought--what an inventive way for her to launch the year. Trashing her own show.

Having the floor she pressed on. "Nothing is new. In fact, nothing can be new. Everything is predictable. We know exactly what he is going to say. Or tweet. His whole presidency depends on a steady stream of surprises. In there own way, excitements. Engaging outrages. He's the producer of his own reality TV presidency and it's about to be cancelled."

"You know, Mika's half right," one of their panelists, off camera, said. You could sense he was worried that the "half right" could be misinterpreted, come off as patronizing. Which it did. Though smacking of enough truth that she and the others let it go. She was happy just being paid attention to.

As a result there was no more sports talk. They were off and running, making being boring interesting. 

"If his people start to get bored with him," Sam Stein of the Daily Beast said, "he's cooked. Don't mishear me, they believe him, more important they believe in him. They are also there for the show. If you live in some, forgive me, godforsaken place like Fargo, North Dakota, where the most exciting thing is the Charley Pride concert, it doesn't get any better than going to one of his rallies after standing in line for hours to get a seat for his political standup spritz. But before we get giddy about this, at the Fargo rally Trump people claimed 6,000 turned out, though the local press had the number much less than that."

"Like the ongoing numbers game about the size of the crowd at his inauguration," MSNBC's Kasie Hunt chimed in.

"One thing Trump knows for certain," this from WAPO columnist and editor Eugene Robinson, "Is how to pay attention to ratings. The Apprentice didn't go off the air because Trump was running for president but because the ratings were heading south. If the ratings and demographics had continued to be strong NBC would probably still have it on the air. I don't believe the Emoluments Clause in the Constitution forbids that. Making money from a TV show. Look, he's still getting away with making a killing from his hotels and resorts. I'm not hearing about anyone giving up their Mar-a-Lago membership or the Trump hotel in Washington offering weekend discounts."

Willie said, "There are reports that attendance at his rallies is declining. It's not such a hot ticket anymore. And more than a few who show up appear to filter out before his act is over."

"You're right," Joe jumped in,"politics is all about numbers. And enthusiasm. He could be slipping in both realms. If he is, as Mika said, it's all over."

"Well," Mika said, now all smiles, "at the beginning of being over."

Glancing at the clock, also smiling, Joe said, "We made it to six-thirty without being boring. I think we're off to a good start for the year."

May 9, 2018--Now A Word From Lynne Roth

Good friend Lynne Roth is a regular reader of my stuff and every month or so sends me a note which is really a riff on some of the things I've been writing about.

With her permission, here's the most recent email. I though you might like to see it as I love her sensibility. 


Glad to read you and Rona will soon be in your quiet place. 

To counteract the stress created by current events I restrain myself and save a few of your blogs to read.  The blogs have become a bandage for my brain.  On alternate days I have also increased my meds.

For years I have been intrigued with elvers and their story.  Not many are aware of how they breed and evolve.  Someone once misunderstood me, "corrected" me and asked if I was discussing elves. 

Thanks for the blog. Now I feel less like a nerd and am satisfied being a generalist.

You made me smile with your use of schneid.

Today I learned a record number of appellate judges have been placed. Very disturbing when contemplating all the cases and achievements that may be rolled back.

While living in Delray I began to follow "Morning Joe."  In recent years I suspected Joe might run for office. However,  I felt incidents in his personal life would make it impossible.  

Since Donald J. Trump was elected my thoughts have changed. Watching Joe evolve has been amusing. Both he and Mika appear to have been conspiring to put in a change of address. My suspicion heightened when Joe started wearing suits on the show more often than not. It's a pleasure to watch the scripted method they use to poke and provoke DJT into reacting.

I agree with your prediction.

When  you, Rona and Jack get into your routine I hope you make an appointment to have your hearing checked.  Perhaps you will become inspired to recreate your mystery series, "Audiological Tales."

But you know me well enough, I will read anything you write.

Safe travels.

May 7, 2018--Prediciton

If you follow these, you know I occasionally like to make predictions. Occasionally, one pans out. Like the disappearance of first son-in-law, Jared Kushner. If you've spotted him lately, please let me know so I can correct my scorecard of speculations. 

Here's a new one inspired by last week's coverage of Rudy Giuliani's blanket appearances on Fox News' Sean Hannity Show and the inane Fox & Friends--

Joe Scarborough is running for president. Of the United States. 

The Joe of MSNBC's Morning Joe, an island generally of sanity and civility in the early morning wasteland of network and cable TV.

You may rightfully wonder how these seemingly unrelated pieces fit together. 

It is the result of the confluence of Scarborough's decline in influence (MJ used to be the go-to place for media and Washington insiders) with the resulting frustration he is feeling as Trump and his people, since moving into the White House have iced him out. During the 2016 campaign Trump appeared on or called into MJ almost every day, but now Joe is being ignored because he is too relentlessly critical of all things Trump and because he recently turned 55, the time in life when many ask "Is this all there is"?

His answer to that existential question, I am predicting, is ,"No, there's more. In fact, that more is the presidency."

If as I you watch MJ you may have noticed that Scarborough these days rarely appears on the set in either New York or Washington. He is patched in and on screen looks as if he is broadcasting from a basement bunker in his Connecticut home.

I suspect he is putting the finishing touches on a book about his vision for America's future and doesn't want to spend any time distracted by commuting or doing all the extra-ealry morning prep work being fully engaged with the program would require. 

More and more he is leaving the hosting to Willie Geist and his fiancée, Mika Brzezinski, which leaves him with the time and money--he reportedly earns $5.0 million a year to host MJ--required to write his manifesto and begin the process of putting the pieces together for a presidential campaign. 

With Mika, the daughter of Washington royalty, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, about to become his third or fourth wife he has in her the perfect potential First Lady. He's from the déclassé Florida Panhandle (the "Redneck Rivera") and by marrying her and into her family history he will be koshered enough to be taken seriously as presidential material. Not that he doesn't have numerous potential presidential qualities of his own.

As an anti-Trump semi-lapsed Republican he could try for the Democratic nomination, independent style like Bernie Sanders, or seek to oust Trump during the 2020 primaries. He could be the class in either field. 

A practicing Baptist, gun-owning, small government, fiscally responsible libertarian who believes in gun control he may fit the mood of the times. It doesn't hurt that he's tall, boyishly handsome, with a full head of hair (to my father a presidential prerequisite) and is fluent in the various languages of the social media.

He's ready and maybe much of America would also be. It could get interesting. 

Next First Family?

May 1, 2018--Jack: Trump Delivers

It felt like forever since I had heard from Jack and so, concerned about him, I called.

"I appreciated your being worried," he said.

"Actually concerned. A little concerned," I said to correct the record.

"It's funny you called. I was just thinking about you."

"Really? What were you thinking?"

"What else do we talk about? Trump."  Without waiting for my reaction, he raced ahead, "I was just watching Morning Joe. Thanks to you I tune them in once in awhile to see what the Commies are up to." He chuckled as if to indicate this wasn't going to be one of his stress-inducing rants.

"I was watching as well," I said, "To get a morning dose of the truth. There's so much spinning."

"From Joe and Mika as well," Jack said, "She's got him totally wimped out. Every day he's sounding more and more like Elizabeth Warren. It's the price of her agreeing to marry him. The next thing you know he'll be wearing an apron."

"Now I see why I resist calling you. If this is a bad time to talk we can . . ."

"It's as good a time as ever. You dropped the dime. So what's on your mind?"

"The last time we talked, in early February, I sensed a little doubt about him. About, as you used to refer to him, 'your boy.' It was when they fired his close aide, Rob Porter after he was caught having lied about abusing his wives. You told me about your growing up, about how your parents . . ."

Softly, he said, "No need to go there again. What's past is . . ."

"I wasn't going there except that I got the impression that you weren't happy that Trump had a spousal abuser working right next to him in the Oval Office because of your own . . ."

"I'd rather talk about Morning Joe."

"OK by me," I said, "I don't have an agenda. I just wanted to check in with you. To see how you are. So, what struck you from this morning's show?"

"Did you see that woman who wrote a book about what she called 'flyover country'?"

"I did," I said, "In fact, I just ordered it, The View from Flyover Country. By Sarah Kendzior. Sounds interesting. Good title."

"It was more what some of Scarborough's panelists had to say."

"I'm listening."

"You remember that book you mentioned to me a couple of years ago, What's the Matter With Kansas? Well, I got it out of the library and actually read it."

"What did you think?"

"You'll probably be surprised that I pretty much agreed with most of it. How conservative politicians in Kansas ignored economic issues like sinking wages and unemployment and fed people there a steady diet of what the writer called cultural issues. Back then, abortion, evolution, and gay marriage. You know I'm a libertarian and believe in all of these things. That government shouldn't say who can and cannot get married and get in the way of a woman wanting to have an abortion."

"I do know that about you. If you weren't that way I wouldn't be able to consider you a friend."

He ignore that and continued, "And then when they got elected, ultraconservatives, now in the majority at the state and federal level in Kansas, ignored people's concerns about those cultural issues and voted for tax cuts and things like that that favored rich people and big corporations. In other words the politicians again screwed the little people."

"And with Trump?"

"Maybe you weren't paying attention to Morning Joe, but that woman Kend-something and the others were saying that Trump also ran on a lot of conservative cultural issues but rather than selling out the people who voted for him he actually delivered. Or is in the process of doing so. And this included Evangelicals who overlooked all his misbehavior because they believed in what he was saying about immigrants and guns and science and Muslims and climate change and transgender people serving in the military." 

Jack continued, "More than anything else getting Gorsuch on the Supreme Court said it all. You would think that people who probably don't even know how many judges there are on the Court wouldn't be so crazed about Gorsuch. Most probably don't even know his name, but they believe he has their interests at heart. And that Trump put him there for them. In other words, unlike in Kansas and elsewhere, Trump is keeping his promises. And at his rallies talks to his people as if he's confiding in them. Paying attention to them and what's on their minds."

"And you mean they're not being screwed by Trump and his appointees? You mean that there is a real benefit to average people from the tax cuts that will add trillions to the debt? That Trump lied to his followers, that he continues to do so by focusing the vast bulk of the tax cuts on the richest 5 percent and the biggest businesses that are already doing very well? That doesn't sound like delivering to me."

"I will concede," Jack said, "that nothing and nobody's perfect but with Trump people feel he's on their side. Including when he creates what his opponents label chaos. He claims that he does this intentionally to shake up the system. To bring about new and better ways to do things. The old ways from traditional welfare kinds of programs to the way diplomacy has been practiced forever have only made things worse."

"I will agree with some of that. Especially that big government and big government programs haven't been that effective. I know about federal education programs and most of them haven't produced positive results."

"That's the understatement of the year," Jack said. "But my best case is what might be happening in Korea. Even you have written about how if things work out Trump will be entitled to a lot of credit. Minimally by scaring everyone who thinks he's crazy and if they don't make a deal he'll nuke them. That seems to have gotten Kim's attention."

"I did write about that and if things in fact do get better I'll be happy to see the credit shared. But that's about it. The rest of his agenda is either going nowhere or has already collapsed. Like making life better for working people--a majority of whom voted for him. The economy is growing but not at above-expected rates and people are not seeing a whole lot of additional money in their paychecks. So much so that Republicans are no longer running around patting themselves on their backs for passing that tax bill. So the one thing they accomplished is blowing up in their faces."

"Some of this may be true," Jack said, "But, I remind you, a good third of the population cares more about guns and abortion and being able to pray where and when they want, and, for those people, Trump is delivering."

"God help us," I muttered under my breath.

January 26, 2018--Trump vs. Obama

Donald Trump launched his political career by savaging Barack Obama, beginning with the birther racism to accusing him of being a stealth Muslim to doing all he could first as a candidate and now as president to discredit and dismantle everything that was accomplished during the Obama eight years in the White House. 

It is as if Trump wants to nullify Obama's presidency (more racism) and delete his name from history. To make it as if Obama was not president. Forget that--to make it so that he never existed. 

For Trump's most ardent followers this is the definition of how to make America great again: Purge the country of people of color and anyone who is not Christian. Actually, not a Protestant. 

If one is looking for the Trump policy agenda all that is needed is to take out a list of Obama's achievements and invert them. Voilà, the Trump agenda is revealed. For example, most recently, most dramatically Obama-annihilating, Trump allowing all states bordered by our oceans to license oil companies the unfettered right to drill.

Try as Trump might to pull off this campaign to overturn Obama's record and place in history, the facts, assuming anyone is interested in them, present a very different picture.

Case in point, a recent Joe Scarborough op-ed column in the Washington Post, "The Damage Trump Has Done, Documented."

Drawing on data about the state of the economy from a January article in Forbes Magazine, not exactly a Bernie Sanders endorsed publication, "Trump's Economic Scorecard: One Year Since Inauguration," Scarborough compares how the economy fared during each presidency.

Most self-vaunted is the run up of the stock market. Trump claims there is no better evidence that his economic policies are working and that this is in contrast with the "failed" Obama record. During the first year of the Trump presidency the run-up in the Standard & Poor's average was a noteworthy 19.4%. But, though he never fails to reject the idea that he inherited a heating-up economy from Obama, the market did even better during Obama's first year--rising on the S&P an astonishing 23.5%.

In regard to jobs created Trump's numbers were lower in 2017 than in any of the first six years of Obama's presidency. And the unemployment rate declined faster under Obama than during Trump's first year in office.

The budget deficit last year was $666 billion, whereas it was a declining $585 a year earlier under Obama. And the national debt, a favorite target of conservatives, is now accruing at a more rapid rate than during the years of the Obama administration.

Then the trade deficit, an important indicator of economic health, was worse last year than in any of Obama's eight years.

There are things to criticize when it comes to the Obama record about the economy (for example the unrelenting growth in the gap between the wealthy and middle class), but things with Trump in regard to the economy, acknowledging its early achievements, are for the most part not as noteworthy as during the Obama years. 

One thing is certain, President Obama's record, which, in spite of Trump's obsessive assault on it, continues to endure while we may soon see the dismantling of the Trump presidency itself. And over time we will also see how history regards each of them. The outline of that, regardless of the Trump posturing, is already clear.

January 10, 2018--Factotum

Late in the day on Sunday I heard from a number of progressive friends who called all excited about what they saw to be a takedown by Jake Tapper of CNN of Stephen Miller, White House senior advisor.

"I missed that," I said.

"It was on Jake's Sunday show, State of the Nation. Watch it on YouTube. You'll love it.

I did watch it and did sort of love it. At least until I gave it more thought.

In case you, like I, missed it, it was an interview largely about Michael Wolff's Trump tell-all, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. Miller was clearly offered around to the Sunday talkshows as a counterweight to the Wolff tome. He was the perfect choice to send out on a retaliatory mission since he had been Steve Bannon's protégé; and Bannon, the main source of the most damaging reporting about Trump--how he is like a nine-year-old child and that Donald Jr. committed "treason" when he agreed to talk with the Russians about the "dirt" they claimed to have about Hillary Clinton--needed to be put down.

As my friend surmised, I did love it. To me Trump and everyone he touches are compromised. Very much including Miller. But what I didn't love was how Tapper, in his pose as a journalist, treated Miller who was his guest.  

Here are some selections from what turned out to be a brief interview--

Miller: "The president is a political genius . . . who took down the Bush dynasty, who took down the Clinton dynasty, who took down the entire media complex."

He went on to reup Trump's claim that he is "like, really smart," a veritable "very stable genius." He called Wolff the "garbage author of a garbage book" but Miller's real transgression, was accusing Tapper of being "condescending," and claiming that CNN promulgates "very fake news."

Tapper: Miller's calling him "condescending" clearly got under Tapper's skin--"I get it. There's one viewer that you care about right now, and you're being obsequious [servile, ingratiating], and you're being a factotum [lackey] in order to please him."

With that, he cut Miller off, saying he had nothing worthwhile to say and while Miller continued to rant, Tapper looked into the camera and introduced the next guest. It appears that Miller (off camera now) refused to leave and had to be physically removed by CNN security.

Miller's audience of one tweeted--

Jake Tapper of Fake News CNN just got destroyed in his interview with Stephen Miller of the Trump Administration. Watch the hatred and unfairness of this CNN flunky!

Tapper feigned surprise. But what was he expecting? Rational discourse about the strengths and weaknesses of the Wolff book? He knew in advance what Miller was sent out to do and rather than booking him, saying I don't allow shills and factotums on my show, he signed him up as he knew it would turn out to be a dogfight and go viral in less than a couple of hours. All turned out to be true.

This is not journalism to me but rather talkshow mud wrestling designed to increase ratings, which the struggling Tapper and State of the Union could use.

Monday morning, again on CNN's New Day, cohosts Alisyn Camerota and Chris Cuomo had New York Times White House correspondent Maggie Haberman as a guest. Camerotta pressed her about an interesting subject--

Unlike Michael Wolff who does not have to maintain good relations with the Trump administration--his book is out and he is already making millions in royalties--because she has "to go back to the White House" every day after writing articles that frequently are critical of Trump and his people, does this place her in a compromised position as she needs to remain in the White House's good graces to do her job? Does she have to pull her punches, so to speak, in order to retain access?

Not at all, she in effect said, I report it as I see it. Let the chips fall where they may.

Do you believe that? I'm skeptical.

And then there are my Morning Joe friends, Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski who a year and a half ago were cozied up to candidate Donald Trump. When he appeared on their show--it seemed almost daily--their ratings went off the charts. They were even eager to have a close social relationship to their friend "Donald." Wolff reports about their visits, as a closeted couple, to Mar-a-Lago. Apparently during one visit last January, a week after Trump was inaugurated, Jared Kushner and The Donald playfully spatted about who would marry them once they fessed up publicly to their on-going romance.

But things have gone south in their off-camera relationship. Cut off from access, they have been merciless in their attacks on Trump and his inner circle. So much so that Monday morning when Michael Wolff was on their show hustling Fire and Fury, they brought up some of the inaccuracies in his reporting, including those about them! 

But then, rather, than pressing to hold Wolff responsible for his inaccuracies and carelessness, they made excuses for him, saying, the book is less about the accuracy of incidents but about the overall impression that it offers of Trump and his presidency.

In these three examples it is clear why so many Americans are fed up with the media. They see the leading opinion writers and reporters to lack integrity and objectivity. Those who have personal agendas (Joe and Mika) or ideological interests (Tapper and Cuomo) or who are just trying to promote a book (Wolff) or publicize their reporting (Haberman) are most prone to professional self-righteousness and loss of objectivity.  

We progressives, especially, need to clean up our acts since we should not want to give media-bashers additional reasons and evidence with which to attack our credibility. 

November 30, 2016--You Be the Judge

They broke into Morning Joe yesterday to announce that their parent network, NBC, had just summarily fired longtime Today Show host Matt Lauer for "inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace."

Joe Scarborough, Mike Barnicle, and frequent Today host Willie Geist were visibly shaken. I suspect in Joe's case in part because he feared he could easily be the next to fall. There's a lot of sexual static in his past.

We watched for awhile and then switched to NBC where co-host Savannah Guthrie and last-minute substitute host Hoda Kotb were sharing their feelings of upset.

After ten minutes we surfed around to see how the other networks were was dealing with the news. 

First to CNN, where morning co-host Alisyn Camerota had been sexually harassed by her past employer, Fox News head Roger Ailes who had been summarily fired six months ago; then to Fox itself where the hosts, conveniently forgetting their own network's history with sexual harassment, were a version of gleeful; next to CBS where senior-host Charlie Rose had been summarily fired a week and a half ago for sexual malfeasance. Then finally to Today's main rival, ABC's Good Morning America.

We lingered there because mega-businessman Daymond John of Shark Tank fame was being interviewed about his latest book, The Power of Broke. We stopped to watch as Shark Tank is one of the two or three shows we enjoy watching. OK, one of two. 

At the end of the interview, the person interviewing him thanked him profusely (Shark Tank is also an ABC show) and reached over to touch him. On the upper thigh!

In the context of all the inappropriate touching this was shocking and the only thing of interest in this otherwise innocuous program.

"Can they get away with that?" Rona asked.

"I guess we'll find out later today or tomorrow when ABC human resources and/or executives of the network may have to deal with it."

"Did it make any difference that Daymond, the touchee," Rona wondered, "is a man?"

"Good question."

"Or that the interviewer, Robin Roberts is a woman?"

"And," I said, "an openly gay woman at that."

"This is all so complicated," Rona said. "In addition, I wonder if NBC rushed to fire Lauer, one of the networks Trump claims deals mainly in fake news, before he could get his hands on the story and gleefully scoop and excoriate them."

"He's on quite a roll with that," I said, "Shortly after the Matt Lauer story broke he was tweeting about 'low-ratings' Joe Scarborough and alluding to the scandal that befell him back when he was a congressman--when a female intern died of unclear causes in his Florida office."

"No wonder I don't want to watch TV," Rona sighed.

"But don't forget Shark Tank."

July 5, 2017--Midcoast: Counting to 30

"I can count to 30."

We were in the waiting area while our car's wheels were again being aligned. With the battered roads in Maine we have to arrange for this two or three times a year. So I was not feeling happy. In fact, I was grumpy.

And so when the little girl sitting with us proclaimed her arithmetical abilities I buried my head deeper into the paper. And what I was reading did not lighten my mood. Half the front page was devoted to the obscene things Donald Trump had said about Mika Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough. And turning to the distraction of the sports page, I read that the Yankees had been trounced again, losing their substantial lead in the 8th inning.

Altogether, I was not having a good morning.

"15, 16, 17, 18," the girl chanted, squirming with pleasure in her chair. Rona was already having a wonderful time.

She looked to be about five and was wearing a dress and patent leather shoes. She was all alone.

She can't be waiting for a car, I thought, indulging my cynical self. Her parents must still be at the service counter.

Back to the Times I tried to ignore her and Rona. If I were honest, the Yankees more than Trump were getting under my skin. They started the season so well and now they were losing almost every night. Following the Yankees was one of the ways I could block out some of the agita engendered by Trump's daily outrages. But not for the past four weeks. The Yankees were supplying plenty of agita on their own.

"21, 22, 23." At 23, the girl paused and looked up at the ceiling as if searching for answers.

To help Rona said, "24."

After a moment of additional struggle, the girl gleefully said, "25!"

"You're doing so well," Rona said. "What comes after 25?"

"26," the girl smiled and got up to get a cup of water from the cooler.

"You really know your numbers," Rona said.

The girl picked up where she left off and, now grinning, said, "27!"

"You're getting close to 30," Rona said, seeing she was beginning to struggle again. "What's next? After 27? I'll bet you know."

The girl, curled up in her chair, began counting on her fingers and said, "28," and, gushing, immediately added, "29!"

I put the paper down to listen and observe and was actually beginning to enjoy myself. I could sense Rona tensing, trying to not be too helpful but yet not wanting to cause the girl to become too frustrated. It was a complicated balance to strike.

"30!" she exclaimed, now bouncing in her chair. "I told you so. I can count to 30!"

"You did it," Rona said, all excited, "How about more? Can you keep counting?"

The girl shook her head, but, looking skeptical, still tried, "30-30?" She knew she had hit a wall.

"You want me to help?" Rona asked. Shyly the girl nodded her head, "30, 31," Rona paused, the girl said nothing and so Rona said, "32."

And before she could continue the girl quickly added, "33, 34, 35, 36." She was grinning broadly.

"I knew you could do it," Rona said.

Now all excited the girl counted, "37, 38, 39," she paused, then said, "30-10."

"That's very interesting," Rona said, "Very clever." The girl stared at her. She knew she hadn't come up with the right number and thus was curious why Rona was praising her.

"It's probably a little too complicated for me to try to explain to you why, though 30-10 doesn't come after 39, in many ways, what you said was, as I said, interesting."

The girl seemed satisfied with that. "After 39," Rona said, "comes 40."

The girl repeated, "40," and with that asked, "How old are you?"

Before dealing with that, Rona said, "My name's Rona. What's yours?"

"I'm Julie," she said, reaching out to shake hands.

"Julie is one of my favorite names," Rona said.

"How old are you, Roma?" she repeated.

"How old do you think I am?" Rona asked.

Julie stroked her chin, looking carefully at Rona out of the corner of her eye. "25?" she said.

"I like that," Rona said, "But I'm older than that. Take another guess."

Julie now was peering at her, "27?" Still happy with her guess, Rona shook her head. "20-12?" Julie asked.

"Do you mean 32?" Julie now was bouncing in her seat. With that a man approached us to ask if Julie, his daughter, was being a bother.

"Not at all," both Rona and I said, "She's showing us how good she is at counting."

"She made it all the way to 40," I said. "How old is she? She's very precocious."

"I'm precious," Julie said, again smiling.

"That too," Rona said. "How old are you?"

"Six," Julie said, holding up five fingers of one hand and one of the other, "I'm waiting for my mother. We're going to a parade."

"Are you OK with her?" her father said. He indicated that he worked at the auto dealership.

"Absolutely," Rona said, "Our car won't be ready for at least another half hour. She's is delightful."

When her father was back at his desk, Julie, leaning closer to Rona whispered, "Do you know how old Jesus is?"

"Who?" I said, not sure I had understood.

Still looking at Rona, Julie said, "Jesus. From the church."

"No one's ever asked me that," Rona said, "That's a really good question. Do you go to church?"

"Just on Sunday," Julie said. "But I don't like it there. They won't let me sit with my father. My brother can. He's nine."

Being a little cautious about the subject, Rona said, "Maybe when you're nine they'll let you sit with him." And then to change the subject back to counting, Rona asked, "If you're six and he's nine, how many more years will it be until you are nine?"

I tried to catch Rona's eye to suggest she not frustrate her with a question too difficult for someone her age. Even someone as obviously bright as Julie.

"Is Jesus a man or a woman?" Julie asked, ignoring Rona's subtraction question.

Not looking directly at Julie, Rona said, "I don't . . ."

"There's my mommy," Julie said, all excited. She hopped off her chair and ran over to her. She grabbed hold of her mother's jacket and tugged her to us, "This is my friend Roma," she said, "And he's her father," Julie said, pointing at me. I am in fact nearly 20 years older than Rona so this was not such a bad guess. Many others had assumed the same thing.

"Nice to meet you," Her mother said, "I hope she didn't talk your ear off. She can do that."

"Not at all," Rona said, "She's delightful. And very smart."

"Are you ready for the parade?" her mother asked?

Julie squealed and ran toward the door. When she got there, waiting for her mother, she turned to wave goodbye. And then they were gone.

As it turned out, the wheels did not need realigning and there was no charge.

July 3, 2017--Jack: Political Bull Fight

"I know you love Joe and Mika."

"Not really," I said to Jack who has taken up residence in the Bristol Diner.

"Don't you watch Morning Joe all the time?"

"Not so much in Maine where we limit our TV watching. Especially cable news."

"But I assume you're aware of the flap between them and Trump?"

"How could I not be, though I already disagree with you."

"I'm all ears."

"It's not between them. It's a situation that Trump created by his venomous tweets. And I mean them since the tweets were almost as nasty about Joe Scarborough as they were about Mika Brzezinski. I think the president called him a psycho, among other things. And of course got into all that blood business again, this time about Mika bleeding from the chin."

"And you think Mika and Joe are wholly innocent?"

"Whatever they might have said about Trump is not in any way equivalent. He's the president of the most powerful country in the history of the world and they are talkshow hosts."

"Let me quote a few things to you that on the air they said about Trump. Let's see if you feel they crossed the line."

"Before you begin let me agree in advance to one thing."

"I can't wait to hear this."

"During the campaign for the Republican nomination Joe and Mika, like a lot of other TV and print people, cozied up to Trump because he was a good story, quotable, and whenever he was on the air they would see their ratings skyrocket. And of course it was good for Trump as well as it gave him many millions of dollars worth of free air time. It was win-win for them while for the country it was lose-lose."

"And then," Jack said, "after he was elected they thought he would continue to be their pal and remain available to them. But once he was in the Oval Office he was no longer so eager to be on their show. He had other ways to communicate with his base. Mainly via Fox News. And tweeting of course. Joe and Mike admitted at the end of last week that he cut them off when they began to criticize him after they tried to influence his appointments and policies. He ignored them and they felt used, left out, conned. All of which they were."

"So far there's nothing new about this," I said, "Talkshow people like Sean Hannity, Mika and Joe, and real journalists are all about their contacts and sources. They live off access and leaks."

"That's why they snuck off to Mar-a-Lago New Years. To hobnob with Trump."

"It's an ugly business all a round. But remember, Trump's the president and what he said about the two of them went way over the line. Though as Maureen Dowd said yesterday, he's not a sexist pig but a pig."

"I'll get to her in a minute," Jack said, "but before I do, do you disagree that over the past few months Mika and Joe have questioned his stability, mental health, and ability to serve as president? This is different than criticizing his policies and the activities of his cabinet and White House staff. This is to call him crazy."

"But again," I said, "he's the PRESIDENT (all caps) of the United States. They are, what, by comparison small time operators. If he could manage to keep his mouth shut or stop tweeting, basically ignore them, that would be the best way to retaliate. Ignoring them is the best way to deal with people with big personalities and egos."

"But again, I mentioned Mika and Joe not to talk that much about them but about something that should be of greater concern to you."

"I'm happy to move on. Do you want to talk now about Maureen Dowd's column where she did in fact call him a pig?"

"Not about that," Jack said, "but about something else she wrote. More in line with what Brzezinski and Scarborough and the people appearing on their show have bene staying about him. Let me read you something she wrote this weekend--

"He is not built for this hostile environment [Washington, DC] and it shows in his deteriorating psychological state."

"What's wrong with that?"

"First of all, Joe and Mika and Maureen are not psychiatrists. Calling him reprehensible is one thing, but attacking his mental health is another matter. Are they beginning to make the case that he's psychologically impaired and so it's time to roll out the 25th Amendment and declare him incompetent to continue as president? If so, expect people in the streets with torches and pitchforks."

"I could see that happening," I said, "His people are pretty riled up. Many, worse than that."

"One more thing--there was that New York Times' lead editorial on Saturday--'Mr. Trump, Melting Under Criticism.'"

"I saw that."

"And what did you think?"

"I basically agreed with it."

"I have to agree with some of it as well--particularly the part that criticizes him for all his disgusting references to bleeding, really women's bleeding. It's obviously some sort of reference to menstrual blood. He must have male menophobia--an actual condition. But now here I go playing psychiatrist! What concerns me is the title of the piece. How it too suggests Trump's unfit, maybe psychologically unfit to be president. The Times even praises Nixon, if you can believe it, for the 'grace,' that's the word they used, with which he handled the press during the height of Watergate. That's as low a blow as anyone could deliver to a president--comparing him unfavorably to Nixon."

I said, "I too thought that was way below the belt. Nixon was disgraceful when it came to the press. He illegally wiretapped dozens of them and got the IRS to audit many of their taxes. That doesn't qualify as grace."

"But here's my real concern--do you and your friends really want to see Trump meting down, cornered? I mean, he appears to be very thin skinned and if he feels trapped who knows how he might act or, worse, retaliate. And I'm not talking tweets and stupid videos of Trump body slamming a fake CNN reporter at a WrestleMania  match. I'm talking Syria, North Korea, Putin, China, and a few other little things like that."

"Say more," I said, "And by the way, you're being very reasonable this morning."

He ignored that and said, "From your perspective would you want an out-of-control Trump or Mike Pense in charge? Pence who could probably work more effectively with Congress?"

"I'll have to think about it. I did write a few months ago that from a progressive perspective a weak Trump for three-and-a-half more years may be the best thing to hope for."

"You told me once that when you spent a half year in Mexico and during your times in Spain you enjoyed bull fights."

"I admit that I did. I know it's not politically correct, but I went to a lot of corrida de toros."

"And as part of every fight in an attempt to weaken the bull the banderillas planted barbed sticks in its shoulders. This did weaken him, lowered his head, but also enraged him and, my point, made him more dangerous."

"I am getting your analogy."

"I know you and your friends are enjoying Trump's fall, but maybe you're also making him more dangerous. If I were you, I'd think about this."