August 17, 2018--A Pocket Full of Distractions

I finally figured out why Trump doesn't button his suit jackets. Until now I thought it was a vain attempt to hide his William Howard Taft-like girth. 

Now I realize it was for another, to him more urgent reason--to give him quick access to the list of distractions he has secreted away in his inner jacket pocket so it is always ready at hand for him to refer to in order to change the subject when he does something wrong or makes a fool of himself. To distract us and the media. 

To change the subject, for example, from Omarosa and the N-word tapes to cancelling former C.I.A. director John Brennan's security clearance. 

Trump has this list nearby in the same way he has the nuclear codes at the ready. Those are schlepped along wherever he goes by a military aide in the so-called "football." 

The list of distractions, to him much more important, Trump carries himself. Close to the heart.

I was able to sneak a look at the list the other day, and for the sake of checks and balances and the historical record I here for the first time reveal what's on it.

He has the distractions categorized--so, for example, there are distractions in waiting about immigrants. They include--

Point out serious felonies perpetrated by illegal immigrants to remind your supporters they are murders and rapists.

Announce all children separated from their parents at the border have been reunited.

Claim Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi support amnesty.  

Mention Nancy Pelosi along with "no-collusion" at every opportunity or whenever her name comes to mind.

Under the distraction category Women--

Mention Maxine Waters every time you appear in public. Remind people that she supports Nancy Pelosi and this is evidence of her low IQ.

Talk about how smart you are: where you went to college, your IQ, how much money you are worth. About that, triple what your personal accountant itemized on your most recent 1040 form. (Don't worry about the tax implications)

Invite Laura Ingraham, Janine Piro, and Megyn Kelly to the White House for, like Obama, lunch on the lawn. (Don't mention Obama)

On August 26th, National Dog Day, announce you've changed your mind about Hillary Clinton. (Your supporters will stop chanting "Lock her up" every time you mention her name. Instead, they will bark)

Announce that you and Melania will be adopting a shelter dog. (You're the first president since FDR not to have one)

African-American distractions include--

Talk about black people who are some of your best friends: Don King, Mike Tyson, Dennis Rodman. Invite them to lunch on the White House lawn. (Consider inviting Obama, who is a black African)

Invite Miss Universe Pageant winner Paulina Vega to lunch on the White House lawn. (She may be from Colombia but she is still black)

Call Nancy Pelosi a low-IQ dog to demonstrate you are not a racist.

There are many media distractions. Here's just one that touches a few bases--

Announce you're going on Don Lemon's show to talk about your black friends. (He's black)

It's on CNN. (This shows the intrepid side of you--your willingness to venture into enemy territory. It's not the same as visiting Afghanistan, but we all know that's the last place in the world you'll be visiting.)

And with Lemon you get a three-fer: His blackness, CNNness, and his gayness. (He's out of the closet)

Then there are North Korea distractions--

Reprieve "Little Rocket Man." (To flatter him consider "Big Rocket Man")

Shoot down a North Korean jet off the coast of South Korea.

Bomb Syria

Bomb Tehran.

Bomb Venezuela.

Bomb Pyongyang.

Nuke Pyongyang.

Bomb San Fransisco (Nancy Pelosi's district).

Finally, there are the firings distractions--

Fire chief of staff Kelly.

Fire Jeff Sessions. (The attorney general)

Fire Stephen Miller. (Your senior advisor)

Fire Kellyanne Conway. (Counselor to the president--you)

Fire Sarah Huckabee Sanders. (Your press secretary)

Fire Mike Pence. (Forget that you can't do that. Fire him anyway)

Fire Sean Spicer. (Ignore that you already did that)

Fire Michael Flynn (Ditto. Fire him again)

Fire Steve Bannon. (Ditto)

Fire Paul Manafort. (Ditto)

Fire Anthony Scaramucci. (Ditto)

Fire Omarosa. (Ditto)

Fire Jared. (Your son-in-law)

Fire Ivanka. (Your daughter)

Fire Melania. (Your wife)

Fire Barron. (The youngest of you 3 or 4 sons)

Fire Nancy Pelosi. (Soon again to be Speaker of the House)

September 25, 2017--Megyn Kelly's Joy

If like me you occasionally enjoy indulging in a little schadenfreude--taking pleasure in the misfortunes of the rich and famous--there is an opportunity awaiting Monday morning at 10 a.m. on network TV when NBC launches "Megyn Kelly Today."

In case you have been living off the grid for the past two years you may not know who she is and why this is sort of a big deal.

She was doing pretty well on Fox News as an anchor and talk show host when her aggressive questioning of Donald Trump in August 2015 during the first Republican primary debate brought her national attention and subsequently propelled her career forward into the media  stratosphere.

She witheringly pressed Trump about his many misogynist comments. Her opening comment to him included--

"You've called women you don't like 'fat pigs, 'dogs, 'slobs,' and 'disgusting animals.'

She added--

"Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women's looks. You once told a contestant on 'Celebrity Apprentice' it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees."

His response three days later was to attack Kelly, saying--

"You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes. Blood coming out of her wherever."

The rest is history--

While a normal candidate would have been disqualified as the result of this, Trump went on to be nominated and elected and Megyn Kelly got Fox and NBC to bid for her on-going services. NBC made an offer she couldn't refuse--a weekly show, "Sunday Night With Megyn Kelly" and now the daily "Megyn Kelly Today."

And of course her deal includes a big payday--at least $20 million a year. Almost as much as Alex Rodriquez earned annually as the New York Yankee's third baseman.

But the ratings of the Sunday show have been, well, a disaster and so there is a lot of pressure on her to deliver a successful morning show.  

And as a result there is this opportunity for some guilty-pleasure schadenfreude.

About the morning show, last week Kelly said--

"I don't feel this is a risky proposition because I know myself and know what I can do. I'm about to launch the show that I was born to do. This is what I was meant to do."

 Let's hope so. Actually, let's hope not.

In an interview with the New York Times she said much more. I will share some of it as an appetizer in anticipation of the new show itself--

Though her show on Fox had good ratings, she said-- 

It wasn't bringing me joy anymore. You're going to see the Megyn we know. For me, it truly is all about pursuing more joy. That's the reason we are here . . . . This is my dream job because I am a person who is searching. And always have been. I am searching for my joy and more love and more wellness. Always have been. Finally, my job is going to align with my soul, with my heart, with my reason for being."

Oprah couldn't have said it better.

In the interview with the Times, Megan Kelly said "joy," "joyful," and "joyous" nine times. I will restrain myself from sharing the full list because I am writing this Sunday evening before dinner and don't want to further spoil my appetite.

September 26, 2016--Debate Preview

When I saw that the cable news networks were planning to begin their debate coverage today at 4:00 p.m., five hours before the actual debate commences, I wondered out loud to Rona why they would be doing something this seemingly ridiculous, "How much is there to talk about?"

"Easy," Rona said, "They are expecting at least 100 million to tune in--an all time record, nearly half of the country's adult population--and that means big-bucks ratings. These are Super Bowl numbers and it's all because of him."

"So it's all about ratings and money?"

"What else is new. Some companies are actually making special TV commercials, including the Mexican beer Tecate, which will make fun of Donald's wall."

"Amazing, though not really. But as always with these kinds of mega-political events--the State of the Union or the Inaugural address--the media folks spend hours in advance speculating about what will be said. In the case of the debate, I'm sure they'll talk endlessly about who will get under their opponent's skin first and who will make the biggest blunder. Like poor Gerry Ford who stepped in it when he said in 1976 that the Eastern European countries are free and not captive Soviet nations."

"When he did that, the moderator, I think he was from the New York Times, was so stunned that he said, 'I'm sorry, what?'"

"So," I said, "here's my preview."

"Spare me," Rona said, but did not leave the room.

"First of all, can it be true that 100 million will watch? How could that be since at most a few thousand voters are genuinely undecided. Do you think at this point there are more than that who haven't made up their minds? In spite of what most polls report about them. Like Trump said, he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and none of his supporters would as a result vote for Hillary."

"If he did, considering what's going on in the country, his numbers would probably go up."

"This then means," I persisted, "that almost everyone who'll watch will be doing so for entertainment reasons. Since both candidates are thin-skinned, there's a good chance that there will be fireworks and the real possibility that someone will say something politically calamitous. It doesn't get to be more fun or high stakes than that. Better than House of Cards. More like Veep."

"I think that not since Kennedy/Nixon in 1960 will a first debate be so decisive. Yesterday morning the Washington Post poll had Clinton and Trump in a statistical dead heat. So tonight could be even more conclusive than what happens on Election Day."

"I assume you mean that after tonight the results will in effect be determined."

"That could be. So millions with their minds already made up can say they were 'there' when the tide turned decisively in one direction or another."

"But getting back to the entertainment issue. Did you see that Trump invited Bill Clinton's former mistress, Jennifer Flowers to be his guest and sit in the front row? Maybe just a few seats away from Bill himself?"

"She tweeted that she plans to be there."

"How about Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky?"

Getting into the theatrics of the debate, Rona said, "To retaliate Hillary could invite all of Trump's former wives and girlfriends."

"Between Bill and Donald that could fill up the entire first row."

"If Flowers or any of the others show up, do you think the moderator, Lester Holt, will ask about that? It would take great restraint on his part not to do so since he's a newbie to presidential debate moderation and could probably benefit from the notoriety like Megyn Kelly did."

"Or will the NBC folks put Jennifer on camera? How about a split screen of her with Bill?"

"Anticipating that alone," Rona said, "would keep me watching for the full 90 minutes."

"Really?" I said, "I thought you might not want to watch at all. You've been so consistent in feeling disgusted with the whole process."

"But it's perversely brilliant," Rona said. "I hate it but I get it. Our politics has been morphing into an ongoing reality TV show. Obviously, with Trump propelled into public consciousness from that world. So it's not unexpected that he would have Jennifer Flowers there. Jerry Springer would if he were staging it. As for sure so would the Kardashians."

"The full apotheosis of this debasement of our political culture--not that even with the Founders it's been that high (Jefferson and Adams, for example, and Hamilton and Burr among others went at it in hurtful personal, even deadly ways)--the full flowering of politics as schadenfreudian fun--forgive the pun--would be if Trump somehow managed to get elected. I suspect that a majority of the voting population might very well be ready for that. Just as Oprah helped pave the way for Obama, Springer and his spawn may wind up doing the same thing for Trump."

Signaling that she had had enough, Rona sighed, "Save us. Please."

"Amen," I said.

"But I admit it--I'll be watching."

May 19, 2016--Donald & Megyn: Reunited at Last

I'll admit it. I'm a fan of junk TV. Anything from Married With Children to Good Wife to Dancing With the Stars. That's why I have to ration my viewing.

So it should be no surprise that I looked in on the new Megyn Kelly show, I think eponymously titled, Megyn Kelly Presents.

And what did she present on her inaugural special? A no-brainer--Donald Trump.

After nine months of long-distance spatting, they were together again. She with her new Valkyrie power-hair right out of Game of Thrones. He with perhaps a slightly toned down Trump-do. She with her agenda--to expose his soft (appealing to women) side. He with his agenda--to expose his soft (appealing to women) side.

So of course the entire interview was about what happened during the first GOP debate and its lingering aftermath when she nailed him so devastatingly as a misogynist.

"Do you look back at that debate with any regrets?" she in effect asked, "Anything you learned or would change?"

He admitted that he would change a few things but refused to disclose any. So much for soft side.

They went back and forth about that. Kelly in the Barbara Walters' mode, hoping for a pop shot--in this case the beginning of a tear.

I thought, if one runs down his cheek during a closeup he will win in November.

Not to worry, he'll be back with her frequently now. It should assure a blip up in his poll numbers when it comes to female voters and help her leap ahead of Bill O'Reilly in the Fox News internecine ratings war.

They are truly made for each other. Perhaps a better way to put this is that they are made by each other.

Before his outrageous "blood coming out of her wherever" comment, Trump, pundits thought, was just along for the ride in the Republican clown car to burnish his brand and she was a middling host of a relatively low-rated Fox talk-show.

After the debate his numbers started to rise and she saw her ratings soar and was offered a $5.0 million advance for a memoir.

This as the result of the two of them together conspiring to create a reality show of their own to star in and from which to derive mutual benefit. For him, votes; for her fame and fortune.

Use-use.

At some point the other evening, during the interview, they got off on a different subject--I forget just what. Maybe something boring having to do with economic policy.

Ever-alert, not wanting to distract from the real subject at hand, Megyn interrupted and all excited said, "Enough about that. Let's talk about us."

Perfect.

May 13, 2106--Quinnipiac

Yesterday's meetings in Washington between Donald Trump and Paul Ryan, the House and Senate Republican leaders, and the head of the Republican National Committee were ostensibly about GOP unity.

With Trump riding a wave of unorthodox popular support and with various congressional egos and ambitions to be catered to, Trump, the mountain, came to the Washington mole hill.

He was there to put his softer side on display and to show deference to the GOP leadership by coming to them in trade for their endorsement and support--he doesn't want to have to spend a billion of his own money since he has a lot less of it than he claims and a hit of that magnitude on his personal fortune would require him to liquidate much of his real estate empire.

(As a sidebar, he does not want to release his taxes because, unlike Mitt Romney four years ago who did so kicking and screaming because it showed him paying just 14 percent of his huge income in taxes, or to reveal how parsimonious he is when making charitable donations--he is notoriously not generous--Trump does not want to release information about his taxes as it would show that his net worth is much less than half of what he claims it to be.)

The dance with Paul Ryan was the trickiest since they need each other if Trump manages to win the presidency and intends to actually govern--his legislative agenda, such as it will be, will need to be approved by the House. And with Paul Ryan having stars in his eyes about running for the presidency himself in 2020 or even 2024 if Trump wins and serves two terms, Ryan has to pretend he is getting Trump to calm down and back off from some of his most extreme and divisive positions such as the temporary Muslim ban.

Also, as the publicity-obsessed Ryan knows, getting joined at the hip with Trump is the best thing he can do to build his brand. Trump's powerful spotlight shines on anyone nearby. Look at how Megyn Kelly's star rose after confronting Trump during the first GOP debate. As a result she has a $5.0 book deal and a highly-rated Fox primetime talk show.

Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell has a simpler agenda--his is one of the few senators not thinking about running for president--he love his job, the prerogatives, and the fancy office. So he dons't want any trouble with some of the down-ballot Republican senators who are worried about their reelection. To have Trump not taking pot shots at him and the landlocked Senate is pretty much all he wants to extract.

But here's what's really going on--

Just as the schedule for yesterday's Washington visit was being firmed up, the credible Quinnipiac poll of three purple swing states was released--with Trump having a bad week otherwise, matching him against Hillary Clinton, they showed him already doing better than expected in Florida and Pennsylvania (a virtual dead heat both places with Hillary leading 43 to 42), but with Trump having a outside-the-margin-of-error lead in critical Ohio--43 to 39.

Seeing these numbers and projecting their implications for November, GOP party members junior and senior by the end of the week were falling all over themselves to jump on the Trump bandwagon.

This is because these guys (and they are still mostly guys) care about just two things--themselves and winning. Not what the Founders had in mind when they drafted the Constitution but what we have devolved to: a professional politician class waging a lifetime campaign.

March 22, 2016--Yes, Yes Trump

A heretical thought--

Shouldn't progressive Democrats hope that Donald Trump wins the Republican nomination? Even, where they can, cross over and vote for him in their state's primaries?

Before you pull the plug on this, hear me out. And, as a hint, remember what happened to the GOP in 1964 and thereafter.

First, Trump's winning the nomination would assure Hillary Clinton's election.

Head-to-head she would trounce him. Forget current polls showing him doing decently in the general election. Imagine Clinton and Trump on stage debating. What do you think would happen? That's easy--he'd make a fool of himself, reveal that he is not temperamentally fit to be the Commander in Chief, and remind people the presidency is serious business and that political playtime is over.

As a consequence, Hillary would win at least three-quarters of the Electoral vote.

Then, as we've already seen, Trump is currently leading the pack of three after demolishing 14 other aspirants by self-funding his campaign. This is rendering high-roller donors such as the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson irrelevant.

Remember Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, and Marco Rubio? All were odds-on favorites, supported by big-buck PAC groups, and all are out of the race. The Kochs and Adelson types may be crazy, but they're not stupid--they know that the party for them is over if Trump continues to do well without their help. Actually, shows disdain for it.

He is a one-man wrecking crew when it comes to Citizens United. This could be the beginning of the end for dark-money interests who for decades have owned conservatives in Congress as well as the White House. This goes back to Dwight Eisenhower's and Ronald Reagan's time, both of whom were propelled forward and unduly influenced during their presidencies by corporate plutocrats.

Then there is the matter of Fox News.

Since it's launch in 1996, funded by Australian media-mogul Rupert Murdock, current fiancé of Mick Jagger's ex, Jerry Hall, and overseen by GOP spinmeister Roger Ailes. It has been the most powerful and influential of conservative institutions. Perhaps even more so than Rush Limbaugh or the Republican National Committee. What GOP politicians, including presidential aspirants, have not pandered to Fox's so-called reporters and talk-show hosts? No one but Donald Trump who uses them or ignores them on his own terms.

While Trump was getting his political career launched he was as ubiquitous on Fox air as John McCain and Sarah Palin. But as he was propelled into the lead, he began to treat Fox with dismissive contempt. After being effectively taken down by Megyn  Kelly during the first debate, he began a sustained campaign to assassinate her character and professionalism. It's hard to forget his "bleeding from wherever" slander and then how he petulantly decided not to participate, before the Iowa caucuses, in the Fox-hosted debate. And just this week, about another Fox-organized debate, he said "enough." And, knowing that without his showing up the ratings would plummet, Fox canceled it.

Not satisfied, Trump then launched another campaign of criticism directed at Kelly. Some said he was losing control, that he is "obsessed" with her, even that he is "stalking" her.

Who knows. But his not genuflecting at Fox's altar is beginning to affect their numbers. Without Trump-breaking-news-all-the-time, for the first time CNN and MSNBC, both of which are devoting almost full time to covering Trump, are seeing their comparative ratings creep up.

If Fox News is diminished because of Trump, rather than see in his attempts to control the press (which politician or president hasn't attempted to do that?) signs of fascism, maybe we should acknowledge, hate him-love him, that in this case Trump may be contributing to the diminishment of the heretofore all-powerful Murdock-Ailes media axis.

And then there is the 1964 effect. Another reason progressives should consider "using" Trump.

Recall, that was the year Barry Goldwater and his acolytes soundly defeated moderate Republicans Bill Scranton and Nelson Rockefeller for the GOP nomination. This was when Goldwater famously declared, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice . . . and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue."

Goldwater went on to be overwhelmed by Lyndon Johnson, winning only six states while securing less than 40 percent of the popular vote. It took until 1980, 16 years, before the Republicans were reconstituted. A lifetime in political history.

Establishment Republicans are so fearful (I almost said freaked-out) about the prospect of a Trump nomination that they are talking about changing the party's nomination rules when they convene this summer in Cleveland or, if that fails, putting forth a third-party candidate such as Rick Perry. Yes, the hapless former governor of Texas. Or if he's not available, maybe they'd run Herman Cain. But not to worry--about him, I'm making that up.

Thus, a Trump nomination would not only assure a Clinton victory and likely enable Democrats to regain control of the Senate (and with that the ability to confirm progressive Supreme Court nominees) but would also dismember the Republican Party such as it is for at least a political generation.

So, my friends . . .

February 1, 2016--The Emotional Culture of America

The day before the evening caucuses in Iowa--the first time in 2016 that actual votes will be counted--it feels timely to pause, reflect, and predict.

I'm being advised by some friends, including one of my best friends who is wicked smart and well informed, to stop paying so much attention to Donald TRUMP. The implication loud and clear is that by doing so--even with a critical or satiric edge to my writing--I am aiding and abetting his candidacy. That it's obvious he's dangerous and needs to be defeated.

Perhaps my friends are right. I should step back and think about what they are counseling. Not necessarily come to agree with them, but take seriously what they are saying.

We go back and forth for a few rounds and then someone claims that TRUMP is dangerous because of what they see to be his fascistic inclinations.

If TRUMP is a fascist, what else is there to say? Except that hopefully the America of 2016 is not the Italy of 1922.

All of this aside, as I pause to think about the current state of the presidential race, to wonder if I have been showing too much favor to TRUMP and his candidacy, I should ask myself how I think he and others are doing, what can be learned from that, and who am I inclined in November to support.

I have been arguing here that TRUMP has tapped deep chords in current American consciousness and has exploited or resonated with them (take your pick) with astonishing effect.

As a candidate he was initially thought of to be a "clown," an impostor, someone only interested in enhancing his "brand" and, once he accomplished that, he would drift away and return to his literally gilded tower.

But, unlike other Republican political comets, from Michele Bachmann to Herman Cain to Sarah Palin, he has not flamed out but has lingered at the top of the polls now for more than seven months. No other first-term candidate in 100 years has done so so consistently for this long. Not even ultimately popular candidates such as Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, or John F. Kennedy in 1960.

In the face of friends' criticisms I have tried to insist it's important to understand as fully as possible TRUMP's success, and successful he has been, so we can better root it out, defeat him, and--most important to me--learn as much as we can about what it means about today's America. To continue to mock him, write him off, assume he will implode will not get that job done. So, it has been my view that we had better be sure we do not continue to ignore the forces undergirding his appeal and energizing his candidacy and in that passive way be of unintended help to him..

As examples of these views, here are excerpts from a few of the emails I have sent to friends in an attempt to explain my posture--

TRUMP and the other spawn of reality TV, talk radio, and Fox News have seized control of the process. Maybe of reality.

And, they are no longer beholden to the forces that launched them or the people who bankrolled them . Interesting, isn't it, that we haven't heard much lately from the Koch Brothers or Sheldon from Las Vegas. 

What I mean to say is that politics is now operating in a parallel universe of its own. 

I am eager to see if (1) TRUMP maintains his refusal to participate in Fox's debate Thursday night and (2) if he doesn't show up what, if anything, will be the consequences. 

We can already hear the whiners saying that he's afraid of someone wearing a skirt (Megyn Kelly). How can someone who fears a WOMAN be trusted to stand up to really bad guys such as Putin, the Ayatollahs, or ISIS. (Roger Ailes of Fox News already said literally that.) 

It may be that Donald is a political Frankenstein, more powerful than his creators. And, to them, more dangerous. If so, they deserve him.

*  *  *

The case for TRUMP is that more conventional, better prepared and experienced candidates and presidents have been dangerous disasters. Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and George W. Bush come to mind. 

But it may be that he has just the right temperament for the job that now needs to be done. In my view, he is so threatening to the status quo that the array of forces, worried about their prerogatives, are lining up against him. From Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity at Fox News, to the Rush Limbaughs, to the Republican establishment Koch Brothers, to the Wall Streeters, to the professional bureaucrats, and of course all the liberals and movement conservatives. For me, this is an attractive list of opponents and enemies.

*  *  *

I'm concentrating now on both the process and on what what is happening reveals about the political and emotional culture of America. For that, for me, the TRUMP phenomenon is as important as it gets. I think there is a great deal to study and I'm trying to see and learn as much as I can. 

Next stage--after some dust settles (I think Hillary and TRUMP will win in Iowa, Bernie and TRUMP in NH, and then Hillary and TRUMP in SC, with Hillary and TRUMP then on inexorable paths to the nominations) for me then it will be time to try to understand what kind of presidents they might make.  

It may be true that TRUMP could be dangerous, but I do not until there is more actual evidence join in that feeling. And to me also, because Hillary is so full of personal ambition and inner demons, she also frightens me. 

My fantasy since I can't see myself voting for either TRUMP or Clinton-- 

Hillary gets indicted or censured for the email mess and Joe Biden and/or John Kerry enter the race. The Bernie people would go crazy, of course. But Biden and Kerry are the only two people I feel good about. To me either of them would be good presidents.

Otherwise, Hillary wins it all in a walk.

December 2, 2015--Lies: The New Facts

Among the many intriguing things about Donald TRUMP's pursuit of the GOP nomination is the fact that he doesn't seem to get hurt in the polls when he lies.

As when he tells big ones like having seen "thousands and thousands" of Muslims in Jersey City celebrating at tailgate parties as the World Trade Center "came tumbling down." And then doubling and tripling down when confronted with the "facts"--that there is no documentable evidence that such a monstrous thing occurred.

Traditional candidacies would have already collapsed under the weight of lies of that magnitude, much less been able to survive after the things he said about illegal immigrant Mexican "rapists," Carly Fiorina's "face," and Fox News' Megyn Kelly's loss of journalistic objectivity because "blood was coming out of her wherever."

If anything, the more outrageous he behaves, the more he lies, the more his supporters love him and the better he does in the polls. (See, for example, today's Quinnipiac national poll where he has a 10 point lead.)

He left Chuck Todd sputtering Sunday morning on Meet the Press when Todd pressed him about the importance of the president telling the truth and TRUMP refused to budge or recant some of his whoppers.

As quoted in This Week, the exasperated Todd said, "Just because somebody repeats something doesn't make it true. You're running for president of the United States. Your words matter. Truthfulness matters. Fact-based stuff matters."

TRUMP continued to hold his ground, refusing to back down, act contrite, or much less show embarrassment. In effect reversing reality by propounding that it's the liberal media that does the lying. It is as if he is saying, "If I believe it to be true, if I say that it's true, it's true and more reliable than anything coming from biased broadcast outlets such as Meet the Press."

For decades now, the right-wing alternate media system of conservative talk shows and Fox News have been peddling lies as truth. And like TRUMP savaging what they see to be the progressive, socialist agenda of the "mainstream media."

This assault on the truth, where lies become the new truth, sets the table for a candidate such as TRUMP who is comfortable living in a world of lies masquerading as facts.

Thus poor Chuck Todd's frustration. He lives and operates in a universe where, as he put it, fact-based stuff matters. He is uncomfortable in a world where this is no longer true, where people make up facts, especially facts fabricated from lies that are so elaborate--like "seeing" thousands of jihadists partying in New Jersey--that to the predisposed can only be true.

The most influential of the new media operatives, Rush Limbaugh, when discussing climate science, said--

If you know what's good for you, if you know they're leftists, you won't believe anything they say any time, anywhere, about anything. . . . So we now have the Four Corners of Deceit, and the two universes in which we live--the Universe of Lies, the Universe of Reality, and the Four Corners of Deceit: government, academia, science, and media. These institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit.

So there you have it--the context in which TRUMP is operating. A culture in which the former sources of truth are now fully compromised and untrustworthy.

It may be that because of this delusional strategy he will not be able to defeat Hillary Clinton in the general election where for the majority of the full electorate facts do count, but with so many Republicans living in the world in which embraceable lies abound, lies that confirm their own biases--like jihadists dancing in the streets of America--he to me is still looking like the most likely GOP nominee.

August 10, 2015--On the Rag

When I saw yesterday that Maureen Dowd's column in the New York Times was about Donald TRUMP, half to myself, I moaned, "Here we go again. Yes, he deserves to be eviscerated yet more for his misogynist comments. Not for what he said at the debate about Megyn Kelly (in effect that she was unfair to him because she was--as he and I would say where we both grew up in Brooklyn--"on the rag") but for all the despicable things he has had to say about, as he would put it, "the women" throughout his life in public."

I promised myself I would get to it after reading through less-predictable stories.

When I did, as she less and less has done in recent years, Dowd this time surprised me with her fresh and tell-it-like-it-is insights about TRUMP, the media, and the state of our political culture.

Read it all if you haven't, but here's a flavor from the very end. About TRUMP talking about how he contributes money to politicians so he can have access to them and get them to do favors for him--

His policy ideas are ripped from the gut instead of the head. Still, he can be a catalyst, challenging his rivals where they need to be challenged and smoking them out, ripping off the facades they're constructed with their larcenous image makers. Trump can pierce the tromp l'oeil illusions, starting with Jeb's defense of his brother's smashing the family station wagon into the globe. 

Consider how Trump yanked back the curtain Thursday night explaining how financial quid pro quos warp the political system. 

"Well, I'll tell you what, with Hillary Clinton, I said be at my wedding and she came to my wedding," he said. "You know why? She had no choice because I gave. I gave to a foundation that, frankly, that foundation is supposed to do good. I didn't know her money would be used on private jets going all over the world. 

Sometimes you need a showman in the show.

Go Maureen!

In the aftermath of the debate, the media was obsessed about one thing, the wrong thing--themselves.

Much of the commentary, on full display on Sunday's TV talk shows and on the Internet's political websites, was about TRUMP's on-going trashing of Fox News' Megyn Kelly. Did The Donald really say she was unfair to him with her tough questions because--did he imply--because she was menstruating?

With the exception of Maureen Dowd there was hardly a post-debate word about the most important issues. For example how the four governors among the GOP "Top-10" (is this about the presidency or American Idol?) exaggerated--OK, lied--about their records in Florida (Jeb Bush), Wisconsin (Scott Walker), Chis Christie (New Jersey), and John Kasich (Ohio). How they didn't tell the truth about jobs created during their terms in office, their states' budget deficits, and about how public education fared as a result of their leadership.

Here's a flavor--

Jeb Bush claimed that high school graduation rates increased dramatically during his eight years as Florida governor. They "improved by 50 percent," he boasted. In fact, most of the gains occurred after he left office. During his two terms graduation rates grew by 14 percent.

He also claimed that he cut taxes by $19 billion but failed to mention that most of those cuts were because of federally-mandated decreases in the estate tax.

John Kasich lied when he said that the state's Medicaid program "is growing at one of the lowest rates in the country." In fact, Ohio ranks 16th in enrollment growth among the 30 states that opted out of Obamacare.

Scott Walker claimed that because of his leadership, Wisconsin "more than made up" for the job losses that were the result of the recession. In truth Wisconsin gained 4,000 jobs since that time.

How did Maureen Dowd put it? This posturing and dissembling is the work of "larcenous image makers" and of course embraced by the candidates.

But enough about this. What did TRUMP really mean when he said Megyn Kelly was "bleeding from wherever"?

Megyn Kelly and her Fox News colleagues