September 6, 2018--Duh

So with the imminent publication of Watergate hero, Bob Woodward's long-awaited book about the first year-and-a-half of the Trump presidency, Fear: Trump In the White House, what are we eager to learn that is new, that we didn't already get from Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, or Omarosa's Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House?

From what has been leaked--and a lot has been--it appears not that much. 

Thus far the juiciest tidbits tell of things like Chief Economic Advisor, Gary Cohen, snatching from Trump's Oval Office desk documents he was about to sign out of fear that if he were to do so the global economic consequences would be catastrophic. 

But most of what we learn from Woodward are a spate of new insults either directed toward Trump by senior staff and advisors as well as others that Trump came up with, especially those directed at poor Jeff Sessions.

Trump is an "idiot," a "liar," "dumb," a "little baby," while Session and others are "little rats," "mentally retarded," or a "dumb Southerner."

The president is also revealed to mock Session's Alabama accent--even imitating it--claiming he can't understand the Attorney General because he talks like he has "marbles in his mouth." 

Good luck to Trump with securing the solid-South's electoral votes if he runs for reelection.

From Nixon to Obama we turned to Woodward's six-foot shelf of inside-the-White-House books. Now, before he could get his latest to Amazon and then they to us, most of the good stuff is already on the record.

Oh, there is one thing--

In Wolff's book Trump staffers are quoted as saying he's like a "six-year-old." In Woodward's he's compared to a "fifth or sixth grader."

In "Crazytown," (Woodward's phrase for Trump World) I suppose this represents progress. 

So duh? Is this business as usual? Nothing much new? In many ways yes. But then again, with his well-deserved stature, because Woodward pretty much plows the same field as the others he legitimatizes their gossiper books. 

And thus the picture of Trump and his White House is becoming complete. What remains, to quote Woodward again, are the Final Days.

January 11, 2018--In A Matter of Minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, what's going on with this?

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

January 9, 2018--Jack: One Helluva Book

"I've been watching MSNBC non-stop . . ."

I interrupted, "What? MSNBC? I thought you hated them."

"I do, but I wanted to get a taste of where you and your friends get your news. Or should I say, your opinions."  I hadn't heard from Jack in a few weeks and wasn't unhappy about that. He can get under my skin and cause me agita. "And what a week it's been!"

He's not a drinker but sounded intoxicated. I said, "I'll bet you've had your fill about that book." I didn't think I needed to identify it further.

"It's one helluva book, that I'll give you. But of course it's mainly based on fake news." He chuckled at that.

"In a moment I'll want you to give me examples of where it's fake. I'm sure the Fox News people, who I know you watch, have filled you with their talking points. Amazing, isn't it, that all the Fox people sound the same. From that really mindless show in the morning, Fox & Friends, all the way through the day until Trump's brain has his show--Sean Hannity. At least they dumped that sexual predator, Bill O'Reilly. Not to mention Rojer Ailes."

"You mean like with your guys--Matt Lauer, Mark Halperin, and Charlie Rose? I could go on."

"You got me there," I admitted. 

"And are you trying to deny that everyone on MSNBC has the same opinions? Is there any daylight between the views of Chris Matthews, Chris Hayes, Rachael Maddow, and Lawrence O'Brien?"

"I agree about that and its not my favorite thing. But you're distracting me. I thought we were talking about the Wolff book and comparing our opinions. Not Fox's, not MSNBC's."

"You're the one who started this by slamming Fox News and their alleged talking points."

"Enough about that," I said, "Let's move on. I want your overall opinion of the book. Assuming you've read it. Even many Trumpers are admitting that though there are lots of specific errors and examples of sloppiness--they rushed to publish it and didn't do a great job of fact checking and editing--they don't detract from the overall story: that everyone agrees that Trump is like a nine-year-old child who needs constant attention and adulation. And, it would appear, is not too smart. Doesn't read, doesn't listen."

"Again, you guys are missing the bigger point."

"I'm listening," I said without intended irony.

"How this book is actually helping Trump."

"This I have to hear."

"Simple. First, who loves this book?" Without waiting Jack added, "The mainstream media. On MSNBC and even CNN it's Michael Wolff nearly 24/7. He was just on Morning Joe for a patty-cake interview that went on uninterrupted for about half an hour. He didn't have to defend himself about factual errors since Joe and Mika did it for him, including sloughing over things he wrote about them and the show that were errors."

"I saw that and that's true. But, again, you're missing the bigger picture--that even with errors of this kind Wolff got the larger story essentially correct. It's in the nature of books of this kind. They live in the world between day-to-day news reporting and more reflective histories."

"Trump's people don't think in these professorial-type terms. What they know is that their boy is being unfairly hounded by the media--of course except by Fox--and they are rising to protect him from them. Wait for his next favorability numbers. I'm betting they'll be up five points."

"That would be pathetic," I said. "How sad that these people still are oblivious to the truth."

"You're deluding yourself," Jack said, "But OK, let's move on to others who are helping Trump shrug off the book."

"Shrug off? That's not what I'm hearing. That Trump's ranting and raving. Especially about Wolff saying Don Junior committed treason. Even you have to admit that's a serious charge."

"Actually, it was Wolff quoting Steve Bannon. And about the charge, not necessarily. If Don Junior was involved in helping the Russians undermine our presidential election, what would you call it? Collusion? Collusion, by the way, is not a legal term or potential crime."

Ignoring my point Jack moved to redirect the conversation. He said, "And then the GOP establishment also loves the book. It may be that they'll pay for that by getting shellacked in the November midterm elections, but for the moment they like the idea that it pulls Trump closer to them and further under their influence. Wounded and vulnerable he needs their endorsement and protective cover. In other words, he's weaker and therefore more pliable. He'll sign anything Congress passes. And he already indicated he'll support all Republican incumbents and not go up against them by campaigning for anti-establishment insurgents as Bannon had him doing."

"That may be true," I acknowledged. "But that's pretty pathetic too."

"Speaking of Bannon," Jack said, "There's also benefit to Trump by the book bringing down Bannon. Nothing else has been able to do that but all the anti-Trump quotes from Bannon will be like driving a stake through his heart. Minimally, it will drive him back to drink. 

"I'm not sure I'm following your point. Nor that when he's desperate Trump will not seek Bannon out."

"It's again a simple point--Trump is better off without Bannon hovering around than he is with him always whispering in his ear. Bannonlessness makes Trump seem more independent, more his own person. His base will eat that up. They like macho."

"Boy, you've gotten cynical."

"That's what hanging around with the likes of you does to me," Jack guffawed. "But, seriously, the bottom line is that to Trump followers the book looks like a hatchet job written by the kind of people they despise, including east coast snobs who think they're smarter than everyone. The see them to be hypocrites who, when on their high horses, criticize conservatives for not telling the whole truth but rationalize it when their people--like Wolff--engage in fake news."

I was reluctant to admit it, but he had some good points. He managed to get under my skin again, but I felt, to be credible, I needed to have my views checked out and challenged. Even by the likes of Jack. If there's something to learn, the source shouldn't matter. Though I sure feel like not answering when I see it's Jack calling!

January 5, 2018--Trump's End Game

One more prediction for 2018 (and it's a big one)--

For more than a year I've been claiming that much of Donald Trump's erratic behavior is the result of the anxiety and fear that derives from his intimate personal knowledge about the extent of his and his inner circle's colluding with the Russians to tip the election away from Hillary Clinton and, more than anything else, since he is motivated primarily by greed, how he was at the center of a major money laundering operation which also has Russian ties.

Then, of course, there is the cover-up, perhaps the most dangerous of their and his potential felonies.

But money is his pole star. Money laundering is his and his family's specialty. Especially the Kushners. Keep an eye on Trump and Kushner money that was borrowed from the Russians for bogus real estate deals and then subsequently was laundered by Deutsche Bank and the Bank of Cyprus.

Only he knows the full extent of this and, since it is vast scam, it is not surprising that under the emotional strain associated with the exposure of this Ponzi scheme he is unraveling.

Unravelling at a increasing rate as the Mueller investigation closes in on him and his family. 

Thus the panicky reaction to the new Michael Wolff book, Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. Tomorrow, copies will be jumping off the shelves. I preordered one and can't wait to get my hands on it.

The book hit Trump broadside this past weekend as he was concluding his blissful vacation at his beloved Mar-a-Lago and on the golf courses in Palm Beach.

I suspect he felt, 'Who needs this?' I mean, the presidency. 

I have to believe that Melania and Ivanka took him aside while there for a heart-to-heart about all of this. I can hear them pleading--

"You're 71 years old, you eat crap from MacDonald's, you're 50 pounds overweight, you don't exercise, and you haven't had a real checkup in at least 10 years. You're a classic candidate for a stroke or heart attack. 

"Isn't it enough already? You never really wanted to be president, you didn't expect to get elected, you got into the race to boost your brand but here you are after surprising yourself by winning, having to live in that dump of a White House, rather than Trump Tower. You have to deal with the likes of Mitch McConnell when you could be hanging out with your pals in Palm Beach and playing golf every day of the year without getting grief about that from the snarky fake-news corps."

He would be nodding his head. They would continue--

"So here's what we recommend: declare 'Mission Accomplished' (or call it something else) and take a victory lap one last time by racing around the country on Air Force One. You love that plane. Pardon everyone from Flynn and his clueless son to Manafort to Don Junior to Eric to Jared and to me, Ivanka. So I won't be the first female president. I've seen enough about what that's like. You get called 'dumb as a brick.'

"Then, declare your work done and get the hell out of boring Washington. Turn it over to Pence who, if necessary, will pardon you."

I doubt that he said anything in response to Ivanka or Melania. But my prediction is that as he thinks it over he'll take what's behind door number one and pack it in.