December 30, 2020--Georgia On My Mind

Next Tuesday is Election Day again in Georgia. For just two races. 

Both senatorial seats are up for grabs and who wins or loses is uncommonly consequential. The majority leadership of the Senate is the actual big prize.

If the Republicans win just one of the seats they will retain control of the Senate and Mitch McConnell will continue as Majority Leader.

If the Democrats manage to win both they will take control and Chuck Schumer will replace Mitch.

Pundits see each race to be a tossup but with the GOP candidates perhaps likely to win the two.

But if my arithmetic is correct, the Democrats can still take control, even if they lose one seat.

Here's how--

If a sitting GOP senator decides that he or she is no longer a Republican and, like Bernie Sanders and Angus King, switches parties, becoming an Independent and, again like Sanders and King, who are Independents, caucuses as they do with the Democrats.

The Senate would then be deadlocked at 50-50 wth vice president Kamala Harris casting all tie-breaking votes. Including who will serve as Minority Leader.

A long-shot? Yes. But there is a plausible way for this to happen--Mitt Romney becomes the third Independent-Democrat.

Our politics has become unpredictable and stranger things have already happened, starting with the implausible Trump becoming president.

So stay tuned. 

December 16, 2019--Let's Play Jeopardy

Category: United States Senators

For $2,000 the answer is-- 

This 79-year-old Republican senior senator  from Tennessee who was George H.W. Bush's Secretary of Education before being elected to the Senate and seeking the GOP nomination for the presidency is not running for reelection in 2020. He is best known for campaigning in lumber jack shirts.

Question?

Who is Lamar Alexander?

Alex Trebek--"Good"

I set this up Jeopardy style to make the point that Alexander is not a household name. How many of you got this right?

Now, here's my question--

Alexander is a lifelong political moderate, has plenty of money (about $25.0 million), is not susceptible to being primaried by a hand-picked Trump political flunky, and by all measures should not be concerned about what Trump thinks about him or what nickname he might come up with to smear him.

And yet he is on a trajectory to vote not to remove Trump from office. He is not on the Democratic party's wish list of Republican senators worried about their upcoming reelection chances who might, might consider voting to convict Trump in the Senate--Susan Collins (Maine), Martha McSally (Arizona), Thom Tillis (NC), Cory Gardner (Colorado), Joni Ernst (Iowa), and the ever-ambitious Mitt Romney (Utah).

In spite of holding these senators in contempt if they vote to exonerate Trump, I get the craven ones seeking reelection who are trying to figure out not how to defend the Constitution (as their oath requires) while at the same time not enraging Trump,

But Lamar Alexander?

What secret power does Trump have over him?

I understand a lot about what is going on politically, including why Trump in 2016 received 54 percent of white women's votes. But this one I don't get.

I'd very much welcome your thoughts.

October 22, 2019--Jack Sputtering

Jack, alone, was slumped in a booth, seemingly talking to himself when we arrived at the Bristol Diner. 

Rona poked me and mouthed that maybe we should leave him alone. 

She whispered, "I think he's unraveling."

"If he is then maybe we should sit with him."  She nodded and led the way. 

"What's up Jack? You seem all out of joint?"

"I'm sick of those assholes."

"Who might they be?" Rona asked.

"Senators."

"Senators?" I said, "All of a sudden you care about them? I thought all that interested you was your president."

"That's my point."

"I'm not following you," I said. "Though I assume you're bent out of shape about the Republican senators."

"You assume correctly."

"I don't see why you're so down on them," Rona said, "They've rolled over for him. They'd be among those who wouldn't care if he shot someone on Fifth Avenue. All they're interested in is covering for him so he doesn't sic his base on them. Primary them, for example. They'll do anything to get reelected and believe if they cover for him, if they look the other way he won't come after them."

"It may surprise you," Jack said, "that I agree with most of that. They're a bunch of slimy hypocrites."

"Of course they're hypocrites. But I'm not getting your problem with them. As Rona said they're protecting him. I assume that's what you'd want them to do. Protect him from the Democrats."

"My problem is that these senators don't care about him but only about themselves. They'd throw him under the bus if they thought they could get away with it. This means the protection they provide is very thin and that makes Trump vulnerable."

"From your mouth to God's ear," Rona said. "I am hoping, to be honest, that they do throw him under the bus. My fantasy is that Pence becomes president. As bad as I think he would be he'd be like a breath of fresh air."

"His own people hate Trump and that scares me."

"Hate him?"

"If you were a Republican senator . . ."

"What a nightmarish thought," Rona said.

"If you were a Republican senator wouldn't you hate him? I don't mean express that openly. No one in their right mind who wants to remain in the Senate or run for president in four years would openly criticize him. As I said, they depend upon him to get reelected. So they show support for him and he reciprocates. Talk about quid pro quo."

"But I don't get the hate part. Why do they hate him?"

"They, all senators from both parties think of themselves as being members of the world's most exclusive club. There are only 100 senators, and they pride themeless on their independence and like to pretend they're above the grimy fray. In their own minds they're statesmen and compare themselves favorably to members of the House where representatives are comfortable doing whatever their leaders tell them to do. For example, how to vote. Look at how powerful Nancy Pelosi is. If she says jump, they jump. These days she even has AOC under her thumb. She housebroke her. Pun intended."

"I'm with you so far," Rona said.

"So how do you think it makes senators feel when they find themselves jumping when Trump tells them to do so? Or when Trump's lackey Mitch McConnell tells them to jump? Not too good, right?"

"I imagine not," Rona said.

"If true, then, a whole lot of Republican senators are not feeling very good about themselves. They're not the independent-minded big shots they like to think they are. They're a bunch of lackeys too. And politically and psychologically that can be dangerous for Trump. It means support for Trump in the Senate is thin because it was coerced and therefore is ready to explode or collapse. If Romney or Lindsey Graham, both still wanting to be president like half the senators do, were to pull the plug on their support for Trump, his presidency could come crashing down. Again, because most of the Republican senators hate him for what he has turned them into. How he has diminished and humiliated them. They know he has contempt for them. He doesn't even make the effort to pretend to pay attention to them much less take them seriously."

"This is quite an indictment," I said, "Sorry, though, for the indictment reference."

For the first time that morning Jack smiled.

February 25, 2019--Mitt Who??

Rona said--"Do you remember someone named Mitt something-or-other?"

"You must mean Mitt Romney."

"That could be. I think he ran for president a few years ago and then disappeared only to resurface when he had some tough things to say about Trump and Trump University."

"Yeah, he called Trump a phony and that his promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University."

"I remember that," Rona said, "Romney also said that Trump was playing Americans for suckers. If I have this right, he also said that Trump was getting a free ride to the White House and all we're getting in return is a lousy MAGA hat."

"That's why I thought he'd be a maverick once he got to the Senate. In the mold of John McCain."

"Then, if I have this straight, he ran for the Senate from Utah where I think he won."

"Yes, it's coming back to me," I said, "I remember seeing Mike Pence swearing him in. I assumed they hated each other and I enjoyed, I'll admit, watching Pence squirm."

"It was as if Romney had him targeted in crosshairs. Though I shouldn't put it that way since clueless Roger Stone got himself in trouble last week for threatening his judge when he tweeted about her being in crosshairs."

"It seemed obvious that Romney got himself elected to position himself for another go at the presidency, either running in 2020, if Trump decides not to seek reelection or, if he thinks he can win the nomination, he decides to challenge Trump in the primaries." 

"And of course Pence is thinking the same thing."

"So," I said, "we expected to enjoy watching Romney and Trump going at each other and of course waiting for more Trump criticism from Senator Romney."

"It's all coming back to me," Rona said.

"And?"

"And nothing. Literally nothing. I was beginning to think, since he's been so invisible, that I was hallucinating about Romney winning Orrin Hatch's old Senate seat."

"It is weird," I said, "One would have expected Romney to have a few choice things to say about Trump's bogus national emergency."

"I can't explain it," Rona said. "What kind of power does Trump have over even someone like Romney who has more money than Trump and very few skeletons in his closet that Trump can threaten him about?"

"It's scary. If someone like Romney is too intimidated to speak out, to at least say something, I'm afraid we may be cooked."

Rona said, "My thoughts exactly."

December 6, 2017--Why Words Matter

I received this comment from Hedy Rona yesterday about the outing of Metropolitan Opera musical director James Levine as a sexual predator--

I hear what you’re saying about going to the New York Times to read news reported in sleazeless/non tabloid-y ways. 

But to mince the words or temper the graphicness of the transgressions and crimes of the predators and harassers can leave all the good and genteel readers less outraged than they might or should be. 

If there are no actual photos as evidence that Matt Lauer or Harvey Weinstein showed a woman their penis (you know—picture being worth a thousand words) then the words used to report what happened need to be blunt, explicit, and factual. 

Though even with the president actually caught on tape saying so explicitly the things he did about grabbing women it still didn’t matter. Lots of people—lots of WOMEN!—voted for him! (And now we even have him saying he didn’t say those things and the tape was doctored. “Fake news!” But that’s another rant altogether.) 

Of course even when you have images that are as graphic as the Emmet Till murder or the bones of victims of genocide (pick a genocide, any genocide of the 20th century for irrefutable evidence that IT HAPPENED) there will still be the deniers. (To wit your story about someone you know in Maine refusing to believe that Mitt Romney, not Democrat governor Deval Patrick, signed the Massachusetts healthcare act even though there is a video of it on YouTube!). But those are the lost causes. The deaf ears the truth will never reach. 

Rather it’s the rational and reasonable people out there who for whatever reason doubt the full extent of the crimes and transgressions of the people who have been so admired. The people who can’t believe that the Matt Lauer they had their cereal with every morning is actually a perverted creep who belongs in stocks at a minimum. It’s just hard to believe what people are capable of. 

But that’s why the words matter.

November 23, 2016--Trump Tacking

I have many friends who have already given up on the Trump presidency even though there are nearly two whole months to go before he actually becomes president.

I share their concern but haven't as yet given up on him. Like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, I remain skeptical but am attempting to keep an open mind.

I have also tried to persuade these friends to do likewise.

But in general with that I am getting nowhere. They remain furious and even resentful about his election and what they have concluded he is about. Some acknowledge that the situation is literally making them physically sick. I've even had a few share their list of gastric and neurological symptoms.

Trying to be helpful, I've suggested we wait to see what he actually does. Will he choose Rudy or Mitt to be secretary of state? Perhaps that will be a litmus test for where he is and where he is headed.

It is a little strange, I admit, to be hanging my hopes on Mitt Romney. But so it goes.

Here, though, are a few things to keep in mind when deciding if it is or isn't time to give up on Trump.

As I write this--late afternoon Tuesday--this is what was being heard today from Donald Trump and his spokespeople--

He voluntarily acknowledged that his foundation has been involved in "self-dealing," including inappropriately spending foundation money to pay for an enormous portrait of himself. This fessing up likely to effectively end the investigation of the way it operates.

At his meeting with New York Times reporters and executives, Trump acknowledged that he is concluding that humans are contributing to global warming and that he will "take a look" at the Paris climate accords.

He announced that he will not call for further investigations of either Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server or the operations of the Clinton Foundation. "They have gone through enough," he declared. It was also learned that he has spoken further with Barack Obama about transition and policy matters.

And, influenced by his apparent pick to run the Pentagon, General "Mad Dog" Mattis, he expressed doubt about "the value of torturing terrorists."

In a video tape, in which he spoke about his agenda for the first 100 days, Trump did not mention Obamacare, the Wall, or immigration.

And he "disavowed" support from the alt-right white supremacists, expressing regret that he in any way has contributed to their "energizing."

Then, toward the end of the afternoon, before heading to Florida for Thanksgiving, word leaked that Mitt Romany was likely to be his choice for secretary of state.

Considering what else is at issue, this is not enough to change most of my friends' minds. But I would argue that it is a promising start.

August 3, 2016--If Trump Withdraws?

President Obama yesterday all but called for Donald Trump to withdraw from the race. Politically, this wasn't wise, or maybe it was slyer than what one might at first think.

If this was unwise it was because it is none of someone from another party's business to be meddling in his opponents' political affairs. Thus, Obama's implying that Trump withdraw will likely have a reverse effect--the president, universally despised by most Republicans, could inadvertently contribute to an outcome opposite to what he ostensibly desires because whatever he proposes would be automatically rejected. So his hints that Trump consider dropping out will assure his staying in the race.

This is a vivid example of the political physics of equal-and-oppositeness.

But then there could be the sly part--as Trump's campaign implodes it is making it more and more likely that an almost-equally-disliked Hillary Clinton will win in a landslide. So Obama's jujitsu could be a brilliant play. A strategy to assure that Trump stays in the race and is trounced.

On the other hand, though it may be wishful thinking, I am seeing it more and more possible that Trump will withdraw, concocting some lame explanation--I made my point, now it's time for someone else to take over. My family needs me. My business needs me. My golf courses need me. NBC needs me--they want to revive The Apprentice. My . . .

In all of history, this has never happened so what would be the outcome?

If he were president the 25th Amendment would take effect and his vice president, help us, Mike Pence would automatically become POTUS. Just as Gerald Ford did when Richard Nixon resigned.

But Trump is not the president, just the GOP's nominee. With emphasis on his being the Republican Party's nominee. Not America's nominee, but the party's. This is all extra-constitutional.

That means that the party would select his replacement. Not the delegates. There would not be a second rump convention. The new nominee would be elected by the Republican National Committee's National Committee. Basically a group of establishment party officials.

What they would do is anyone's guess.

The Trump people would make a ruckus, but if Trump was really out of the way, it is unlikely that they would coalesce around any previous candidate. Ben Carson? Carly Fiorina? (I'm beginning with the non-politicains.) I doubt it.

What about runner up Ted Cruz? The party elders hate him even more than Trump and would never turn to him.

Jeb Bush? Mitt Romney? Marco Rubio? Of this sorry "establishment" lot, Rubio would have the best chance. But his fade out in the spring doesn't offer much encouragement that he's ready for primetime.

But my prediction, one I made here months ago, is that waiting "reluctantly" in the wings is the vestal Paul Ryan. The coy non-candidate hovering in pretend-denial but longing for the designation. Recall how he swore up and down that he didn't want to be Speaker of the House? And what is his current job? His current title?

From a GOP perspective I see him to be the ideal choice since he wouldn't disrupt current prerogatives and could actually be elected.

If Trump is only seven points behind Hillary, and among other unhinged things is expressing regret that he didn't win a Purple Heart (Rona says--"Doesn't he know he needed to be in the army to be in the line of fire?), if someone this unraveled is almost within the margin of error, anything can happen.

Lesson--be careful, very careful what you wish for.

September 21, 2015--Donald TRUMP's Prosperity Politics

You could have fooled me.

After last Wednesday's GOP debate I thought Donald TRUMP's numbers would either tank or at best stall out, and as a result I would be able to stop typing his name in capital letters.

But it appears that TRUMP continues to confound all conventional explanations. He can continue to talk about Carly Fiorina's face and imply that Barack Obama is a non-American Muslim and seemingly get away with it. Actually, thrive as he gets more and more outrageous.

Struggling to figure out what's going on, pundits keep getting it wrong.

The best explanation anyone seems able to come up with is that it's because he is the first candidate who comes more from the entertainment than from the government or business world and thus is better known and, in his own complicated way, better liked and more fun than all the other candidates combined.

Some claim it could also be that voters are so totally turned off by politics and politicians that even someone as gross as TRUMP is attractive as an alternative. In his case apparently grosser is better.

Perhaps, his supporters are saying, it's time to throw all the bums out and open a TRUMP casino in the White House.

To underline this latter point, the debate last week was called "Round 2" by CNN; and our niece, who is staying with us, not so under her breath suggested they should have hired ring-announcer Michael Buffer and had him intone, "Let's get ready to RUUUUMMMBLE!" as TRUMP led his smaller-than-life opponents onto the stage at the library of another showbiz politician, Ronald Reagan.

I myself like the TRUMP White House Hotel & Casino explanation because I am thinking that to his fervent followers he is more like a mega-church TV evangelist than just a big city deal maker.

That is he is a certain kind of preacher in the tradition of the Reverend Ike, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, and Joel Osteen.

Self-appointed ministers who preach the Prosperity Gospel.

Prosperity Theology is a religious doctrine that asserts financial well-being is the result of the will of God and that faith and donations to Christian ministries (especially those of the Bakkers and Osteens) will contribute to an increase in both parishioners' wealth and the likelihood that they will be Saved.

That these contributions also make preachers wealthy is just more evidence of God's will and how He will provide for those of faith. So, we see the Reverend Ike tooling around flauntingly in a fleet of Rolls Royces (see below) and Osteen and his wife Victoria going to the supermarket in Houston in twin sports cars.

TRUMP is a secular version of this.

Unlike Mitt Romney and other politicians who do not talk about much less flaunt their wealth, TRUMP, like the Osteens, lets it all hang out. As with them this is evidence that he has been chosen. As will be his followers. Thus, thrice-married TRUMP is in the lead in heavily-evangelical, socially-conservative Iowa.

TRUMP even aggrandizes his net worth. Forbes says he is worth perhaps $2.0 billion. He boasts it is closer to $10 billion. And like the prosperity gospel preachers, he explicitly promises that if voters follow him he will help them get rich.

"I will make America so rich we won't have to talk about the minimum wage."

Osteen fills 16,800-seat Lakewood Church every Sunday; TRUMP draws rockstar attention as he did in Iowa last weekend at a massive tailgate party before the Iowa-Iowa State football game even though, according to the New York Times, he spoke to the crowd for less than one minute.

There's a message in this as well--descend from the sky in your private jet, don't say too much (especially policy specifics), and leave them wanting more.

Which they will get by later today.

May 6, 2015--Liking Obama Again

A friend who back in 2008 supported the candidacy of Two-Americas John Edwards and then Likable-Enough Hillary Clinton after he dropped out, subsequently offering lukewarm support for Barack Obama when he defeated Hillary and then went through the same disillusionment cycle most of his supporters did after he was elected president when he couldn't seem to get much done domestically or act consistently internationally, over coffee the other day declared that she had gone back to liking him.

"Really?" I asked, a bit incredulously knowing her tepid interest in him.

"Yes, really."

"Tell me," I said.

"Well, first, consider the alternatives. John McCain and then George Romney. Does anyone think either one of them would have been a better president?"

"Actually, millions do. Have you checked out Fox News lately or radio talk shows?"

"Touché. But, since no one here is listening, I mean does any smart person think either McCain or Romney would be better?"

"I'll have to think about that since it feels a little elitist."

"Let me help you," my friend offered, "Those who still prefer McCain or Romney would have us at war with Iran. How does that sound? Part of my point is that we're not bombing them because Obama, who was mocked back in 2008 for saying he would negotiate with the Iranians, may be in the process of pulling off a truly historic deal which, if we got very lucky--and neither Republicans in the Senate nor Netanyahu in Israel mess things up--could, with Iran's help, redefine for the better many of the disputes and wars in the Middle East."

"I agree. Obama has messed up with red lines in Syria and not seeing the ISIS threat soon enough, but he knows the history of the region and realizes that when dealing with all the rivals factions one size for certain does not fit all."

"And so it may be one of those things-could-be-much-worse deals. Not my favorite reality--I'd like it to be simpler and more infused with hope and possibility--but life there is not reducible to a string of clichés."

"And domestically? Obamacare? I thought you hated that," I reminded my friend. "That he bargained away any possibility of Medicare for all, the famous single-payer option, when he may not have needed to."

"Well it's true that I think he was too quick to take that off the table but look at the results. First at least 16 million people now have medical insurance who didn't before Obamacare and even impartial parties acknowledge the cost of medical care has gone down and along with it so has our deficit. His critics were wrong on all fronts--that no one would sign up and costs would skyrocket. Obama gets a B+ from me for that."

"What about the economy? Yes, the stock market more than doubled during his six years in office, but what about the middle class and those in poverty? Didn't things get worse for them while the top one percent or five percent got richer and richer?"

"Again, no one wants to hear this anymore (though it's still true), but look at what Obama inherited and look where we are today."

"It's true," I said, "No one wants to hear about George W. Bush, saying it's now Obama's economy."

"It is. It is. But to ignore the economic crisis Obama inherited is not only unfair but intellectually irresponsible. To make a valid assessment of what Obama has done and failed to do it's necessary--beyond spouting talking points or making things up--to look at where things stood in January 2009 and how they are today. I already mentioned that the deficit is down by about two-thirds, unemployment levels are at 20-year lows, wages have ticked up a bit, the banks are being held somewhat more accountable, and the real estate market for most is stabilized. We also are seeing a strong dollar and are rapidly moving toward energy independence."

"And Obama gets credit for all of this?" I was skeptical.

"Of course not, but he's getting all the political blame for the widening gap between rich and poor (even by Republicans whose tax polices are really more responsible for that) and the continued slippage in the wellbeing of the middle class. So he's entitled to credit about the things that are working better."

"Anything else?"

"Well, this is admittedly just an outline. The full picture is more nuanced and balanced. This is to give you a glimpse of why I am liking Obama again."

"You never loved him."

"That's true, but I was enthusiastic about his election and to a lesser extent his reelection. But there are others things to like."

"Such as?"

"Immigration reform. I know it's controversial and maybe even illegal, but his executive order was a big, bold deal."

"Agreed."

"Then there's Cuba for another. A big another. About Cuba I say, enough already. They are not a threat and though the Castros are still in charge, somehow, with countries such as Saudi Arabia, to cite one example, we have decent relations even though they are the opposite of a democracy. In fact, there's more freedom in Cuba. Women can drive and everyone gets educated."

"And they have the best cigars."

"Also," holding up her cup for a refill, "better cafe con leche."

January 20, 2105--Mitt Redux

Just as I was slipping into despair that my favorite sitcom would not return for another season--the Republican Clown Car--what with no Herman (Pokemon) Cain and no Michele (pray-away-the-gay) Bachmann, how would I spend the next two years? Stuck with House of Cards, Shark Tank, Dancing With the Stars, and God help me, Girls? I might even have to develop a taste, I moaned, for the Home Shopping Network.

But I can calm down. Things are beginning to shape up.

No only are Bachmann and Cain making noises that they might in fact run for the 2016 nomination but there is also Rand Paul (who looks like a clown), Ted Cruz (who looks like Joseph McCarthy), Jeb Bush (who looks like George W. Bush), Scott Walker and Paul Ryan (both of whom look like Eddie Munster from the Munsters), Chris Christie (who, in spite of his lap-band surgery, still looks like he belongs more in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade than the White House), Donald (you're fired) Trump, and who can forget Rick (love-the-new-glasses) Perry, especially if he's on the same meds he was using in 2012 when he reminded us that the American revolution occurred during the 16th century.

Then, of course, thank you Mitt Romney who is back for a third run. Etch-A-Sketch Mitt who this time around promises to run a campaign devoted to "lifting people out of poverty." The same Mitt who three years ago called this same 47 percent of the population "takers."

I'm sure some of his Republican opponents will remind us that this is the same out-of-touch Romney who drove to Canada with the family dog strapped to the roof of his car, offered to bet Perry $10,000 about his position on health care reform, and in his new zillion-dollar California house has an elevator for one of his wife's Cadillacs.

He may have been a gaff-prone candidate (I confess to looking forward to the inevitable new ones) but every poll of likely GOP voters shows him doing much better than even Jeb Bush when it comes to a potential race against Hillary Clinton.

If Mitt and the rest of the cast of the nomination-seeking candidates don't do it for you, there is also now a new rising star--African-American neurosurgeon Ben Carson who already has a long list of fun quotes, including a recent one that claims that "Obamacare is the worst thing since slavery."

It continues to amaze me how Republicans manage to find black politicians who are as regressive on race as their GOP country-club colleagues. It's clearly a comfort to the Fat Cats and the source of mid-winter amusement to me.

January 14, 2015--It's Not His (Obama's) Fault

My Florida friend Henry is counting the days until the end of the Obama administration.

"Only 664 to go. Days," he said jauntily the other day. "When I checked this morning on the Obama Countdown Clock that added up to 15,959 hours or 957,393 minutes. None too soon for me."

"You're pretty serious about this," I said. "I know you haven't liked him from the beginning but now you really seem to hate him. You're a smart guy otherwise, so tell me why you do."

"He's screwed everything up. In the Middle East, in race relations (and you know I'm not a racist), and especially the economy."

"The economy?" I couldn't let him get away with that. "I know you can't stand Obamacare and what you claim it means to you as a small business owner--though as I've pointed out to you through the years it's actually good for you with your staff of less than ten. But isn't the rest of the economy in pretty good shape exactly a week short of his having been in office six years?"

"Good shape? With so many still employed, salaries of middlc-class workers not growing, and all those young people still without jobs or underemployed?"

"Much of that is true. Things are far from perfect, but what do you say about his list of accomplishments--starting with gas prices. Aren't you impressed that that gas-guzzling pickup of yours is costing you at least $1,000 a year less to gas up than it did two, three years ago? You were blaming Obama for high gas prices then so does he get some credit now that they're lower?" He didn't respond.

"And what about your favorite--the stock market? When he took office it was languishing. But yesterday the S&P 500 Index closed at 2,023. That's a 145% percent increase. Not bad, yes? And a big deal for middle-class workers who have much of their retirement savings in stock funds. Does Obama get any credit for that?" Fiddling with his coffee, Henry didn't respond.

"And unemployment? The rate last week dropped to 5.6%, the lowest since 1999, the last year of the Clinton presidency. What do you think about Obama's role in that? You didn't hesitate to blame him when it was much higher so now that it's significantly lower, what do you think?" Again he ignored me.

"Then your actual favorite--inflation. You remember how five or six years ago you were touting Peter Schiff as your economist of choice who was predicted that because of Fed and Obama fiscal policies inflation would soon be at Weimar Republic levels and you were buying gold to protect yourself from the sky falling? How's the inflation rate looking to you now at 1.3 percent? These days we're actually worried about deflation. And how's your $1,900-an-ounce gold doing? The last time I checked it was way off its panicky peak and was selling for only $1,240 an ounce. And what's Schiff peddling these days? Not anything positive about the Obama Economy I suspect." More silence.

"I could go on but these are a few highlights which could also include low interest rates, a stronger dollar, how the deficit has been cut by more than a half--from $1.4 trillion annually to $514 billion-- and how America is becoming energy self-sufficient. So I guess this means you hate Obama for other reasons. Enlighten me. I'm willing to say you're not a racist, but what is it then?" He stared at his watch and said he needed to run. He had a meeting he needed to get to.

After he left Rona and I continued the conversation. She said, "One of my favorite things besides conservatives refusing to give Obama any credit for the improved economy is their explanation about why it's better. That they can't deny--that's it's better."

"I know where you're going with this."

"First, all of a sudden the leading Republican candidates for the presidential nomination are expressing concern about inequality and the plight of poor people."

"I saw that even Mitt Romney is. The same Mitt Romney who two years ago was moaning among rich people in Boca Raton about the 47 percent of Americans who are the 'takers.'"

"And then there was new Republican senate majority whip John Cornyn on Morning Joe two days ago ignoring the question about Obama's role in improving the economy while claiming that the reason things are better is because business leaders, when they saw the Republicans were about to take control of both houses of Congress, began to hire people. He suggested it was a sort of Mitch McConnell bump."

"This is so preposterous--the economy began doing better six years ago on the first day Obama took office and now Republicans are claiming that the good news is the result of the election in November, all of two months ago. I love it."

It was by then time for us to go. "One more thing," Rona said. "Is there really an Obama Countdown Clock?"

"Indeed there is. You can look it up on the Internet. In fact, you can even buy one."

"Amazing."

November 6, 2014--What Won On Tuesday?

It is much easier to understand who won on Election Day than to think about and describe what won.

First, the who--

With the single exception of Pennsylvania's's gubernatorial race, every governors race, every Senate race in which an incumbent was defeated went to Republicans.

Of the gubernatorial contests, again except in Pennsylvania, 4 of 5 incumbents were defeated--all Democrats, including in traditional Democratic strongholds such as Massachusetts and Illinois.

And in the Senate, where two additional incumbent Democrats could still be defeated in a runoff in Louisiana and at the end of the vote count in Alaska, of those not reelected, all seven were Democrats. Republicans held on to all their seats, mostly easily, and thereby ran the table.

And now what won--

The conventual, instant-analysis wisdom has it that this tide of victories for Republicans is the result of Barack Obama's unpopularity. That this midterm election was a referendum on his presidency.

True, but not the whole truth.

Added to the widespread frustration and anger at Obama's incompetence (less, his race), anyone with a sense of history knows that on average, since 1946, incumbent presidents' parties lost on average six Senate seats; and so, losing at least seven this time, is pretty much the norm.

True, but not the whole truth.

And then, inside-the-Beltway-think has it that more than anything else, this election revealed the breadth and depth of voter anger and frustration with Washington and, more broadly, government in general. It was a throw-them-all-out election.

True, but not the whole truth.

Not the whole truth because this analysis fails to note that both the governor who was most controversial in his governing and the senator up for reelection who most symbolized Washington and congressional gridlock, won handily.

Governor Scott Walker in Wisconsin, targeted for defeat by traditional Democrat constituencies, got 54 percent of the vote and soon-to-be Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell in Kentucky received a whopping 56 percent.

That in a state where Bill and Hillary Clinton made a huge personal commitment to elect his opponent. Take note Democrats as you think about 2016.

If this was an anti-incumbent election, McConnell and Walker would have been among the first to go.

What then is going on? What then won yesterday?

The short answer--a certain kind of governing.

The kind that wants government to get governing out of the business of governing.

The big victors at the state and national level have at least one thing in common beyond party affiliation--a skepticism that government can or should be involved in people's lives (except their reproductive lives), a resistance to the country's involvement in overseas ventures (except to exterminate  with drones ISIS forces), or that government should look to solve social problems. Even to the point of denying that the problems Democrats embrace as problems are problems. These, most Republicans believe, should be left to the invisible hand of the market to sort out and resolve.

In addition, the form resentment and fear take that explains what won yesterday is the resentment that government selectively chooses who to take care of--poor people, minorities, immigrants, and incompetent union-protected government workers. This is at the heart of Governor Walker's appeal. As it is with two of my three governors--Scott in Florida and LePage in Maine, both of whom were reelected. At a time when middle-class people are struggling, they have little empathy left over for others who they perceive to be lazy and undeserving. And so they vote for those who promise to do little or, better, nothing.

Obviously, there is much to be thought about.

Minimally, freed of Tea Party pressure (this was an election that saw the resurgence of the current version of the Republican establishment), expect to see Mitch McConnell and John Boehner actually make some small deals with Obama to show that they can govern at least enough to retain their majorities, and expect Democrat candidates other than Hillary Clinton to emerge as it sinks in that she could easily lose in 2016 to a Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and even more likely, Mitt Romney.

March 31, 2014--The Republican Clown Car

As the 2016 presidential election season begins to boil, with Republican pretenders genuflecting before $40-billionaire Sheldon Adelson this past weekend in Las Vegas, how is this cycle's version of the GOP candidate Clown Car shaping up?

Literally and figuratively, thus far the biggest clown of all is Chris (Sergeant Schultz) Christie. As the most moderate hopeful (for example, he is less ferociously opposed to same-sex marriage than the competition), he showed up in Las Vegas to kiss Adelson's ring. But as a moderate he is the least favorite among the Tea Party wing of the party.

The other moderate, Jeb Bush, slightly more acceptable, met with Adelson but out of sight of the media, slipping into one of Sheldon's casinos through a back door. There is, after all, a limit to how much public groveling a son of Barbara Bush is willing to do.

But, sadly for late night comedians, and me, there do not as yet appear to be any Donald (you're fired) Trumps, Herman (Pokemon) Cains or Michele (my husband's a great dancer) Bachmanns on the horizon to liven things up. Maybe Newt (and Callista) will give it one more try. He at least can be amusing. And Rand (named for Ayn) Paul, who appears routinely to wear clown makeup and has funny hair will at least liven things up when he will inevitably be asked why he as a physician and a self-declared Libertarian opposes abortions even in the case of rape or incest.

But if it's going to be Jeb versus Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio, I'll be sticking with Dancing With the Stars and The Colbert Report for my entertainment.

There is, though, hope that Ted Cruz will get in the race. He does a mean imitation of Winston Churchill ("We will never surrender") and is a dead ringer for Joe McCarthy. So he should be good for a few gaffs and laughs. And, I almost forgot, there's Rick (high executioner) Perry. He can be a hoot, especially if he's high on pain medication.

But if you're wondering why so many run for the presidency even though they know in their hearts they have no chance, think money.

There's a fortune to be made out there by speaking for cash at all sorts of untra-conservative political, religious, and corporate events. Being on the record opposing everything about Obama is all that's needed. And celebrity. That's where to Clown Car comes in. It makes you a household name and as your Q Scores go up, so does your speaker's fee.

Remember during the last campaign how Mitt Romney's fees for talks of this kind in 2012 yielded a neat $375K, which he famously shrugged off as "not very much"?

Before running, Rick Santorum made literally nothing. He struggled to put food on the table for his wife and dozens of children. But then after being in the lead for the nomination for a week or two he saw his average fee soar to $100,000 an appearance. This is not a typo.

How much do you think Herman Cain made before also being ahead of the pack for a week? As we would say in my old neighborhood, that would be bupkiss. He now gets $25K for 40 minutes of standup and singing.

And as soon as Michele Bachmann's congressional term is over in December, she is expected to be paid at least $25,000 a pop.

Even old Ron Paul whose shirts and suits look like they were bought off the rack at Kmart is paid a whopping $50K per appearance. No need to practice medicine anymore or live in Galveston.

Sarah Plain, who has made tens of millions since running with John McCain in 2008, pockets more than $100,000 to show up and entertain. I don't know what Tina Fey commands.

Then there are the right-wing media celebrities who live off this circus. If you think that Dick (Romney-in-a-landslide) Morris is working at the checkout counter in Publix, think again. He "earns" $15-$20,000 a rant by spreading paranoia that Barack Obama is about to launch black helicopters to round us up and take away our guns and other "freedoms."

Endnote--In fairness, I should mention that Hillary gets an obscene $200,000 to talk about everything except Benghazi.

And, on a recent Bill O'Reilly Show, Herman Cain hinted he is giving serious consideration to running again in 2016. Please God.

February 10, 2014--Hillary? Mitt? Bill? (Not that Bill)

We know Hillary's running.

There's a book just published, HRC: State Secrets and the Rebirth of Hillary Clinton, that provides behind-the-scenes glimpses of her tenure as Secretary of State, a book that could almost be considered a neo-version of the classic "campaign biography." And then there is Hillary's forthcoming book, also largely about her days in the Obama administration.

This will have the HRC authors, Jonathan Allen and Amie Rarnes, making the rounds of the talk shows--coming to Morning Joe I am sure this week--and Hillary herself at the end of the year, taking time off from $200,000-a-pop appearances, also appearing everywhere. All just in time to launch the unofficial stage of her campaign for the presidency. The official announcement will occur during the spring/summer of 2015.

So that's settled. Hillary is a go and, maybe, as reported over the weekend, so is Joe Biden. But he trails Clinton by about 65 points in the latest polls--65 points!--and so, unless there is a looming Clinton scandal (which with them can never be fully ruled out), this plan of Biden's sounds masochistic.

Then, what about the other side? What's happening with the Republicans?

Most dramatic and politically meaningful is the decline and soon-to-be-seen fall of Chris Christie. He was universally acknowledged to be Hillary's most potent opponent because of his ability to attract independent and undecided voters.

But with Christie ostensibly out of the race (no senior Republicans wants to be seen in the same room with him), who has a chance to secure the nomination and can plausibly beat Hillary in 2016?

Rand Paul has a chance to be nominated by the Tea Party and Libertarian GOP base, but in a general election against Hillary would fare as badly as Goldwater did against LBJ in 1964. Mike Huckabee also looks like a base-pandering contender but also would have general election problems--women, for example, will not forget his recent dumb comments about their "out-of-control libidos."

Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio still look like boy scouts. The half-dozen Republican governors talked about as possible candidates are all excruciatingly borrrring. Think Scott Walker and  Bobby Jindal. Jeb Bush has the Bush problem--he's the brother of George (and that's a problem) and Mama Bush has been saying enough already with the Bushes. (And, to be fair and balanced, enough already with the Clintons--more about that in a moment.) Newt, Michele, Rick and Rick, and--my personal favorite from last time around, Herman Cain--have all been there and done that.

In the face of this undistinguished field, the Harold Stassen of the 21st century (young folks google him to find out who he was), Mitt Romney, it is reported, is again beginning to crank things up.

He apparently will be talking very soon with wife Ann to see if she's OK with another campaign. Mitt's 10 or 12 or 15 sons are apparently all on board. The Romneys are finished renovating their California house, with its twin car elevators, and all Mrs. R's dressage horses and Cadillacs are in good shape, so, what the heck, the money's there, life is short, why not.

So with the prospect of Hillary versus Romney I'm having a back-to-the-past moment.

I think Barbara Bush is right--enough with the Bushes, Clintons, and, I'll add, Romneys. We need some outside-the-box candidates to help us think in new ways about how to solve our problems, grow our economy, and restore our place in the world.

Thus, I'm thinking about Bill. Not that Bill. He's inside the box and thankfully the Constitution will not allow him to run again. Not to mention Hillary who would have a few objections. In there cosmology, it's her turn. And then Chelsea's and then . . .

Get Barbara's and my point?

The Bill I'm thinking about is Bill Gates.

Beginning in a college dorm room (OK, it was at Harvard) he built one of the largest and most successful companies ever. Talk about being a job-creator. With all of Microsoft's limitations, its products changed the world for all time. And now as the operational head of the world's largest foundation, he has been intimately involved in education reform, health care, resource conservation, renewable energy, and many other things we as a country, as a society need to pay attention to.

I'm also interested in a president who has real experience running things, not just a Senate staff of five, and is not timid about holding people accountable. Ask Microsoft senior staff about Gate's leadership and fierce efforts to hold them accountable for their work. If people were to screw up in a Gate's administration they wouldn't be retained for months after messing up and then allowed to resign so they can claim to want to spend more time with their families. Enough of that.

We need more than change we can believe in.

May 10, 2013--Hillary's Chappaquiddck?

Along with others on the political left, at the time, I thought the McCain-Graham-Romney attack on the Obama's administration's handling of the killings in Benghazi, Libya were (1) timed to derail Barak Obama's reelection campaign; (2) undercut Susan Rice's attempt to convince members of the Senate that she could replace the retiring Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State; and (3), more than anything else, it was an attempt to undercut Hillary's 2016 presidential camapign before it could even get started.

The level of rhetoric, I and many others thought, was so excessive that it was easy to doubt the seriousness of the criticism. To rant that the alleged "coverup" of what happened there that fateful day--September 11, 2012--was "ten-times worse than Watergate" was so preposterous as to make it easy to dismiss the McCain-led attack as pure political posturing.

Watergate had the president of the United States approving the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters; bugging phones there; and then, after his burglars were caught, Nixon orchestated the conspiracy to cover up the crime, including the payment of hush money. He was subsequently impeached and cited by the federal prosecuter as an "unindicted co-conspirator."

I thought the worst that could reasonably be said about what happened in Libya, and then in Washington, was that the administration didn't get the story straight before talking about it in public and sent Ambassador Rice around to all the Sunday talk shows with incomplete and perhaps inaccurate talking points.

McCain and company got one scalp--Rice's but didn't lay a glove on either Obama or Clinton.

That is until earlier this week.

Now both Clinton and Obama look as if they had better have a good story about what happened or the Obama administration's record will be forever blemished; and Hillary Clinton in four years will be a less-likely nominee, much less president.

As with Teddy Kennedy, every time he made moves toward the presidency, one event, one word made that hopeless--Chappaqquiddck. And now it may turn out that Benghazi will be the one event, one word that represents the tragedy that occurred on her watch that will haunt and make impossible Clinton's candidacy.

Earlier this week, three senior, credible career State Department officers may have blown the whole situation wide open, so wide open that even liberal Democrats, even Hillary enthusiasts--me included--will be forced to take a second and third look at what Obama and Clinton did and said in the aftermath of the murder in Benghazi of our ambassador and three of his colleagues.

Forget that they were foolish to expose themselves to mob violence and a terrorist attack on 9/11. No one working for the U.S government in the Middle East should be out and about on that day. Ever. No matter how well guarded.

But when word was transmitted to Washington that our consulate was under attack and the ambassador had been killed, surely, with two Americans still alive for a number of hours, there should have been some response by special-forces troops or, minimally, a series of fly-overs by F-16 fighter jets. I feel certain if four of them made passes at full throttle at 200 feet, the crowd attacking the consulate would have been so terrified that most would have run for their lives.

Even if it didn't work, it would have been worth trying and Obama and Clinton, and their scapegoat, Susan Rice, would have had a convincing story to tell and Americans, feeling distraught about what had happened, at the minimum, would at least have felt proud of our response.

Yet more minimally, Obama and Clitnon should have waitied to gather facts--forbidding leaks--and then told whatever the truth was. Even that there had been mess-ups for which they were responsible. There then would have been no need to tap dance and dissemble and the story would have been over in at most a week.

One lesson from the history of the American presidency during this media-suffused age is that it's always the explanation or, if you will, the cover up--not the deed--that bites. Nixon could have survived if he burned the tapes and told a version of the truth; Bill Clinton wouldn't have been impeached if he had said, "I did have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"; and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton wouldn't be getting skewered.

Americans are a forgiving people--we believe in, even love redemption stories--but we won't put up with being lied to. Nor should we.