August 12, 2019--Jack: Women

Jack was waiting for us at the Bristol Diner. It was not as if we had an appointment to meet. In fact, I had been avoiding his texts and phone messages. I was trying to spend less time and energy thinking about, talking about Trump. There would be plenty of time for that, I thought, after Labor Day. It would still be more than a year until the election. Plenty of time for political talk. Yes, I had relapsed into Trump Fatigue. 

We were tempted to ignore Jack's patting on the banquette, signally he was holding two places for us. I whispered to Rona, "Maybe let's go to Crissy's. I'm not in the mood for Jack."

"I know what you're thinking," he said with a smile, "I promise not to keep you more than half an hour. Come, sit with me for a while."

And so reluctantly we shuffled over to him and slid into the booth.

"I'll just have coffee," I said to Sarah, "We can't stay very long today." Rona said the same.

Without so much as a hello Jack launched into his latest rant.

"I know you and your people care only about who can beat Trump. You're putting aside your concerns about where candidates stand on health care or immigration. You're whole focus is denying him a second term."

"That pretty much sums it up," I said, "Almost everyone I know is thinking about the election that way. There will be time for debates about policy after a Democrat is elected. I agree with Tom Friedman about that. He warns, if we want a revolution and Trump wins we will have a revolution not of our liking when, for example, he gets to appoint two more Supreme Court justices like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch."

"Though one thing," Jack said, "does show up on the screen with a lot of you guys."

"This I'm interested in hearing,"I said.

"With six women seeking the nomination, many of you this time around not only want to nominate a woman, but unlike with Hillary who turned out to be a terrible candidate, you want to elect one. Most realistic, considering the poll numbers, only two have a real chance of being nominated, with winning another story. Forget Gillibrand and Klobuchar. The only two who have a chance are Warren and Kamala Harris. At the moment they're the only ones close to Biden in the polls."

"That could be true," Rona said, "But I continue to wonder if America is open to having a woman as president. They tell pollsters that they are but I'm skeptical. Among other things by what he says and how he behaves Trump sanctions not only racism and white supremacy but also sexism. And in so doing exposes how extensive it still is."

Rona continued, "Even Trump's female supporters--and there are more of them than any liberal would like to acknowledge--can in their own way be quite sexist. Why else did so many of them vote for him rather than for the first woman to be the nominee of a major party? And don't tell me it was because Hillary was such an ineffective candidate or won the popular vote. The country's just not ready for a female president. Though with Biden unravelling because of gaffs, there could be a woman next in line."

I was surprised that both Rona and I were so easily drawn into political talk. Our fatigue was clearly not that deep seated.

"Let me give you an example," Jack said, "of why I too don't think you can elect a woman.

"I'm listening."

"So there was this terrible shooting in El Paso. And what happened? Joe Biden, Cory Booker, and that mayor from South Bend whose name I can never remember all gave major speeches about it. Booker even gave his from the pulpit of the church in South Carolina where there had been another massacre four years ago. Where a white guy targeted black people and where Obama spoke and sang 'Amazing Grace.'"

Jack paused and peered at us. "I see you're not getting it."

"Getting what?" I asked.

"What's missing from this picture?"

"Enlighten me."

"Women."

"Women?"

"Yes, Democrat women candidates."

"They spoke out," Rona said, "Among other things they accused Trump of being a racist and, even more seriously, a white supremacist. Which he is. I think you're splitting hairs. I felt they were very forceful. Very effective."

"But none of the women gave a speech. A big picture, presidential-style speech, one in which they put all the pieces together. About the history of racism in this country, about how various ethnic groups have been treated. They missed the opportunity that most of the leading male candidates--Sanders excepted--seized. To show how they would act if president and incidents of this kind occurred. As they surely will. These men not only made speeches of this kind but they also showed how they would behave as mourner-in-chief."

"I hate to agree with you," Rona said, "But, thinking about it now, I must admit the women may have missed an opportunity. My guess is that they didn't want to be stereotyped as emotional women by making a speech of this kind. That they didn't want to be perceived as being soft in a situation that calls for toughness."

"It calls for both," Jack said. "For sure it's a tricky line to straddle when a woman wants to show she can be both compassionate and tough-minded. Look at how Hillary got all tangled up in whether or not to vote for the war with Iraq. She eventually voted for it in large part to show she had cajones."

"Along with most other Democratic senators," I said, "Half of whom were thinking about running for president, she botched this and paid the price."

"So this wasn't so bad after all," Jack said.

"What wasn't?" I asked.

"Spending a little quality time with me." He laughed. "When was the last time we agreed about anything?"

Rona said, "I'm not sure we're agreeing now."

"Let's order some food," I said. "Sarah."

May 17, 2019--The Surprising Supremes

The struggle between the Trump White House and the Democrats in the House of Representatives is heating up. 

Congress is attempting to do its constitutionally mandated oversight work. They want access, for example, to the full Mueller report; they are also subpoenaing Trump's tax records; and they want to gather direct testimony from Mueller and, along the way, to have Donald Jr. testify about Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Trump is stonewalling everything, claiming executive privilege.

None of this will be resolved as it usually is by negotiations. There is too much bad blood for that and Trump knows how devastating it would be for him if the truth were exposed. 

It will then for certain take months or years for these disputes to be adjudicated by the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, at the state level, Alabama just passed legislation to eliminate abortions under virtually all circumstances. Including if a women becomes pregnant as the result of rape or insist. This piece of legislation was not designed to be implemented but rather was carefully crafted to reach the Supreme Court and give the now conservative court the opportunity to consider overturning Roe v. Wade and thereby making abortion illegal in all 50 states.

Conservatives feel that with a majority of the nine members of the current court named by Republican presidents (Thomas by George H.W. Bush; Roberts and Alito by George W. Bush; and Gorsuch and Kavanaugh by Trump) Roe v. Wade is threatened as are affirmative action and all forms of support for voting rights. 

But maybe for conservatives it is too soon to celebrate.  

It is by no means certain that Roe and other examples of progressive Supreme Court decisions are doomed. They are seriously threatened, but it is not yet clear they will be overturned. 

Recall that Chief Justice Roberts joined the four liberal justices to uphold Obamacare. I speculated at the time and subsequently that Roberts, perhaps feeling everything that is decided on his watch will be attributed to the "Roberts'" Court, perhaps concerned about how he would be regarded by historians, he abandoned his up-to-then predictable conservative voting record and joined the four liberals to sustain a program that provides medical coverage for 20 million Americans. He did not want to see the Affordable Care Act shredded while he was serving as Chief Justice. He therefore contorted himself and found a way to support it.

But here's the real surprise--the voting pattern of the most recent member of the court: Brett Kavanaugh.

Recall, he is the justice who was accused of sexual harassment and confessed during his conformation hearing that he had a drinking problem. He testified rapturously about how he "loves beer." So much so that he repeated it half a dozen times. 

Did anyone after this and looking at his judicial record think he would even one time vote with the liberal block?

Well, he has been. In fact, he has voted with the liberals more often than any other justice.

In recent months, for example, he voted with Ginsberg and Sotomayor on the death penalty and criminal defendants' rights. In both instances not agreeing with Trump's other appointee, Neil Gorsuch and the other conservatives.

It is premature to speculate how he might vote when it comes to disputes about Trump's claims about executive power. 

There have been more than a few surprises when it comes to justices voting contrary to what one would have expected. There were numerous times when Franklin Roosevelt appointees voted against New Deal legislation and Byron (Whizzer) White, named by Kennedy, turned out to be more a conservative than a liberal. And then there was David Souter, protected by lifetime tenure, who was appointed by George H.W. Bush but turned out, once on the court, to be dependably liberal.

So, keep an eye on Kavanaugh. Along with Roberts he may turn out to be unpredictable. He too may have an eye on history.

December 26, 2018--Swing Vote

Occasionally, one of my predictions comes true. For example, my suggesting in early October that with swing man Anthony Kennedy no longer on the Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts would assume that role.

I noted that Supreme Courts are referred to by historians after whomever is the Chief. Thus there is the Warren Court and the Rehnquist Court and the Berger Court or, for that matter, the John Marshall Court.

Knowing this, I wondered, with Trump appointing far-right judges, how the current Chief Justice, John Roberts, was feeling about his name being associated with a court that has descended into full-bore partisanship. 

It appears that he is now thinking that unless he becomes the swing vote, replacing Kennedy, the Roberts Court will forever after be dominated by ideological lightweights such as Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. And though he does not appoint his colleagues, he will still be perceived as responsible for their actions.

Does Roberts want to go down in history rafted up with this crew?

Apparently not, which is good news to progressives and America as the Supreme Court is likely over the next year to be called on to decide if a sitting president (Trump) can be indicted or if the Mueller Report, when it is completed, can be withheld from public view by Trump's small-minded Justice Department.

The latest evidence that Roberts has become the court's swing man was his vote last week to join the four liberal-leaning justices in rejecting an appeal from the Trump administration that would, if approved, have overturned many decades of asylum policy. To severely restrict the rules by which fleeing refuges can seek the protection of the United States. 

Earlier, he again joined the liberals in overruling a lower court decision that would have restricted federal funding for Planned Parenthood. Thomas and his comrades cried foul. But there was Roberts guided by the Constitution, not partisan reflex.

In even bigger picture terms Roberts' behavior and leadership is of great consequence because, if it persists, it will mean that at least one of the three branches of our otherwise dysfunctional government might again begin to function as envisaged by the Founders and thus will be guided by the Constitution they bequeathed to us.

Then there is the open spat that has been festering since 2015 between Trump and Roberts. All initiated by Trump's intemperate criticism of what he claimed to be the ideological bias of federal judges.

During the election campaign Trump frequently spoke out against what he asserted were liberal federal judges who acted as political partisans. Those in the 9th circuit, for example.

Two days before Thanksgiving Trump attacked an "Obama judge" for ruling against him on immigration. In an unusual public rebuke Rogers shot back, claiming that there are no "Obama judges, Bush Judges, or Clinton judges." Just independent ones.

Actually, there are highly partisan federal judges who are guided more by their beliefs than by precedent or the Constitution. Conservatives as well as liberals. Supreme Court justice Anton Scalia is a powerful example of the former. 

But Roberts is articulating his aspirations for the judiciary and is modeling independent-minded behavior that he hopes will become the standard. He should be commended for that.

July 27, 2018--Hard Ball? T-Ball

John said, "We have to find a way to stop them." He was talking about Republicans in the Senate, which is considering the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

"I would like to agree but how do we do that? The Republicans control the Senate and I think they have the votes to confirm him."

"You're probably right," he said, sounding flat. "But I wish there was a way."

"Until the Gorsuch nomination and confirmation process a year and a half ago there had been. Since 60 votes were required it wasn't easy to muster that many in a closely divided Senate for someone controversial, someone now like Kavanaugh who has written that a sitting president can't be indicted under any circumstances."

"That's half the reason Trump nominated him," John said. "But Mitch McConnell unilaterally changed the rules so that only 51 votes are needed. A simple majority."

"He has the power to do that as Majority Leader. There's nothing in the Constitution about confirming Supreme Court justices. So the Senate has the ability to set whatever rules it wants to organize and govern itself."

"Yeah, he invoked what they call the 'nuclear option.'"

"What kills me," I said, "is how the Republicans, who consider themselves to be conservatives, have no problem doing disruptive, radical things like that. They're hypocrites who have little regard for tradition or congressional history."

John said, "During the first two years of the Obama administration the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress but they steered away from taking bold action of this kind. It's not just that they are wimps, which they are, but by not invoking the nuclear option because they felt it would undermine traditional senatorial decorum and ways of doing business, they lost the opportunity to enact a bold legislative agenda. They even wound up with a very watered-down Obamacare program. They frittered away the opportunity to govern. Complaining all the time. Which Democrats are very good at. Complaining."

"I agree," John said, "The Republicans play hardball and congressional Democrats play T-Ball."

"McConnell and the Republicans only care about winning. Liberals and Democrats care about being right."

John summed it up, "And so we have what we have."

June 29, 2018--The Supremes

Fret not. At least not yet. 

Yes, Anthony Kennedy is stepping down from the Supreme Court, and liberals and moderates (if there are any of these left) are concerned that his so-called "swing vote" and moderating presence will depart with him. 

And so if Trump nominates and the Senate confirms (as they will--leave that to Mitch McConnell) a stealth arch-conservative similar to Clarence Thomas' new best friend, associate justice Neil Gorsuch, say goodbye to any hope that on key occasions justice Kennedy will join the four progressives on the court and things will be at least a little right with the world.

I hate to sound cynical, but Kennedy isn't so moderate and hasn't often, in truth, been that swinging a Supreme. 

With the exception of gay rights and in limited ways abortion rights, where as a libertarian he has been supportive (after all he's from Northern California) he has almost always been the dependable fifth vote, joining the four knee-jerk conservatives.

This year, for example, on all but one occasion he joined the right-wing four. So if he swings, almost all the time he swings to the right.

Thus his leaving the court will not change that much.

But here's what to fret about--

RBG. Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

She seems still to be vital, but at 85, the court's oldest justice, a pancreatic cancer surviver, how much longer can she schlepp herself to her chambers?

(With Kennedy retired--he is 81--the next oldest justice is liberal Stephen Breyer, who is 79.)

I'm no doctor, but though RBG could make it through the remainder of Trump's (first?) term, what are the odds of her being around for the four years after that? I'm not a betting person but . . .

I hate myself for saying this, but considering her medical history, if RBG genuinely cared about the issues she has devoted her life to--like the various rights of women--why didn't she step down during the first half of Barak Obama's first term when the Democrats controlled not only the White House but both houses of Congress? It would have been possible for him to nominate and ram a moderate through the Senate confirmation process.

Then we would have little to fret about. But now we need to do more than fret but to worry and I mean worry profoundly.

More than anything else we need to vote in November and work hard between now and then to increase turnout.

May 1, 2018--Jack: Trump Delivers

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

"I appreciated your being worried," he said.

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

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

"Really? What were you thinking?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I'd rather talk about Morning Joe."

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

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

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

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

"I'm listening."

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

"What did you think?"

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

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

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

"And with Trump?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 22, 2017--Imploding

No one should be surprised. Least of all Donald Trump. It has been clear for a half year or more where all this was headed.

It's always been about the money.

The denouement will not be about Paul Manafort's money or Michael Flynn's or Jared Kushner's or Ivanka's money, nor even Don Junior's.

It will be about Donald Trump's money.

A good question--if he is so proud of his wealth how come he has refused to reveal his tax filings?

On the simplest level, he has resisted because he lies about how much money he has. He has a lot, about a billion or two, enough for most of us, but not the 5 to 10 billion he has long claimed.

Remember how Marco Rubio's crack during the primary debates about his small hands got under his skin? Well, this is the same sort of thing. Manhood. Size always mattered more to guys than to women.

But, he somehow managed to get elected and reluctantly moved to Washington and into the White House. Back in New York, in his Trump, Inc. operation, which was and still is a mom-and-pop business, he was used to being the only one whose ideas counted and he had no one ever pushing back on him when he went off and did something stupid. Like getting involved with gambling casinos in Atlantic City and Miss Universe pageants.

Over time, with the big boost The Apprentice gave to his brand, he effectively became a brand. Selling his name and endorsement to the highest bidders, raking in the licensing money with little effort other than keeping his name and gold-foil life style in the public eye. Thus, even the parade of girlfriends and wives, as he aged and swelled up, ones younger and younger, were a part of that charade.

Zeroing in--

When Trump needed to ante up money for a project or bail himself out of an impending bankruptcy, where do we think he turned for money? Citibank? Chase? Wells Fargo? Goldman Sachs? No chance.

We're talking chop shops like Deutsche Bank, loan sharks, and especially money laundries such as the Bank of Cyprus which until a few years ago was a favorite place for Russian kleptocrats to sanitize their dirty lucre.

In 2008, Trump Jr. on the record said that, "Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia."

At least someone in his family is capable of letting the truth slip out.

Even a casual perusal of Trump's tax returns would reveal the sources of his money and income. Would it surprise anyone if we in this way discovered that he engaged in all sorts of shady deals and shenanigans with lots of money coming from Russia?

So when it finally dawned on Trump that special counsel Robert Mueller has the power to demand his tax and other financial documents, something Trump incredibly seems to have begun to pay attention to just this week, bells and whistles went off and that immediately became Trump's line in the sand--he told the New York Times he might fire Mueller if he pressed to scrutinize his finances.

We know for sure following the money trail is looming. It's Special Counsel 101.

And then, of course, Mueller would also see son Junior's and son-in-law Kushner's tax filings, which would make matters even worse.

What we'd be likely see is the inner financial machinations of a crime family.

Donald Junior is reported to be whining that he can't wait for this presidency to be over.

Well, he may soon get his wish. He may not have to wait another endless three-and-a-half years.

If Junior is unravelling as quickly as it appears, Trump's oldest son, feeling squeezed by the implosion, may follow in the footsteps of one of Bernie Madoff's sons. I can't bring myself to spell this out. If you don't remember the details, you're on your own to look it up.

So, here are the final steps. They will happen quickly because we have a talented and mobilized press corps. Much more so than during Watergate. Trump is getting back in kind for what he dished out to the "fake-news" press. I wouldn't have recommended messing with that sleeping giant.

I suspect he'll skip the firing-Mueller step and move right to the pardons. Sacking Mueller, assuming Trump has the power to do that, would bring down the wrath of not only Democrats (that would be predictable) but also rouse the up-to-now hypocritical Republicans who despise Trump but support his agenda, such as it is.

Thus, Trump has been asking about what pardon powers he has and boasting about it. They are constitutionally wide ranging. He'll pardon Flynn and Manafort, which should keep them from throwing Trump under the bus (elegant metaphor), and he'll pardon all his family members. Then, and he is looking into this too, unlike Nixon who had his successor, Jerry Ford pardon him, Trump will try to get away with pardoning himself.

This will go to the Supreme Court and, who knows, with Gorsuch recently nominated by Trump, he might prevail, 5-4. Remember Bush v Gore in 2000. Or then again, he may not.

Then we'll see what happens in the streets. Progressives will demonstrate once or twice but use most of their energy appearing on and watching CNN and "The NewsHour."

Trump people (that hardcore 35%) will go crazy. They'll see this crucifixion of Trump (that will become their preferred point of reference) as part of the ongoing liberal conspiracy. Tune into late-night talk radio if you want a preview of that. It will make Benghazi look like a tea party. Scratch that, a polite debate.

April 25, 2017--Jack: Trump's 100 Days

"What's this 100-days business?"

Jack is not a student of history so when he called, sounding annoyed, already annoyed, I said, "It refers to Franklin Roosevelt's first 100 days in office in 1933. During the Depression. He accomplished so much in his first 100 days that it became a self-imposed benchmark for the presidents who came after him. As a way to brag about the importance of their ideas and how much they would get done."

"But like Trump said the other day, it's not a real deadline. He could have said it's not a sprint it's a marathon."

"He can say anything he wants, but to me this sounds like a rationalization."

"He wasn't rationalizing."

"Well, he was and so are you." Jack didn't take that up, so I added, "Believe me if he got a lot of things done, like something, anything approved my Congress or if the Syrians agreed to a legitimate ceasefire after he launched 59 Tomahawk missiles, he'd be all over TV and Twitter pointing it out. Now he's trying to cover up. Which I get."

"Well he tried to repeal Obamacare."

"And? Is he all about trying or doing? That's what he promised during the campaign--that he knew how to get things done."

"He'll get Obamacare repealed maybe even this week. That would be quite an accomplishment."

"Only if you consider taking healthcare coverage away from 24 million people an accomplishment."

"It's Congress' fault. They couldn't agree to . . ."

"You can blame it on Congress all you want, but Trump is the president and he made all those promises. Forget 100 days. What did he say he'd do on Day One? Remember that? Among other little things, God help us, repeal Obamacare."

"What about the executive orders? He . . ."

"You mean the ones that got overturned by the federal courts?"

"I mean by that so-called judge who lives on an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean."

"You mean federal judge Derrick Watson, who lives in Hawaii? Which by the way is a state. Even if a majority of Hawaiians are people of color."

"I was pulling your leg a little bit. But I love the way you liberals refer to black people and Mexicans as 'people of color.' Why don't you call them what they are? What are you hiding?"

"This sounds a little racist to me but since I know you better than to accuse you of that, I'll tell you. When talking just about African Americans we call them that. Or Cuba Americans. Or for that matter Mexican Americans, we call them that. But when we refer to all of them that's when we say 'people of color.' You have a problem with that?"

"It just sounds so phony and politically correct to me. I hate all this politically correct baloney. It's another way liberals look down their noses as anyone who is a conservative or supports Trump."

"You're straying from the subject," I said, "I thought we were talking about Trump's first 100 days, which end on Saturday."

"What about tax reform? And as I said Ryan is still working on healthcare."

"Both dead on arrival. On Wednesday Trump promises to unveil 'the biggest tax cuts in history.' He already boasted about that, calling it 'massive.' Even his Secretary of the Treasury says it will take at least a year to pass. It's not going to happen between this Wednesday and Saturday. And with his friends in the real estate industry already lobbying against any changes in real estate taxes, what chance does anything bold have to pass even a year from now?"

Jack shifted the subject, "Ryan says he has the votes to repeal and replace Obamacare. This week."

"He's dreaming. They have to pass legislation to keep the government from running out of money. That happens Friday. So maybe if they manage to do that it will go on Trump's almost non-existent list of 100-days accomplishments."

"So what did your favorite president get done? And don't forget there was the Depression going on, which made it easier to get things through Congress."

"Fair point. But in a legitimate 100 days, among other things Roosevelt got Congress to pass the creation of the FDIC and the bank holiday. Also, the Glass-Steagall Act and the Tennessee Valley Authority--the TVA--and Social Security--that's a big one-- and he ended the gold standard.  Which pretty much everybody would consider amazing. And I could go on. He got 15 separate pieces of New Deal legislation passed in a little more than three months. Against that, on Trump's list, you'd probably mention the new Supreme Court justice. Which he does get credit for though Gorsuch is not my cup of tea."

"I'm not really into this 100-days business. I just . . ."

"You just brought it up out the blue to bust my chops?"

"Not . . ."

"I'll tell you one big thing Trump could do by Saturday."

"I'm listening."

"Start a war with North Korea. Even if he doesn't know where our aircraft carriers are."

Jack hung up.

March 22, 2017--Wag the Dog

If I am right that the Russian-connection dots lead back to Donald Trump, and if we learn that in one way or another he authorized some of his people to collude with their Russian paymasters, this situation is much more serious than any other presidential scandal from Teapot Dome to Watergate to Monic Lewinsky.

If true, expect the master of distraction, out of fear and desperation, to trot out the wag-the-dog defense. Wag the Dog, recall, is the title of a Clinton-era 1997 black comedy in which a political spin doctor (Robert De Nero), days before the presidential election, to distract the public from a sex scandal, hires a film producer (Dustin Hoffman), to stage a fake war with Albania.

It worked. The president is reelected.

What distraction might we expect from our current president?

Minimally, a war with North Korea.

Not that North Korea doesn't deserve serious attention and, who knows, at some point military action to "take out" their nuclear arsenal and missile delivery systems since they are working on developing the capability to reach our west coast cities.

But under unrelenting political pressure and media scrutiny, Trump may ignore the diplomatic approach and reach for the "football" and nuclear codes.

My bet, though, is that he has something more Trump-like in mind. Something more reality-show.

He will fulfill one of his most outrageous campaign pledges--he will get the Attorney General to arrange for Hillary Clinton to be indicted.

That would push everything else off the front pages. There will be no talk about healthcare; no back and forth about defunding Meals On Wheels or Planned Parenthood; no coverage of Judge Neil Gorsuch's Supreme Court nomination hearings; no gossip about Ivanka Trump's new West Wing office; and, most important to Trump, talk will be suspended about his possible involvement with the Russians to undermine the presidential election.

It would be his equivalent of Wag the Dog's fake war with Albania.

"Lock Her Up"