March 5, 2020--The Youth Vote

Interviewed last night on the Rachel Maddow Show, Bernie Sanders spoke with pride about how his political "movement" was attracting increasing numbers of young voters.

When Rachel pointed out that this is untrue, he blanched and insisted that it is. She pressed him, noting the evidence does not support that conclusion.

He disagreed, saying he "believes" it to be true. 

It was as if he said, if the facts aren't corroboratable, turn to believes to make your case.

Here, from USA Today are the facts. They support Rachel Maddow:

Exit polls for five southern states that Biden won – Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia – found that young voters did not show up at the polls in the numbers they did in 2016.

• In Alabama, only 7% of the voters were in the 17-29 range compared to 14% in 2016. Sanders won six of every 10 of those voters Tuesday compared to four of 10 in 2016.
• In North Carolina, 13% of Tuesday’s electorate were young voters, compared to 16% four years ago. Of those, 57% went for Sanders in 2020 compared to 69% in 2016.
• In South Carolina, young voters made up 11% of the electorate Tuesday compared to 15% in 2016. Sanders won 43% of those voters Tuesday compared to 54% four years ago.

• n Alabama, only 7% of the voters were in the 17-29 range compared to 14% in 2016. Sanders won six of every 10 of those voters Tuesday compared to four of 10 in 2016.
• In North Carolina, 13% of Tuesday’s electorate were young voters, compared to 16% four years ago. Of those, 57% went for Sanders in 2020 compared to 69% in 2016.
• In South Carolina, young voters made up 11% of the electorate Tuesday compared to 15% in 2016. Sanders won 43% of those voters Tuesday compared to 54% four years ago.

Anecdotally, it does appear that many college-age students turn out for Sanders' rallies, but this is never quantified. How many register to vote and then actually do is. And as one can see from the actual Super Tuesday vote, Rachel Maddow had it right.

I am reminded of 19-year-old James Kunen's Strawberry Statement: Notes of A College Revolutionary, a 1970 book about the student protests that roiled Columbia University's campus in 1968.

It was serious business but had another side to it that Kunen also wrote about--the "revolution" was a great place to meet girls.

Is it too cynical of me to point this out?

January 30, 2019--Kamala's Got the Goods

My early impressions had not been positive. I got the appeal but not the substance. The sizzle but very little steak.

As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee she participated a couple of weeks ago in the interrogation of Robert Barr, Trump's nominee to replace Jeff Sessions as Attorney General. It was a star-turn opportunity and so I tuned in hoping to be impressed but came away disappointed.

She spoke too much from notes and did not light up the room with her smarts or tenacity. A ho-hum performance  Not much evidence of fire in the belly. She seemed already too much a member of the Senate club after having been there a scant two years.

But, for me, Sunday changed all that. 

After informally announcing she was running for president two weeks ago while interviewed by Rachael Maddow she organized a rally in her home town, Oakland, CA, where she offered a full-throated declaration she was running for the highest office in the land.

With crowd size an important metric in assessing the strength of candidates (remember Trump's obsession with how many showed up for his inauguration?) it was impressive that at least 20,000 turned out for Harris. To organize such a massive rally is no mean trick, especially so early in a national campaign.

And then there was the speech itself. Unlike other candidates (think Hillary Clinton) who struggle for up to two years on the campaign trail to offer a convincing answer to the classic Roger Mudd question, the one back in 1979 he popped on Ted Kennedy who was seeking to unseat Jimmy Carter: "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy effectively lost any chance of securing the nomination after struggling to offer a coherent answer.

With a nod to rhetoric at times used by Barack Obama, Senator Harris at the Sunday rally kept it simple and eloquent.

She concluded-- 

“We are here because the American dream and our American democracy are under attack and on the line like never before. And we are here at this moment in time because we must answer a fundamental question: ‘Who are we? Who are we as Americans?’ So, let’s answer that question to the world and each other, right here and right now: ‘America, we are better than this.’’’ 

As they say, the crowd went wild and her polling numbers a day or two later soared--Biden had it all his way in the polls until then. His numbers lingered comfortably in the high 20 percents, hers languished at 5 percent or less. 

But as of now they are in a statistical deadbeat. Yes, it is still very, very early but this suggests Harris is tapping into a powerful vein of national aspiration. 

People are still longing to be optimistic, to have hope for a better future.

Further, she was radiant. Unlike so many others who on the trail feel as if they are campaigning begrudgingly, Kamala Harris seemed totally in her element and appeared to be having a deeply-felt joyous time. A star was being born.

And so, an early prediction--

Kamala Harris will win the nomination or wind up as the vice presidential candidate on Joe Biden's ticket. Far out on a limb I see the former to be more likely.

December 20, 2018--Trump's Distractions

If you are wondering why Donald Trump is ordering the removal of all U.S. military forces from Syria, declaring ISIS defeated even those they aren't--up to 30,000 ISIS fighters remain--the answer by now should be familiar: this retreat, which he initiated without consulting Congress or his State Department or Pentagon, is to distract us from the Michael Flynn fiasco and the humiliating collapse of his own private family slush fund, the Donald J. Trump Foundation.

You do have to admit that pulling the Syria withdrawal seemingly out of a hat is impressive in one way--who but Trump has our 2,000 troops on their radar screen ready to be brought home as a distraction from his political troubles. As of 5:00 am this morning on the New York Times webpage it is the lead story. Flynn and the Foundation are buried somewhere. He managed to turn both into one-day stories.

But don't mishear me--Flynn and the Foundation will contribute to bringing him down, especially when we get to see what is redacted in the Flynn charging memo: that he and Flynn openly conspired to play politics and strategic footsie with the Russians. As I have speculated here, Flynn was likely wearing a wire during some of those conversations, including in the Oval Office, and these tapes will turn out to be Trump's smoking gun.

And if you are wondering why Trump seems so adept, so quick in coming up with distractions of the Syria kind I suspect there is a simple explanation for that too--he has a pre-bickered list of them in his jacket pocket which he can pull out at a moments notice. 

(Ever think about why he never buttons his suit jackets? Not because they don't fit any more after he's gained at least 50 pounds since moving into the White House where the vanilla ice cream is available by the bucket, but to allow easy access to the distractions list.)

Investigative reporter that I am, from unnamed sources I have a copy of the list which I will share with you--

DJTRUMP DISTRACTIONS

Withdraw troops from Iraq

Withdraw troops from Afghanistan

Withdraw troops from Honduras

Withdraw troops from Japan

Withdraw troops from South Korea

Withdraw troops from Germany

Withdraw troops from all NATO countries

Withdraw troops from all bases in the United States
Start war with Honduras
Start war with Panama
Start war with Costa Rica
Start war with Mexico
Start war with California

Fire all Internal Revenue Service personnel

Fire all traffic controllers

Fire Ron Rosenstein

Fire Sarah Huckabee Sanders

Fire Kellyanne Conway

Fire Kellyanne's husband

Fire Jeff Sessions

Fire Rex Tillerson

Fire Reince Priebus

Fire Sean Spicer

Fire Jeff Sessions

Throw Sessions under the bus

Trow Spicer under the bus

Throw Kellyanne under the bus

Fire Wolf Blitzer

Fire Rachel Maddow

Fire Mika Brezezzzinzki

Throw Mika Bzezinzkiz under the bus

Throw Don Jr. under the bus

Throw Eric Trump under the bus

Throw Jared Kushner under the bus

Throw Ivanka under the bus

Throw Melania under the bus

Fire Omarosa

Fire Alec Baldwin

Fire Donald Trump

June 21, 2018--Jack's Secret

"You know, Jack, I'm so disgusted by what Trump and the Republicans are up to that I don't want to have anything to do with them or, for that matter, you."

"Here I popped in to share a cup of coffee with you and you're giving me all sorts of grief. What did I do this time to get under your skin?"

"Are you kidding me? Did you just get back from Mars? Even if you did I assume they have Fox News there."

"On Mars?"

"Don't try to wiggle out of this by pretending to be cute and innocent  You know what's going on. You know how despicable you and your people have been. I'm so angry about what you are doing at the border with Mexico that I don't want to see your face much less sit together and pretend nothing is going on."

Jack remained standing in place in the middle of the diner. 

"For years I tried to talk with you rationally. Even respectfully. To hear your views. To try to understand where you were coming from. How you could possibly think Trump would be a good president. Why you thought he could be elected and when he won, as much of a hallucination as that was, I listened to you talk about about how he would surprise me and get all sorts of good things done. That he wasn't a monster. How he might even be a closet Democrat. You remember how he was going to clean out the swamp, which I agreed needing doing? Tell me about that now. Among others, he and his family have taken over the swamp." 

Jack remained fixed where he was.

I paused to catch my breath. It felt as if I was going to have a heart attack. "But then this. This. You remember at the beginning of the campaign how he out of the blue savagely attacked John McCain? How he blasted him because he had been captured during the war in Vietnam? Trump the draft dodger said he liked winners, not people who were taken prisoner. Saying this about McCain, who was shot down flying a bombing mission, I thought for sure would doom Trump's candidacy. But he rose in the polls as he did after he claimed he could shoot someone dead on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. Any normal candidate saying that would have been ridden out of office. But no, his poll numbers continued to rise. Well, he's just topped himself again. What he's up to would politically doom anyone else. This one you're going to have to explain to me."

"Can I . . . ?"

"No. Stay right where you are, or yet better, leave." I had never talked to Jack this way.

"And to think I came in this morning to share a secret with you."

Not finished, I ignored him. "Tell me one thing and after that I'll see if I ever again want to have anything to do with you."

"Shoot," he caught himself, "Forgive me, I know you don't believe in guns. Please continue."

"I don't need your permission. Stay where you are. I have a few other things to get off my chest. Since you had the audacity to show up I do have a question for you."

Jack leaned toward where I was sitting in the booth. 

"My question is how any of your people, I mean the non-crazy ones (though there are too many of those for my taste), how do they justify what's going on with those families seeking asylum in America? I know, Trump and his most awful people want to send a message to anyone heading north from Central America and Mexico that if they show up at the border with children they will be taken away from them and the parents will be sent right back home, leaving their children behind in cages and tents without air conditioning. In the hope that this will deter others from following in their footsteps. I know we can't welcome everyone fleeing poverty and violence--that would be millions of refugees, but is what the government is now doing justified by wanting to keep immigrants, OK, undocumented immigrants out of the country? To treat children this way? Is this their perverted way of making America great again? It's making America evil again."

I raged on, "I mean, this is far from what we did to Japanese citizens during the Second World War. Citizens. What we did then was worse. We put them in 'internment' camps. A fancy word for concentration camps. We took away their property without any due process and held them for years. Years. During Roosevelt's time. During a liberal Democrat's time.  So there is plenty of blame to go around. But shouldn't we at least learn a few things from history? Minimally, what not to repeat."

"I . . ."

"Answer that for me."

"I came in to talk to you about donuts. What you been writing about . . ."

"Forget donuts. Enough about donuts. What's going on in our name, as Americans, is evil. How can anyone justify this? How can anyone . . ." I was sputtering.

"The donut thing is relevant to what you're saying."

For the moment I was out of gas, "This I have to hear."

"It may surprise you that I agree with you about separating families. About zero tolerance. We are still a nation of immigrants. We need immigrants. We don't have enough workers. And we should welcome refugees. Not all of them but as many as our cities and workforce can handle. But real refugees who are trying to escape from persecution."

I couldn't believe what I was hearing.

"We should increase the number we allow into the country legally. How can anyone feel good about having ten million here illegally? We should figure out a way to make most of them permanent residents. I don't know about paths to citizenship kinds of things. But we shouldn't be rounding them up and deporting them. And, by the way, your Obama was a pretty good deporter. And we sure as shit shouldn't be separating families. Conservatives are supposed to believe in families. And not just white ones or families who are here illegally. Families are families. That's what conservatives should believe. And liberals too. We can have our disagreements about what a family is, but we should do what we can to help people remain families."

I was stunned. Though I did know about Jack's very troubled family and his childhood.

"Which brings me back to the donuts."

"Shoot," I said.

At that he smiled the familiar Jack ironic smile and continued, "You wrote that you needed a break from the serious news and that the donuts stories--which I loved, by the way, especially the ones about your friend who comes from a longtime Maine family and the one where you and another friend thought there was a bear in the woods--that the donut stories and the bear and chipmunk story were a diversion from the awful hard news. 

"I get that," he continued, "But here's the secret--you're playing right into the hands of Trump and his people. Not that you're writing for the New York Times or are that influential, but they want all of you who are left-wingers to get so exhausted and frustrated by what's going on that you'll give up and opt out and look for things to distract yourselves. In, other words, capitulate.

"Yeah, you'll vote for Democrats in November, but not in overwhelming numbers. Which could tilt things Trump's way. They want you to get so frustrated that you come to feel that the situation is hopeless. That if you lose your enthusiasm that will be good for Trump, whose approval numbers, by the way, are creeping up. 

"One example--two nights ago, during her show, Rachel Maddow began to cry--cry--while reporting about the children who are being separated from their parents. Among other things, it revealed how exhausted she is by all of this. I assume others are feeling the same way. It could lead to many, out of self-protection, to pull back. 

"But my secret is that what Trump is up to every day, when he creates another crisis, is designed to overload the nation's circuits. He's putting it to Democrats, who are so good at talking and criticizing and writing and being smart about everything to see if they can punch back. To see if you have staying power or if you'll fold up in frustration."

I continued to stare at Jack. 

"That's it," he said.

Shrugging, after a moment he turned to leave. I made no move to stop him.

February 3, 2017--Once More, Jack

Though a number of friends recommended I not answer the phone when Jack calls, when he rang me again the other morning I ignored that advice.

I'm not exactly sure why some of my friends were offering such counsel, but I suspect it's largely because what Jack has been saying about me and my fellow Democrats rings truer than any of us would like--that we are in large part the source of our own political problems. That we didn't do enough to help Hillary Clinton get elected. That we took her victory for granted and spent more time talking about the election than becoming directly involved.

Thus far only one person I heard from, "Gala Girl," appears to have done well on Jack's parlor game challenge, Who Do You Know? She claimed to have friends from all of Jack's categories, except that she doesn't know any coal miners!

All the other readers and friends who either called or wrote to me confessed that for the most part they knew as friends very few plumbers, policemen, or waitresses. Some who disagreed with Jack about our being out-of-touch with Americans who elected Donald Trump, had no problem with the fact that they didn't know anyone currently serving in the military or working as a lab technician. And thus, like them, I should ignore Jack's jibes.

"Things are bad enough without us beating ourselves up about the results of the election," one said.

Jack on the other hand said, "I see you have a new obsession."

"How so?"

"With all the things going on this is what you're paying attention to?"

"What might that this be?" From his attitude I was already beginning to regret that I didn't let his call go to voice mail.

"With all that's going on from the immigration ban to Trump's on-going obsession about how many popular votes Hillary secured, you keep coming back to railing about congressional Democrats gathering the other night on the steps of the Supreme Court."

"I'm all in favor of activism of all kinds. In fact, we need more and more of it right now to show Trump that there will be political consequences for his words and deeds. Really, he needed to alienate the Australians? One of our loyalist allies?"

"I agree. But what seems to be sticking in your craw is the fact that that geriatric group of your congresspeople opted to sing This Land Is Your Land. What's with that?"

"It underlined for me how impotent and out of touch my party leaders are. Nancy Pelosi who can't sing is tottering around on her last legs and Chuck Schumer looks like he's ready for Weight Watchers or needs to check into a care facility. These are the people who are going to lead the opposition and help elect Democrats two years from now? I don't think so."

"I watch some MSNBC," Jack said. "That might surprise you, but I want to check out what Rachael is up to and your version of Bill O'Reilly, loud-mouth Chris Mathews. I want to listen in on what the left-wing opposition is saying and plotting. From my perspective, I'm happy to see not much to win over Trump-type voters. Though at least some of them are recognizing that progressives need to get out into the country to find out what's on voters' minds. You know visit some of those 21-percent counties."

"What are those?"

"Like the ones in Iowa and other swing states that voted for Obama in 2008 and again in 2012, giving him 21 percent margins but then this time around voted equally overwhelmingly, by 21 percent, for Trump. There's a whole lot to learn in those places. And there are quite a few of them.

"If you're looking to start a business, consider setting up a tour company that buses Democrats for overnight visits to these districts. Especially tell them which diners to go to to have breakfast with the locals."

"In some ways we're agreeing. Which brings me back to the other night at the Supreme Court. Not only are our leaders totally out of touch and self-involved, but This Land Is Your Land? This old hippie song? I mean, I like it. But do they think it appeals to millennials and Latinos and the working poor? I don't think so. If anything, they made themselves seem irrelevant and ridiculous."

"On top to that," Jack said, "I noticed that they didn't even know the words. They had to read them from a handout."

 "And meanwhile, back at the White House, Trump was firing people and on the phone talking to the Mexican president, warning him that if the Mexican police don't do a better job of securing the border he might just have to have American troops invade Mexico because there are 'bad hombres' there."

August 1, 2016--Bill & Hillary

It's Shakespearean, Bill & Hillary Clinton's relationship. But even after all these years it is yet unclear if it's a comedy or a tragedy.

For a glimpse of what might be the truth, here is how Bill began his Philip-Roth-like speech the other night at the Democratic convention--

In the spring of 1971, I met a girl. The first time I saw her, we were, appropriately enough, in a class on  political and civil rights. She had thick blond hair, big glasses. Wore no makeup. And she exuded this air of strength of self-possession I found magnetic.

After the class, I followed her out, intending to introduce myself. I got close enough to touch her back, but I couldn't do it. Somehow, I knew this would not be just another tap on the shoulder, that I might be starting something I couldn't stop. 

I saw her several more times the next couple of days but still didn't speak to her. Then one night in the law library talking to a classmate who wanted me to join the Yale Law Journal, he said it would guarantee me a job at a big law firm or a clerkship with a federal judge. I said I wasn't interested--I just wanted to go home to Arkansas.

Rachel Maddow on MSNBC thought the speech was "weird," perhaps even demeaning. Certainly, she said, it was not feminist to talk about the Democratic nominee, the first female nominee, as just a "girl."

What I on the other hand took away from the speech were feelings about love and sadness.

The love upwardly-aspiring Bill had for Hillary as more than just brilliant and seething with ambition, but a flesh and blood woman for whom stirred an immediate attraction and even lust. It humanized her. Which he felt necessary to do since she has a problem in public with appearing to be human.

The speech's comic side was quickly revealed by all the late night comics who quipped--

"In 1971, I met a girl. In 1972, I met a girl. In 1973, I met a girl. In 1974 . . ."

The sad, the tragic side was of love lost. Or compromised.

To have begun this loving way 45 years ago and to know about the wreckage he later brought down upon that love and to the life-long commitment he claimed that began that first day when all he wanted to was touch her back.

In his speech of course there was no mention of that other girl he met in November 1995, in the Oval Office, a girl who . . .

It was, though, a remarkable speech. Hopefully even in large part genuine.

April 9, 2014--Republicans Are "For Nothing"

When Frank Rich is booked to appear on the Rachel Maddow Show I try to tune in. I like the way he sees through the hypocrisy that passes for political discourse and though he is an unashamed progressive is not above giving Democrats corrective grief when he sees them pandering or posturing. Which is often.

The other night he joined Rachel to mark what they claimed was the end of the Obamacare debate. With up to 10 million newly signed up to be covered through health insurance exchanges or enrolled in Medicare, plus millions more young people covered by their parents' policies, they proclaimed there will be less political advantage to Republicans to keep bringing it up.

It's a done deal, they said, and as the benefits really begin to phase in and even people who were reluctant to be forced to buy insurance or be subsidized to do so see how good a heath care delivery system it is, they will become as fervent in their support of it as people were who hated the idea of Medicare ("socialized medicine") but now will defend it to the death. Or minimally, to the ballot box.

As evidence of this, Rich and Maddow cited the latest version of the Ryan budget which calls for the full repeal of the Affordable Care Act. They mocked him for being both politically tone deaf (again, it's a done deal) and for not having an alternative to propose. They showed clips of him making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows fumbling when asked what he was proposing as a substitute to the tens of millions who would be denied coverage or would see their coverage severely restricted since he and his colleagues also want to turn Medicare into a version of a voucher system.

Ryan said, "We're working on alternative proposals." He didn't mention that his budget is the third or fourth in an annual series of Ryan budgets, each not much different than the others, and that coming up with a viable alternative proposal should not have be taking this long to develop.

This shows, Frank Rich said, that Ryan and his fellow Republicans are against everything, that they are, as he put it, "for nothing."

For a moment this did not feel to me like much of an exaggeration. Republicans are clearly not for Obamacare; they are clearly not for Medicare or Medicaid as it currently exists; they are not for food stamps; they are not for environmental protection; they are not for financial systems regulation; they are not for taxes; they are not for . . .

Listening to Rich and Maddow make this list, it sounded as if the GOP is indeed for nothing. (Though they are for increasing defense spending.)

But on further thought this seemed simplistic. Even unfair. Disagree with them as you will, most Republicans are in fact for something. Actually, many things.

Being against Obamacare and Medicare and especially Medicaid is being for less government participation in healthcare.

Being against raising the minimum wage is being for letting the market determine workers' wages.

Being against extending long-term unemployment insurance is being for a Darwinian economy.

Being against regulations is being for allowing markets to self-correct.

Being against taxes is being for trickle-down economics.

You get the point. They achieve their goals but doing as little as possible. Being for something by seemingly being for nothing.

In sum, Republicans are not for nothing. Quite the opposite.