August 6, 2019--My Kentucky Friend

For a kid from Brooklyn I seem to have a lot of friends from Kentucky. Here's an email from ABO who is from those parts and among the best people ever--

S&R

That was a great dinner at Jill’s last night.  Loved it!!   

If, today for any reason (not Jill’s wonderful cooking) you’re feeling nauseous, don’t read this.  It’s about food offerings at the Kentucky State Fair. It’s hard to believe, actually.  I wonder what this has to do with Trump winning Kentucky?  

Consider the Hot Brown Tater Tots.  Maybe you would like the Philly Cheesesteak donut burger?  https://www.courier-journal.com/picture-gallery/life/events/statefair/2019/08/05/kentucky-state-fair-food-through-the-years/1923575001/

Next to this article is one about Rand Paul having lung surgery because of the assault from his neighbor, and another about Mitch’s broken shoulder when he fell yesterday.  Also a new nominee for district judge nominated by Trump who thinks the FBI should report to the President. 

Kentucky is falling apart.  There will be nobody left to vote for Trump after they all die because of eating at the State Fair.

Love, 

ABO

March 28, 2019--Randy Paul

Did I hear or was I hallucinating that Kentucky Senator Rand Paul wants the Senate to investigate Barack Obama's alleged role in launching the Mueller investigation?

If you've noticed that some of the crazies who wait outside federal courts or the Department of Justice, the one's who wear clothes made from American flags, carrying FISA signs, they are alluding to Obama supposedly getting the FISA court to authorize illegal wiretaps of Trump associates in order to trap Trump in one nefarious scheme or another.

Paul must be having fantasies of hauling Obama before the Foreign Relations Committee and grilling him about his roll in getting the investigation of Trump going.

This would assure that Paul would be welcomed back to Mar-a-Lago after being banned from Palm Beach as the result of leading the opposition to Trump's trumped-up national border emergency. Remember that one?

Jilted Paul, shivering in Kentucky, sees Lindsay Graham hanging in the sun with the Trumps and it makes him crazy. He knows, though, that any attacks on the Clintons and Obamas gets one a ticket south on Air Force One.

Even if Paul has to caddy for his beloved Mr. President it also assures him some attention from Trump's people and a leg up on another (disastrous) run for the Oval.

Actually, I'd love for this to happen. Can you imagine the mincemeat Obama would make of that committee and especially the pathetic Paul? Just ask Mitt Romney what it's like to debate Obama. 

That would be worth the price of admission.

March 9, 2019--Saturday's Rats

This past week saw heated competition for Saturday's Rat. Who among Trump's closest people tried to push their way to the top of the gangplank in a panic to get off his sinking ship? 

First there was House Minority Leader, Kevin McCarthy, whose anti-Semitic trope last November claimed that Jewish money provided by George Soros, Mike Bloomberg, and Tom Steyer was being deployed to "buy" the midterm elections. He tweeted this anti-Semitic canard and then a day later deleted it--

"We cannot allow Soros, Steyer, and Bloomberg to BUY this election! Get out and vote Republican November 6th"

McCarthy had been on a campaign to cultivate Trump in the hope that he would allow the California congressman to ascend to and keep the House leadership seat abandoned by Paul Ryan.

But McCarthy could take only so much. Especially after seeing the disastrous results of the midterm election and then sensing Republican members of Congress acting friskier and friskier, wavering somewhat in their blind devotion to Trump.

Fearing for his own fate, McCarthy screwed up what little courage he has to squeak out a statement that though he agreed that Trump has the authority to declare a national emergency wouldn't it be better not to do so. 

Trump smacked him and as with the Jewish-money allegation he quickly backed off. No profile of courage here.

So McCarthy was a contender, but there were other Republicans who showed a bit more independence. Senator Rand Paul, for instance. He led the effort in the Senate to reject Trump's emergency declaration, speaking more forcefully and not willing to back off even if it meant no more visits to Mar-a-Lago. 

Paul sounded genuine and it was clear that establishing a few degrees of separation from Trump is perhaps a good strategy for him if he intends one more run at the presidency. 

Here is a little of what Paul said--

"I think he’s wrong, not on policy, but in seeking to expand the powers of the presidency beyond their constitutional limits.”

Moving quickly down the list of aspirants, there are a couple of others scrambling for the title--Mat Drudge in the Drudge Report declared Trump "swamped" after the Cohen testimony and the collapsed summit with Kim Jong-un; and Trump fave, Lou Dobbs who excoriated the president for his failed immigration and economic policies. He said Trump and the White House, "have lost their way."

Runner up though in the rat race is Ty Cobb. Not a household name, he was among Trump's first small group of lawyers hired to deal with the Mueller investigation. He is one of Washington's most esteemed attorneys and some wondered why he would want to sully himself by association with the likes of Trump. 

A fair question but one with an easy answer--even the most reprehensible individuals are entitled to strong legal representation. 

But Cobb, after leaving Trump, seeking to reestablish his reputation among the Washington establishment, in an interview with ABC News, felt the need to clarify why he agreed to be involved with Trump.

Among other things he said-- 

Mueller is an "American hero" and the probe he is leading is not a "witch hunt." He rejected the president's repeated characterizations of the Russia investigation and the man leading it.

This week's Saturday Rat, though, is Matt Whitaker. 

Remember him? Trump appointed Whitaker acting Attorney General after he finally tortured Jeff Sessions enough that he quit. At the time, as Whitaker was so obviously unqualified, it was thought that he got the job because he publicly boasted that he, like Michael Cohen and others, would "take a bullet" for Mr. Trump. This led Trump to assume he would take the initiative to fire Mueller.

That even a dunderhead such as Whitaker refused to do, but he may have perjured himself when he testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

The Wall Street Journal reported--

"The House Judiciary Committee believes it has evidence that President Trump asked Matthew Whitaker, at the time the acting attorney general, whether Manhattan U.S. attorney Geoffrey Berman could regain control of his office’s investigation into Mr. Trump’s former lawyer and his real-estate business, according to people familiar with the matter."

After the next Attorney General, Robert Barr, was confirmed and took office, Whitaker was given a no-show job at the DOJ. But after just a few weeks, under cover of darkness, like Omarosa, he departed. No one seems to know where he is and what he might be up to.

My favorite speculation, which I am attempting to promulgate is that he is in a safe house somewhere, spilling what he knows to Mueller's investigators in the hope they will grant him immunity from prosecution for lying to Congress. 

Wouldn't it be confirming if he could provide corroborating evidence that Trump did in fact try to get him to assign a Trump-friendly U.S. attorney who would back off from investigating Trump and his family's nefarious business dealings in New York City?

Therefore, though there are other strong contenders, Matt Whitaker is this week's Rat!

December 10, 2018--Rats

This is not to contend that Republicans of varying stripes are rushing to abandon Trump as documents filed with the courts are becoming more explicit in their charges that Trump himself likely participated in felonies; though there is no rush yet of Trumpian rats deserting the ship, there are the first inklings, at a minimum, of some backing away from the thus-far Unbreachable One.

Up to now my two favorite examples of such self-serving behavior are Trump's lawyer, the increasingly preposterous Rudy Giuliani, mocking how long it took Trump to answer Mueller's soft ball written questions and Fox News's Tucker Carlson, who recently called Trump's competency to be president into question.

In an interview with The Atlantic, Rudy was quoted as saying that it was "a nightmare." It took three weeks rather than "what would normally take two days." For Rudy to acknowledge this represented a gutsy poke at Trump's fragile ego, especially when his intelligence is called into question. 

Then Tucker Carlson, a member, along with Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity of Fox News's triumvirate of prime time apologists, in an interview with the Swiss magazine, Die Weltwoche, called Trump "Incapable of sustained focus." Another sensitive issue for Trump who has referred to himself as "a very stable genius."

Carlson said, "I don't think he's capable. I don’t think he’s capable of sustained focus. I don’t think he understands the system. I don’t think the Congress is on his side. I don’t think his own agencies support him." 

He added, it was "mostly Trump's fault that he hadn’t been able to deliver on his pledges, because “you really have to understand how the legislative process works and be very focused on getting it done.”

"Trump," he continued, "knows very little about the legislative process, hasn't learned anything, hasn't surrounded himself with people who can get [his agenda] done, hasn't done all the things you need to do. It's mostly his fault that he hasn't achieved those things" he promised to do during the campaign.

One more--as my mother would have put it, Chris "Crispy" is backing off a bit in his support of Trump, saying that the language that Mueller is using to outline the perfidies suggests that the investigators have a surplus of damning evidence.

And so this drip, drip, drip of criticism will be the model until the investigation produces a classic smoking gun. Then even wimpy Rand Paul may squeak something out. In the meantime, some of Trump's transactional "friends" are figuring out that if they are to have professional lives after he is no more they need to distance themselves from him or risk going down to the briny bottom with the USS Trump.

Tucker Carlson

January 12, 2018--Trump 2018 Removal Act

Earlier this week, Donald Trump flew to Nashville to visit Andrew Jackson's nearby home, the Hermitage, to honor him by, among other things, placing a wreath on his tomb.

Though Trump doesn't read and knows nothing verifiable about American history, including the American presidency, a large portrait of the 7th president is currently on prominent display in the Oval Office.

Why might that be? Not because Jackson owned about 200 slaves (though that per se would not repel Trump) but because he was the first president to be widely regarded by "ordinary" people. Trump views himself that way. There is his base that he spends all day pandering to, which was on vivid display yesterday.

It began in the morning. The House of Representatives was scheduled to vote on an extension of the FISA act, legislation that was first approved in 1978 to allow intelligence-gathering agencies to spy on foreign nationals as well as American citizens who might represent terrorist threats. 

Libertarians such as Senator Rand Paul had proposed an amendment that would require that a FISA court, more than at present, be required to authorize in advance any domestic spying.

Paul was on Morning Joe a few hours before the vote, seemingly to explain his amendment but, as it turned out, to seek and secure Trump's support. Seemingly as a non sequitur, unprompted, he went into a passionate attack on the FBI who, he falsely claimed, was working to "bring down" the president.

When I wondered out loud why the senator switched subjects, Rona patted me on the arm and as if to humor me and with a sigh, said, "Of course to suck up to Trump in order to secure his support."

"Rand Paul?" I asked, still naively, "The same person Trump mocked and destroyed during the 2016 Republican primary season?"

Rona just looked over at me as if I were born yesterday.

Needless to say, waffling back and forth all day, Trump came down to oppose the Paul amendment after an hour earlier endorsing it.

So much for attempting to suck up to and relate transactually to our president.

More of Trump playing to his base was on disgraceful display later in the day.

At a bipartisan meeting in the Oval Office about legislation that would provide some additional support for the Wall along the border with Mexico in trade for Congress's approval for a path to citizenship for 800,000 stateless DACA young people, Trump met with six congressional leaders, seemingly to wrap up final details.

Appearing to be unmotivated, almost like a non sequitur of his own, Trump began to ruminate about immigration writ larger, asking why we accept immigrants and refugees from places such as Haiti, El Salvador, and Africa. 

From "shithole countries" like these.

After this outrageousness, Republicans offered their usual tepid response, mainly mild forms of faux incredulity (they too worry about the power of Trump's base--perhaps 30 percent of America's adults) while most others expressed genuine outrage.

Has Trump finally crossed the line that many of us have been waiting for for more than two years, a line that will finally bring him down? 

Even in my hopeful naïvety, I was skeptical. Trump critics were not surprised by his ignorance and racism. We have come to expect it and have been rendered exhausted by it. Perhaps even inured.  

As someone yesterday evening was quoted as saying, it was another example of Trump seeking to "make America white again."

That caused me to think more about Trump's visit to Andrew Jackson's home and grave. 

Among other disturbing things that Jackson was responsible for was the infamous Indian Removal Act of 1830 that required native people, to leave our then western territories and relocate west of the Mississippi. Some tribes did so "voluntarily," others needed to be "removed" forcefully along the Trail of Tears.

This is what Trump is up to and why he admires Jackson so much--Trump too wants to see the removal of millions of Americans along a contemporary trail of tears. El Saladorians back to El Salvador, Hatians back to their island, Africans back to Africa, Muslims back to their countries.

One thing they have in common--they are all people of color. "What can't we admit more Norwegians, white-supremacist Trump opined wistfully.

If he didn't cross the line yesterday maybe he inched closer to it. Mueller is thankfully lurking while cravenly GOP members in Congress aren't.

November 27, 2017--Duffer In Chief

During his campaign for the presidency, nominee Donald Trump repeatedly criticized Barak Obama for spending so much time on the golf course. Among other things, in dog-whistle terms, this meant black people are lazy.

Trump tweeted--

"Can you believe that, with all of the problems and difficulties facing the U.S., President Obama spent the day playing golf."

He also said that Obama "plays more golf than Tiger Woods." (More dog whistle.)


Then about himself, on the campaign trail, he said, "If I'm elected I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf."

Well, the facts are that Obama didn't play his first round of golf until about the 100th day of being sworn in while Trump's first round, at his golf course in Palm Beach, occurred just two weeks after he was inaugurated. 


And this past weekend, again in residence at his Palm Beach pleasure palace (and for-profit private club), he played the 80th round of golf of his presidency. Since he had been in office just a little more than 300 days, 80 rounds means he golfed on 27 percent of them.

A few months ago when pressed to explain this blatant hypocrisy, he claimed he only plays golf with world and congressional leaders. In other words, rather than playing for fun he was working. Like his times on the tee with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. 

To be fair, there is some truth here--riding around in a golf cart with the likes of Abe or, twice each, senators Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham can not only be relaxing but productive. Deals can get struck. Like pressuring and flattering Lindsey to get him to vote to repeal Obamacare.

But in truth, the list of world leaders who have been Trump golfing companions includes only the Japanese prime minister. Neither President Xi of China nor German Chancellor Angela Merkel have taken divots with him. His companions have mostly been professional golfers, other athletes, and a few small-time business executives such as Mike Fasio, CEO of Prime Staffing, a New York based employment agency.

And what about his round of golf last Friday with Tiger Woods? How does this fit into Trump's golf/work paradigm? 

It's heard to imagine that Trump and Tiger conversed about tax reform (except perhaps to chuckle about how much each of these very wealthy men would see their taxes cut) or what to do about North Korea.

My sources tell me that they spoke about more personal issues--

The sort of thing two well-known ladies men discuss in the "locker room" or 19th hole--favorite places for such talk. That's how Trump tried to explain being caught on tape joking around with Billy Bush about how easy it is to get laid when you're a "star."

"So, Tiger," he might have said, "What's going on with you these days, and I'm not talking about your golf swing?" I can imagine a presidential wink.

"My back is feeling better," Tiger would say, "I'm hoping to get back in action soon." Imagine a Tiger wink.

"That means you haven't been getting any lately?" Continue to imagine winks.

"Not so much in person," Tiger likely said, "But I do like texting. I know you do too."

"I don't want to get caught like that Weiner--can you believe his name, by the way--or that loser congressman from Texas who just got exposed last week. Pardon the pun. Burton, Barton, I forget his name. What a bunch of losers. I'm so busy these days trying to concentrate on what's going on with that damn Congress and that low life Mueller that I haven't been able to get out much. Or watch most of my favorite TV shows. And every time I turn around Steve Bannon is on the phone or Ivanka wants me to do something for women."

"Been there, done that," Tiger would say. "These women won't leave you alone."

Trump would sigh, "You know what I said to that jerk relative of low-energy Jeb Bush, Billy whatever, about how easy it is to get women when you're famous? Can you imagine what I could be gettin' now that I'm president? Look what Kennedy and Johnson and Clinton got their hands on. All Democrats by the way. Or got into, if you know what I mean. I could use some of that. This is a hard job--they even wake you up in the middle of the night every time that short, fat guy shoots off a rocket. I wish Dennis Rodman could work out a deal with him so I could get some sleep. And everyone has their eyes on me. Can you believe that the Secret Service knows every time I have to take a leek?"

Tiger would say something commiserating. 

January 25, 2016--Governor Who?

Governor Chris Christie has virtually moved to New Hampshire.

It's all-in for him up there. Unless he comes in third in the February 9th primary, he'll be forced to return to New Jersey, tail between his legs, where, it is alleged, he is still the governor.

Actually, he got a preview of life in NJ this past weekend when winter storm Jonas was set to pummel the Jersey Shore. In a deja-vu hallucination that Jonas might pack the wallop of Hurricane Sandy, though he didn't want to leave the cozy town-hallers he was getting nachas from in the Granite State, he had no choice but to return kicking and screaming to Jersey and pretend he cared about his anxious constituents.

His one caveat--no replays of his former post-Sandy bromance with Barack Obama. That was the beginning of the end for him. Closing the GW Bridge also didn't help. But some New Hampshireites were actually beginning to like him--though he is still showing up in NH polls in low single-digits--and for Christie, whose approval rating in the Garden State is almost as low as his standing in the presidential race, he had no choice. Put in an appearance in Jersey--no matter how reluctantly--and live with it.

Though maybe, just maybe, he was hoping, he would get politically lucky and the storm would reach Sandy proportions (fortunately it didn't) and he could get a lot of snow-swept, flooded-out face-time on TV, stomping around as a pretend commander in chief.

And show up in NJ he did. For just 24 hours before racing back to the comforts of New Hampshire, leaving thousands still stranded along the flooded Jersey coast.

On Saturday, the New York Times ran a story about how frequently he's been out of the state the past year--during 2015, Crispy spent 191 days in anyplace but New Jersey, most of it downing free snacks and campaigning.

But, the Times decided not to ask why, if he's at best a part-time governor, he still pulls down a full-time $175,000-a-year salary.

Actually, they could have raised the same question about many of the other candidates.

Just as the Florida Sun Sentinel called for no-show Marco Rubio to resign from the Senate. In addition to being personally underwritten by a fanatical Israel-supporter, South Florida car-dealer billionaire Norman Braham, Rubio, who has the worst attendance record in Congress, shamelessly continues to pocket the $174,000-a-year salary.

Only politicians can get away with this kind of stuff. Though maybe soon they'll be inhibited from doing so as the public continues to sour on their performance and are turning to Bernie Sanders and Donald TRUMP types in the hope that they will be able to do something to fix our festering problems, very much changing the way parasitical public "servants" behave.

I know, dream on.

Christie and Rubio among the contenders are not the only ones feeding at the government trough.

Ted Cruz, who is making quite a living as a federal employee though also not showing up for work, spends his days trashing the very system of which he and his Goldman-Sachs-employed wife are comfortable fixtures.

Then there is Rand Paul who not only ignores his day job but also finagled the Kentucky legislature to pass a special bill to allow him to double-dip--to run in November for both the Senate and the presidency. Though he won't need to worry about the latter since by March he'll no longer be at even the children's debate table but will have to slink back to KY to try to convince folks there that they should send him back to the Senate. He'll need to get on this case post haste as his reelection bid is currently imperiled.

Not to worry--one way or the other, I expect to see son-of-Ron with his own show on Fox News or back to operating on cataracts.

And while I'm at it, among the candidates who are running while on the federal payroll, the candidate who has been chowing down at public expense for the most years, for 34 to be precise, is Bernie the socialist.

I suppose his form of taxpayer-financed socialism doesn't take his decades-long ineffectiveness as a senator into consideration when the Treasury Department sends along to him each year a cool $174K.

And talk about part-time jobs, Rona wondered out loud that Hillary Clinton must be an amazing public speaker to justify her $225,000-a-pop speeches at Goldman Sachs. Too bad they were never broadcast on C-SPAN.

But here's my question--where do I sign up for one of these jobs?

December 17, 2015--Debate Postpartum

The first hour of Tuesday's GOP debate was largely devoted to candidates speaking from their talking points and thus it was predictable and, in political theater terms, boring.

But then in the second hour things heated up and it became more entertaining. It also revealed who might turn out to be the final three and the strategies those three will likely use to claw their way into that elite group.

To forestall any suspense you might be feeling, the final three will be TRUMP, Rubio, and Jeb Bush. Yes, Jeb!.

In regard to the ultimate nominee, after the Republican convention deadlocks, expect that to be Paul Ryan. He is hovering not too far in the background, trying to act like the SPEAKER and presidential. He's even taken to delivering ex cathedra speeches in flag-bedecked settings. The beard helps. Makes him look like a Founder.

But back to the final official-candidate three. Here's how things well play out. The other night we got a sneak preview of their plans.

Attack, attack, attack.

TRUMP will continue to do what he has been doing, while hoping for at least one or two more instances of domestic terrorism to lock in his over-fearful base while attracting enough quivering semi-independents who want a strong man to make America Great Again. He will be attacking individual rivals but ramp up his attacks on Obama, Hillary, and political elites, none of whom, in his view, know how to swagger on the world stage or have the experience or competence to get anything done.

Rubio, who won the debate the other night largely by glibly showing off that he knows "stuff" while displaying that he also has cojones by attacking Ted Cruz, will continue on the same tack. Expect more and more of his campaign fire directed toward his fellow Latino, Cruz, whose paper-thin voice went up an octave when under fire. Voters will not select for president someone who sounds as if he's inhaled helium.

And then there is the formerly hapless Jeb Bush who will continue to show he has moxie (plus gravitas) by relentlessly and effectively attacking TRUMP. It worked on Tuesday (look for this to show up in a post-debate bump in the polls) so expect more of the same. If he can, as he did, get under the skin of someone as formidable as TRUMP think what he'll do when it comes to confronting really bad guys like Putin and Assad.

Forget the rest of the candidates. Carson is now fully cooked, Christie was taken down by Paul Ryan of all people--he is less than half Christie's size--who revealed him to be the Third World warrior he pretends to be.

Shoot down Russian planes over Syria? As Paul said about Christie, "If you're looking for someone to start WW III, you have your candidate." And he couldn't resist piling on by making a nasty reference to Christie's alleged involvement in closing down the GW Bridge.

No one else is even breathing much less threatening to push their way into the inner-inner circle of final-finalists.

You heard it here.

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.

August 18, 2014--This Guy Is Getting Interesting

Senator Ted Cruz--the physical and ideological image of demagogic Senator Joseph McCarthy--is a candidate for the 2016 Republican nomination for president, but he's going nowhere. Actually, he is setting himself up for a lucrative future on the lecture, book, and Fox News circuit. So we do not have to take any shifting in his positions seriously. He is merely building his brand.

Senator Rand Paul, on the other hand, the current frontrunner for that nomination, is doing some interesting things to adjust or, to be kind, flesh out his views and image. He clearly doesn't want to be this generation's Barry Goldwater and get trounced two years from now by Hillary Clinton.

Indeed, I am beginning to get the feeling that not only is his likely to be nominated but he may have a good chance to become president. Hillary has probably already peaked and is feeling like yesterday's news, a part of the problem in Washington who, playing it safe, thus far has nothing new to say or credibly promise. She's got the gender thing going and has a talented and widely beloved husband, but there may be enough Clinton fatigue to override even that. Barbara Bush may be right--enough already with the Bushes and Clinton. We're not talking Adamses or Roosevelts.

Rand Paul is the only national Republican figure with the guts and inclination to speak at the recent NAACP convention; is comfortable with young people, gays, and people of color; is calling for sentencing reform; and last week had some fascinating things to say about the racial confrontation in Ferguson, MO.

Since 9/11 the Department of Homeland Security has been paying for the arming of the nation's local police forces, making armored vehicles, helicopters, high-capacity weapons, sniper rifles, grenade launchers, and body armor readily available. And so, when there is a confrontation between police and alleged perpetrators (the Boston bombing suspects, for example) or between police and demonstrating and rioting citizens (Ferguson, for example), the cops show up armed to the teeth in full military regalia.

Observing this, Rand Paul late last week in an op-ed piece on Time.com first made a connection between himself and the demonstrators--

If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But I wouldn't have expected to be shot.

Then, in regard to the military-style arming of the police and the expansion of their powers he said--

When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with the erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury--national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, preconviction forfeiture--we begin to have a serious problem on our hands.

Interesting, no?

July 21, 2014--Clown Car

I don't know if they're still doing this, but in my youth, a favorite moment during the Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey circus was when a car smaller than a VW would trundled to the center of the center ring and slowly disgorge clown after clown after clown after clown. At least a dozen appeared to have been piled into that tiny vehicle. I guess this was the inspiration for Steven Sondheim's Bring in the Clowns.

Of course there was a trap door beneath where the car came to rest and the clowns scrambled up from below the circus floor. Think of this as a metaphor for what follows.

Though Ringling Brothers may have moved on to higher-tech stunts, the good news is that their own version of the clown car is beginning to trundle toward center stage in the Republican scramble for the 2016 presidential nomination.

Three GOP clowns were especially active last week--Chris Christie, thinking his troubles are either behind him or that potential voters in Iowa have not been tracking the Bridgegate scandal (or, what is in fact true for them, seeing it to be a scandal created by the liberal eastern-establishment media) plunged into adoring crowds who came out to see a genuine political celebrity (ironically a celebrity created as much by media-fed scandal as achievement) who was eager to show the Republican competition how a seemingly straight-talking, tell-it-like-it-is anti-Washington regular overweight guy looks and feels like in the flesh (double meaning intended).

It feels pretty good, the ever-modest Christie concluded, all smiles before heading back to New Jersey, praying that the various prosecutors and grand juries investigating the mess at the GW Bridge as well as other signs of corruption will not indict him before next November. My guess is they will, and that that will finally deflate him. In the meantime, he'll keep pressing the flesh. (Sorry, at times I can't restrain myself from being bad.)

Also getting into their clown gear were Rick Perry, who I believe is still governor of Texas, and Rand Paul, Ron's son, who I think is a senator though the last time he was seen in Washington was two years ago when he was sworn in. He's now a part of the Washington establishment, like it or not, and since politically being perceived that way is a ability, he is trying to figure out how to be both a senator and an anti-establishment, anti-governement figure though he is in fact a public employee and earns more than $200,000 a year in salary and generous benefits paid for by taxpayers whose taxes he wants to cut. Get it?

Only a clown could be that audacious. And then have you seen his hair-dye job and eye makeup? Right out of clown school. But there I go again being bad.

What is unusual so many months before the Iowa caucuses is for undeclared but for-certain candidates to attack each other directly, by name. This early in the game unannounced candidates have always talked in broad generalities while wandering around the country attempting to line up wealthy supporters while appearing to be above the fray and trying to act presidential.

But Rick Perry couldn't control himself. He went right after purported front-runner Rand Paul both by policy and name. Maybe he recalled that the last time around, assuming his memory is more intact this time--he had trouble during the debates remembering even his own talking points--perhaps he is acknowledging that that last-minute strategy didn't work. His front-runner status lasted about a week.

Though the problem may have been more him than his strategy, this time around he is working more on the strategy than the "him" part.

The governor showed up last week with a new pair of professorial-looking eye glasses. These are part of a strategy to look smart because, again in 2012, he both looked and sounded, how else to put this, dumb.

And he's even given up wearing cowboy boots. Another strategy to make him look serious. And maybe to appeal to women and independents who don't like to see too much testosterone in their presidents. Though God knows with John Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and FDR it flowed freely.

All Democrats. Hum.

Rick Perry, to show he knows the location of Russia and that he can't see it from his ranch, and is thus comfortable with foreign policy issues and therefore ready to move into the White House, but also to distinguish himself from the GOP frontrunner, attacked Rand Paul by name, calling him an "isolationist," "flat wrong," and "curiously blind" (recall the eyeglasses).

Very bold. But before the ink dried on reports about Perry's otherwise high-toned speech, Paul's people retaliated, calling Rick Perry "dead wrong," saying that though he is running around wearing "smart glasses" (not spiffy smart but the style of glasses that make you seem smart), "apparently his new glasses haven't altered his perception of the world or allowed him to see more clearly."

I call that hitting above the belt and not politically smart since so many voters need glasses not to make them look smart but to see. Though someone should check to see if Perry's have prescription lenses or are just window glass.

Now if we could only get Herman Cain wound up and ready to climb into that clown car how much fun would that be this hot summer where nothing else is going on. Except, of course Israel invading Gaza and Russians or Ukrainian rebels shooting down commercial airplanes.

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.