July 3, 2017--Jack: Political Bull Fight

"I know you love Joe and Mika."

"Not really," I said to Jack who has taken up residence in the Bristol Diner.

"Don't you watch Morning Joe all the time?"

"Not so much in Maine where we limit our TV watching. Especially cable news."

"But I assume you're aware of the flap between them and Trump?"

"How could I not be, though I already disagree with you."

"I'm all ears."

"It's not between them. It's a situation that Trump created by his venomous tweets. And I mean them since the tweets were almost as nasty about Joe Scarborough as they were about Mika Brzezinski. I think the president called him a psycho, among other things. And of course got into all that blood business again, this time about Mika bleeding from the chin."

"And you think Mika and Joe are wholly innocent?"

"Whatever they might have said about Trump is not in any way equivalent. He's the president of the most powerful country in the history of the world and they are talkshow hosts."

"Let me quote a few things to you that on the air they said about Trump. Let's see if you feel they crossed the line."

"Before you begin let me agree in advance to one thing."

"I can't wait to hear this."

"During the campaign for the Republican nomination Joe and Mika, like a lot of other TV and print people, cozied up to Trump because he was a good story, quotable, and whenever he was on the air they would see their ratings skyrocket. And of course it was good for Trump as well as it gave him many millions of dollars worth of free air time. It was win-win for them while for the country it was lose-lose."

"And then," Jack said, "after he was elected they thought he would continue to be their pal and remain available to them. But once he was in the Oval Office he was no longer so eager to be on their show. He had other ways to communicate with his base. Mainly via Fox News. And tweeting of course. Joe and Mike admitted at the end of last week that he cut them off when they began to criticize him after they tried to influence his appointments and policies. He ignored them and they felt used, left out, conned. All of which they were."

"So far there's nothing new about this," I said, "Talkshow people like Sean Hannity, Mika and Joe, and real journalists are all about their contacts and sources. They live off access and leaks."

"That's why they snuck off to Mar-a-Lago New Years. To hobnob with Trump."

"It's an ugly business all a round. But remember, Trump's the president and what he said about the two of them went way over the line. Though as Maureen Dowd said yesterday, he's not a sexist pig but a pig."

"I'll get to her in a minute," Jack said, "but before I do, do you disagree that over the past few months Mika and Joe have questioned his stability, mental health, and ability to serve as president? This is different than criticizing his policies and the activities of his cabinet and White House staff. This is to call him crazy."

"But again," I said, "he's the PRESIDENT (all caps) of the United States. They are, what, by comparison small time operators. If he could manage to keep his mouth shut or stop tweeting, basically ignore them, that would be the best way to retaliate. Ignoring them is the best way to deal with people with big personalities and egos."

"But again, I mentioned Mika and Joe not to talk that much about them but about something that should be of greater concern to you."

"I'm happy to move on. Do you want to talk now about Maureen Dowd's column where she did in fact call him a pig?"

"Not about that," Jack said, "but about something else she wrote. More in line with what Brzezinski and Scarborough and the people appearing on their show have bene staying about him. Let me read you something she wrote this weekend--

"He is not built for this hostile environment [Washington, DC] and it shows in his deteriorating psychological state."

"What's wrong with that?"

"First of all, Joe and Mika and Maureen are not psychiatrists. Calling him reprehensible is one thing, but attacking his mental health is another matter. Are they beginning to make the case that he's psychologically impaired and so it's time to roll out the 25th Amendment and declare him incompetent to continue as president? If so, expect people in the streets with torches and pitchforks."

"I could see that happening," I said, "His people are pretty riled up. Many, worse than that."

"One more thing--there was that New York Times' lead editorial on Saturday--'Mr. Trump, Melting Under Criticism.'"

"I saw that."

"And what did you think?"

"I basically agreed with it."

"I have to agree with some of it as well--particularly the part that criticizes him for all his disgusting references to bleeding, really women's bleeding. It's obviously some sort of reference to menstrual blood. He must have male menophobia--an actual condition. But now here I go playing psychiatrist! What concerns me is the title of the piece. How it too suggests Trump's unfit, maybe psychologically unfit to be president. The Times even praises Nixon, if you can believe it, for the 'grace,' that's the word they used, with which he handled the press during the height of Watergate. That's as low a blow as anyone could deliver to a president--comparing him unfavorably to Nixon."

I said, "I too thought that was way below the belt. Nixon was disgraceful when it came to the press. He illegally wiretapped dozens of them and got the IRS to audit many of their taxes. That doesn't qualify as grace."

"But here's my real concern--do you and your friends really want to see Trump meting down, cornered? I mean, he appears to be very thin skinned and if he feels trapped who knows how he might act or, worse, retaliate. And I'm not talking tweets and stupid videos of Trump body slamming a fake CNN reporter at a WrestleMania  match. I'm talking Syria, North Korea, Putin, China, and a few other little things like that."

"Say more," I said, "And by the way, you're being very reasonable this morning."

He ignored that and said, "From your perspective would you want an out-of-control Trump or Mike Pense in charge? Pence who could probably work more effectively with Congress?"

"I'll have to think about it. I did write a few months ago that from a progressive perspective a weak Trump for three-and-a-half more years may be the best thing to hope for."

"You told me once that when you spent a half year in Mexico and during your times in Spain you enjoyed bull fights."

"I admit that I did. I know it's not politically correct, but I went to a lot of corrida de toros."

"And as part of every fight in an attempt to weaken the bull the banderillas planted barbed sticks in its shoulders. This did weaken him, lowered his head, but also enraged him and, my point, made him more dangerous."

"I am getting your analogy."

"I know you and your friends are enjoying Trump's fall, but maybe you're also making him more dangerous. If I were you, I'd think about this."

May 15, 2017--The Democrats' Bench

Mike Pence is not the only one who goes to sleep at night dreaming about becoming president. Dozens of Democrats are doing the same thing.

In Pence's case, obviously, he's thinking impeachment and resignation. Nixon redux.

In the case of the Democrats, they're thinking about the 2020 primaries.

Most preposterous are Hillary Clinton, who is thinking the third time around might be the charm; Joe Biden, who has been running for president for almost as long as the legendary Harold Stassen; and Bernie Sanders, who more than anything else has come to love the sound of cheering crowds and his own voice.

Preposterous because in 2020, in the aggregate, these three will be 230 years old.

My guess is that Al Gore and John Kerry are stirring about and probably--if he's still alive--Michael Dukakis.

Enough with the jokes. Let's get serious and see who is really in contention.

Other than Bernie and Joe, everyone agrees that Elizabeth Warren is the clear frontrunner. I can see that though it is hard to imagine an east coast liberal Democrat Harvard professor winning the general election. But it's a long way off and Trump is already looking so vulnerable that even she could win.

Then again, if Trump manages to make it through four years, decides to seek a second term, and we're deep in a war with North Korea, Trump could be reelected because of the natural inclination not to want to change leaders when the country's at war. On the other hand, tell that to Lyndon Johnson.

So, the Democratic nomination is a valuable political asset and thus we have a large field of potentials already circling while denying any interest. Except, again, poor old Joe Biden who has all but announced he's running.

If Elizabeth Warren and the three septuagenarians are the top tier, the second tier includes--

New Jersey senator Cory Booker; New York governor Andrew Cuomo; Minnesota senator Al Franken; newly-minted California senator Kamala Harris; two-term Washington governor, Jay Inslee; former Virginia senator and 2016 Veep candidate, Tim Kaine; current Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe; Connecticut senator Chris Murphy; Ohio senator Sharrod Brown; and New York senator Kirstin Gillibrand.

Longer shots include--

Steve Bullock, governor of Montana; Eric Garcetti, mayor of Los Angeles; Colorado governor John Hickenlooper; Minnesota's other senator Amy Klobuchar; New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu, Representative Seth Moulton from Massachusetts; Oregon senator Jeff Merkley; and Martin O'Malley, former governor of Maryland and 2016 Democratic primary candidate (remember him?).

Much more interesting are four corporate types who haven't ever run for anything--

Mark Cuban, popularly known as a regular on the reality TV show, Shark Tank; Howard Schultz, founder of Starbucks (best know for caffeinating America and much of the rest of the world); Sheryl Sandberg (Facebook COO best known for teaching women how to "lean in"); and her boss Mark Zuckerberg (best known for not owning a suit).

There you have it--the Democrat's bench. There are others. This is just the off-the-top-of-my-head list.

One thing most have in common, and it's a potential problem--no one knows who most of these folks are or even recognizes their names. Probably the best known is Mark Cuban. If true, doesn't that tell us something?

On the other hand, in 2007 who ever heard of Barack Obama?

May 12, 2017--RussiaGate

Here's where this is headed.

But first a little history--

On June 17, 1972, James McCord was one of five burglars who were caught in the Watergate complex while breaking into and bugging the offices of the Democratic National Committee. Nearly a year later, on March 19, 1973, after being convicted of eight counts of conspiracy, burglary, and wiretapping, the trial judge, "Maximum John" Sirica, who was famous for the severity of his sentences, was prepared to throw the book at McCord, potentially sentencing him to 35 years in federal prison.

Facing decades of incarceration, McCord wrote a letter to the judge in which he confessed that his testimony was perjured and that he would like to correct the record. In effect, he was offering to tell the truth, implicating the other defendants and White House staff who authorized and paid for the break in and then led the attempts to cover up the crime. Including the president, Richard Nixon.

The judge read the letter in open court and, after McCord's recanted testimony, set his sentence at one-to-five years and over the next two years a parade of high level officials, including John Mitchell, the former Attorney General and the two most senior presidential staff, H.R. Halderman and John Ehrlichman were convicted and sent to prison.

The world collapsed around Nixon and he resigned the presidency on August 9, 1974.

James McCord's Letter to Judge Sirica

Now we have RussiaGate, and I suspect we will see the denouement unfold in a similar way. 

A Michael Flynn or a Paul Manafort or even more likely, the lower-level Carter Page, will wind up being indicted, regardless of who becomes the director of the FBI (the investigations will proceed no matter what Donald Trump does to impede them), and one or more of them will be convicted and thus face a Sirica-like sentence.

The threat of a decades' long sentence, as with Watergate, will focus the attention of the new felons and we can subsequently expect to see plea-bargaining--the promise of a reduced sentence for testimony about the higher-ups. Perhaps including the president.

This prospect is why President Trump made what seems to be an impulsive decision to fire FBI director James Comey.

Trump may not know much about history, to quote Sam Cooke's song, but he knows how to survive. We'll see how he does the time and how wonderful the world actually is.

April 18, 2017--Presidential Daddy Problems

Since John F. Kennedy almost all of our presidents and aspirants to the presidency have had Daddy problems.

This struck me again recently when watching Donald Trump, pose in the Oval Office to sign an executive order to gut one more Obama initiative. This one I think having to do with environmental protection regulations.

President Trump has not given much attention to making the White House office his own. The shelves are deplete of books with the exception of an impersonal row or two of leather bound volumes purchased by the foot. Probably an ornamental set of Dickens novels. His desk has a messy stack of papers and files but no visible tchotchkes. And on the credenza behind his desk where all presidents array at least a dozen pictures of their families (even Nixon did this!), on Trump's credenza there is just one picture--a severe black-and-white photo of his Germanic-looking father, Frederick. And, yes, there is also a stack of souvenir golf balls. I assume one from each of his 17 courses.

When thinking about presidents and their fathers, there are reasons to begin with Barack Obama. His Daddy problem stemmed from the fact that he essentially didn't have one. I believe he met his Kenyan father just once when he was 10 years old. The title of his first book, Dreams From My Father, says it all. In fact, it could serve as the title of books by at least a dozen of our presidents--how they each were either in search of their fathers or coveted their involvement, love, and acknowledgement. In Barack's case all of this was missing and that contributed to the kind of adult and president he became.

Of presidents Kennedy had a pathologically involved and controlling father. From early on Father Joe unrelentingly prepped his sons for public life. His oldest boy, Joe Junior, was slated to become president and when he was killed in action in World War II Joe Senior's attention immediately turned to second son Jack, who he pushed to get into politics (JFK was reluctant) and for whom he then behind the scenes bankrolled his career and, it is generally agreed, not only promoted his various runs for office, but in 1960 spread enough money around to assure his winning the nomination and then conspired with political bosses in key states, including bribing them, to fix the vote count to assure his son's election to the presidency.

And once elected, Joe Kennedy, out of public view, played a major roll in influencing policy. It is now also fully known that President Kennedy on a daily basis sought his father's guidance and was powerfully motivated to please him and seek his approbation. Some biographers even say that JFK's hawkish inclinations were in large part to demonstrate manhood to his philandering Daddy.

Joseph and John F. Kennedy

Lyndon Johnson succeeded Kennedy. His father was a major player in the Texas state legislature but a poor businessman. So much so that when his finances collapsed the Johnson family lived for decades in dire poverty. Sam Johnson was a very severe man and never showed son, Lyndon, much affection or offered encouragement or praise. Robert Caro, Johnson's remarkable biographer, writes at length about how LBJ sought to please his father even well after he died. Much of what Johnson did was an attempt to make up for his father's failure and ultimately to surpass him.

Then there was Richard Nixon. No one had a more clinical Daddy problem than young Dick. There is no evidence that his censorious father ever praised him for any of his accomplishments. Quite the contrary. Dick was also raised in virtual poverty--his father's various business schemes for the most part failed and he took his frustrations out on his children, especially the bright, hardworking, and eventually successful son. Desperate for his father's praise and encouragement, he pushed himself beyond sensible or legal limits and brought himself down in the process. The disparagement and constant criticism he felt from his father was a large part of what motivated Dick--to show by his dogged success that he was worthy.

Jimmy Carter's father, according to his biographers, was also a withholding patriarch for whom his son, Jimmy, could never do enough to win his affection or praise. One even goes so far as to say that Carter's propensity to laugh without seeming motivation when speaking in public was the result of a lifetime of accumulated anger. Much of it derived from his father's severity. It was, in a manner of speaking, a nervous laugh that attempted to obscure the frustration and anger he felt from an unhappy, caustic childhood relationship with his Daddy.

Ronald Reagan's father was a lifelong alcoholic who moved his family from town to town across the Midwest in an attempt to find work and change his luck. He was unsuccessful in many ways--never able to provide for his family, establish a sustainable relationship with his wife, or provide emotional support for his children. Son Ronald was so wounded by his upbringing, though he was a great storyteller, that he barely mentioned him. It was as if these memories were so painful that he excised his father from the narrative of his life in an attempt to get out from under the memories of his gnawing presence.

Both Bush presidents, though they achieved the ultimate political prize, never felt they were worthy of their fathers' love or pride. George H.W. Bush's father, Prescott, was a successful financier and later, when elected to the U.S. Senate, was held in high esteem by his congressional colleagues. To him, his children could never do or accomplish enough to earn his fulsome praise. No matter how much George achieved it was never enough. Like many presidential fathers he was emotionally aloof from his boys, never making them feel appreciated or affirmed.

Bill Clinton's biological father died three months before Bill was born. His mother some years later remarried and Bill took his stepfather's name. But the marriage to his mother did not last and after she divorced him, he drifted out of young Bill's life. So in many ways Bill Clinton was fatherless and many who have studied his life and written about him claim that the emotional void that was the result of this unsatisfying family life helps explain his undisciplined nature as a politician, family member, and man.

George W. Bush, son of the 41st president, also felt his father's emotional coolness and thus tried desperately to please him. Many say that his decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein was to "finish the job" his father left unresolved when he had American troops come to the aid of Kuwait, which had been invaded by Iraq, and to surpass him as a wartime president. Also, some historians feel that his turning to Dick Cheney to serve as his vice president and cede to him so much of the power of the presidency was the result of Bush's impulse to seek substitutes for his biological parent, in the hope that they would offer him the affirmation he so desperately needed.

Other than as a curiosity should any of this interest or concern us?

It could well be that so many of our presidents having Daddy problems of this kind is a problem.

Seeking acknowledgement to salve fragile self-esteem may in the first instance be what motivated most of them to seek the power of the presidency. Not the desire to protect and improve the lives of those who elected them. If emotionally compromised as a result of the influences of their fathers, it also may be that allowing unresolved intra-psychic issues to influence decision making, particularly in crisis situations, gets in the way of their using their best, most rational judgement. We do not benefit by our presidents, when stressed by the consequences of dangerous decisions, to be so emotionally influenced.

One can only wonder what Frederick "Fred" Trump (ne Drumpf) might right now be thinking as his son attempts to deal with the North Korean threat. It could be that son Donald's boundless ego and insecurity are more on display and influencing his decision-making than any of his predecessors.

I would feel better about the situation if President Trump had a full array of family pictures on his Oval Office credenza, not just the one of Fred. Especially pictures of his children and grandchildren because what he decides and authorizes will affect them and their generation more than Trump himself or those of us who have already had full lives.

Fred and Donald Trump

March 7, 2017--From the Bunker

It is not a good thing that Donald Trump signed the new travel ban executive order yesterday out of public viewing. Only Sean Spicer was there to record the event on his own iPhone, which he later posted on his Twitter feed.

Otherwise we would not have learned of the event, which should have been one of Trump's proudest achievements, something he promised his adoring fans he would do on his first day in office--ban Muslins from six or seven countries from entering the U.S. until "we figured what the hell is going on" with our alleged, but unsubstantiated, inadequate vetting.

Up to now, he signed dozens of EOs boastfully in very public settings--in the Oval Office surrounded by selected members of the public and senior staff or at places such as the Pentagon where he sat enthroned in golden gilded chairs.

But to sign the rebooted EO travel ban alone and sulking in the White House was all too evocative of Nixon, alone and isolated, during his last days in office. It may bc that Trump too is close to the end as his lies about President Obama close in around him and more and more of his people seem compromised by contact and dealings with the Russians. But, if true and if he is operating from a metaphorical bunker these could be dangerous days for America. Watch for a wag-the-dog lashing out against, say, North Korea as things darken for our president.

Press secretary and White House photographer, Sean Spencer, is also operating more and more from a bunker of his own. Trump clearly has pulled his plug. Press duties are being carried out these days by Mike's daughter, clueless Sarah Huckabeee Sanders, Sean's deputy, while Spicer himself, so yesterday, not even any longer appearing on Saturday Night Live, has not had a televised public press conference of his own in more than a week and has been meeting with reporters only in "gaggles."

(Gaggle, by the way is literally a group of geese and etymologically comes from the Middle gagelen, to cackle. How appropriate.)

It is also not a good sign that when Trump appeared in semi-public over the weekend on route to and while in Palm Beach, it was always when accompanied by Ivanka Trump's children. When they trot out the grandchildren it is a sign of political and emotional desperation.

Trump, by there way is the only president since Harry Truman not to have a dog. In his darkest days Nixon had Checkers to shield and comfort him and when the Monica Lewinsky scandal isolated Bill Clinton there was the always-available Buddy to lick his face. (One time ask me to tell you my Buddy story.)

And I just noticed, the shelves in the Oval Office are less than half filled. It is as if Trump has not moved in or is about to pull up stakes. And the only picture on the credenza behind the presidential desk is of Trump patriarch, Fred. Again, even Nixon, who had little involvement with his family, had dozens of pictures of Pat and the girls on public view in a sad attempt to normalize him.

All the while over the weekend North Korea launched four or five intermediate-range missiles, most of them landing just 200 miles from Japan and, in response, we moved into South Korea batteries of Thaad antimissile-missiles.

It may be getting closer to the time when all of us will need to seek more than metaphoric bunkers.

There is at least one piece of good news--no one is reporting yet that late at night, like Nixon, Trump is wandering around the White House talking to portraits of previous presidents. If he is spotted doing that, good presidents to commune with would be Harry Truman or Dwight Eisenhower since neither Lincoln nor Jefferson would likely make themselves available.

December 6, 2016--Madman Theory

One of the first things that Donald Trump has actually done is very disturbing--taking what he claims was a call of congratulations from Tsai Ing-wen, the president of Taiwan. He has welcomed many such calls, so why is this one disturbing?

Here's the problem--

Who's in charge of Taiwan has been hotly contested since shortly after the end of the Second World War. Formosa, as it was then called, was the island refuge in 1949 for Chiang Kai-shek after his Kuomintang forces were driven there from Mainland China at the end of the Chinese Civil War or Revolution--Mao Zedong gained control of what we used to call Red China and Chiang and his followers, with our direct assistance turned Taiwan into an island fortress, where Chiang nurtured fantasies, again indulged by us, of invading the mainland to retake and unite China.

That of course never happened though through the years there was a lot of saber rattling and occasional threats of a widespread war breaking out in the region. With us right in the middle of it. This became especially dangerous when Mainland China tested and then deployed nuclear weapons. Many of the aimed at Taiwan.

As part of our struggle with communism, with the Soviet Union and China, we steadfastly recognized Taiwan and its leadership as the sole representatives of all of China--it was referred to as the One China policy--and we through the decades refused to extend any form of recognition to Red China, even though the population there was about 1.0 billion while on Taiwan it was a relatively few million.

Then, with Jimmy Carter as president, after Nixon visited Red China in 1972, seven years later, in 1979, the American government recognized Mainland China and severed diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

China, then, had it's own version of One China during the Mao regime and subsequently. Though China didn't control Taiwan, they considered it, and continue to do so, as China. Just China.

And though we continue to sell at least $2.0 billion a year in weapons to the Taiwanese, we have otherwise kept them at a political distance.  That is, until last week when Trump spoke to Tsai Ing-wen and it, by so doing, hit the diplomatic fan.

On the Sunday talk shows, vice-president-elect Mike Pence tried to downplay the conversation but early Monday morning Trump made matters worse by tweeting--

Did China ask us if it was OK to devalue their currency (making it hard for our companies to compete), heavily tax our products going into their country (the US doesn't tax them) or build a massive military complex in the middle of the South China Sea? I don't think so.

A couple of things are possible--

In his narcissistic mode, Trump is loving the global attention being lavished upon him. Like an ingenue he is giddy about being courted by world leaders such as Vladimir Putin and China's president, Xi Jinping, among many others. And, so, when President Tai's call arrived he (1) didn't know who she was (2), said what the hell harm can it do to wallow in her congratulations, or (3) saw talking with her an opportunity to poke his finger in China's eye, declaring that when he becomes president in January, unlike his predecessors, he plans to be tough on China.

Well, if the answer is that he didn't know the implications of talking with President Tsai that's one sort of issue--his lack of knowledge about global affairs. And, I'm being kind. Then, if he knew the call was coming from Taiwan and had any sense of the history of China and Taiwan, he might have thought twice. Though thinking twice is something apparently rare for him.

Alternately, I wonder how Trump would feel after being sworn in if Xi Jinping called the governor of Texas and by so doing implied support for the idea of Texas succeeding from the Union.

Then, if Trump is swaggering, maybe there is some lesson from history about what he might be up to--historians call it the Madman Theory.

Get the Chinese thinking he is, well, mad, so they will treat him carefully and perhaps be more prone to make concessions than if he were fully rational and stable.

For antecedents we have to go back to the Richard Nixon presidency who maybe was actually unhinged or perhaps crazy like a fox.

His chief or staff, H.R. Haldeman, in his memoirs, wrote that Nixon had confided in him--

I call it the Madman Theory, Bob. I want the North Vietnamese to believe I've reached the point where I might do anything to stop the war. We'll just slip the word to them that, "for God's sake, you know Nixon is obsessed about communism. We can't restrain him when he's angry--and he has his hand on the nuclear button" and Ho Chi Minh himself will be in Paris in two days begging for peace.

The only problem with this is that it didn't work then and it made the world a more dangerous place. The war went on and on and many more thousands were killed.

Let's hope Trump soon names someone other than Rudy to be Secretary of State. Someone who knows something about the world and isn't crazy.

May 26, 2016--Hillary Clinton: Drip, Drip, Drip

World War III will have to wait to Friday because there is breaking news--

I wrote and posted what follows on July 27, 2015. About a year ago.

It feels appropriate to republish it in the light of the scathing report revealed yesterday by the State Department regarding Hillary Clinton's use, while Secretary of State, of a personal email server.

This report we should note is not from a partisan Republican source or candidate but from a Democratic State Department. Among other things the department's inspector general concluded that this was not authorized or permitted by State Department rules.

The next drip will be from the FBI, with whom Clinton will soon be testifying. In the light of this new report, an indictment would not be a surprise.

Thus far, Hillary's defenders are saying, "Colin Powell did it. So why isn't he in trouble?" The inspector general gave that answer--at the time Powell was secretary, the rules were different.

One can only imagine what the Republicans and Donald Trump will do with this.

Here, from last July--

I recently read Tim Weiner's new biography of Richard Nixon, One Man Against the World: The Tragedy of Richard Nixon, which focuses on the various criminal activities of Nixon and his associates. Especially the climate that existed in the White House and in Nixon's mind that led to the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex and the subsequent coverup and resignation.

Nixon's involvement in the break-in was not direct but the result of his obsession with secrecy and feelings that there were conspiratorial forces at work that would deny his reelection in 1972. His men, thus, carried out his implied agenda.

Nixon got in deep and direct trouble when he tried to have the FBI's investigation of the break-in squelched and then led the cover-up, all the while lying by claiming he knew nothing in advance of the break-in (likely true) and knew nothing about a cover-up (patently and feloniously false).

As a result, he was brought down, named an "unindicted co-conspirator," and forced to resign the presidency.

This brings me to Hillary Clinton and the many problems with her emails while she was Secretary of State.

For whatever reasons, rather than use secure State Department channels of communication, she used her own, personal email account to carry out official business. There is no disputing that.

But under pressure, when news about this began to leak out earlier this year, she denied any wrongdoing, claiming what she did was neither against federal rules nor, much more significant, was not in any way illegal.

Under further pressure, she turned over to the State Department 30,000 official emails from her private server, deleting other thousands of a personal nature--for example, those about plans for her daughter Chelsea's wedding.

All along the way she alleged this was a non-issue, driven more by presidential politics then anything else. She held herself above the fray, claiming she had more important things to focus on--how to build an agenda, for example, to strengthen the economy, one that especially helps the middle class.

But the issue just wouldn't go away.

Daily, it is becoming clear that there are legitimate and substantial issues that were not just the result of Republican saber-rattling. As more and more was leaked and reported about what was in the actual emails, it became clearer and clearer that there is a there there.

Just at the end of last week, the New York Times, which broke the original email story in March, reported that some of Clinton's emails included classified information, which, if true, is potentially illegal.

The State Department inspector general joined by the intelligence community's independent inspector general issued a joint statement which revealed that their review of a random sample of just 40 of the former Secretary's emails revealed that four did in fact contain classified material, "Government secrets."

Clinton's response was again that this is a distraction and that nothing untoward occurred on her watch.

The two inspectors general would disagree. In fact, they recommended that an investigation be launched. A criminal investigation. Clinton didn't quite say, "I am not a crook." But . . .

It is significant to note again that the intelligence community's inspector general is a non-partisan and that though the State Department is Obama's State Department, and thus controlled by Democrats, its inspector general did not hold back.

This is feeling like the same kind of drip, drip, drip that didn't work to defend Nixon. He pretended that he was ignoring the Watergate investigation, claiming he was too busy defending the world and defeating Communism. The tapes of his White House offices and telephones put the lie to that. He was obsessed by Watergate and the judicial and congressional investigations and was active daily counseling and coaching his confederates about what to say and which lies to tell.

I suspect Hillary Clinton in dong much the same thing. I mean obsessing. She knows the truth and we are learning more about it every week. I suspect there will be an outcome similar to Nixon's--her emails are not unlike his tapes. There are likely numerous smoking guns in them and I would be surprised if Clinton is able to stay in the race for the presidential nomination. Polls are already showing she trails Jeb Bush and Scott Walker in key battleground states. This will only get worse as we learn more.

It's time for Democrats to be thinking about serious alternatives. It wouldn't surprise me to see Joe Biden join the race and perhaps John Kerry. Elizabeth Warren may also be rethinking her decision not to run.

Who knows, by fall a Democrat clown car might be revving up.

I am not a crook.

July 27, 2015--HillaryGate: Drip, Drip, Drip

I recently read Tim Weiner's new biography of Richard Nixon, One Man Against the World: The Tragedy of Richard Nixon, which focuses on the various criminal activities of Nixon and his associates. Especially the climate that existed in the White House and in Nixon's mind that led to the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate office complex and the subsequent coverup and resignation.

Nixon's involvement in the break-in was not direct but the result of his obsession with secrecy and feelings that there were conspiratorial forces at work that would deny his reelection in 1972. His men, thus, carried out his implied agenda.

Nixon got in deep and direct trouble when he tried to have the FBI's investigation of the break-in squelched and then led the cover-up, all the while lying by claiming he knew nothing in advance of the break-in (likely true) and knew nothing about a cover-up (patently and feloniously false).

As a result, he was brought down, named an "unindicted co-conspirator," and forced to resign the presidency.

This brings me to Hillary Clinton and the many problems with her emails while she was Secretary of State.

For whatever reasons, rather than use secure State Department channels of communication, she used her own, personal email account to carry out official business. There is no disputing that.

But under pressure, when news about this began to leak out earlier this year, she denied any wrongdoing, claiming what she did was neither against federal rules nor, much more significant, was not in any way illegal.

Under further pressure, she turned over to the State Department 30,000 official emails from her private server, deleting other thousands of a personal nature--for example, those about plans for her daughter Chelsea's wedding.

All along the way she alleged this was a non-issue, driven more by presidential politics then anything else. She held herself above the fray, claiming she had more important things to focus on--how to build an agenda, for example, to strengthen the economy, one that especially helps the middle class.

But the issue just wouldn't go away.

Daily, it is becoming clear that there are legitimate and substantial issues that were not just the result of Republican saber-rattling. As more and more was leaked and reported about what was in the actual emails, it became clearer and clearer that there is a there there.

Just at the end of last week, the New York Times, which broke the original email story in March, reported that some of Clinton's emails included classified information, which, if true, is potentially illegal.

The State Department inspector general joined by the intelligence community's independent inspector general issued a joint statement which revealed that their review of a random sample of just 40 of the former Secretary's emails revealed that four did in fact contain classified material, "Government secrets."

Clinton's response was again that this is a distraction and that nothing untoward occurred on her watch.

The two inspectors general would disagree. In fact, they recommended that an investigation be launched. A criminal investigation. Clinton didn't quite say, "I am not a crook." But . . .

It is significant to note again that the intelligence community's inspector general is a non-partisan and that though the State Department is Obama's State Department, and thus controlled by Democrats, its inspector general did not hold back.

This is feeling like the same kind of drip, drip, drip that didn't work to defend Nixon. He pretended that he was ignoring the Watergate investigation, claiming he was too busy defending the world and defeating Communism. The tapes of his White House offices and telephones put the lie to that. He was obsessed by Watergate and the judicial and congressional investigations and was active daily counseling and coaching his confederates about what to say and which lies to tell.

I suspect Hillary Clinton in dong much the same thing. I mean obsessing. She knows the truth and we are learning more about it every week. I suspect there will be an outcome similar to Nixon's--her emails are not unlike his tapes. There are likely numerous smoking guns in them and I would be surprised if Clinton is able to stay in the race for the presidential nomination. Polls are already showing she trails Jeb Bush and Scott Walker in key battleground states. This will only get worse as we learn more.

It's time for Democrats to be thinking about serious alternatives. It wouldn't surprise me to see Joe Biden join the race and perhaps John Kerry. Elizabeth Warren may also be rethinking her decision not to run.

Who knows, by fall a Democrat clown car might be revving up.

I am not a crook.

January 7, 2014--The Football

"You military?" he asked. I had never seen him before.

Rona and were having a sandwich and salad at the Marriott Courtyard in Florence, South Carolina. It had gotten foggy and was promising to thicken so we decided not to venture forth for dinner in unfamiliar territory so far south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

He was friendly and so I said, "Can't say that I am . . . or was."

"From the look of you, no offense, I knew it had to be was. I'm army myself. But from the look of me I know you're also thinking was." He was wearing a cap that proclaimed ARMY and I was thinking was.

"S'pose you don't know the Springer boys?"

"Can't say I do . . . or did," I said wondering what this was about.

"Went to the Academy. Both of 'em. Twins. Fine boys. Must be retired by now. Not such boys anymore. Like you and me." He chuckled, looking off in space. "Naval Academy. God, I wish one of these years before I pass we'd beat those guys. How many years it's been?" He stroked his chin trying to answer his own question. I wasn't quite sure what he was trying to figure out. "Must be 13, 14. That's how long it's been. I'm talking football. But I'm just an enlisted man. So whats it matter to me. To the Springer boys, commanders both of 'em, well, that's another thing altogether."

Sensing this was going to be a rambling monologue, I tried to pay attention to my sandwich.

"One flew transports. You know them C-20s. Big suckers. The other, Earl, well he flew fighters. From carriers. I think the last time he was on the Ticonderoga. Out there offa Vietnam. Just like the fog we got here tonight, his last night it was so foggy that when his instruments failed he had to find that rolling deck on his own and just barely made it. From that day on never flew again. Sort of cracked him up. Not even commercial for ten years after they discharged him. Honorable and all that. Flew a bunch of combat missions. He paid his dues. Suppose I did too."

"Glad to know he's OK," I squeaked, still working on my food.

"But his brother Jack, after the war, well, he had a different assignment." I didn't ask what it was. But he clearly wanted me to know, "With the football."

"With the what?" That piqued my interest.

"Not the one you're thinkin' about."

"To tell you the truth I'm not thinking about anything much having to do with football or footballs just my sandwich. But I am interested in what you're referring to since I think I may know about it."

"Well, the one I'm thinking about is the one for the atomic codes." I did know about that and nodded. "There's a heavy leather and I assume lead-lined briefcase, weighs about 30-40 pounds, that they call the football that has the codes to launch a nuclear attack that's always where the President is at. The Commander in Chief. 'Cause he's the only one has the authority to launch. There's a military man assigned to carry that football 24/7 wherever the President is. And they have another one for the Vice President because of, you know, what might happen. Though I'd hate to think of that Biden fellow with those codes."

"I'm not sure I agree about that," I said, with a mouthful of tuna salad.

"No need for us to get political," I was pleased to hear, "But let's get back to that Springer boy Jack. He had charge of the third one. Not many folks know there are two much less three footballs."

"I know about the two for the President and VP but this is the first I'm hearing about the third. It's for--?"

"It's for the Strategic Air Command in case the President and Vice President are taken out at the same time, God help us."

"Ugh," I said, "This'll ruin my night's sleep."

"Jack and the rest of his crew had that third football up in one of the airborne command posts. Just in case. Quite something, no?"

"Indeed," I said.

"Which was why I asked if you in the first place if you knew the Springer boys."

This was making less and less sense to me. About all the footballs I was in fact interested, but why he just started to talk with me about this I had no idea.

"You want to hear my favorite football story?"

"I assume we're not talking the Army-Navy game?"

"Not football but the football."

"Shoot. I mean, sure."

"Well, my second-favorite one was when Reagan got shot. Terrible thing. Loved that man. He always carried the codes on a card in his suit jacket pocket. Well, when he was in the hospital they had to cut his clothes off him and that card got lost in the shuffle. No pun intended. When one of his aides thought to ask about it they couldn't find it. You know how busy the ER is. No one knew where it was for some time. But then it turned up in one of his shoes. Scary, no?"

"This whole business scares me," I admitted, "And your favorite?" I was about ready to head up to the room. It had been a long day of driving.

"That one involved Nixon back in '73 when he was President and had the football trailing after him. He was at Camp David meeting with the Soviet leader Brezhnev, I think it was."

"It was. Leonid Brezhnev."

"Not my favorite person, but you know Nixon, always wanting to be with foreign leaders. Especially those Russians."

"That was him at his best."

"Well, that Brez fellow he loved cars. Especially American muscle cars. So Nixon gave him a present of one. Using taxpayer money of course. A big guzzler Lincoln Continental. Nixon handed him the keys and that Russian was so excited that he hustled Nixon into the car, in the passenger seat, and then he jumped in on the other side and drove away at a mile-a-minute clip." My new friend slapped his thigh he was so amused. "Well, you can imagine that the Secret Service was caught by surprise as was the poor fellow with the football. Old Brez drove out onto the highway and left everyone behind for a full 30 minutes. Thirty minutes when Nixon didn't have the nuclear codes close at hand. When you think on it, it could have been a plot by the Russians to get away with some funny business."

"Some story," I admitted. "I read a lot about that period but never heard this one before."

"You could look it up," he said. "And if you run into Jack Springer in your travels ask him. I'm sure he knows about it. Who knows, maybe he was up in one those flying command posts at the time. Wouldn't that be something'?"

"Indeed it would be," I said, ready to head upstairs."

"Did anyone ever mention," Rona asked, "that you sound just like John Wayne?"

"That's a good one," he guffawed, "Can't wait to tell the wife. She'll love it," he said and was gone as quickly as he had appeared.

August 14, 2014--Hillary's Presidential Checklist

Here's how you can know for sure that Hillary Clinton is actively running for president. Check out her checklist--

Over the weekend, in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for The Atlantic, she caused a stir by creating some distance between herself and Barack Obama. On foreign policy.

Recall, she was Secretary of State during his first term.

She said that a president (are you listening, a president) needs to provide the nation with "organizing principles" when it comes to our relations with the world, that it's not enough to, as Obama put it, just to not "do the silly stuff." He said that about silly stuff in a major speech at West Point as part of his comprehensive overview of the principles that organize his approach to foreign affairs.

Disagree with Obama as one well might (and "silly stuff" is silly)--including that Clinton is not required to agree with him about everything even though she served in his administration (actually, the opposite, to dissent is the best way to serve)--it is more than a coincidence that just as the midterm elections are heating up and the scramble for the presidency two years hence is accelerating that Hillary, after her memoirs failed to interest anyone, would be creating this opportunity to tell us that she should not be perceived as coupled to Obama's foreign policy initiatives, especially when they are feeling feckless and inept.

Anyone with an interest in the American presidency knows that Richard Nixon in 1960, when he ran for the presidency, lost in part because he did not sufficiently distance himself from President Eisenhower; and poor Hubert Humphrey in 1968 lost to Nixon in large part because he was seen to be Lyndon Johnson's policy lapdog.

The Humphrey example is the operative one now--Hubert, with only a few weeks to go before Election Day, finally expressed some tepid criticism of LBJ's Vietnam policy and, as a result, almost fully closed the gap in the polls, losing to Nixon by less than one percentage point.

Hillary does not want to make that mistake. So a full two years in advance she is acting to distinguish herself from the increasingly-unpopular Obama. She does not want to be the Nixon of 1960 nor the Humphrey of 1968.

This distancing shows her in the middle of her presidential checklist--

(1) Serve as Secretary of State for only four years to give herself time to run away from her foreign policy blunders ("resetting" relations with Russia, Benghazi, etc.) and even to physically separate herself from the State Department and the president she served.

(2) Take a month off to get some rest and, who knows, maybe do some Botox.

(3) Strike a $8.0 million book deal and get help writing a bland, no-drama 635-page tome.

(4) Hit the talk show circuit to pitch the book and remind people she's still around.

(5) Just as midterms approach, find someone gentle to interview her about foreign policy and give her the chance to do a little subtle and not-so-subtle Obama dissing.

(6) See where the chips fall in November and keep an eye on Elizabeth Warren and any others who might step forward to stand in the way of her march to the nomination. (I predict she will have some significant challengers from the left.)

Based on the numbers, or who steps forward, continue to act as the incumbent or, if necessary, announce sooner than currently planned and hit the campaign trail to test her messages and hone her debating skills. And, of course, put down her opposition.

(7A) About a year from now, since Obamcare will probably still be widely unpopular, have Jeffery Goldberg interview her about domestic issues and take that opportunity to take a few pot shots at the Affordable Care Act. If somehow by then it is more popular than at present, take credit for it--claiming that it's the very same healthcare program she came up with as First Lady.

(7B) And if Obama is able to strike a deal with Iran to give up their nuclear weapons program, take credit for that too. No one will remember that she voted for the war in Iraq and was pretty much in agreement with John McCain when it came to wanting to bomb, bomb, bomb . . . bomb Iran.

(8) And perhaps most important, raise money, raise money, raise money.

I mean for the campaign. The Clintons by now have more than enough for themselves, Chelsea, and the soon-to-be-born grandchild.

November 20, 2013--Bomb, Bomb, Bomb . . . Bomb Iran

Here's what has me worried--

As dramatically weakened Barack Obama confronts three more years of his presidency, with the unlikelihood of anything, anything being approved by Congress (it will get even worse after Republican victories in the upcoming midterm elections), as with other presidents who had second-term problems, he will likely be tempted to do something dramatic in foreign affairs where as commander in chief he has considerable independent authority and the ability to act without congressional approval.

This is not in itself a bad thing--plagued by sex scandals, Bill Clinton almost pulled off an historic deal between the Israelis and Palestinians; Ronald Reagan negotiated significant disarmament agreements with the Soviets; and even Richard Nixon made progress in Eastern Europe and the Middle East.

But then there is the wag-the-dog problem--the temptation to get involved in overseas adventures to distract the public or repair tarnished presidential reputations. If was thought, for example, that to change the subject from Monica Lewinski and her blue dress, Clinton was itching to go to war in the Balkans.

Obama is on the ropes. The botched rollout of the Affordable Care Act is just the most recent in a string of failures that has ruined his political reputation and seen his approval ratings sink to George W. Bush levels.

On that list of failures and blunders is his now infamous pledge to draw a red line in Syria--if Bashar al-Assad crossed it and used chemical weapons against the rebels, Obama forcefully stated, the United States would take military action against the regime.

Assad did cross that red line and Obama backed down. He ordered lots os saber rattling but no intervention. The situation was saved by Russian President Putin who put pressure on his Syrian allies to give up their WMD program, which they are proceeding to do under UN supervision.

This failure to follow through has ruined Obama's reputation in that region.

Not only do the Israelis distrust him--if he failed to act in Syria what is his word worth when it comes to Iran where he has drawn another redline about Iran's nuclear capabilities?--now our other allies, the Saudis, Turkey, and Jordan, wonder if we will come to their assistance if the Iranians develop nuclear weapons or there are threats to their survival.

Clearly Obama wants to make a deal with the new, seemingly more moderate Iranian leaders. In fact, an initial, interim agreement may be struck as early as this week. This is not just a good thing for Obama's political reputation but a good thing in itself. We have to find a way to pull back from the brink. If Iran goes nuclear, it is virtually certain that the Saudis, Egyptians, and Turks will as well. This is not a part of the world where we want to see a nuclear arms race.

But beyond diplomacy, with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu marshaling local as well as U.S. congressional opposition to any deal with Iran, threatening to take unilateral military action against Iran's nuclear facilities, the political pressure on Obama--at this vulnerable time in his presidency--is almost beyond calculation.

The temptation to show that his word is good--especially when it comes to staking out positions in the world where there are threats to our allies and to our own security--may impel President Obama to want to show some muscle.

He hasn't done very much of that with Congress and other than killing Osama bin Ladin and numerous al Qaeda leaders with drones (which is generally commendable), Obama has been a disengaged, passive leader more including to deliver speeches than exert forceful leadership.

One place where he can take a form of forceful action is in Iran where he can join the Israelis in bombing their uranium enrichment facilities in an attempt to set back their nuclear clock.

This could in time be necessary. But diplomacy may now be working and it will require considerable courage from Obama to fend off pressure from Israel and Congress to keep talking and dealing with the Iranians.

May 10, 2013--Hillary's Chappaquiddck?

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

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

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

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

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

That is until earlier this week.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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