February 14, 2020-Trump's Week

Last week was Trump's best ever.

First, with the almost unanimous vote of Republican senators he was found "not guilty" of committing high crimes and misdemeanors.

He immediately took off on an exoneration tour to bask in the regard of his most fervent followers. The crowds at his rallies were standing room only.

The stock market, his favorite economic barometer, reached record levels.

Also last week there was the jobs report. 225,000 new jobs were created, 65,000 more than expected. He took credit for this (though he doesn't deserve it--what we are experiencing is the ongoing extension of the Obama recovery) and used the good news to underscore how we are beneficiaries of the "best economy in history." (Also, not true).

And he delivered a politically effective State of the Union address, almost sounding like a normal president.

Even his approval ratings (perpetually stuck in the low 40s) crept up a bit. Just a bit.

Gullible (or craven) Republican senators such as Susan Collins claimed that impeachment would chasten him. As a result, they said he will change, become more "presidential."


We see already how that is working out. 

Also during the week it appeared that Joe Biden's campaign was collapsing. So Trump could see that his blackmailing Ukraine was working out.

Just as everything seemed to be going his way, three days ago, the credible Quinnipiac Poll published a spate of findings that was full of bad news for Trump.

From all the good news Tump was expecting a bump up in his favorabilities. As Bill Clinton did. Perhaps in a poll or two he would enter 50 percent land. 

But the opposite happened.

Of the Q Poll results the one that must have been most frustrating to him were the numbers from the head-to-head comparisons between him and each of his main rivals.

He "lost" to each of them. A few, widely--

Bloomberg topped Trump by 51 to 42 percent.  

Sanders beat Trump by 8 points, 51 to 43. 

Biden won 50 to 43.  

Klobuchar prevailed by 49 to 43 percent.

Warren led by 4 points, 48 to 44 percent. 

And Buttigieg won narrowly, 47 to 43 percent.

These numbers I am certain will shift when the results of the New Hampshire primary are factored in--Klobuchar, for example, will pick up at least a percent or two and Warren will continue to slip. None of this is good news for Trump. It shows the deep desire of people to see him voted out of office.

So, it's time for us to emerge from our fear and malaise and get on with our efforts to build on this. We're just at the beginning of the process. Our very country is at stake. 

February 6, 2019--State of the Union: El Paso

During the 1990s, when with the Ford Foundation, I spent many days in El Paso working with the school district and the University of El Paso to fund their efforts to help more students than in the past enter and complete college.

I loved visiting. I enjoyed the diversity of the people and their energy. It felt as if the city had a sense of purpose and proudly was going about the business of improving the lives of all its citizens. Very much including those who crossed the border daily to work or go to school.

After my work day was over I wandered about the city looking for new places to visit and eat. Never once did I feel the sense of threat there that Trump talked about last night in the State of the Union address. And so this morning when I saw what the New York Times' fact-checkers said about El Paso I was not surprised. I quote what they wrote in its entirety--

Trump claimed--

“The border city of El Paso, Tex., used to have extremely high rates of violent crime — one of the highest in the entire country, and considered one of our nation’s most dangerous cities. Now, immediately upon its building, with a powerful barrier in place, El Paso is one of the safest cities in our country.” 

This is false--

El Paso was never one of the most dangerous cities in the United States, and crime has been declining in cities across the country — not just El Paso — for reasons that have nothing to do with border fencing. In 2008, before border barriers had been completed in El Paso, the city had the second-lowest violent crime rate among more than 20 similarly sized cities. In 2010, after the fencing went up, it held that place.

January 26, 2015--Legacy Polishing

Back in September, Barack Obama explained why he was not planning to send American troops to fight ISIS in Iraq and Syria.

He said that he was modeling his strategy after our successful efforts to partner with governments in Somalia and Yemen to go after and defeat terrorists active in both countries and, especially, in Yemen where Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsular (AQAP) has its headquarters, sanctuaries, and training grounds.

Our strategy there was to have a working partnership with the countries' presidents and to use a combination of their forces and American-guided drones to defeat the terrorists who threaten us and the Western World. There would thus be no need for American boots on the ground.

On September 10th, Obama said--

This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successful pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years. It is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year: to use force against anyone who threatens America's core interests, but to mobilize partners whenever possible to address broader challenges to international order.

Sounds good, if true, but minimally--that was then and this is now. The this being the rapid, unexpected-to-us collapse of the Yemeni government.  President Abdu Hadi fell to the Houthi rebels at the end of last week and they have not indicated an interest in continuing any sort of partnership with the United States. Quite the opposite.

As a result AQAP terrorists must be dancing in the desert.

One might say September is a very long time ago when it comes to changes in the region. Case in point--how our intelligence agencies were caught totally unaware of ISIS's gathering threat and rapid invasion and takeover of much of eastern Syria and northern Iraq.

But listen to what Obama said just last Tuesday in his State of the Union address--

Instead of sending large ground forces overseas, we're partnering with nations from South Asia to North Africa to deny safe haven to terrorists who threaten America. In Iraq and Syria, American leadership --including our military power--is stopping ISIL's advance. Instead of getting dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, we are leading a broad collation, including Arab nations, to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist group. We're also supporting a moderate opposition in Syria that can help in this effort, and assisting people everywhere who stand up to the bankrupt ideology of violent extremism.

No mention of AQAP, though I suppose the "denying-safe-haven-to-terrorists" is an indirect reference to them. I any case, that was last Tuesday and this is six days later and again the world has changed.

I understand that this next-to-last State of the Union was an opportunity for Obama, in the face of Republican majorities in both houses of Congress, to do a little understandable bragging. Especially about the freshening state of the American economy that is occurring on his watch.

And I understand that as Obama attempts to polish his legacy he does not want to be represented as a war president. By citing how our troops are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan and terrorists are in alleged retreat, he is drawing a credible contrast between himself and his preemptive-war predecessor.

He did after all win the Nobel Peace Prize preemptively, after fewer than nine months in office, in the hope and expectation that he would be a peace president.

Peace Prize or not, peace or war president aside, we need to hear the truth from Obama and the beginnings of a well-thought-out, very longterm strategy to take on the daunting foreign policy challenges we face. A legacy based on candor will sit well with historians and ultimately be better for Americans than posturing and spin.

January 30, 3014--State of Disunion

Rona asked, "Do you want to watch the State of the Union?"

With some guilt I said, "Not really."

"I feel the same way. I've given up on Obama and Congress. It's too depressing to watch him again mouth familiar clichés and see John Boehner sitting there all smug and grimacing."

"Yeah. Recent polls have Obama's approval rating well below 50 percent and Congress' under 20."

"I'd like to know what those 20 percent are thinking."

"So we have two other choices," Rona said, "Read or have dessert."

"Dessert for sure, but also let's watch a few more episodes of West Wing."

Some background--

When West Wing was first broadcast in 1999, though we are both political junkies, not wanting to get hooked on any TV series, we opted to ignore it even though a lot of our liberal friends were eating up every episode.

Now, with more time on our hands and looking for things to lighten our moods, via Netflix streaming, about a month ago, we began watching the first of the 154 episodes. Yes, there are that many. As of last night, we've seen 57 and are thrilled that there are about 75 more. Some nights we pig-out on WW and find ourselves staying up until 2:00 AM to squeeze in just one more.

By coincidence, Tuesday night, the night of the real State of the Union, which we were assiduously ignoring, halfway through the third season of West Wing, we watched the episode devoted to the preparation of President Jeb Bartlet's fictional State of the Union speech.

I'll give you one guess which one we preferred.

This lead to a breakfast conversation the next morning about presidentail politics.

"If I were president . . ."

"God forbid."

" . . . and was in the kind of political trouble Obama is in--not able to get anything done, held in low esteem by voters--what would be wrong with calling in West Wing's creator, Aaron Sorkin to ask his advice about what to do and what to say?"

Over her coffee cup, Rona looked at me skeptically.

"I mean, after all, politics is part theater."

"Actually, a big part," Rona agreed. "All the polling and spinning and even making things up and trying to entertain us is a version of theater. And then there is all the effort they make to interest and emotionally move the public."

"Thus, Ronald Reagan."

"And, to be fair and balanced, Bill Clinton. So, maybe you're right. Sorkin would be interesting to consult with."

I said, "I'd love to see the speech he'd draft for Obama."

"Hopefully it would be in the spirit of the one from the first-season episode called, 'Let Bartlet Be Bartlet' when Sorkin had him shrug off his handlers, march into the White House press room, and let them and his political opponents have it."

"Maybe Sorkin would have Obama show up in Congress to deliver his State of the Union to the American people, figuratively and literally, looking over the heads of members of Congress and talk right into the camera to address directly the people who elected him twice."

"Saying?"

"Let me try my hand at drafting something."

"This should be fun," Rona snickered.

My fellow Americans.

And I mean that--fellow Americans.  

I'm here tonight to speak to you. With all due respect, not to these members of Congress who invited me here to deliver the constitutionally-required State of the Union.

Presidents for 225 years have begun these speeches by summing up their view about how the nation is faring. Some have said that the state of the union is "strong," others that it is "at peace," or "free and restless." 

As I see things, the state of the union today is an utter mess. 

If I was out having a drink with you (more about that later), I might have used saltier language. 

For now, use your imagination. 

Yes, there have been improvements in the economy. More people than a year ago have jobs--though too many of those jobs are lousy jobs, paying a disgraceful minimum wage. Those working for $7.25 an hour, if they work 35-40 hours a week, are still living in poverty. 

And these folks in Congress are not prepared to do anything about it. In fact, they're not prepared to do anything about the richest folks in this country making more and more money, piling up a king's ransom of houses and yachts, and private jets while the rest of you are working two, three jobs just to make ends meet. 

I'm not against people getting rich. I'm against seeing the rich get richer while the middle class get poorer. 

Call this Class Warfare if you like. I call it the truth. 

So things are a mess. 

Some of this is my fault. Big time my fault. 

You elected me to change things. In my first two years I was able to do some of that. But not enough. It was not just these folks' fault [gestures to Congress]. I was too passive. I thought by my election bipartisanship would break out all over. These politicians would get the message that if this big-eared black guy with a funny name--Barack Hussein Obama--could get elected we'd better get out act together or the voters will throw us out of office. 

I should have tried that bipartisan business for just a month or two rather than a whole year. When it was clear it wasn't working then I should have come to you--the American people--to tell you that and to promise I'd try to do some unconventional things to pressure Congress to do right by you. 

I didn't do that. 

Michelle was pushing on me to man-up, but I was still hoping for the best. That members of both parties would at least for a time agree to work together. That's traditionally what happens when there is a new president who wins the election by a majority and there is a crisis in the land, as there was beginning in 2008. 

But Michelle was right. 

She also told me that on the very night of my first inauguration about 20 Republican leaders met over dinner to talk about what they needed to do to undermine me. She was right and I was wrong. I should have listened to her. 

About these things she's smarter than I. 

Also, I failed to try to schmooze these folks along. You know what schmooze means? If you don't, it means spending more informal social time with members of Congress. Republicans as well as members of my own party. The Democrats. Schmoozing together at the White House over drinks. Play golf together. That sort of thing. 

But I didn't do enough of that either. It's not my favorite thing. And so I didn't. Maybe I should have. 

But to tell you the truth, I don't think that would have made much difference. 

I'm calling out here tonight the Minority Leader of the Senate, Senator Mitch McConnell. He's sitting right over there. [Point to him.] Senator McConnell said on day one of my presidency that the Republican's job was to make me fail so I'll be a one-term president.  

You said that, didn't you, senator? [Pause and stare at him.]

During my first State of the Union, right over there, a congressman from Georgia shouted at me twice, "You lie." 

I don't consider that fair. To have your mind made up before you even begin the conversation, to accuse any new president of lying. 

But by my not taking them on directly--by cutting Senator McConnell a lot of slack--I let you the people down. You didn't elect me to play games and back off when things got tough. 

And, by the way, how tough is my job compared to those of you who, as I said, are working two, three jobs just to keep your heads above water? 

I get a big salary and have a terrific place to live for which I do not pay rent nor have a mortgage. 

So it's over. 

What's over is any pretense that enough members of Congress will work with me and my staff for the good of the American people. 

They would claim otherwise, but I say that they're working for their own self interest--to get reelected, to gain influence and power. For themselves. Not for you. 

When it comes to Congress, the truth is I'm already a lame duck. 

Usually that doesn't happen until after a president's sixth year when half the people in this room really come out of the closet to declare they're running for president. At least half a dozen folks here are already off and running. Have been for a couple of years at least. That's fine. I did a version of the same thing myself. 

But I'm through playing games. 

Congress is not going to deal with the deficit, with tax fairness, with rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, with fixing the out-of-control costs of health care or, for that matter, how much we're spending on the military. They have signaled that and proclaimed that every day right here, in the press, and on talk shows. 

They are not listening to you. 

If they were they'd agree to increase the minimum wage, extend unemployment benefits and not cut support for education, health care, and the environment. They'd get serious about inequality and the collapse of the middle class. They'd be eager to make it more affordable for your children to go to college and support efforts to make sure there would be jobs for them when the graduate so they could proudly stand on their own two feet and no longer have too live in your finished basement. 

So what am I going to do? 

Here's what-- 

I'm getting out of Washington. Right after I finish here. 

I'm going to spend the next month, the next six weeks on the road, wandering around America. Visiting big cities, suburban communities, and small towns. I'm going to visit every state. All fifty. 

I'm leaving Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base and will travel around on public transportation as much as possible and, when it isn't, I'll be traveling in my car. I intend to do some of the driving myself. I want to feel the broken roads that everyone else needs to drive on. I plan to cut back on my Secret Service detail so I can mingle more informally with you. 

Every morning I will pop in for breakfast unannounced at diners and luncheonettes and for dinner at local restaurants and, if you invite me in, your kitchen. 

I hope you'll join me at the counter so we can talk privately about what's on your mind. What you're feeling good about. And what's aggravating you. 

I know I'm not all that good at listening--Michelle reminds me that I talk too much. But I promise to try to do more listening. And, if you'll indulge me, I'll tell you what's on my mind. 

We're going to keep the press entourage to a minimum and try to keep thsoe who trail after me at a distance. I know I'll get in trouble with this but that is my intention. I'll also be leaving all, all my advisors back in Washington. 

          During this time I won't be making any speeches or holding any press conferences.

You may be wondering how this will benefit you. I know I will enjoy spending time with you. When I first ran for president more than anything I enjoyed these kinds of unscripted times. 

So, finally, here's how I think doing this will be of benefit to you. 

I'm hoping that this experience which we will have together will not only recharge my batteries but also motivate you to give me and Washington a second chance. That you will feel that maybe, just maybe, with your help, we can make a difference. Maybe we in Washington will figure out ways to work together on your behalf. 

I've got to be honest with you--unless there is a huge groundswell of pressure from you that is applied to me and everyone else supposedly working for you it will remain business as usual. To work, all of us have to feel that if it doesn't get better, you'll throw us out of office. 

If nothing changes, I'll play out my days in the White House making speeches and hoping for the best. Those in this room will keep doing their thing--looking for PAC money and thinking about cashing in as lobbyists after they leave office. After I leave, I'll make a fortune writing my memoirs and focus on polishing my legacy. 

Again, you'll be ignored. 

As of right now all I'm asking is for you to have coffee with me tomorrow morning. Someplace in Pennsylvania. 

After a month, a month and a half of that, we'll see where we're at. 

You'll know more about me. I'll know more about you. 

They key, though, is what you will do to make me work harder and smarter for you and how you will do the same to all members of Congress. Because all of us here--Democrats as well as Republicans, Congress as well as the president--me--have together made this mess. 

I hate to put this on your shoulders, but the only way out of it is if you demand that we make things better for you. 

If you do, Americans will become the new Greatest Generation. 

Good bless the United Staes; and especially, God bless you.