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 4, 2020--Impeachment Post Mortem

As our president once so eloquently put it, "Who gives a shit about Ukraine?"

Other countries were on his shit list, but it turned out that Ukraine would wind up in the headlines and at the center of his impeachment, which will be resolved tomorrow when the Senate votes to find him not guilty of having committed high crimes and misdemeanors. 

He will have the boys over for a beer and then jump onboard Air Force One and head south and west on his exoneration tour.

It is likely to be nauseating so I recommend pulling the plug on your TV to block out MSNBC and CNN for at least a month. It will take more than that to recover.

While tuning out I suggest we force ourselves to do an impeachment forensic to ask how we got into this mess, especially how the Dems, sorry, screwed up and helped to bring it about. How we got snookered by Trump into impeaching him so he could take advantage of the foregone conclusion, knowing, as we should have, that the disposition would be that Trump would walk. 

Trump knew that, Mitch McConnell especially knew that, and even we knew that. 

It didn't take a neurosurgeon to add up how many votes the Democrats had (51) and that the Constitution stipulates two-thirds plus one senator (67) need to vote guilty to remove a president.

So what were we up to while seeking to find grounds to impeach and try Trump?

The usual--doing all we could to show how smart we are and how stupid the Republicans are. So by any rational measure we turned out to be clever and lost while the Republicans, not interested in rational measures, proved to be stupid and won. 

Great.

We knew that at most we'd get perhaps two Republicans to break ranks and that Mitch would get all but two from his caucus. (Though I suspect Susan Collins will vote with her colleagues to acquit Trump. Mitch in return will pay her off with a couple of more Zumwalt-class destroyers to be built at the Iron Works in Bath, Maine.)

Here's how Trump did it--

He knew Dems in the House had their eyes wide open, looking for something to grab onto, anything to launch the impeachment process. Trump knew that whatever they came up with for their Articles wouldn't matter. With Mitch fulminating and twisting arms, he'd easily defeat them in the Senate and remain in office. He was gambling that getting impeached, especially for something exotic like hanky-panky in Ukraine, would sound like a witch hunt to his fervent base and assure he would be exonerated and his favorability poll numbers, like Clinton's, would rise.

Nancy Pelosi knew Trump was setting a trap and for months resisted allowing her committee chairmen and women to begin an inquiry.

Her strategy was working until Trump dangled Ukraine in front of them.

Here's how that worked--

Trump learned that there was a whistle-blower report that outlined how Trump and his senior staff were attempting to blackmail the new president of Ukraine, holding up the delivery of already approved military equipment until President Zelensky announced that he was going to begin an investigation into Hunter and Joe Biden's allegedly corrupt dealings in Ukraine.

To ensnare the Democrats, who were eager to initiate their own investigation--this one into Trump--he declassified notes of a phone call with Zelensky in which he asked the Ukrainian president to do "us a favor, though" by looking into what the Bidens were up to.

In other words he got the impeachment process going by revealing the smoking gun at the outset. That was brilliant. He turned Watergate on its head by in effect confessing up front. This released him from needing to concentrate on every aspect of the prosecution's case and thus he was free to lash out unfettered.

The Democrats took that bait and Nancy Pelosi had no recourse but to allow the inquiry. 

The Democratic House managers were well prepared and presented an open-and-shut case. The only problem was that more than half the "jurors," all the Republicans in the House, had their minds already made up and his attacks on the process were unrelenting. (For the sake of fairness, virtually all the Democrats also had their minds made up before the inquiry began.)

So it became a reality show. Something about which Trump knows more than a little.

Again, none is this is arcane or difficult to figure out. The difference is that the Dems got lost in the details of the narrative and the evidence that they unearthed and wove into their Articles of Impeachment. The Republicans ignored the evidence and didn't challenge Trump's lawyers' lies. The GOP kept their eyes on the prize--again, winning. Feeling good about our virtue, many progressives assumed our familiar role as losers in these kinds of ugly confrontations.

As disturbing as it is, it is essential to do the forensics because if we are to rescue our country from Trump and his crowd, we need to know how this happened and how we became our own worst enemies. An all too familiar phenomenon.

January 31, 2020--His Majesty the President

If you are wondering why Nancy Pelosi took so long before authorizing the House Intelligence Committee to begin an impeachment "inquiry," wonder no more. 

Just look around at what is going on and the reasons should be clear.

As I write this (Thursday afternoon), it looks as if Mitch McConnell has the votes needed to beat back attempts to call witnesses and  turn documents over to the Senate where the impeachment trial is underway.

If this is true--and we will know by Friday afternoon when the vote about witnesses takes place--Mitch if nothing else is as good a vote counter as was Lyndon Johnson when he presided over the Senate. And, if necessary, Mitch is about as good as it gets when he sees it necessary to twist arms.

So, expect to have witnesses voted down by at least one vote from among the Republican caucus of 53. And almost immediately after that, Friday night, under the cover of darkness, expect to see Trump exonerated by all 53. He will be able to trundle off to the Super Bowl where he will take a bow and then, a few days after that, deliver his State of the Union address before an  ecstatic sea of congressional Trumpers and disgruntled Democrats.

Susan Collins and her wobbly colleagues will be able to say they voted for witnesses; and even though they ultimately voted to find Trump not guilty, this they feel will provide enough political cover for them to eek out close reelection victories. Thus this means the GOP will retain control of the Senate.

How will this be regarded by Democrats, those in Congress and millions among the general population? Not well. With a likely weak candidate nominated to take on Trump, his reelection is more likely, but not certain, than when the impeachment process began.

Anyone who knows political history and human psychology, like Pelosi, knew these outcomes were easy to predict.

How then to think about this? 

I am hearing from friends and family members that, "It's all over." With the "it" being our way of life and representative democracy. The Constitution, they contend, failed us.

When I disagree they accuse me of being a lazy optimist.

Perhaps.

For what it's worth here's what I think--

Yes, if the obvious scenario plays out, we will indeed be in peril. Four more years of Trump could see us as a people"crossing a bridge" of no return.

Those who feel this way, to me, are missing the three most powerful of our remaining checks and balances--an activated free press, the federal courts which have as yet not weighed in, and ultimately the people themselves when we vote in November.

In regard to the courts, perhaps the most significant aspect of the Senate trial is the fact that Chief Justice Roberts was required to sit through dozens of hours of debate where Trump's lawyers came up with preposterous arguments to bolster their defense. It is difficult to imagine that as Trump-related cases make their way to the Supreme Court Roberts will forget what he witnessed and how dangerous the Trump view is of the president as monarch.

But, if the free press is abrogated, if SCOUS because of a perverse reading of Article Two votes to allow the president to "do whatever he wants," and, by far most important, if we either sit out the election or nominate weak candidates, it is indeed over.

So, our future is in our own hands. Where it should be.

January 23, 2020--The Worser the Better.

I'm hearing from people who are so frustrated that they are stepping back from paying attention to the 2020 election. They can't take any more either from or about Trump.

They are trying to do other things with their lives. Things such as listening to music, reading again, talking to their spouses, and watching diverting programs on TV. Rona and I, for example, via Netflix, have been working our way through the 153 episodes of Gilmore Girls--seven years worth!--and immersing ourselves in Miles Davis CDs. 

I can't say that I blame my exhausted friends. They need to get their rest. And a grip.

The current predicament is the struggle to disengage from the day-to-day while still obsessed with the impeachment trial underway in the Senate. Not exactly a sitcom, but still it's an historic event and hard to click away from. And how much Shark Tank can one take?

Those who I'm hearing from haven't yet managed to kick the Trump habit and can't stop themselves from watching the trial. It will take awhile for them (and me) to detox. 

Is there a 12-step program we can join?

Knowing that there is no way for Trump to be removed from office by the Senate--Mitch has the votes to prevent that--we are zeroed in, therefore, on whether or not my Maine senator Susan Collins, to save her political skin, can find three others to vote with her to force McConnell to subpoena witnesses. Actually, not witnesses but John Bolton, who claims he has a story to tell. It must be a really good one because he has a $5.0 million book deal.

I've been saying to friends who see having Bolton testify as the meaning of life that they are failing to keep their eyes on the prize. That prize is making sure Trump is defeated in November. If we agree about that, the best way to help that along would be for the Republican-controlled trial to turn into a fiasco, including screaming, yelling, and ignoring the Chief Justice who is presiding and will plead for civility.

McConnell does not agree to witnesses and will ram a vote to acquit down the throats of his people. And once Bolton's book is published (I suspect right after Labor Day) everything he has to say will enter he public record just weeks before the election. That will be the October Surprise.

All the major news outlets will clamor to interview him. He will appear on the five Sunday talk shows and be on Sixty Minutes for the full hour. Reviews will be published above the fold on the front pages of the Times, Washington Post, and WSJ.

What Bolton will have to say will be a disaster for Trump.

The only down side? Trump will try to get us into a distracting hot war.

But one way or the other, Trump may be cooked.

In sum--the worse things get the better they are.

December 16, 2019--Let's Play Jeopardy

Category: United States Senators

For $2,000 the answer is-- 

This 79-year-old Republican senior senator  from Tennessee who was George H.W. Bush's Secretary of Education before being elected to the Senate and seeking the GOP nomination for the presidency is not running for reelection in 2020. He is best known for campaigning in lumber jack shirts.

Question?

Who is Lamar Alexander?

Alex Trebek--"Good"

I set this up Jeopardy style to make the point that Alexander is not a household name. How many of you got this right?

Now, here's my question--

Alexander is a lifelong political moderate, has plenty of money (about $25.0 million), is not susceptible to being primaried by a hand-picked Trump political flunky, and by all measures should not be concerned about what Trump thinks about him or what nickname he might come up with to smear him.

And yet he is on a trajectory to vote not to remove Trump from office. He is not on the Democratic party's wish list of Republican senators worried about their upcoming reelection chances who might, might consider voting to convict Trump in the Senate--Susan Collins (Maine), Martha McSally (Arizona), Thom Tillis (NC), Cory Gardner (Colorado), Joni Ernst (Iowa), and the ever-ambitious Mitt Romney (Utah).

In spite of holding these senators in contempt if they vote to exonerate Trump, I get the craven ones seeking reelection who are trying to figure out not how to defend the Constitution (as their oath requires) while at the same time not enraging Trump,

But Lamar Alexander?

What secret power does Trump have over him?

I understand a lot about what is going on politically, including why Trump in 2016 received 54 percent of white women's votes. But this one I don't get.

I'd very much welcome your thoughts.

October 8, 2018--Susan Collins: My Summer Senator

For half the year in Maine, Susan Collins is one of my senators.

A self-described "moderate Republican" I have yet to see much moderation in her voting record. 

On occasion she sounds moderate like when two years ago she struggled publicly about how to vote on a bill to repeal Obamacare (she eventually voted to eliminate it) and then last week when she seemed to agonize about how to vote when the roll was called to confirm Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.

Again, she voted the Republican Party line. In fact, she cast the decisive 50th vote. No one up here was surprised by her seeming to have an open mind but when it came to voting acted as one of the most loyal, most robotic of Republicans.

She is so craven that on Friday she took the lead role in dooming the opposition to Kavanaugh.

With a new outfit and dye-job (he hair no longer looking like roadkill), with three female Republican senators like props seated behind her (Deb Fischer [NE], Shelly Capito [WV], and Cindy-Hyde Smith [MS]), with Lisa Murkowski conspicuously absent (she was too busy writing her own profile in courage), Collins spoke for 45 minutes with seeming feeling about the testimony offered by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. She could feel her pain, she claimed without feeling, but since she said there was no corroboration she was going to vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

Not a word did she offer about the deranged conspiracy-laced statement and testimony Kavanaugh offered last Thursday. Not a word about his judicial temperament, mental stability, or his many contemporary under-oath lies. All that mattered for Collins was a lack of clear evidence about something he may or may not have done 36 years ago.

What a disgraceful show she participated in. Perhaps most disgraceful was her willingness, as a woman, with three female coconspirators backing her up, to ignore the testimony of an impressive, deeply wounded woman.

At least no one wore pink.

I am always loath to make comparisons between events in the United States and Nazi Germany, but I cannot shake the feeling that Collins and her colleague female senators acted like concentration camp kapos. Like prisoners who were assigned by the SS guards to supervise forced labor of fellow prisoners or carry out administrative tasks. For this they were given special privileges. Like blankets and food. 

Collins, who has been in the Senate for 21 too-long years comes cheap. For her staged peregrinations and eventual "capitulation" she chairs just one subcommittee--on aging. How appropriate. 

But for the bit of her soul she sold Saturday, perhaps the majority leader, the already soulless Mitch McConnell (who considers the Kavanaugh confirmation his "proudest moment"), will name her to a real committee, the foreign relations committee, for example which would allow her to junket around the world at our expense.

Mark it on your calendar--she's up for reelection in 2020.

September 20, 2018--Show Up!

Changing votes among Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee is no longer the issue.

All GOP minds are shut tight. Without hearing one word from Dr.  Blassey Ford all are ready this minute to vote to send Brett Kavanaugh on to the full Senate where the weak-kneed and well-named Jeff Flake, the equally well-named Bob Corker, and the ever self-justifying Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins now have all the rationals they need to fall familiarly in line. All four can now feel virtuous. They will even be able to boast that they don't sound as clueless as Senator Orrin Hatch who called Dr. Ford "mixed up."

Even a few Red State Democratic senators can now justify that they too can vote for Kavanaugh and avoid rightwing retribution this November as they precariously seek reelection. 

And all things being equal (which they are not) holding her appearance before the committee hostage in the hope that the FBI will undertake an investigation is appropriate but in the real political world is a fantasy,  Such an investigation would have to be ordered by Trump and he's the last person to have any interest in seeing more accusations and facts surface. He personally knows how that feels and what that can yield. Just say "Stormy Daniels." 

Then no one in the Senate or political class cares much about Kavanaugh's candidacy. At least six Democrats on the committee have their eyes on another prize--the presidency--and see the committee's hearings to be an opportunity to come off looking nominatable and presidential. Thus far they have been so inept at this as to reduce the little stature they have. Even non-committee White House aspirants (Elizabeth Warren comes to mind) can't speak even one sentence about this without making fools of themselves. They are that desperate for power.

Sadly, it does not matter any longer if Dr. Ford is telling the truth. The committee is not a grand jury, it is not a court of law, it is a place where the essence of truth can become manifest. Hers and also, let's be fair, his.

What then is at issue? What's left is for Dr. Ford to tell her story directly to Congress and, more important, beyond that, to the American people. 

Especially to female Americans who have been fighting for decades to have their voices heard.

Forgive me, but thus far Dr. Ford has offered a tease. To tell her story to 100 million is certainly frightening, particularly while being savaged on social media, including having her life threatened. There are all those Trump crazies out there who are not to be ignored. 

But if Professor Ford is changing her mind about testifying (as of this morning she may or may not be), she should have been certain she was willing to show up to testify before beginning to squeeze out her story to her local congresswoman and the Washington Post.

If she refuses to show up on Monday to tell her story the real losers will be women who find her story all too credible and feel from their own life experience that they have been shused and held silent for too long.

The negative example of backing out, not showing up, will be devastating. And will provide cover for the worst kind of gender stereotyping. 

So please pack a bag and head for Washington. It's big person time.

January 24, 2018--Losers & Winners

For days after Congress couldn't agree to a short term budget fix, which resulted in the government going dark, and then after three days it's reopening, if you spent any time watching cable news virtually all the talk was about who won and who lost.

Was the "Schumer-Shutdown," as the Republicans derisively referred to it, evidence that Democrats in the Senate "blinked" when they realized they had overstepped when they refused to make a budget deal?

Or was President Trump the political loser (no equivalent alliterative epithet for this) when he agreed to include six years of child healthcare, CHIP funding in exchange for a three-week continuing resolution?

Losers and winners is the way so much of our public life has come to be construed. Not what gets done but who's up and, especially, who's down.

But with their reporters scurrying around the halls of Congress to take the minute-to-minute pulse--especially of the dozen or so Democratic senators who are already running for president in 2020--these news sources missed the big picture--who actually won and what it may mean going forward. May mean.

The deal finally hammered out more than anything else was the result of a bipartisan group of about two dozen senators working together 10, 12 hours a day on something they and their colleagues could live with.

They met in semi-secrecy in Maine Republican senator Susan Collin's "safe office," her "sanctuary office," talking to each other about substantive issues for the first time in their senatorial lives, some reported, largely because they felt they couldn't depend upon their leaders--Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell--to come up with a deal as they were so immeshed in posturing and spinning the truth before the waiting microphones and CSPAN cameras.

Many of the participants in the "gang or 25" said that they were so fed up by being excluded from the sausage-making process of crafting legislation and so disgusted by the equivocation and mixed messages emanating from the president and his White House, where many felt Trump was being "led around by the nose," as Joe Scarborough put it, by "a 32-year-old kid," presidential advisor Stephen Miller, who looks like a picture of evil right out of central casting, that they took matters into their own hands and for a change earned their $174,00-a-year salaries (which, incidentally continued during the shutdown).

Some, after the agreement was struck, said that the experience of working together across party lines to "get things done" was the reason they originally sought public office--and here's the potential big headline--that not only did they feel good about what they accomplished (though the full story about that will not be known for some weeks as the centripetal political forces struggle to reassert themselves as the 2020 campaign heats ups), they said this is how they plan to work going forward. 

They claimed they will stick together and deal themselves in when it comes to what to do about the so-called "DACA kids," hurricane disaster relief, Obamacare fixes, infrastructure, and border security. Some "big stuff."

Are we at last witnessing an outbreak of comity and moderation?

As my grandmother used to say when any of us brought a new girlfriend home to meet her and perhaps (unlikely) pass her special muster, "We'll see."

Every once in awhile she revealed that she could actually smile. That's what I am planning to hope for now--that we are at a pivotal moment and it will take hold.

We'll see.

December 15, 2017--John McCain's Thumbs Up

Many admired John McCain, recently diagnosed with incurable brain cancer, when he appeared on the Senate floor past midnight in late September to vote thumbs down, literally thumbs down, on the Republican bill to repeal Obamacare.

Many were looking forward to a repeat performance next week when the Senate appears set to vote on one of the most regressive budget-busting tax-cut bills in modern legislative history.

Alas, McCain has indicated he will vote for it. Actually, try physically to vote for it if the wicked side effects of radiation and chemo therapy will allow him to do so. 

If he cannot make it to the Senate, the Republicans will have an even smaller margin to pass it. Thus, if Susan Collins of my beloved Maine comes to her senses and changes her mind and votes against the bill, it has a chance of being defeated. 

I have been wondering, why McCain, at times a legitimate maverick, was or is set to vote for it, considering how much he despises Donald Trump. I came to the one obvious conclusion--he and his family would be enormous beneficiaries of the GOP bill.

It would be kind to him and especially his heiress wife who own no fewer that eight homes (remember how that was revealed during the 2008 presidential election?) since this bill is quite friendly to people with large real estate holdings.

More than that, with his and his wife's net worth topping $100 million (she inherited a fortune in beer distributorships) by doubling the current $11million one can pass along tax free--John and Cindy McCain's heirs will net at least $11 million more than they would at present

Not the kind of political legacy I would imagine he seeks. But I guess when it gets right down to it, money is money. 

October 21, 2014--Midcoast: Independents

Rona asked why is it that half the Republicans we know say they're not Republicans but Independents.

We were with a friend who took us out to a farewell lunch (we're here for two more weeks), and to Rona's question, said he too is an Independent.

"I'm for LePage for governor this time around, but two years ago I voted for Angus King for senator. He's officially an Independent and caucuses with the Democrats."

"But why is it," Rona pressed, "that every time we have this discussion and you say you're an Independent all the examples you give of government programs you don't like are ones supported and defended mainly by Democrats?"

"Could it be," I piled on, "and please don't take this personally, that some Republicans are reluctant to admit they're conservatives and so they pretend to be Independents? Of course I'm only speculating," I hastened to add, winking.

"That's not me," our friend said. "I'm not trying to evade responsibility for my political beliefs."

"But let's get back to my more fundamental question," Rona said, leaning across the booth to get closer to him so she would not be overheard by the people in the adjacent booth, and to keep me at arms distance--this was her issue, "Why do so many Republicans pretend they're Independents when--"

"I'm not sure I'm following you. Give me a few examples since I think I'm pretty balanced."

"How many times have you told the story about the woman you saw in the supermarket who paid with a SNAP card and then got into an expensive car?"

"Well, she did."

"And what about Obamacare? How you claim it's mainly for illegal immigrants--which in fact it isn't. It specifically excludes them."

"Well, if they show up at the ER they get treated, don't they?"

"Not because of Obamacare," I said.

"And," Rona continued, "you talk all the time about people ripping off welfare, when in fact you can't be on it for more than a lifetime total of three years."

"Well, I--"

"And when you talk about people cheating the system the examples you cite are all of poor people, never a Wall Street or hedge fund fat cat. People who are really taking advantage of what they can get away with. Making millions and paying less in taxes than you or I. Which means the rest of us have to pick up the tab for what it costs to pay for their loopholes."

"They're the job creators."

"Now you're sounding like you're friend Mitt. Which is another example of my point--the only politicians you like--and admittedly there are very few of them--are Republicans and--"

"Don't forget Angus." He smiled.

"Point well taken. But, tell the truth, the examples you generally cite of the things you don't like are of things liberals tend to support."

Shifting the subject he asked, "Why is it that when I drive around and see all those political yard signs, if there's one for the Democrat Mike Michaud, all the other signs are for Democrats. Shenna Bellows for the Senate--whoever she is--Chellie Pingree for the House of Representatives, Chris Johnson for the Maine Senate. All Democrats."

He leaned back feeling he had trumped Rona's argument.

"But there you go again,"she said.

"Once more I'm not following you."

"Again your bad example is from the Democrats. When you drive around and see a LePage sign and a Susan Collins sign, and a Les Fossel sign they're all Republicans aren't they?"

"Well, I suppose if you're an Independent," he was still attempting to avoid Rona's point. "I mean a real one, you'd have a mix of signs. Wouldn't you?"

"Fair point," Rona conceded, "But to tell you the truth, with everyone here claiming they're Independents I've never seen that kind of mix of lawn signs."

"We'll, if you want to, you should come to my neighborhood."

After lunch we did, even driving by his house.

In fairness, he didn't have any signs on display.

"That's what I call a real Independent," Rona said, looking sly. "He doesn't support anyone."