March 19, 2019--Two Predictions

For the Democratic presidential nomination I predict it will come down to three finalists--

In third place, Kamala Harris; the runner up will be Bernie Sanders; and the winner--Joe Biden (assuming he cuts out the rapidly wearing-thin coy act and gets in the race).

Biden will select Harris to be his running mate and they will go on to defeat Trump or Mike Pence.

Can we vote now?

Second prediction--

The Mueller report is about to land and, as a courtesy, the special counsel informed Trump's attorneys that he and members of his family are about to be indicted. Trump as an un-indicted co-conspirator.

The FBI will not break into Eric's, Don Junior's, or Jared's homes because as big-game hunters the sons' places are likely armed to the teeth with elephant guns. They will thus be invited to turn themselves in by the end of the month.

So Trump will be faced with pressure to pardon them and perhaps Paul Manafort and others while he's at it. To obviate this, we will learn that Mueller has referred their cases and turned over the evidence he has amassed to the pardon-proof prosecutors of the New-York-City-based Court of the Southern District of New York.

These impending arrests have Trump crazed, off his pins, and thus he has been launching a record number of vitriolic tweets, including two this weekend again about John McCain and five about suspended Fox News personality, Janine Piro. In total, a clinically-concerning 50. 

Further evidence of his desperation is the fact that he and Melania went to church last Sunday.

If there is a just God, that will not help.

April 5, 2017--25th Amendment

Monday on Morning Joe, Joe and Mika reviewed the storm of tweets that poured forth on Saturday and Sunday from Donald Trump.

They were clearly dismayed.

Usually, Trump's weekend tweets appear only on Saturday mornings when his family handlers, daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, practicing Jews, are observing Shabbas. On that day orthodox Jews are forbidden to work and this even includes turning on electrial devices such as stoves, TVs, and smart phones.

Knowing this, it is during this window when he is not under surveillance that Trump as the bad boy he is is at his most uncensored and outrageous. But he goes silent when Ivanka and Jared are again wired up or, if he does tweet any more, knowing they are monitoring him, he is more restrained.

But last weekend, perhaps in part because Jared as quasi Secretary of State was secretly flying off for a visit to Iraq, he published perhaps a dozen tweets. As Joe and Mika reviewed them on air, their dismay turned to horror.

"Who is this person?" Joe asked rhetorically, "I thought we knew him." Mika shrugged and smiled. They thought they knew him from more than a year of having him as a constant presence on their program. He would call in most mornings and they would keep him talking often for up to a commercial-free hour. They rode his wave of popularity as he rode theirs. His poll numbers rose as did their ratings. More viewers tuned into Morning Joe than all other cable shows other than the preposterous and inane Fox & Friends.

An early Saturday morning tweet asked--

When will Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd and @NBCNews start talking about the Obama SURVEILLANCE SCANDAL and stop with the Fake Trump/Russian story?

Not exactly a haiku. And, as Joe and Mika noted, the more things capitalized the more agitated the Commander in Chief.

Then they pointed out, "Sleepy Eyes" is not one of Trump's best sobriquets. It doesn't compare with "Crooked Hillary," "Little Marco," "Lyin' Ted," or for Elisabeth Warren, "Pocahontas."

Another email, a non sequitur asked--

It is the same Fake News Media that said there is "no path to victory for Trump" that is now pushing the phony Russia story. A total scam!

And, still obsessed with Hillary (he can't get over the fact that she beat him by almost 3.0 million popular votes)--

Did Hillary Clinton ever apologize for receiving answers to the debate? Just asking!

For the uninitiated, the "answers" he referred to are actually questions that CNN reporters prepared to pose to Clinton during one of her debates with Bernie Sanders. They were passed along to her campaign by Donna Brazil who was vice president of the Democratic National Committee and a CNN contributor. She subsequently lost both jobs.

At that point, Mika Brzezinski, in visible pain, as if to herself, mumbled, "24th Amendment."

Joe corrected her, "You mean the 25th."

"You think it's time . . . ?"

"I'm beginning to think maybe . . ."

Having depressed themselves they stared blankly into the camera for what felt like an endless five minutes.

To review--the 25th Amendment, which was ratified in 1967, spells out presidential succession. The amendment was needed since the original Constitution was ambiguous about who would become president if the chief executive died or was otherwise incapacitated. In the original document it was not clear if the Vice President was to be the successor. So that needed straightening out.

Also, there was insufficient guidance about what would happen if the president were alive but disabled by, say, a stroke or mental breakdown and how that would be determined. They took great care about this as the amenders did not want to encourage coup d'etats based on false diagnoses.

It is this latter circumstance that is addressed in Section 4 and was alluded to by Mika and Joe.

In its entirety, it reads--

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments [Cabinet members] or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

This has never happened, but if the amendment had existed during Woodrow Wilson's presidency, it would not have been possible, when he had a massive stroke early in his second term, for his wife, hiding the extent of his disabilities, for all intents and purposes, to serve as acting president for his remaining three years. Section 4 would have been invoked and the VP would have assumed the presidency.

And during Richard Nixon's final days in office, with the 25th Amendment in place, with the president substantially incapacitated because of the drip, drip, drip of Watergate, because he was so out of rational control, a number of his senior advisers thought seriously about enforcing Section 4.

Though they did not do that, he thankfully resigned, but before he did so, among themselves they agreed to tell the Joint Chiefs of Staff that if Nixon late one night, while reeling and raging from too much alcohol, transmitted the nuclear codes that would send nuclear missiles and bombers on a preemptive strike against the Soviet Union, that they should risk treason and not comply.

We are currently not at that point, perhaps, hopefully, far from it; but Joe and Mika spoke the words of deep concern and none of their guests demurred.

But then, a day or two later, from this current scandal that keeps on giving, we learned about Susan Rice's alleged role in "unmasking" Trump aides and secret meetings with the Russians in the Seychelles prior to the new administration taking office to establish a "back channel" connection between Trump and Putin.

Myself, I prefer Claire Danes and Homeland.

It's only an hour an episode and it's fiction. Though by the day it is feeling more and more like reality.

Claire Danes

April 3, 2017--Jack: "Long Time No Speak"

"Happy April Fools' Day," it was Jack a friend from Maine, "Long time no speak." I girded myself for a prank.

"These days," I said, "every day feels like April fools Day." I hadn't heard from him in a few weeks. "I assume you haven't been calling because your boy is making such a mess of the presidency and you're embarrassed about having voted for him."

"It's your people who are causing all the trouble."

"My people?"

"You know, the Democrats, the media, the socialists."

"Are you confusing socialists with Russians? Because if you are that's one thing we might be able to agree about--how the Trump people were in cahoots with the Russians who helped undermine Hillary Clinton's campaign."

"All three. The Democrats and mainstream media are making a big deal, with no evidence, about alleged Russian involvement in our election. Trump won fair and square. He didn't need any outside help."

"Didn't you listen to FBI director Comey when he said that the Russians were involved? He didn't hint about the possibilities but asserted that in no uncertain terms."

"He should talk. He's the one who undermined the Clinton campaign with his obsessing about her emails. Is he also working for the Russians?"

"These days anything's possible." Again I said, "Every day's April Fools' Day."

"If you're so sure Trump is making a mess . . ."

"Worse than a mess."

"If that's what you think why are his poll numbers going up?"

"What?" I was incredulous. "I know we live in a time when there are no longer any facts, but he's dropped to the low 30s."

"Forty-two percent in the latest poll."

"Have you been drinking because the last numbers I saw are from Gallop and they have him at 35 and dropping. By about a point a week."

"Check out the NBC News Poll."

"You mean the 'Survey Monkey Poll'?"

"If they have him at 42 percent approval, that's the one. But why it's called a monkey poll is beyond me. Everything's crazy these days."

"It's actually a very hip, relatively new poll that is done almost all on line. With so many people without wired phones they've been trying to measure opinions from people who are wirelessly on line all the time."

"Which would suggest that Trump is doing better with unwired young people. Thirty-five percent with Gallop and 42 with the Monkey."

"I'll have to do some checking."

"While you do find out what any of this has to do with monkeys."

"All the other polls have Trump's favorabilites plunging. And while we've been talking I looked up the poll you mentioned--the NBC Survey Monkey--and they also report his numbers are dropping. It's true they have him at 42 percent but he was two-to-four points higher the past week or so. The point is that as he fails to get anything through Congress and we learn more-and-more about his people colluding with the Russians his support is eroding."

"But he's getting a lot done that he promised to do."

"Really? Give me some examples."

"On immigration and regulations for openers."

"You mean his executive orders?"

"Those."

"Well, one has been ruled unconstitutional twice by federal courts and I haven't seen any specific regulations that have been removed. Just generalities. All he wants is to have fancy signing ceremonies in the Oval Office on live TV. Speaking of the Oval Office, have you noticed it looks as if he hasn't moved in yet? The book shelves are basically empty--he's not really a reader--and the only picture on the credenza behind his desk is of father Fred. No Melania, no children or grandchildren, no ex-wives Ivana or Marla Maples."

"Huh?"

"OK, about that I'm kidding. April Fool! But very revealing was the report, I think from Joe Scarborough, about his saying to his senior staff, 'I don't care what's in the bills. What I want are signing ceremonies.' Is this what we expect of our president?"

"That's what I mean by the mainstream press--they, like you, make things up."

"Well, here's something that's not made up--his tweets about retaliating against members of the Freedom Caucus in the House who he thinks killed Paul Ryan's and his healthcare bill."

Freedom Caucus Members

"They did kill it. And what's wrong with his calling them out for it?"

"Do you know what's in that bill?" All I heard was static. "Among other things twenty-four million people losing their coverage. That means a lot more prematurely dead people. You're all right with that?"

"I thought we were talking about the politics, not the bill."

"I can understand why you'd prefer that. But, OK, that was politically dumb. To attack them. He also blamed the Dems, as he referred to them. He bragged about how in 2018 he'll campaign against them and the Freedom Caucus. By then whoever's opposing them won't want him campaigning for them since his approval rating will be down in the 20s."

"About this we really disagree. He's approaching the bottom of his support right now. At the worst he'll end up at 30-35 percent. That's his floor."

"You call that good?" I asked, "That's a disaster for a president. That would mean losing control of both houses in 2018 and assure that nothing gets legislated for at least two years."

"Not necessarily. His people are still with him. Passionately so. Have you heard any of them interviewed? They think the Russian stuff is not important, a made-up distraction to undermine him. What's important to them are jobs, protection from immigrants, hope for their children, and a strong America."

"You think," I asked, "after what he said that any Freedom Caucus people or Democrats will work with him? They're on TV right now saying 'No way.' Even making fun of him. Mocking him. After how many, 70 days or so in office, he's becoming a lame duck. Irrelevant."

"We'll see how relevant he'll be after the Koreans, the North Koreans attack Japan or one of our bases out there. With missiles."

"This is my worst nightmare about him. Worse than anything that can happen on April Fools' Day."

January 3, 2017--The Two Faces of Donald Trump

With just two and a half weeks until the inauguration, liberal friends who had calmed down a bit about Donald Trump's election are now again full of anxiety.

And so am I.

I don't think it's contact-anxiety, but the real thing.

I have been urging that we wait and see what kind of president Trump turns out to be. The former liberal Democrat who has been obscuring his core beliefs so as to appeal to a very conservative base. Is he a true representative of angry-white-men or has he become their voice because they have the capacity to elect a president--and just helped to do. Is Trump someone who has more moderate views and for cynical political purposes has been pandering to true believers.

Are his cabinet appointments another appeal to this constituency or will he, once president, tell them what to do and fire them if they don't moderate their previous views.

Trump's ubiquitous tweets may be both a window to his soul or a vehicle to sow confusion about who he really is and what he is likely to do. Being contradictory and unpredictable is one way to exert power.

Take his two New Years. tweets as examples--

The first, a snarky one was posted December 31st at 5:17AM--

Happy New Year to all, including to my many enemies and those who have fought me and lost so badly they just don't know what to do. Love!

The second was posted later that night, right at midnight--

TO ALL AMERICANS--Happy New Year & many blessings to you all! Looking forward to a wonderful & prosperous 2017 as we work together to MAGA [MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN]

Which is the true Trump?

I suspect both. Which doesn't make things any easier or help get anxiety about him under control.

Do we have a version of a schizophrenic about to enter the White House and have the nuclear codes by his side 24/7? I think not.

But I suspect we have someone of two minds. The first Trump is pure id. The Id-Trump composed the first tweet. It is him at his most puerile, his most narcissistic. He won the election so why is he still obsessing about those who opposed him, those he truly believes are his "enemies"?

To quote a favorite expression from his tweeting--HOW SAD!

The midnight tweet was either written for him by daughter Ivanka or son-in-law Jared Kushner. Or, more hopefully, comes from Trump himself.

In Freudian terms this Trump might be thought of as the Ego-Trump. The Trump who spends at least a little time thinking what to say before lashing out, the Trump still with huge ego-needs but a Trump in control of his emotions who, actually, has the capacity to look beyond himself and reveal a touch of empathy.

Superego? Not ever in evidence.

At best I'm reconciling myself to the idea that he is not as bad as my friends think but minimally, has these dual faces. Both real. And, as these back-to-back tweets suggest, there is a war within him between them, his better angels versus his demons.

Among other things, as someone who also doesn't sleep much, he needs to get seam rest.

December 28, 2016--Boys Will Be Boys

Yesterday's political flap was tripped off by Barack Obama.

In a podcast interview with his former senior advisor, David Axelrod, alpha-male Obama claimed that if the Constitution allowed it, he could have beaten alpha-male Donald Trump and been elected to a third term.

God help us. We don't need any more Syrias, not that Trump and his national security team make me feel nationally secure.

In Obama's somewhat tortured words, he said--

I'm confident that if I--if I had run again and articulated it, I think I could have mobilized a majority of the American people to rally behind it. I know that in conversations that I've had around the country, even some people who disagree with me, they would say the vision, the direction that you point towards is the right one.

Help me out here with what the meaning of "it" is. But I do get the larger boast--that he could have whopped Trump's ass.

Trump, never one for subtlety but with an unusual touch of class, couldn't resist and with his small hands took up the challenge in a quick tweeted response--

President Obama says that he thinks he would have won against me. He should say that but I say NO WAY!--jobs leaving, ISIS, OCare, etc.

But one thing Obama did get right--he acknowledged to Axelrod that Democrats are not effectively addressing the needs of working people. They're not doing a good job of communicating "that we understand why they're frustrated."

We're not there on the ground communicating not only the policy aspects of this, but that we care about these communities, that we're bleeding for these communities. . . . It means caring about local races, state boards or school boards and city councils and state legislative races, and not thinking that somehow a great set of progressive policies, that we present to the New York Times editorial board, will win the day.

I've been attempting to make this point here now for nearly two years but never managed to say it half as well as President Obama.

                                       

December 9, 2016--Donad Trump As Lady Gaga

I never reprint entire articles but am making an exception today because Wall Street Journal Wonder Land columnist Dan Henninger wrote something the other day, "Donald Trump as Lady Gaga," that captures an essential part of Donald Trump's appeal--something I have been attempting to write about for more than a year-and-a-half in part to resist that appeal and even to counteract it.

Since Henninger does this so much better than I, I could not resist passing his column along in its entirety  Especially note the sentence I set in italics.

It is 12:13 a.m. and the president-elect of the United States, who has just named retired Marine Gen. James Mattis as his Secretary of Defense, is watching “Saturday Night Live.” Alec Baldwin is impersonating him. The president-elect tweets:

“Just tried watching Saturday Night Live - unwatchable!

Totally biased, not funny and the Baldwin impersonation just can’t get any worse. Sad.”

Twenty minutes later, from the SNL set, Alec Baldwin tweets he’ll stop if the president-elect will release his tax returns.

How is it possible that a man who selects Jim Mattis for Defense on Thursday can be in a tweet smackdown with Alec Baldwin Sunday morning?

The answer is coming into view. Donald Trump is Lady Gaga.

He is a performance artist.

He is challenging what we think is normal—first for a presidential campaign and now for the presidency.

He’s Andy Warhol silk-screening nine Jackie Kennedys. You can’t do that. Oh yes he can. Currently Donald Trump is silk-screening American corporations: Ford, Carrier, Rexnord,

Andy Warhol called his studio The Factory. Reince Priebus, Kellyanne Conway and Steve Bannon are now in Donald Trump’s Factory. Like everyone else, they’ve got to figure out what’s coming next.

Lady Gaga once talked about the doubters in an interview: “They would say, ‘This is too racy, too dance-oriented, too underground. It’s not marketable.’ And I would say, ‘My name is Lady Gaga, I’ve been on the music scene for years, and I’m telling you, this is what’s next.’ And look . . . I was right.”

Who does that sound like?

In “The Art of the Deal,” Donald Trump described what he was up to: “I play to people’s fantasies.”

Anti-Trumpers will say: Precisely. We can’t have a performance artist as president of the United States.

That’s irrelevant now.

In four years it may be possible to say that making a performance artist president was a mistake. But that will only be true if he fails. If the Trump method succeeds, even reasonably so, it will be important to understand his art from the start.

So far, the media and the comedians are stuck in pre-Trump consciousness. You’d think the comedians would get it, but getting laughs from left-wing audiences has taken a toll.

Consider two Trump tweet performances:

Jill Stein commences her preposterous recounts and the press analyzes the threat to the Trump electoral-college victory.

Suddenly, the president-elect tweets that “millions” voted illegally for Hillary. The press pivots from Jill Stein to prove, across several days, that the Trump claim is “bogus.”

Like any smart performance artist, he’s made the strait-laced audience part of his act.

One day later, @realDonald Trump tweets: “Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!”

Now he’s the Queen of Hearts. Off with their heads! And like terriers chasing another tossed ball, the media ran down every case on the subject to prove, “court rulings forbid it.”

That is true. The courts forbid it. But if it is important to comprehend a president’s mind and intentions, it will be pointless if the media does nothing more the next four years than consider its job done if it microscopically fact-checks and flyspecks everything Donald Trump tweets.

Donald Trump treats the truth as only one of several props he’s willing to use to achieve an effect. Truth sits on his workbench alongside hyperbole, sentimentality, bluster and just kidding. Use as needed.

Another important distinction: Performers merely entertain. Performance artists challenge, subvert and alter. They may be slightly crazy, but they’re crazy serious, though usually a little unclear about where they’re going.

Donald Trump’s voters believed the country was going in the wrong direction—the most powerful metric in the election. They thought he was the one person who shared their sense of wrong direction. These voters wanted to move from point A (Obama) to point B (post-Obama), and they were willing to see the facts bent if indeed they could arrive at point B, such as an improvement in their economic well-being or escape from the politically correct alt-left.

Treating the presidency as political performance art has multiple liabilities. An initially exciting performance can turn tedious. I’ve talked to Trumpians, die-hards from day one, who think the tweets worked in the campaign but not for the Oval Office. An overworked exclamation point loses its meaning!

Will Donald Trump, like Madonna, be driven to ever more outrageous public performances (“Cancel order!”) to keep the world’s attention trained on his persona? From Beijing to Washington, he’s got the world’s attention.

Some of America’s most charismatic presidents were also public performance artists who challenged and overturned status quos: Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan. All of them knew that a successful American presidency would be measured by a totality greater than their public performances.