Personally, I'd lean a little further south, even below Mongolia, to come up with our "greatest enemy" but your mileage may vary. However, I'll bite
and recall reading in May 2017
President Trump revealed highly classified information to
the Russian foreign minister and ambassador in a White House meeting last week,
according to current and former U.S. officials, who said Trump’s disclosures
jeopardized a critical source of intelligence on the Islamic State.
The information the president relayed had been provided by a
U.S. partner through an intelligence-sharing arrangement considered so
sensitive that details have been withheld from allies and tightly restricted
even within the U.S. government, officials said.
The partner had not given the United States permission to
share the material with Russia, and officials said Trump’s decision to do so
endangers cooperation from an ally that has access to the inner workings of the
Islamic State. After Trump’s meeting, senior White House officials took steps
to contain the damage, placing calls to the CIA and the National Security
Agency.
“This is code-word information,” said a U.S. official
familiar with the matter, using terminology that refers to one of the highest
classification levels used by American spy agencies. Trump “revealed more
information to the Russian ambassador than we have shared with our own allies.”
Were Donald Trump a private citizen, he'd be known by the
word spy. Instead, one of his toadies, this one from Tennessee, suggests that
President Bone Spurs is more patriotic than a Purple Heart recipient who served
in Iraq. It's tempting to say "can
Republicans go even lower?" However, the answer is the same as it would be to "will Republicans go even lower?" Yes.
The title of the autobiography of George Allen, the 1970s
era coach of the Washington Redskins, was "The Future Is Now" because he believed
in winning that season, the future be damned. The following decade, anti-incumbent activists of the left and the
right (at varying times) began warning "we'll remember in November."
Both are at play in the impeachment saga.
Republicans hold a 53-47 advantage in the US Senate,
President Donald Trump is unpopular, and therefore conventional wisdom has it
that there are three possible outcomes in November. Trump may be defeated while the Senate turns
Democratic with 50 Democratic seats (VP as tie-breaker); Trump is defeated and
Republicans, now boasting a fairly strong advantage, remain in the majority in
the upper chamber; Trump is re-elected and the Senate remains in GOP hands.
Nonetheless, there is an unconventional take that is
becoming realistic, if still a fairly long-shot. A CNN/SSRS survey released January 22 shows any of the
six most likely Democratic presidential nominees defeating the incumbent were
the election to be held today. However
The poll included an oversample of those living in 15
battleground states, defined as those where the race between Clinton and Trump
in 2016 was decided by 8 points or fewer. In those states, the poll finds
consistently tight races regardless of the nominees, with Democrats ranging
from 46% to 49% support and Trump from 47% to 50%. In none of the six tested
matchups does either candidate hold a significant advantage.
A presidential election, as we learned painfully and to the
nation's disadvantage, is determined in the Electoral College- and there the
election appears to be a toss-up.
President Trump's acolytes equate him with Jesus Christ. However, it would be more accurate to turn the comparison on its head, in which others pay for the sins of Donald Trump. Never-Trumper
Rick Wilson, who is still a proud conservative Republican, is wrong about most
things, but he's right about this:
1/ I'll summarize this for the slow learners in the Senate one last time.
Your protestations of independence, integrity, and honor will mean nothing to the voters this Fall. Nothing.
You're going to moo and walk into the chute like cattle, terrified of Trump and Mitch.
In other words: while most Americans want witnesses in the
impeachment trial, the GOP Senate, frightened of retaliation by their
party's leader, won't allow it. After
Trump is acquitted, there will be a drip-drip-drip connecting the President to
impeachable crimes which threaten the USA. Republican senators running for
re-election will be stuck with having to defend their vote for a brazen
criminal.
Donald Trump won't necessarily suffer. He has a low ceiling and high floor; bad news
about him or the nation affects him marginally at most. As we move closer to
Election Day, his huge authoritarian-style rallies will only get larger and
more vigorous. For whatever psycho-social reason, including Donald Russia's
nearly incomparable charisma, Trump can get away with what others can't. If GOP
senators think that Teflon will rub off on themselves, they're deluding
themselves.
He'll notice that GOP senators up for re-election are in big
trouble but he'll become increasingly focused on himself. Many Republican
elected officials will have to pay the Donald Trump tax, and if it's them but
not him, because there can be only one Chosen One, anyway.
The impeachment dance playing out now in Washington is
not about guilt or innocence of the President. The fix is in for now. If the President's commission of
impeachable offense(s) hadn't already been established, it was once Adam Schiff
was finished laying out the case. Pursuing removal of the President pertains to doing the right thing-
presenting the facts, putting them on the record, and leaving at least a small
impact on the American people and voting public.
As in the title of Rick Wilson's book: Everything Trump Touches, Dies. Jesus Christ died for the
sins of sinners. There are are
Republican senators who will die (politically) for Donald Trump's abundant sins
and will have only themselves to blame. The future is now because, by denying
witnesses, GOP senators will be able to vote against conviction and thus avoid
The Wrath of Trump. However, we will remember in November, and they'll wish we
had amnesia.
Call it stupid or call it stubborn. But call it something
beginning with "s" (or maybe "i"). Three Politico writers report
Every Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders supporter seems to
have an opinion on their infamous Dec. 2018 meeting.
One side believes Warren's account that Sanders told her a
woman couldn’t beat Donald Trump: “He totally said it! Women are watching,
Bernie." The other is just as convinced she embellished or lied for
political advantage: “We obviously know that it was complete BS."
Interviews with more than two dozen voters at events for
Sanders and Warren last weekend made clear that the hard feelings between the
two progressive icons have extended to their supporters. The situation has
injected a volatile mix of gender politics and alleged sexism into the final
weeks of the campaign, and added another layer of uncertainty to a primary
where any number of outcomes remain possible.
The issue has lingered not because of the media- which did
what it could to gin up the issue initially- but because of supporters of the Vermont senator, as Politico implies.
And it has lingered because of Bernie Sanders, who could have said that Senator Warren misinterpreted his remarks. However, with hand caught in the cookie jar, he instead responded in a manner nearly assuring the controversy would continue.
Bernard made two arguments: 1) Hillary Clinton, a
woman, got more votes than did Donald Trump; and 2) Having encouraged women for
decades to run for public office, why would I possibly have told Warren that
she wouldn't be elected because she is female?
Though Hillary Clinton did get more popular votes than did
Donald Trump, she lost an election virtually everyone thought she would- and
should have- won. And Sanders, with his history of supporting women's causes,
no doubt recognized misogyny as a factor in the defeat. It is realistic to assume that Bernard would have told Warren that gender would
be an obstacle to her election effort because of precisely that recognition- and thus believed that he would have a better shot at beating Trump.
The Politico reporters quote one male Sanders supporter,
presumably approving of Bernard's support of women's rights, maintaining
"I can't imagine him saying it."
But that's exactly why this guy should realize his candidate
made the alleged statement, or something close to it. As someone who does
realize that a woman might not be able to be elected President and clearly
disapproves of this bias, Sanders would have been comfortable making this
argument. By contrast, master misogynist Donald Trump has never said such a thing- and never
would because his approval of this sad state of affairs would be obvious.
One Sanders surrogate, according to Politico, sarcastically
remarked “When I lie on my good friend I always make sure it’s a year after the
fact, and only once they’re hammering me in the polls." Of course, it
could have been because the non-aggression pact between her candidate and Ms.
Warren was broken only a few days earlier, and by the Sanders campaign.
In a Politico article published on January 14, we learned
The controversial
talking points attacking Elizabeth Warren that Bernie Sanders' campaign
deployed were given to teams in at least two early voting states on Friday,
three Sanders campaign officials confirmed.
Volunteers and staffers used the script on Saturday while
canvassing for votes, meaning the talking points were more official than what
Sanders previously suggested after POLITICO reported on the language.
The campaign pulled back the script — which described
Warren's appeal as limited to the highly educated and financially well off —
later on Saturday after the story published. Sanders initially appeared to
blame the controversy on rogue employees.
“We have hundreds of employees. Elizabeth Warren has
hundreds of employees. And people sometimes say things that they shouldn’t,”
Sanders said Sunday in Iowa. His press aides never denied the veracity of the
document.
The script mostly focused on Sanders' ability to beat
President Donald Trump in a general election. But one page included attacks on
the electability of Warren, as well as Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg.
Sanders initially implied the talking points, criticizing
his main rivals, were the product of individuals who "sometimes say things
that they shouldn't." Later, the candidate largely confirmed that, well,
they were going negative as directed.
On January 13, CNN was first to reveal a description of the controversial meeting "based on the
accounts of four people: two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the
encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting."
As the Sanders surrogate charged, the allegation did come a year later- but two days after the negative script was used by Sanders canvassers
in two states. Moreover, it was after Sanders "who, me?" response and
before his campaign admitted "yes, us." (Is that the real meaning of
"not me. us?")
So maybe it wasn't stubbornness or stupidity but mere
ignorance (case in point, below). (Or Sanders actually may believe he said it.) However, now that it is clear that Bernard
Sanders wasn't honest about the meeting, nor in being called out for bending
the truth, it's time for the candidate himself to admit to at least his
supporters that mistakes are sometimes made. He has nearly done so, having now stated that as a 78-year-old, "I think everybody has their own sets of problems." He should go all the way, which evidently will be the only way his supporters can admit the obvious.
Asked a question, most politicians go on and on in order to
avoid answering a question and/or to consume so much time that the interviewer
doesn't have the time (or possibly the patience) to ask a follow-up question.
But sometimes a "yes" or a "no" will
suffice, and even be helpful. In anticipation of the four-hour , four-part
documentary "Hillary" which will air in March on Hulu, Hollywood
Reporter reporter (that's its name; not my fault) Lacey Rose interviewed
Hillary R. Clinton. She asked the former senator and presidential candidate
In the doc, you're brutally honest on Sanders: "He was
in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody
wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It's
all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it." That
assessment still hold?
The response? "Yes, it does."
That was a good answer because it was, respectively: a)
accurate; b) accurate (Jeff Merkley of Oregon); c) no doubt an exaggeration but
probably within the margin of error; d) could be, because he is obviously
cantankerous; and e) largely accurate (see (d)).
It also may be close to meaningless that he has gotten
little done. The Center for EffectivePolicymaking gives each member of Congress a ranking "regarding the bills
that members of Congress sponsor, how far they move through the lawmaking
process, and how important their policy proposals are." Everyone is ranked
as "above expectations," "meets expectations," or
"below expectations." Amy Klobuchar ranked as #1 among all Senate
Democrats (and thus "above"); Elizabeth Warren and Representative
John Delaney as "meets expectations"; and Tulsi Gabbard and Bernard
Sanders as "below expectations."
Without further analysis, this is (though interesting) next
to meaningless. Perhaps Sanders ranks
low because as someone on the far left, his approach may be off-putting to
Republicans, which- depending on circumstances- may not be a bad thing.
Rose then asked the critical, albeit obvious "if he
gets the nomination, will you endorse and campaign for him," wherein
Clinton responded
I'm not going to go there yet. We're still in a very
vigorous primary season. I will say, however, that it's not only him, it's the
culture around him. It's his leadership team. It's his prominent supporters.
It's his online Bernie Bros and their relentless attacks on lots of his competitors,
particularly the women. And I really hope people are paying attention to that
because it should be worrisome that he has permitted this culture — not only
permitted, [he] seems to really be very much supporting it. And I don't think
we want to go down that road again where you campaign by insult and attack and
maybe you try to get some distance from it, but you either don't know what your
campaign and supporters are doing or you're just giving them a wink and you
want them to go after Kamala [Harris] or after Elizabeth [Warren]. I think that
that's a pattern that people should take into account when they make their
decisions.
The explanation is good; the answer is not. She would have been better off responding "yes, I would
endorse him." Or the response could
have been "anybody is better than Trump," which would have the
advantages of being an implied put-down of Sanders and of being true. If then
asked whether she would campaign for Sanders, Clinton might have stated "I
don't know whether he'd request that."
That remark could have been followed by her comments about Bernard's
"prominent supporters" and his "Bernie Bros" (video below for entertainment purposes only).
Nonetheless, under no conditions should she have avoided
stating definitively that she would endorse Sanders. If queried about the superficially evident
contradiction between that assurance and her criticism of the Sanders campaign,
she need only have stated "Donald Trump."
That would be enough for virtually every Democrat and should
be enough for most Americans. It's the easy answer, and the correct one.
We've heard something similar throughout the Democratic
primary campaign and on January 11, 2020 we learned that a Washington Post-Ipsos national poll found
48 percent of Democratic-leaning black voters back Biden as
their choice for president, citing his time as former President Barack Obama’s
vice president among reasons for their support.
Sen. Bernie Sanders came in second with 20 percent of
support and led the field among black voters aged under 35.
In a group which includes four candidates with roughly equal
support among non-blacks, 48% of the black vote for any one- white- candidate
is truly extraordinary.
The most obvious, and probably most dominant, reason is that
Joe Biden served eight years as vice-president (and a very loyal and warm one) to the first black President. And maybe voting for Biden is an affirmation that Obama was a great and successful President.
Consequently, Matt Stoller believes "One possible reason older black voters dislike Warren/Bernie is their
candidacy is an implicit rebuke to Obama."
It's not surprising that Biden doesn't do as well among
young blacks as among those middle-aged and older. That's not only because
Bernard Sanders is particularly popular among young people across-the-board but
also because there has been a continuing effort by Democratic politicians (and to a much lesser extent, pundits) to portray Joe Biden as the pragmatic, safe
choice most likely to deliver a Democratic victory over Trump. The threat posed by this President, which never has
been posed by any president of the USA, is perceived less by youth than by older people, who have more of a frame of reference. And black voters are very likely more terrified of Trump than are others.
Pragmatism- in this case, the "fierce urgency of now" to rid the
nation of the scourge of the evil from Queens/Manhattan- dovetails with the the
presence of more moderate or centrist African-Americans in the south than
elsewhere (video below from 11/19).
Nonetheless, there is a completely unexplored reason that
Biden has done particularly well with blacks. Conventional wisdom has it that
among blacks, Senator Barack Obama overtook Senator Hillary Clinton in the
Democrat primary campaign once Obama demonstrated that he had a viable path to
the nomination. However, there probably is more to it than that because as
reported by Reuters In early 2007
polls show he lags
well behind Democratic rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York among
black voters, the most loyal Democratic voting bloc, and his candidacy has been
greeted cautiously by some veteran black leaders uncertain about his experience
and views.
The wary approach is not surprising given Obama is a
relative newcomer on the national stage and, unlike many established black
leaders, did not build his reputation during the civil-rights struggles of the
1960s, analysts said.
“People don’t know who he is. Outside of Illinois, black
voters and everybody else are asking, ‘Who is this guy?’” said Ron Walters, a
former adviser to civil rights leader Jesse Jackson and head of the
African-American Leadership Institute at the University of Maryland.
“They don’t know his record, they don’t know his background
or where he came from, so they are asking very understandable questions
The key phrases are "relative newcomer,"
"don't know his background or where he came from," and "the most
loyal Democratic voting bloc."
As the first two phrases indicate, Obama was relatively
unknown to most black voters (and a lot of others). As he became better known,
he began to fit like a glove, or as whatever your favorite applicable cliche
is. He no longer was the candidate challenging the establishment Democrat. Joe Biden has been around a long time
and is well known to African-Americans, who probably feel reasonably
comfortable around him.
But the significance of being "the most loyal
Democratic voting bloc" typically is ignored. With fewer members of organized labor than in
decades past and working class voters (whites, but not only) gradually growing
more disaffected with the Democratic Party over the same time period, blacks
constitute the popular base of the Democratic Party.
That prompts a preference- all else being equal for the
candidate who best represents the Establishment of the Democratic Party.
Further, it conveys a special interest in contributing to the victory of the
nominee of the Party in which they have a stake.
A Democratic office-holder since 1969, a vice-president for
eight years, and the leader from the beginning among likely primary voters, Joe
Biden most clearly represents the Democratic establishment. He is
Establishment.
He also is being sold in part as the individual most likely
to win an election against a President deeply unpopular in the black community.
He probably is not, but that case is a difficult one to make until and unless
Joseph R. Biden loses an early primary or caucus, and a caucus might not be
enough.
On December 15, 2019 Joe Biden's physician released "a summary of the medical and surgery history" of the former vice-president.
The summary included quite a bit of detail, including the usual, as well as the
prescription medication he is prescribed for "standard
anticoagulation" and for gastroesophageal reflux, as well as the
over-the-counter medicine for sinus symptoms.
Release of Biden's records may have been motivated by
release of Elizabeth Warren's medical records on December 6, wherein Dr. Beverly Woo described her as being
"in excellent health." Of course, when candidates for political office
release letters from their physician or even full medical records, they are
typically characterized by their doctor as healthy as an ox. However
Woo also disclosed Warren's "only" condition is
hypothyroidism, a common auto-immune condition most often in women.
"She currently takes levothyroxine 0.88 mg per day,
which restores her thyroid hormone level to normal," wrote Woo, who has
been Warren's doctor since 1999.
Warren's Thyroid Stimulating Hormone level, released as part
of her medical records, suggests her hypothyroidism is well controlled. Results
of her blood test and vital signs were within normal limits.
Senator Warren also had received a flu shot. Whatever its
benefit or risk for the general population, that was a wise decision. Were the
Senator to contract the flu, she might be subjected to similar vitriol as faced
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, who contracted pneumonia in September,
2016 and practically declared dead by some political opponents. Like Mrs.
Clinton, Ms. Warren is a woman.
The New York Times conducted an interview of Bernard
Sanders amidst its other interviews of presidential candidates leading to its
endorsement of one on January 19. It could not avoid asking the Vermont senator "Now I’d like to turn to your health for a moment. Do you know when you
plan to release your complete health records to the public?"
We hope to — I want to make sure that it is complete. So we hope to do that, the goal is by the end of the
year. I won’t swear to you.
It may be a few days later, or a week or two later, but we will release them
fully.
So we hope to do that, the goal is by the end of the year.
In an interview otherwise blasted by supporters as biased against Senator
Sanders, the editorial board here conspicuously left the candidate off the
hook. Next up was the puff question "what are you doing to take care of
yourself now?" ("If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you
be?")
Declaring something a "goal," of course, is a
means to avoid responsibility. Millions
of boys and girls in the USA aim one day to become a rich and famous athlete, a
goal probably fewer than 1% of them will attain. My goal is to live to be 100
and healthy until the end. Spoiler alert: ain't gonna happen.
Bernard Sanders is more likely to achieve his goal. And why
shouldn't he? It's to release his medical records by the end of the year, which
is, to those keeping score at home, approximately eight weeks after the
presidential election. By that time, either Sanders will have been elected
President and looking forward to being inaugurated roughly a month later. Or he
will have been defeated in the general election or earlier, in which case few
people outside of the State of Vermont will care about his health.
Given that The New York Times failed to follow up on
Sanders' pledge to release his records (maybe) until after the election, it is
not unnecessary to point out that this is too late. The media must demand full medical records of
all the candidates- and especially of the incumbent, obviously not a well man. If they are not released- as in the case of
Donald Trump- this should be made into a major issue. Because it is.
The New York Times on Sunday will endorse someone for the
Democratic nomination for President. It
has now published its interview of Bernie Sanders, self-described socialist and
by far the preferred candidate of the avowedly socialist publication,
Jacobin.
Responding to the interview by "the famously
establishment-friendly New York Times editorial board," Jacobin asserts
"In this era of resurgent left electoral activity, the conflation of left
and right populism is one of the preferred tactics of the elite political
center."
As it understands, not falling prey to this is B.S., who is
"insistent upon" his "professed intention to use the presidency
to inspire popular mobilizations." Conversely
None of the other Democratic presidential candidates are. In one way or another, they all reliably communicate the message, “Elect me and I’ll take it from there.” Bernie is alone in candidly saying that he will rely on the active participation of the masses to govern....
Bernie’s promise to encourage mass mobilizations is heartening: it means he understands the obstacles to reform he’ll face if he wins. If he does win, expect him to take every opportunity to impress upon ordinary people that they’ve been cast in the leading role.
And it's probably why Bernard Sanders leads Elizabeth Warren
in polls of likely Democratic voters and nationwide. This surely feels good and it flatters those
masses, boosting egos. It makes them feel warm inside.
Nonetheless, among those things the presumably progressive
masses don't understand is that if Senator Sanders is elected, it won't be
exclusively protesters of the left who hit the streets. The right would not be immune to the lure of
the professed intention to use the presidency to inspire popular mobilization,
nor will it be any more than the left be reticent to "tap into a powerful
force outside the state that can bend it in the right direction."
But o.k. It at least sounds exciting and plays to the ego of
those of us on the left. When Barack Obama, senator and candidate for the
Democratic presidential nomination, intoned "We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek," his supporters cheered. It was inspiring and empty rhetoric. The Tea Party, however, took him at his word
and responded.
Yet that is not the major problem with placing faith in the
hope of mass mobilization of the left. Rather, it is that it removes agency and
accountability from (in this case) him: the elected public official. Instead of assuming agency for his actions, a
President Sanders (assuming he's not conning us) would be abdicating the
responsibility that is his as a result of having stood for election, requested
our votes, and given the powers of the job. It would be failing the test
of leadership.
Some 75 years ago, a Missourian became a highly successful
chief executive and commander-in-chief in part because he did not pass the
buck, instead embracing the slogan "the buck stops here." Accurately or otherwise, the presidency is
often referred to as "the most powerful job in the world"- and he or
she is not elected to follow. Democratic presidents should take their cue from
Republican presidents, who treat the office as a way to impose their values and
beliefs effectively upon American government. Do the damn job.
