Still A Con Man

In the early 2000s, Debbie Mills and her husband paid monthly health insurance premiums of approximately $1200. This year under the Affordable Care Act with its tax credits, premiums for the couple and a son are $115. When Sarah Kliff visited southeastern Kentucky, a heavily pro-Trump section of a state which was heavily pro-Trump on November 8, she found many individuals who

voted for Trump because they were concerned about other issues — and just couldn’t fathom the idea that this new coverage would be taken away from them.

“I guess I thought that, you know, he would not do this, he would not take health insurance away knowing it would affect so many peoples lives,” says Debbie Mills, an Obamacare enrollee who supported Trump. “I mean, what are you to do then if you cannot pay for insurance?”

At least Ms. Mills, whose husband recently was diagnosed with cirrhosis of the liver, now understands that candidate Trump and his party probably were serious when they campaigned to "repeal and replace Obamacare."

Nonetheless, many individuals across the country remain blithely unaware of the Trump-GOP agenda. On Friday, Ivanka Trump tweeted a photograph of the President and his two grandchildren entering Air Force One, and a Twitter war ensued over Trump's vacation time compared to that of his immediate predecessor.

After one Trump critic claimed the incumbent "has run up a bill in his first 4 weeks that matches what the Obamas spent in a year," another man (best guess) responded "I will help pay, at least he salutes the men in uniform assigned to protect him."

Contact that fellow quickly and sell him your ski chalet in Alabama before someone else takes him for all he's worth.  We read in  The American Prospect

Across the country, scores of veterans who have served the nation with honor and distinction are discovering just how much harder it is to get a job thanks to the federal hiring freeze that Trump ordered January 23 as one of his first official acts.

Why is the federal hiring freeze causing such hardship for our military veterans? Simply put, the federal government is the nation’s largest single employer of veterans. Nearly one-third of all federal employees are veterans—about 623,000.

Federal agencies hired 71,000 veterans in fiscal 2015 alone, including 31,000 disabled veterans. The government increased its hiring of veterans from 31 percent to 33 percent between fiscal years 2013 and 2014. Not coincidentally, 2014 was the first year since 2009, when President Obama established a program to increase veterans’ employment, that the federal government hired more workers than it let go.

Simply put, the number one engine getting veterans back to work in the United States is the federal government. When government jobs dry up, so do veterans’ employment leading opportunities.

It was easy for the average, busy voter not to notice during the campaign what Donald Trump promised to do to the federal government. Further, most people are unaware that when the government payroll is cut, they themselves will suffer. It always will be someone else, they figure.

However, even most Trumpists who believe Donald Trump admires, and is crazy proud, of the American serviceman and woman must have heard that in 1997 Donald Trump, asked by Howard Stern about avoiding venereal disease, replied

It's amazing.  I can't even believe it. I've been so lucky in terms of that whole world. ... It is a dangerous world out there.  It's crazy.. It's like Vietnam, sort of like the Vietnam era. .. It is my personal Vietnam. I feel like a great and very brave soldier.







Sick Americans may lose their health insurance and die. But as long as Donald Trump keeps saluting, a lot of people won't notice that he looks down on members of the armed services like he does practically everyone who can't afford the membership fees at Mar-a-Lago.






Share |

Water And Voters Who "Have Had It"

In Washington County, Maryland, which a reporter says Donald Trump "won handily,"

from where James and Jess are sitting he is doing just fine.

“I love Trump,” James Zawatski said. “I give him credit for doing what he said he was going to do; a lot of politicians don’t. I’m 47 and I never voted in my life but I did this year. We needed someone with a set of balls to do what needs to be done. I’m tired of those liberals.”

Perhaps Trump has in fact been doing what he promised, for mlive reports

The White House is proposing to slash Environmental Protection Agency funding that pays for Great Lakes pollution cleanup by 97 percent, according to a budget document obtained by the National Association of Clean Air Agencies.

The potential cuts are part of President Donald Trump's initial 2018 budget proposal, detailed in a U.S. Office of Management and Budget "passback" to the EPA that outlines drastic cuts to an agency Trump has called a "job killer" and promised to reduce to "tidbits" as a candidate.

The proposal would virtually eliminate annual Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) funding, slashing it from $300 million to $10 million among other cuts that would altogether reduce the EPA's total budget by a quarter.

The Guardian found that in a debate a little more than a year ago

“Environmental protection – we waste all of this money,” he said. “We’re going to bring that back to the states. We are going to cut many of the agencies, we will balance our budget and we will be dynamic again.”

The promise was an echo of recent statements from Trump on the EPA. He has said there is “tremendous cutting” to be done because the EPA “aren’t doing their job, they are making it impossible for our country to compete”.

He has also accused the EPA of “going around causing damage as opposed to saving damage”, leading to “a tremendous amounts of money, tremendous fraud, tremendous abuse."

In a tweet presumably inadvertently leaving out "here" between "welcome" and "Michigan," Chris Hayes of "All In" comments "You're welcome Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania voters!"

He shouldn't expect a stampede.   In an interview alternately frustrating, annoying, and revelatory, ardent Trump supporter and CNN contributor Jeffrey Lord, interviewed by Bill Maher, made a couple of interesting points between approximately 1:38 and 2:46 of the clip below.

Lord stated that criticism of Trump supporters has led "many" of them to "look at Donald Trump as somebody who can get out here and dish it right back."  Further, "they think he is standing up for them and they've just had it."







Whatever "it" is, they have "had it," and most will go on believing Trump is dishing it right back at his critics and detractors who, notwithstanding the politically correct Lord, are far numerous and varied than "people in the media and the political world."

Incensed, Charlie Pierce remarks "Making America Great Again? Not by a damn sight. I hope the economically insecure voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania manage to live with this." But the majority of Trump supporters will manage to live with this.  They won't see it as their water which will be despoiled. It will be the water of downstate voters, or of liberals, or of those people in Detroit, Milwaukee, or Erie, the people they believe created the "carnage" their hero rants about.







Share |

Making A Scene

We seem to have a difference of opinion (hat tip to Crooks and Liars).   Van Jones watched President Trump's speech on Tuesday night and concluded

There are a lot of people who have a lot of reason to be frustrated with him, to be fearful of him. But that was one of the most extraordinary moments you have ever seen in American politics, period. And he did something extraordinary. And for people who have been hoping that he would become unifying, hoping that he might find some way to become presidential, they should be happy with that moment. For people who have been hoping that maybe he would remain a divisive cartoon, which he often finds a way to do, they should begin to become a little bit worried tonight, because that thing you just saw him do, if he finds a way to do that over and over again, he's going to be there for eight years. Now, there was a lot that he said in that speech that was counterfactual, that was not right, that I oppose and will oppose. But he did something tonight that you cannot take away from him. He became president of the United States.

Keith Olbermann was not amused, tweeting "You mean if he keeps sending SEALS to their deaths in the planned raids he approved for his glory and then exploited the widow, Van? STFU"

Instead of determining who is right, ask me a more difficult question: Is climate change influenced by human activity? Is the earth round? Is the world older than 9,000 years? Let's ask NBC News, shall we?

Last month's deadly commando raid in Yemen, which cost the lives of a U.S. Navy SEAL and a number of children, has so far yielded no significant intelligence, U.S. officials told NBC News.

Although Pentagon officials have said the raid produced "actionable intelligence," senior officials who spoke to NBC News said they were unaware of any, even as the father of the dead SEAL questioned the premise of the raid in an interview with the Miami Herald published Sunday.,,,

Trump was echoing the remark of Presidential Press Secretary Sean Spicer, who on Monday commented

I can tell him that on behalf of the president, his son died a hero and the information that he was able to help obtain through that raid, as I said before, is going to save American lives.The mission was successful in helping prevent a future attack or attacks on this nation.

Multiple senior officials told NBC News they have not seen evidence to support that claim. 

If there was any downside to the raid- and President Trump will never admit any- it is not only the death of Ryan Owens but that

six other U.S. service members were wounded. And at least 25 civilians were killed, including nine children under the age of 13, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. One of them was the 8-year-old daughter of U.S.-born al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.

A Pentagon official told NBC News today the Pentagon does not dispute these numbers.

A $70 million U.S. aircraft also was destroyed.





There was never any doubt the former star of "The Apprentice" understands political theatre. However, Jones underestimates the intelligence of the American voter, most of whom voted against Trump, if he believes Trump can successfully act his way through the next four years.  Even George W. Bush needed a flak jacket, a war, and same-sex marriage on the Ohio ballot to transform turn his triumphant, choreographed appearance on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln into re-election.

U.S. officials now are claiming the military is pursuing "leads" picked up in the raid, according to CNN. Whether or not those leaks (ones which Donald Trump is not likely to condemn) are accurate, there was an awfully large price to pay.

Part of the cost, less valuable than human lives but still significant, is the wish of the father of Ryan Owens.  Bill Owens, himself a veteran, slammed the raid, about which "almost everything went wrong."  "Don't hide behind my son's death to prevent an investigation," pled Mr. Owens. The President's masterful use of the widow as a prop Tuesday night does not bode well for that humble request.

Mr. Owens had charged "For two years prior, there were no boots on the ground in Yemen – everything was missiles and drones – because there was not a target worth one American life. Now, all of a sudden we had to make this grand display?" When Jones turned down an offer to talk to the President, he noted "I didn't want to make a scene."

President Trump is of a different sort. He made a big display of Yemen in late January and of Mrs. Owens on Tuesday. That makes of Donald Trump a lot of things, but not a President, as Keith Olbermann so tersely informed Van Jones.






Share |

A Compromise That Is Not

Asked Wednesday evening by CNN's Wolf Blitzer about a "pathway to legal status" (6:31 on video below), Republican Senator Jim Lankford of Oklahoma responded "I would never support something that leads to citizenship."






Of course he wouldn't and most Republicans, including President Trump, wouldn't either. It now appears that the reports early Tuesday that the President would propose that evening a sort of legalization of illegal immigrants was- shocking though it was coming from Trump- a lie.  Sara Murray of CNN stated Wednesday

Let's just change gears entirely and talk about the bait and switch that the president pulled when it came to immigration yesterday. He had this meeting with the anchors, he talked about a path to legal status. Basically they fed up things that they thought these anchors would like, that they thought would give them positive press coverage for the next few hours. A senior administration official admitted that it was a misdirection play. And you will note that when the president was actually out there speaking to the American public, he didn't talk about a path to legal status. He talk about reforming the legal immigration system so it's merit-based. That means fewer low-skilled workers, fewer people coming on family ties, more people coming on high-skilled visas. That is still closer to a Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon framework of the world than Gang of Eight, who pushed comprehensive immigration reform.

The biggest problem of immigration is people overstaying their visas, which makes Trump's avoidance of the issue completely understandable. Still, we all owe the President our gratitude for avoiding- at least on Tuesday- a plan which would provide for legal  status for otherwise illegal immigrants.

A Republican Congress, and this Republican President, will never accept a path to citizenship. Whatever the differences between GOP politicos and their popular base on trade and- well, on trade, anyway- there is very little difference on immigration. Both want less immigration. They are very wary of granting social services to illegal immigrants and they are frightened immigrants would get the right to vote. A path to citizenship is a means to benefits and to voting, and they will have none of it.

Lankford told Blitzer "I think there is something very special, very special about American citizenship."  But living among American citizens without citizenship is even more special. It means living as something less than a second-class citizen. It means being exploited at, probably substandard wages, without the opportunity ever to become an American. Tha is a prescription for civil unrest or at least sporadic attacks by individuals who are singled out for not having the opportunity at that "very special" status.

It would be that, and worse. For as Nancy Pelosi remarked, that option would be"not even second-class citizenship because it isn't citizenship, it's just not respoectful, and not worthy of our country."







Share |

State of the Union

Secure in the knowledge that neither Donald Trump nor anyone in the regime reads this blog, I have a suggestion to make to the President and to all future presidents: deliver not one, but two, State of the Union addresses each year.

Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that the President "shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union and recommend to their Consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

This does not limit the President to one State of the Union message, though the media seems to believe otherwise. It billed the speech as the President's "speech to Congress," apparently unaware that it would be a State of the Union message.

Think back to the last time a president's annual speech was widely panned. Then think back again, again, and again. These addresses are  always lauded.

And why shouldn't they be?   Whether a Republican or a Democrat, the President has his own cheering gallery, analogous to the laugh track on old sitcoms. If hundreds of people are out of their seats cheering, you will be silently cheering at home and the best members of the minority Party can do is to sit quietly. Even that they are unable to do when inspiring Americans are pointed out by the President for acclamation, a practice performed marvelously Tuesday evening by the Screen Actors Guild member currently in the Oval Office.

That was most evident in the President's brilliant exploitation of the grief of Carryn Owens, widow of Navy Special Operator,Senior Chief William "Ryan" Owens.   The members of Congress loved it, the media loved it, the public will follow, and little notice will be taken that Mr. Owens was killed in a failed, misguided operation undertaken on behalf of the Saudis, whose nation supplied most of the 9/11/01 hijackers. Applause from the people present was loud and sustained.

Pundits, too, cheer in their own way, with commentary.    The propaganda value can be found not only in a president's use of props, but also in his rhetoric. After beginning his speech by noting Black History Month, President Trump remarked

Recent threats targeting Jewish community centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week's shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all its ugly forms.


 



In an annotated transcript, NPR's National Desk Correspondent and religion guy Tom Gjelten wrote

According to a report in BuzzFeed,Trump allegedly told state attorneys general Tuesday that "Sometimes it's the reverse to make people- or to make others- look bad." Those reported comments were harshly criticized by the Anti-Defamation League and other civil rights groups, but nothing in Trump's speech echoed those suspicions.

I only wish I had beachfront property in Arizona to sell that guy, but he probably long ago scarfed it up for top dollar.   The President did mention the word "Jewish." However, he went on to recommend "condemning hate and evil in all of its very ugly forms."

No, no, not now. This wasn't hate and evil directed against everyone, most groups, or the community at large. It was directed against Jews. There will be times in the next four years which cry out for condemnation of acts directed against blacks, Muslims, immigrants, and possibly other groups.  In this instance, one group has been targeted, and I'm sure Trump's alternative right groupies are quite pleased he did not specify "anti-Semitism" and made it clear he was against "all of its very ugly forms." Let us not forget that huge numbers of conservatives believe they are victimized, and no doubt were comforted by the President including them, by indirection, as potential victims. 

It was a brilliantly crafted statement, one so brilliant that even Michael Moore, appearing in the midnight hour with Chris Matthews on MSNBC, was sucked in.  He believed Trump's remark represented "powerful words against anti-Semitism."   

Furthermore, the shooting mentioned by Trump occurred not in Kansas City, Missouri but in Olathe, Kansas.  However, Kansas City is an actual city inhabited by blacks as well as whites, so if he can implicitly knock an urban area, all the better for his agenda.

But that's the power of a State of the Union addresses.   People get swept up in the enthusiasm and nary a bad word is uttered. If President Trump is wise, he will deliver more of these messages and as a plus, bill them (as last night) as something other than the "State of the Union."  He would be able to get away with anything, even more cleanly than he usually does.



Next Up: the best thing about the speech






Share |

Obama's Calculation Wrong, Though ACA May Yet Survive

There has been a lot of speculation about Donald Trump.  Vox's Brian Resnick points to a Change.Org petition entitled "Mental Health Professionals Declare Trump is Mentally Ill and Must Be Removed." It was started by clinical psychologist John Gartner, who believes the President suffers from narcissism and "serious mental illness."

Trump biographer Michael D'Antonio- who commends the appointment of General Mattis and Lt. General McMaster- nevertheless thinks the President has attention-deficit disorder.   And even psychiatrist Allen Frances, who terms such diagnoses by Gartner and others "bullshit," does not specifically deny that there is something wrong with Trump but argues  "it's only a disorder when it causes extreme distress, suffering, and impairment."

However, speculation about the the Obama Administration's response to the evidence of Russian involvement in the Trump-Clinton race is less sexy, but more responsible, than professionals diagnosing an individual without personal examination.

David Remnick, author of "Trump, Putin, and the New Cold War" in The New Yorker, is unconvinced that Vladimir Putin, determined to destabilize the presidential election because he hated Hillary Clinton, swung the election to Donald Trump in the presence of a poorly-run campaign, the FBI director's actions, and other factors.   Nonetheless, Remnick writes

Remarkably, the Obama Administration learned of the hacking operation only in early summer—nine months after the F.B.I. first contacted the D.N.C. about the intrusion—and then was reluctant to act too strongly, for fear of being seen as partisan. Leaders of the Pentagon, the State Department, and the intelligence agencies met during the summer, but their focus was on how to safeguard state election commissions and electoral systems against a hack on Election Day.

That caution has embittered Clinton’s inner circle. “We understand the bind they were in,” one of Clinton’s senior advisers said. “But what if Barack Obama had gone to the Oval Office, or the East Room of the White House, and said, ‘I’m speaking to you tonight to inform you that the United States is under attack. The Russian government at the highest levels is trying to influence our most precious asset, our democracy, and I’m not going to let it happen.’ A large majority of Americans would have sat up and taken notice. My attitude is that we don’t have the right to lay blame for the results of this election at anybody’s feet, but, to me, it is bewildering—it is baffling—it is hard to make sense of why this was not a five-alarm fire in the White House.”

Remnick's article strongly implies that Secretary of State Kerry during the transition recommended a bipartisan invesigation modelled on the 9/11 commission. However, on the Rachel Maddow Show Tuesday, Remnick suggests (second video below) that Kerry earlier recommended it, in the summer when the Obama Administration was told about the hacking..












Yet, we do know that President Obama in October did consider an independent commission but rejected it because Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, according to "several officials" anonymously quoted by The Daily Beast, "would consider any effort by the White House to challenge the Russians publicly an act of partisan politics."

At that time, as Remnick reminded Maddow, President Obama was of the common belief, which played a role in rejecting any idea of a commission, that Mrs. Clinton would defeat Mr. Trump,

I thought so, also.  Nevertheless, there had to be two other electoral considerations.  There was very little chance Democrats would regain control of the House of Representatives but the odds of the Party retaking control of the Senate that November hovered around 50-50.

As Remnick inferred, by playing it safe and not gambling, Obama (it appeared at the time) was increasing the likelihood the presidential favorite, Hillary Clinton, would prevail.

Yet, the President was reducing the chance of Democrats retaking the U.S. Senate.  McConnell was poised to go on the offensive because, had Obama taken concrete steps to have the relationship between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin investigated, the Majority Leader would have had no choice but to divert attention from the substance of the charges.

Going on the offense at that time would have yielded a Democratic President and very likely a Democratic Senate as voters would have recoiled not only against Donald Trump, but against the Party he represented and which nominated him for the highest office in the land.Mrs. Clinton already was in the lead and the clear favorite, and it is very likely that additional attention paid to the Russia-Trump connection would have yielded a net gain of at least four Democratic Senators, which would have resulted in a Democratic-controlled chamber at 50-50.

We will never know for sure, though, because President Obama made a calculated decision which, at the time, was a rational one for him.   Go public and endanger Clinton's election while enhancing the Democrats' opportunity in the Senate because the odds were against McConnell's attack succeeding. Remain discrete and Clinton probably gets elected while the chamber probably remains in Republican hands.

He chose the latter, and speculation about his motive is safer than that of  Donald Trump's mental condition.

Had Hillary Clinton been elected- with or without a Democratic House or Senate- President Obama's signature achievement would have been prserved.   It appeared clear at the time, although not so much now, that the fellow who labeled the Affordable Care Act "a total disaster" would have signed a bill to "repeal and replace" it.  Whatever the composition of either chamber, however, such a measure passed by Congress would have been vetoed by a President Clinton.

The Affordable Care Act is President Obama's signature achievement, probably his most substantial accomplishment.  Rescission of the ACA, whether (highly unlikely) it would be replaced by a GOP President with something better (very unlikely) or something worse (very likely), would have seriously undermined his legacy.   If an NFL kicker puts the ball through the uprights but his team is called for a penalty, the points are taken off the board. If he missses on the subsequent attempt, the first kick becomes moot. Putting points on the board is rendered meaningless when they are taken off.

Understandably, President Obama played the odds. He still may win, with a Republican President and a Republican congress in apparent confusion or disarray over what to do next about Obamacare, increasingly referred to as the ACA. The country may not fare as well, but it was almost impossible for even the usually prescient Barack Obama to contemplate the election of one Donald J. Trump.






Share |

Religious Terrorism

Frank Luntz, labeled here "America's best-known public opinion guru," helped write the 1994 "Contract with America." If it had been characterized accurately as the Contract on America, it would not have helped bring about the GOP's stunning success in the congressional elections that autumn.

No one understands better that words have huge symbolic avenue than does Luntz- or perhaps former Kentucky governor Steve Beshear.  He and Vox's Sarah Kliff, writes the latter, "talked about the strategic decisions he made to sell Obama care in an area that was staunchly opposed to the law, and what he felt worked and what didn't."

Democrat Beshear decided to establish a state-based exchange, rather than a national-based exchange, and called it the system "Kynect," a takeoff on "Kentucky" and "connection."  However

another reason we named it Kynect is because we wanted to get as far away from the word “Obamacare” as we could.

The president [then President Obama] has about a 30 percent approval rating in Kentucky, so it's not popular politically to have the president front and center on any issue here. The term Obamacare had already been turned into a curse word by the critics of the program.

Polls at that time in Kentucky showed that Obamacare was disapproved of by maybe 60 percent of the people. Kynect was disapproved by only, like, 20 percent. Of course it was the same thing.

But I still remember, we had a big booth at the Kentucky State Fair. And lots of people were coming up and finding out what the program was.

I walked by one day, and one of our folks was explaining to this fellow in bib overalls what this was. And this guy, I heard him say, “Oh, man. This is great. This is a lot better than that Obamacare.”

One can hope there was a similar motive when President Trump's National Security adviser, Lt.Gen. H.R. McMaster

told the staff of the National Security Council on Thursday, in his first “all hands” staff meeting, that the label “radical Islamic terrorism” was not helpful because terrorists are “un-Islamic,” according to people who were in the meeting.

That is a repudiation of the language regularly used by both the president and General McMaster’s predecessor, Michael T. Flynn, who resigned last week after admitting that he had misled Vice President Mike Pence and other officials about a phone call with a Russian diplomat.

It is also a sign that General McMaster, a veteran of the Iraq war known for his sense of history and independent streak, might move the council away from the ideologically charged views of Mr. Flynn, who was also a three-star Army general before retiring.

If this steers the President from the thoughtlessly radical approach he has thus far signaled, American policy toward the region and to Muslim refugees is likely to benefit.

It is also a a more politically correct, less controversial, approach than telling the hard truths.

After Robert Lewis Dear shot and murdered three people at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic,  he told investigators no more baby parts" and, The New York Times reported, "one person who spoke with him extensively about his religious views said Mr. Dear, who is 57, had praised people who attacked abortion providers, saying they were doing 'God's work.'"

Evangelical Christian Dear had committed a terrorist attack, notwithstandint the failure across the political spectrum to acknowledge him as a terrorist or at least as the "alleged terrorist." The Washington Post- without the words "terrorist" or "terrorism"or even the bland "domestic "terrorism"-  noted at the time "Dear recited Bible verses throughout the conversation and said he was 'happy because his actions … ensured that no more abortions would be conducted at the Planned Parenthood facility in Colorado Springs.'”

Dear was no less a terrorist because he represented the fringe of the fringe of his religious group. Identifying as a Christian, he took Christian theology to an extreme, added a helping of right-wing politics and easy access to firearms, and (allegedly) murdered innocent people.

None (or at least, few) dared call it terrorism, which allowed the right to define such violence exclusively in terms of Islam.  That helped Donald Trump become President Trump, where he would list 78 examples of terrorism he claimed to be under-reported, none of which was committed by a Christian. The concept of "terrorism," and its source(s), has been distorted by a political class frightened to examine the role of religious extremism.

And so Bill Maher (somewhat unrelated video from 10/14, below) evidently had it right when one year ago he explained

Then there's his plan to ban all Muslims. Let's get clear on something: I absolutely don't believe that we should ban all Muslims coming into this country. One, we need Muslims in the fight against Islamic terrorism. Two, it's not American....

So no, Donald Trump is not right — but he will win the election if the American people have to choose between his demagoguery and a party that won't even say the words "Islamic terrorism." I think the Democrats could lose on that issue alone, especially if there's another attack.

A National Security Adviser (or a state governor) does not have the luxury of a national political party, which should frame issues advantageously, which the Democratic Party has refused to do. When a  foreign policy advisor, serving a President with a hateful and dangerous agenda, avoids "radical Islamic terrorism," the policy implications are beneficent.  Sometimes the truth is better kept hidden.











Share |