Racism And More Important Things

You knew it would happen. Having unjustified faith in good sense, I did not.  The Washington Examiner has reported

In just three days, the short video of reporters yelling questions to President Trump about whether he is a racist has become C-SPAN's most-watched clip on YouTube involving the Trump White House.

In the video from Friday, Trump signed a proclamation honoring Martin Luther King Jr., and left the room as reporters demanded to know if he was a racist. That question was prompted by Trump's reported comment that America shouldn't let in people from "shithole" countries.

"Mr. President, will you give an apology for the statement yesterday?" one reporter asked.

"Mr. President, are you a racist?" April Ryan of American Urban Radio Networks asked. "Mr. President, are you a racist?"





Shockingly, the President, already turning away from reporters, refused to answer.  Next up from Ms. Ryan when the opportunity presents itself: "Mr. President, when did you stop beating your wife?" Conversely and constructively, it might be "when will you be releasing the tax returns you promised the American people?"

The question wasn't stupid, worthless, or offensive simply because it was certain that it wouldn't be answered. Some questions need to be asked even if they surely will bring no reply. However, critical is a venue in which ignoring the question makes clear that the respondent is actively avoiding answering. This was not one of those instances.

Admittedly, by getting so many views, it becomes ipso facto a good question by the Law of the Free Market. (Success being its own justification, if it feels good or gets you what you want, do it. )  In a commentary having a lot to do with President Trump and nothing (directly) with April Ryan, Charles Blow explains

I find nothing more useless than debating the existence of racism, particularly when you are surrounded by evidence of its existence. It feels to me like a way to keep you fighting against the water until you drown.

The debates themselves, I believe, render a simple concept impossibly complex, making the very meaning of “racism” frustratingly murky.

So, let’s strip that away here. Let’s be honest and forthright.

Racism is simply the belief that race is an inherent and determining factor in a person’s or a people’s character and capabilities, rendering some inferior and others superior. These beliefs are racial prejudices....

Understanding this, it is not a stretch to understand that Donald Trump’s words and deeds over the course of his life have demonstrated a pattern of expressing racial prejudices that demean people who are black and brown and that play to the racial hostilities of other white people.

Obviously, Donald Trump throughout his life has demonstrated a pattern of racial prejudice which exploits and encourages racial hostilities of other white people.  Given his extensive history of racially biased remarks, including (probably) "laziness is a trait in blacks" and (inarguably) "look at my African-American over here," the burden of proof lies with persons arguing that Trump is not a racist, in the traditional, contemporary, or any other, sense.

Nevertheless, it is less clear that he is a "racist" in the traditional and accurate meaning of the term as defined by Blow (who believes Trump is a racist)- a belief that race is an inherent (emphasis mine) and determining factor in an individual's character and capability. It also is not terribly important. More significant, as Blow understands, is

the extraordinary hypocrisy of elected officials who either remain silent in the wake of Trump’s continued racist outbursts or who obliquely condemn him, only to in short order return to defending and praising him and supporting his agenda.

Recognizing and acknowledging the racial component in the President's actions is more important than proving that Trump is a "racist."  Opposing his extremist agenda and calling out the members of Congress (hello, Senators Flake, Corker, Graham, and others) who obliquely condemn him while supporting his agenda is more valuable.

The media can continue to idolize Senators Flake, Corker, Graham, and others who concede the emperor has no clothes yet simultaneously enable and embolden him. Or it can continue to debate whether Donald J. Trump is a racist and prove he is. Still, both the loyal opposition and the media have a role to play, and shouting "are you a racist" to the President is not a good start.



Share |

Backlash Anger

Rand Paul appeared on Sunday's "Meet the Press" and argued that President Trump couldn't be a racist because

I did about 200 cataract surgeries with a group of surgeons in Haiti and the same in Central America. And when we asked Donald J. Trump as a private citizen to support those trips, he was a large financial backer of both medical mission trips. So I think it's unfair to sort of draw conclusions from a remark that I think wasn’t constructive, is the least we can say.

And I think it's unfair then to sort of all of a sudden paint him, "Oh well, he's a racist," when I know, for a fact, that he cares very deeply about the people in Haiti because he helped finance a trip where we were able to get vision back for 200 people in Haiti.

Obviously, there are many reasons for extremely wealthy people to give to charities which have nothing to do with the color of skin of the people who may be benefitted, and that if Rand Paul or Donald Trump were concerned about charitable giving, they wouldn't have supported the Corporate Tax Scam of  2017. The legislation, The New York Times notes, "roughly doubles the standard tax deduction, to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for couples. A higher standard deduction means fewer taxpayers will itemize their deductions on their tax returns, reducing the incentive to give to charities." (And Paul could have cosponsored Senator Lankford's amendment which would have allowed the deduction for taxpayers who take the new and improved standard deduction.)

But his remarks did illustrate how confused- or mistaken- people are about the reason Trump made his remark- which reportedly he did so repeatedly. Paul argues

I think people jumped a little bit to a conclusion. Let's take the whole scenario and put different words in there and let's say, "We'd rather have people from economically-prosperous countries than economically-deprived countries." Or,   Then it wouldn't have been so controversial.

Of course, it wouldn't have.  But he didn't, and it was no mistake.  Paul adds

In 2013, Lindsey Graham said the exact same thing the president did, but he used the hell-hole. "We can't have everybody coming from every hell-hole on the planet here." And now everybody thinks Lindsey Graham's a great statesman because he's put out this thing about American ideals, and stuff, which was a good statement, but he said almost the identical thing to the president in 2013. 

But- policy implications aside- Trump did not say the same thing, and it was no mistake.

The President used crude and rude language because it painted a more graphic picture than did "hell-hole." He wanted to promote a crappy (pun intended) image of the undeveloped countries because he otherwise would not have gotten the visceral, gut reaction he cravesfrom supporters.  NBC's Hallie Jackson on Friday tweeted 

Two sources tell @GeoffRBennett and me POTUS worked the phones, calling friends/allies to gauge reaction to "sh*thole" fallout. One source familiar describes his mood as "belligerent" at fallout/coverage; another says he wanted insight into how his base might react.

Similarly, on Sunday conservative Christian and Trump critic Erick Erickson tweeted

It’s weird that people in the room don’t remember Trump using that word when Trump himself was calling friends to brag about it afterwards. I spoke to one of those friends. The President thought it would play well with the base.

Trump selected language he knew was descriptive and offensive, notwithstanding what Rand Paul and other Trump supporters- such as GOP TV's Tucker Carlson- may believe. Carlson remarked "an awful lot of immigrants come to this country from other places (that are) dirty, they're corrupt and they're poor, and that's the main reason those immigrants are trying to come here and you would, too, if you lived there."





That's a legitimate argument to make- if it had anything to do with what Trump said in the manner he said it.

It didn't. It didn't, because voters of his base would have barely reacted if the President had calmly stated "We realize that there are more problems in economically-deprived countries, therefore there's a bigger impetus for them to want to come." Neither would it have served his purpose had he remarked "We regret we cannot accomodate the good people from these economically-deprived countries who want to migrate to our own."

But "s_ _ _ hole" countries gives them red meat, especially knowing  that their enemy, the liberal-academic-minority complex, would howl in opposition.

President Trump gets a two-fer. His fans, whose support he'll need after calls for impeachment following release of the special counsel's report, clap and honk their horns in unison. And he further divides the people of the United State of America, a primary tactic since he announced his candidacy, and one which his buddy in the Kremlin surely approves of.

Share |

Very Little- And Meaningless

Asked how "congressional leaders reacting to the president's vulgar comment," Scott Detrow of Morning Edition on classic "liberal media"- acknowledged that President Trump's recent comments about third world nations are not out of character. However, he stated (hat tip to Steve M.) also

So there was broad condemnation. Many Democrats had reactions very similar to what Steny Hoyer, the number-two Democrat in the House said. His quote was that President Trump's comments are racist and a disgrace. They do not reflect our nation's values - many Republicans critical as well. Utah Republican Mia Love, who has Haitian roots, put out a statement saying the president's comments are unkind, divisive, elitist and fly in the face of our nation's values.

Another prime liberal bugaboo, The New York Times, termed critical reactions "extraordinary bipartisan rebukes to a sitting president."

As of when the CNN report hit the transom at 6:29 a.m. (the day after the Times report), the "extraordinary biparisan rebukes" of President Trump included four Republicans of their 291 members of the United States Congress.

Senator Tim Scott, an African-American from South Carolina, called Trump's remarks "disappointing," as if they were an aberration.  Utah senator Orrin Hatch remarked "I look forward to getting a more detailed explanation regarding the President's comments.," suggesting a full explanation might justify the sentiments and language.  Senator James Lankford of Oklahoma, unwilling to acknowledge the report's validity, said "if these comments are accurate they are disappointing."

And Mia Love. Love is a  second generation Haitian-American and Republican representative from Utah. The New York Times gushed she "demanded an apology from the President" and TIME's headline blared "'The President Must Apologize': Haitian-American GOP Rep. Mia love Slams Trump's 'Shithole Countries' Comment."  She had tweeted

Here is my statement on the President’s comments today: pic.twitter.com/EdtsFjc2zL

— Rep. Mia Love (@RepMiaLove) January 11, 2018

Her remarks are worse than weak. They are standard Repub boilerplate, which would have made Ayn Rand- and probably her acolyte, Paul Ryan- proud. They never took a thing from our federal government, she claimed. As a candidate for the US Senate, Elizabeth Warren explained

There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.





Love evidently has parents fortunate enough never to have traveled on interstate highways or other roadways partly funded by the federal government; or to have benefitted from federal aid to education; nor to have experienced the indignity (as she might see it) of Medicare or of a Social Security check.

The Representative from Utah's fourth congressional district has paid it forward by voting to gut health care for millions of Americans with the GOP alternative to the Affordable Care Act and following that up by supporting the GOP's Corporate Tax Scam of 2017.





Most telling, however, is that she has advocated elimination of the estate tax, which applies to 75-80 family-owned farms nationally,  because "I have a lot of rural farmers" who are hurt by the  estate tax.

Mia Love is a fraud, determined to shove money upwards while extolling her own family's virtues. More serious is the naively favorable response of the media to her, Tim Scott, Orrin Hatch, James Lankford, and other Republicans who pander by declaring they are disappointed by Donald Trump's remarks, presumably because they are not  up to the high standard he has set for decency, compassion, and accuracy.

The media will continue to treat similar remarks as criticism of Donald Trump. Nevertheless, it must contrast that sentiment with the practice of GOP members of Congress to vote consistently with the President as they prop him up, give him political victories, a chance to boast of his greatness, and secure public support for dangerous and extremist policies

Share |

The Itch For Oprah

Oprah Winfrey's powerful Golden Globes speech, Politico's Annie Karni realizes, "led to a wistful question, posed by Hillary Clinton fans watching the Oprah 2020 frenzy play out this week: Where the heck was Winfrey in 2016?"

Winfrey was not invisible, for she

had initially raised hopes in Clinton’s camp by telling “Entertainment Tonight,” during a red-carpet interview, that “I’m with her” — a quick-hit endorsement that buoyed spirits at campaign headquarters, especially because the campaign operatives had not helped Winfrey craft it, or planted it....

A month before the election, she had added

 “You don’t have to like her. Do you like this country? Do you like this country? You better get out there and vote. ... Do you like democracy or do you want a demagogue?” 

Karni reports "that comment further deflated the Brooklyn-based Clinton crew," as well as it should have.

By contrast, longtime Clinton confidante Phillip Reines argued “The excitement triggered by celebrities might not be as transferable to a political candidate as it is to a sneaker or hotel chain. Hard to argue that a Kim Kardashian tweet would have flipped the outcome.”

Sorry, but comparing national superstar Oprah Winfrey to Kim Kardashian is like comparing the popular and extraordinarily accomplished Tom Hanks to a pornographic film star.  Kardashian is not a porn performer but she appeals to a certain segment of the electorate while alienating a larger number.  Vox's Constance Grady notes that Janice Peck, author of "The Age of Oprah," recognizes

that Oprah’s ability to connect with her audience is in and of itself political. Part of the secret to her enduring appeal, Peck says, is her ability to keep white women — her biggest demographic — from thinking of her as black. “You have all these white fans who have historically talked about her as if she is a personal friend of theirs, as if she could come into their homes,” Peck said, “which of course she did, on their TV screens.”

Fifty-three percent of white women voted for Donald Trump. That percentage probably would not have dropped dramatically had Winfrey campaigned for Clinton as she did for Senator Obama in 2008 but as Peck notes, “She understands how to connect with audiences and give them what they want at a particular time. She’s always been very smart at figuring at who her audience is and how to resonate with them.”

Supporting Reines' perspective, Karnie argues "even a joint Beyoncé-Jay-Z concert and rally for Clinton in Cleveland in the homestretch of the race didn’t deliver the bellwether state of Ohio to Clinton’s column on election night."

That's accurate, and a huge, seemingly successful, rally in Philadelphia with the Clintons, the Obamas, and Boss Springsteen the night before the election culminated in an unexpected Trump victory in Pennsylvania the following day.

But we didn't know all this at the time, and neither did Winfrey. Conventional  (and nearly unanimous) wisdom held that properly targeted celebrity endorsements- such as by beloved black figures in the city of Cleveland and in the city of Philadelphia (with a gigantic white star)- can only help a Democratic candidate.

Consequently, the question arises: where was Oprah? Karnie points out that longtime Clinton adviser Minyon Moore, who has contact(s) in the Winfrey camp, reasons

Oprah has a brand that is built on a capitalist society. Any time someone like that opens their mouth to support a political candidate, they have something at risk. Most of them do this based on their own value system. I have learned to be grateful, because they have empires of their own.

That was from an apparent admirer. Publicly, Oprah Winfrey was apolitical until she endorsed candidate Obama in September 2006, then again in October 2006 and May 2007, followed by her first campaign appearance with the candidate, in December, 2007.





Following her fellow Chicagoan's acceptance speech at the convention, the new-age television superstar, still an actress, commented "what I saw with Barack Obama was something that was transcendent and I felt transformational for me as a human being and for this country."  One researcher maintains that Winfrey's support of Obama's bid "does appear to have been a decisive, if not a deciding, factor." All in a good cause, at least.

And yet, Oprah's support of the Democrat who was striving to replace Obama and to continue most of his policies was tepid at best.  Largely apathetic pre-Obama and post-Obama, Oprah Winfrey has excited Democrats- including pols- from coast-to-coast. It is thoroughly understandable, given the Party's yearning for a glamorous superstar to replace the business giant in the Oval Office.

Nevertheless, given her apparent centrist bent, disinterest in Democratic races for President and Congress, and complete absence of qualifications for the position, the hankering for Winfrey is borderline reprehensible and threatens the effort to reverse the damage undertaken by the alliance of President Trump and congressional Republicans.




Share |

Thoroughly Unwise

Think before speaking, Congresswoman- or don't speak at all. Politico reports

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi complained Thursday that immigration negotiations are being led by "five white guys" — and was quickly rebuked by her No. 2, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, himself one of those white guys involved in the talks.

“The five white guys I call them, you know," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. "Are they going to open a hamburger stand next or what?” Pelosi said, complaining that minority members of Congress were not involved in deciding the fate of Dreamers.

Pelosi's quip was a reference to the hamburger chain Five Guys and the five white men leading the immigration negotiations. In addition to Hoyer, they include Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas), Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), and White House Chief of Staff John Kelly.





Overrated hamburgers, excellent french fries. But that's off-point.

Fortunately, Democratic whip Steny Hoyer rebuked Pelosi, telling Politico in a statement “That comment is offensive. I am committed to ensuring DREAMers are protected and I will welcome everyone to the table who wants to get this done."

The remark of the "San Francisco Democrat" is not only patently bigoted and patronizing, it is likely to get Democrats running in 2018 in GOP, or swing districts labeled as "Pelosi Democrats."

The statement also was bizarre. The Democratic delegation is meeting under the leadership of.... Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.  Presumably, if someone's skin color should be a qualification for making policy, she ought to be able to facilitate it.

To make matters odder, we learn

“That could’ve been done four months ago. The very idea that this week they’re saying, ‘Oh why don’t we get four white guys and General Kelly to come and do this,’” she continued. The lack of minority involvement only serves to delay a deal, she argued, since it would need sign-off from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and others.

One wonders whether she could be naive or ignorant enough to believe this is a strategic disadvantage. Having a Democratic duo which is strictly (non-hispanic) white while necessitating a sign-off from other groups (the "other" probably being the Congressional Black Caucus) is a strategic advantage.

It goes something like this: "it sounds pretty good to us, guys, but we have to run it by the others and, well, sometimes they're not as reasonable as we are." Someone must step up to explain this routine, yet relatively successful, strategy to the leader of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives.

There is something else which, remarkably, Pelosi doesn't seem to understand.  The narrative- not unfounded- is that the GOP is the nearly all-white, exclusive party while the Democratic Party is significantly more inclusive. Obviously, as pertains to these negotiators, she cannot make this case and therefore, the less said, the better.  When Pelosi refers to the ethnic background of the negotiators, she muddles part of the modern raison d'etre of the Democratic Party and suggests to voters that there is no distinction betweeen the two parties.

Bothsiderism is better left to the mainstream media. Denigrating someone on the basis of inherited characteristics is better left to the leader of the other Party. And Speaker Pelosi, and the Democratic Party, would benefit were she to leave the messaging to someone else.

Share |

The Pendulum Swings Again

The jig is up. Master propagandist Kellyanne Conway won't admit it but gave Chris Cuomo an opportunity to explain it (beginning at approximately 13:00 of the video below) when he interviewed the Counsel to the President on Wednesday night.

Cuomo began "and you had the President walk into that meeting and say "Look, the wall, can be different things in different places. I'm open to- I'll agree to whtever you guys come up with." After Conway  replied "You realize part of it is mountainous," the intense but controlled Cuomo responded

No, no, not what I realize. Do you realize when the President was promising it's going to be a big, new wall all across. I'll build in in a year. People said exactly what you're saying now and he shook his head in definace and said "no, not me, that's these other guys. They're saying they're going to compromise. Not me- big, brand new wall." That's what he said- it's not a metaphor. It doesn't mean a fence, it doesn't mean sensors. It's a wall. 

That's what he said- it's not a metaphor.  It doesn't mean a fence, it doesn't mean sensors. It's a wall. He changed. He changed at the meeting- Republicans say it, Democrats say it.

The unflappable Conway, exposed as the flunky who defends whatever Trump says minute-to-minute, admitted

You know what's changed? That he has said in order to do a deal on DACA it includes a wall it includes an end to chain migration. It includes an end to the visa lottery system and what bothers a lot of folks out there-it seems including you- is that you're going to get the main tool out of the  way if he surprises you and actually does a deal on DACA. ....





Donald Trump's words have changed. He hasn't changed over the course of  the past two-and-a-half years, in the period since the Voice of the Common Man, accompanied by a trophy wife, announced his presidential candidacy at the $1.5 billion, 58-story skyscraper he owns.

He hasn't changed over the past two years, in the period since the then-primary candidate vowed "I will build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall. Mark my words."

Nor has he changed since September 1, 2015, after he first promised to build a great, geat wall on our southern border, and well before othr times he has repeated that. He had met with Hispanic Chamber of Commerce President Javier Palomerez, who stated

The Donald Trump I sat with today was hospitable, he was a gentleman. He listened much more than he spoke. He asked questions.

We continue to disagree, particularly on the wall. We agreed on this notion of mass deportation of 11 million people. And we continued to agree on the fact that we will not use Trump properties.

Hw peobably has not changed since February 2016, when he made to the New York Times editorial board off-the-record remarks which apparently contradicted his public statements, widely speculated to be about immigration.

Donald Trump probably has never believed in a wall. He did not believe in it while speaking to illegal immigration-advocate Palomarez, but does advocate it when speaking to his nativist base. It doesn't matter, because all Trump believes in is himself and his views change upon a whim, depending on whom he is speaking to.

His public position has transitioned in the past couple of days. However, now that his openness to deal with Democrats on immigration has been exposed, the President probably will have contradicted that position by the time this has been posted.

He will reverse course, for a time, because he has no point-of-view at all. He has advocated a "big, beautiful wall," opposed a wall, supported it, and now is open to a deal so he can say he has succeeded where no President ever has. He has evolved, devolved, and evolved again. Intimidated, he will back down in light of criticism from his cultural right, including that from talk-show host Laura Ingraham, who- neither deaf nor blind- on Wednesday night warned

I’m going to wait and see what the final DACA proposal looks like. But if it does not include a wall – a real wall, not a see-through wall, expect a political revolt from the base, which means losing the House and maybe even the Senate. And by the way, [ending] chain migration — absolutely necessary".... He promised them a wall — a big, beautiful wall. And unless it’s built, unless chain migration is ended, I fear, Mr. President, your most ardent supporters will write you off as just another politician who said something you really didn’t mean.




Share |

Reasonably Well-Liked Crackpot

Even with expansion to 280 characters, Twitter has its limits. And so Matthew Yglesias tweets

Liberals need to come to terms with the fact that conservatives on Capitol Hill, in the executive branch, at interest groups, and around the country think this is a good president leading a well-run administration.

Et tu, Matt? He speaks of "liberals" as if he is not among them, which would be news to almost everyone.

O.K., though.: if his thesis is that many people believe Donald Trump is a good president and like him, polls do confirm that Trump remains popular among Republicans.

However, it's less likely these individuals believe their hero is administering a well-run organization than that they just don't care whether he is.  From the moment he came down the escalator and recognized their id with "when Mexico sends its people...  They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists," they knew he was the same guy who on at least 12 occasions had suggested the black President wasn't one of them.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" may never have been so applicable as in describing the one candidate who seemed (and still seems) unafraid to say what they would like to say about the people they hate. Their spouse, their neighbor, and especially their employer may not want to hear it- but one guy is willing to say the things not "politically correct."

Yet that's far different than believing the President runs a well-oiled shop.  Not all of the President's supporters know chapter and verse of Michael Wolff's Fire and Fury. However, Trump himself does not know chapter and verse (or any chapter and verse, it seems) of the Bible but knows other people know it. And so it rings at least partially true to them, even more to members of the Executive Branch- that

The truth was, Ivanka and Jared were as much the chief of staff as Priebus or Bannon, all of them reporting directly to the president. The couple had opted for formal jobs in the West Wing, in part because they knew that influencing Trump required you to be all-in. From phone call to phone call — and his day, beyond organized meetings, was almost entirely phone calls — you could lose him. He could not really converse, not in the sense of sharing information, or of a balanced back-and-forth conversation. He neither particularly listened to what was said to him nor particularly considered what he said in response. He demanded you pay him attention, then decided you were weak for groveling. In a sense, he was like an instinctive, pampered, and hugely successful actor. Everybody was either a lackey who did his bidding or a high-ranking film functionary trying to coax out his performance — without making him angry or petulant.

They're not terribly ignorant, and not stupid at all, but simply unmoved by the chaos of the Administration.  Their political priorities are Trump's political priorities, or so GOP voters believe.  And the interest groups know where their bread is buttered: Trump is their only president, and his failure means the failure of their agenda and, ultimately, Democratic victory at the polls, which they would find rather uncomfortable.

The interest groups have largely accepted the maxim (emphasis mine) of Grover Norquist, who in May of 2012 famously- and not in jest-  quipped

All we have to do is replace Obama. ...  We are not auditioning for fearless leader. We don't need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. ... We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don't need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate. [...]

Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. This is a change for Republicans: the House and Senate doing the work with the president signing bills. His job is to be captain of the team, to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.





Donald Trump has the working digits and obviously will sign whatever Ryan-McConnell put on his desk.  Formally eliminating the Affordable Care Act would have been merely the cherry on the top of an agenda of privatization, deregulation, and tax cuts for corporations.  The popular base has its hateful rhetoric, members of  the Executive Branch have their jobs, and interest groups have what they paid for. As Matthew Yglesias should realize, all the rest, including a "well-run Administration," is quite beside the point.

Share |