This Blog Is 37% Better Than Any Other.

A former tennis great, probably not a fan of Donald J. Trump:

I can tell you all this for sure- whatever ridiculous propaganda we were fed in then Czechoslovakia, which was mandated by Soviet Union- pales next to the lies being told and repeated by trump and his ilk. I am not kidding…
trump truly trumps the communists. And that’s not easy

— Martina Navratilova (@Martina) January 8, 2019

She maintains also that fewer people believed the propaganda of the Prague regime than that of the Washington, D.C. regime.

That's easy to understand because Trump is good.... very, very good.

Answer honestly: if a casual friend told you that Miami Beach yesterday experienced its lowest minimum temperature on record, you might not believe her. If, however, she told you that yesterday it had its lowest ever temperature at 34 degrees, you probably would believe her.

In reality, neither is accurate because the temperature fell only to 60 degrees yesterday in Miami Beach and the lowest ever recorded is 32degrees.

When lying, go big. Lie with statistics because people will be more likely to believe an individual who comes up with statistics to back up his assertions, whereupon he sounds authoritative. So on Sunday the President tweeted

We are working hard at the Border, but we need a WALL! In 2018, 1.7 million pounds of narcotics seized, 17,000 adults arrested with criminal records, and 6000 gang members, including MS-13, apprehended. A big Human Trafficking problem.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 5, 2019

The Washington Post's Phillip Bump notes that the 6,000 figure cited by the Department of Human Services pertained to

gang members (“including MS-13”) apprehended at the border — and removed from the country by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to a Homeland Security spokesman, about 5,000 of those 6,000 gang member arrests/apprehensions happened somewhere besides the southern border. Only 1,019 were apprehended at the southern border, about a fifth of them at designated ports of entry.

The Post's Fact Checker found

In the 11-month period through August 2018, U.S. Customs and Border Protection encountered 16,831 people convicted of crimes in the United States or abroad, but 63 percent of them showed up at ports of entry. That includes airport travelers, not just people “trying to get across the border.”

Another WaPo Fact Checker has observed

The president also simply invents faux facts. He repeatedly said U.S. Steel is building six to eight new steel plants, but that’s not true. He said that as president, Obama gave citizenship to 2,500 Iranians during the nuclear-deal negotiations, but that’s false. Over and over, Trump claimed that the Uzbekistan-born man who in 2017 was accused of killing eight people with a pickup truck in New York brought two dozen relatives to the United States through “chain migration.” The real number is zero.

Approximately 35 years ago, Steve Miller sang "Some people call me the space cowboy, yeah. Some people call me the gangster of love. Some people call me Maurice..." Some people call Donald Trump "crazy," some call him "stupid," some call him "impulsive."  There may be a little of each, but there is a lot of devious.

Share |

Disturbing Reality

Although mainstream media during the presidential campaign often quoted Donald J. Trump condemning immigration, it rarely acknowledged that voters perceived a dramatic difference between the two parties on the issue of ethnicity generally. In a piece carried a few days before being named a New York Times columnist, Slate's Jamelle Bouie quoted two impolite, politically incorrect, honest political scientists who had noted

In 2016, the presidential campaign focused on issues tied to racial, ethnic, and religious identities and attitudes. The two candidates took very different positions on those issues, and voters perceived those differences. People’s attitudes on these issues were then ‘activated’ as decision-making criteria and became even more strongly associated with white voters’ preference for Clinton or Trump.

Voters were aware of this in 2008 (and earlier). However, as Bouie notes, Barack

Obama won a portion of whites with negative views of blacks. The reason has everything to do with the campaigns. Obama didn’t emphasize race or speak explicitly on racial issues. Neither did Mitt Romney. Race mattered, but white racial views—and white identity—weren’t as crucial to the outcome.

Irony, then, rears its ugly head.  Bouie realizes

After embracing the Republican congressional agenda, Trump can’t run on building infrastructure and protecting retirement programs. But he still has racism. And another campaign of racial fear and resentment—against another Democrat trying to shore up their racial justice bona fides—sets up another election where white voters are polarized along their racial views. This doesn’t mean the presidency is out of reach for Democrats—the midterm elections show there are other Americans to mobilize and win—but the “Obama-to-Trump” voters might be gone from the party for good.

One possible implication of all of this is that black candidates may have the strategic advantage in the Democratic primary. Not because they’ll automatically win black voters, but because they won’t have to demonstrate the same social solidarity. Like Obama, they can stay somewhat silent on race, embodying the opposition to the president’s racism rather than vocalizing it and allowing them space to focus on economic messaging without triggering the cycle of polarization that Clinton experienced.

Although this is insightful, and probably reflects reality, a reasonable person can be forgiven for wondering why black Democratic presidential candidates "can stay somewhat silent on race, embodying the opposition to the president's racism rather than vocalizing it...." "White candidates," Bouie understands, "will face the additional task of demonstrating social solidarity—of showing that they understand the problems of racism and discrimination and empathize with the victims."

We can recognize a double standard rather than condoning it.  

News flash: a Democrat cannot run on the national stage circa 2016-2020 without at least rhetorically understanding the problems of racism, discrimination, and victimization of minorities  (video below from Mischief Night, 2015).. There is no Democrat who has advocated building a wall between Mexico and the USA, maintaining "mass incarceration," rolling back any of the gains made by minorities in the country, or even suggested that a police officer who has shot an African-American may have done so unavoidably. None.

The news media bears partial- but not full-blame.  As Bouie notes (with his quote marks), Hillary Clinton emphasized "structural racism" and "implicit bias," met with Black Lives Matter, described "police violence" as a force that "terrorizes communities," and in other ways stressed her "solidarity" (my quote marks) with marginalized groups. The candidate she defeated, Bernie Sanders, now also is expected to prove his racial bona fides.

The media should not give to any candidate based on the inherited characteristic of race a pass on the biggest issue(s) in the last presidential election, as Bouie understands is likely. Doing so constitutes privilege- and it's not "white" privilege.

Share |

Unpredictable Senate

It was only January 3, and we already had a legitimate submission for hypocrisy of the year. This was courtesy, unsurprisingly, of Donald J. Trump, of whom newly-elected US Representative Rashida Tlaib of Michigan told supporters at a Move On rally “We’re going to go in and impeach the motherf***er."

The President responded "I thought her comments were disgraceful. This is a person that I don't know, I assume she's new. I think she dishonored herself and I think she dishonored her family. Using language like that in front of her son and whoever else was there, I thought that was a great dishonor to her and to her family."

Now that Representative Tlaib has dishonored her family, where is Stormy Daniels when we need her? Democrats are unnecessarily, characteristically, alarmed, though Representative "Adam Schitt" remains characteristically calm.

Conventional, nearly universal, wisdom has it that the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives can impeach but that the GOP-controlled Senate will never convict. That rests on the ridiculous assumption that a Senate trial would take place in today's environment, in which 71% of Republican voters believed as of a month ago that the Special Counsel probe is a "witch hunt."

However, it is very unlikely there will be impeachment proceedings before Mueller issues a report- and even then, none unless the findings are damning.  However, if the findings are very serious- as is extremely likely-  there will be a shift in opinion among GOP voters. It may not be dramatic, but wouldn't have to be in order to make a Senate trial sufficiently competitive that a two-thirds majority would be found to throw Donald Trump out of office.

Yet, that assumption in turn rests on one made, from what I can tell, by every politician, pundit, and lawyer who has weighed in on the subject. The presupposition is that once the House has impeached the President, the Senate would take up the matter.

Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution reads "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."  Section 3 states

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Clearly, only the Senate has the power to try individuals who have been impeached. Almost as clearly, the Senate has no obligation to do so; it is granted not the responsibility, but the power.

So it is not certain that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would post the case of the House v. President Donald J. Trump.  If he did bring it, GOP senators would have to to take a stand. At this moment- before release of the Special Counsel's report- that would be hazardous for the few representing states not strongly Republican. It's a risk he might prefer to avoid, similar to his decision, cowardly and irresponsible, to avoid bringing to a vote the House's bill ending the current government shutdown.

However, if Mueller's report establishes a strong likelihood that Trump were aided by a conspiracy involving his campaign and Russia, pressure would mount on even his own party's senators to vote to convict. While the Majority Leader would not like to force them into making a difficult decision which could be hazardous either way they voted, he might have no choice because a majority of the country would be clamoring for removal.

Consequently, a trial in the Senate- were it to take place- would not necessarily result in acquittal, notwithstanding conventional wisdom.  It is also unlikely to take place in the absence of overwhelming evidence which shocks the conscience of the nation, which makes Rashida Tlaib's enthusiasm nearly as unnecessary as the overheated response to it. 

Share |

No Deal

On Thursday we were reminded- aside from cost, ineffectiveness, and nostalgia for the Berlin Wall- there can be no Wall.

There actually are two additional reasons, alluded to in chat with Trump lackey Lindsey Graham and henchman Sean Hannity. The South Carolina senator argued

The compromise is [to] give the president the $5 billion we need for walls [and] border security as a down payment to securing the border. The DACA population is about 700,000. Give them work permits, three-year work permits, so they don’t have to worry about getting deported anytime soon. The TPS people who came here years ago from war-torn areas, hurricanes, and floods, and renew their legal status — no pathway to citizenship — and call it a day. It’s called a compromise.

That's no compromise.  A survey taken ten months ago "found that 76 percent of voters say that those who were eligible for protections under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program should be given a pathway to U.S. citizenship." That's not work permits so they "don't have to worry about getting deported anytime soon," while they worry about being deported in 3-4 years. It's injecting greater uncertainty into a situation in which neither recipients nor the broader American public want uncertainty.

Of course, it would benefit employers, who would be happy to have at-will employees always anxious about their situation and subservient to their employers. It would reinforce a gig economy which already artificially distorts the employer-employee balance and is one of the major driving forces in hollowing out the middle class.

A few moments further into the conversation, Hannity remarked

If this takes 150 days, I think the Republican Party needs to stand united with the president. I have confidence in you. I don’t have confidence in some of your colleagues, but saving lives, stopping drug trafficking, and human trafficking is worth the fight. Will the president hold the line?

This has little to do with saving lives, stopping drug trafficking, or stopping human trafficking. However, if President Trump gets any money for The Wall, he will not only declare himself the "winner." He will claim that he has saved lives and stopped drug trafficking and human trafficking, and perhaps achieved peace for all time.  The sunk cost fallacy will set in- now that we've gotten $5 billion for a wall and it has started going up, what's $10 billion more?

President Trump could tell his supporters: we're not getting a wall but will provide security at the border some other way. He could tell even boast of "the greatest security, ever, really strong borders, better than any other President."

He won't, of course, because he lacks any modicum of courage and needs to give a middle finger to Mexico and Mexicans. It's up to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then, to make good on her assertion "We're not doing a wall. Does anyone have any doubt that we're not doing a wall? So that's that."

Share |

"Our God, Who Art In The White House"

It should be comforting to know that Jerry Falwell Jr. may someday abandon his support for forced-birth and adopt a pro-abortion rights policy. Nevertheless, it's right there in the middle of the interview, published New Year's Day, conducted by Joe Heim of The Washington Post:

(Heim)     Is there anything President Trump could do that would endanger that support from you or other evangelical leaders?

(Falwell)  No.

(Heim)    That’s the shortest answer we’ve had so far.

(Falwell) Only because I know that he only wants what’s best for this country, and I know anything he does, it may not be ideologically “conservative,” but it’s going to be what’s best for this country, and I can’t imagine him doing anything that’s not good for the country.

Helpfully, Falwell dispenses with the usual rationalization of support for President Trump- conservative judges, opposition to abortion, advocacy of "religious freedom" (the right to discriminate based on Christian faith).

In its place, he states "there’s two kingdoms. There’s the earthly kingdom and the heavenly kingdom....A poor person never gave anyone a job. A poor person never gave anybody charity, not of any real volume." Slate's Ruth Graham explains the root of Falwell's belief in this "two kingdoms" theology, and its contrast to the mission statement of Liberty University, founded by father Jerry and now lucratively headed by the son.

But Graham notes also the

textbook piece of circular reasoning: Trump wants what’s best for the country, therefore anything he does is good for the country. There’s something almost sad about seeing this kind of idolatry articulated so clearly. In a kind of backhanded insult to his supporters, Trump himself once said that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” without losing his base. It’s rare to see a prominent supporter essentially admit that this was true.

Idolatry, the worship of idols, may not seem to be the soundest foundation upon which to base a doctrine devoted to worship of God. However, when an individual (such as Falwell) with extremely conservative views pledges his allegiance to whatever a leader advocates though it may not be ideologically "conservative," an idol has been established.

That suggests- nay, assures- that Falwell will perform his Stepford act no matter what President Trump proposes.  If Trump returns to the pro-choice position he held in 1999 and at 9:21 a.m. Eastern time on June 28, 2015, and at 6:30 p.m. on April 1, 2016, Falwell will follow him.

Even though he maintained Trump could never endanger his support, that may seem hard to believe. However, someone who says that President Trump was forced to increase the debt and deficit, the GOP did better in the mid-terms than could be expected, and that it "may be immoral for" (blacks) not to support" Trump would never, ever tell a falsehood.

Share |

On The Other Hand...

"To a great degree," Mitt Romney writes in a Washington Post op-ed published Wednesday,

a presidency shapes the public character of the nation. A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.

The former Michigan governor and incoming United States senator from Utah also comes up big where some other Democrats, such as Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, come up small. In his brief piece, Romney manages to invoke the words "Trump" (twice) and "Trump's (once), an accomplishment worth noting.

In a March, 2016 speech in which he recognized "dishonesty is Donald Trump's trademark," Romney maintained the real estate bamboozler

lacks the temperament to be president. After all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter’s questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity.

Donald Trump says he admires Vladimir Putin, at the same time he has called George W. Bush a liar. That is a twisted example of evil trumping good.

  

Then he went on to say the candidate "compromised our national secrets," the family members having "lived at the intersection of money and politics, trading their political influence to enrich their personal finances."  Moreover, "they embody the term 'crony capitalism'" and "a person so untrustworthy and dishonest as (the candidate) must not become president."

That corrupt, self-dealing candidate who could not be trusted to put the interests of the nation first was, in Mitt Romney's reckoning, Hillary Clinton. With the benefit of hindsight (which shouldn't have been necessary), that is obscene.

Her opponent, now President of the United States of America, has given to Russia classified intelligence about a steadfast American ally and relies for advice in large measure to a son who may have given an enemies list to the Saudis after they butchered a legal US resident. Dedicating the presidency to accumulating financial wealth for the President's family is not only unprecedented, but hitherto unimaginable. (Video below is from 1-2 weeks after the election.)

Now Mitt Romney, in the pages of The Washington Post, implies that Donald Trump has failed to "demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect." Yet, the former presidential candidate maintains

It is not that all of the president’s policies have been misguided. He was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors, to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. These are policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years.

In what must be the most obscure reference (unknown even to the Urban Dictionary) for "caving," Charlie Pierce asks "What do you want in the pool for when he turtles? I'll take March 1st."

Romney states "I look forward to working" on several issues "with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other senators." In Pierce's pool, I'll take January 2.

Share |

Guts Recognizing Guts

The piece in Politico, written by a Massachusetts senator, noted that she she had cast her vote in the Senate Banking Committee in favor of a nominee to serve as the No. 2 individual at the US Federal Reserve. However, her vote was cast "reluctantly because of my growing frustration over the concentration of people with ties to the megabank Citigroup in senior government positions" (as) in recent years, Wall Street institutions have exerted extraordinary influence in Washington’s corridors of power..."

It would be unsurprising for Democratic senators such as Elizabeth Warren to cast doubt upon the preponderance of industry-friendly administrators in the Trump Administration. However, this was April of 2014, and it was the Obama Administration, headed by a president Democratic politicians were loathe to criticize and whom Democrat voters still idolize.

David Sirota linked to the Senator's article while recognizing

Warren offered up one of the harshest critiques of Obama’s administration & the Dem Party Establishment. She decried Wall Street’s “tight grip over the Democratic Party’s economic policymaking apparatus.” That kind of honesty is laudable — and takes guts. https://t.co/5YHc7OrpKl

— David Sirota (@davidsirota) December 31, 2018

Not enough guts, it appears, for some people reacting to Sirota's tweet.  One individual, who will remain nameless to protect the identity of the ridiculous, remarked "fair enough, but where were the guts when she stayed silent during the primary?" When someone suggested "at some point, maybe leave that primary in 2016," the first responded

I'm ready for the 2020 primary,but one shouldn't ignore the 2016 primary. It finally exposed the Democratic Party for what it truly is, i.e., an organization that represents the interests of the economic elite. The real fight is on the left, not between Dems and GOP.

For all its faults, the Democratic Party is not the party actually obeisant to such industries as financial, fossil fuel, and pharmaceutical, and that is no small thing. And Elizabeth Warren, especially, has nothing left to prove on that score.

In the last campaign, there was only one Democratic senator (obviously no Republicans) who endorsed Bernie Sanders' bid for the White House. That was Oregonian Jeff Merkley, a reliable liberal/progressive, most recently a fervent critic of President Trump's immigration policies and himself one of the dozens of prospective 2020 presidential candidates.

Nonetheless, there is distrust of Warren among some 2016 supporters of Bernie Sanders and others because she did not endorse the Vermont senator in his 2016 run. For perspective, let's recall that Washington Post reporters Anne Gearan and Mike DeBonis in November, 2015 wrote

The tableau surrounding Hillary Clinton on Monday was impressive: 13 female Democratic senators endorsing the Democratic 2016 presidential front-runner en masse.

The evening fundraising event on Capitol Hill brought in a chunk of campaign cash ahead of an often difficult fundraising month in December. But it was also meant to underscore Clinton’s near-monopoly among Democratic lawmakers who have declared a preference, and her appeal as the first woman with a strong shot at becoming president.

But one particularly influential female Democratic senator didn’t join her colleagues: Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) — the anti-Wall Street crusader who was courted to run as the darling of very liberal Democrats — has not endorsed Clinton, nor has she promised she will.

Mrs. Warren remained neutral until Mrs. Clinton's nomination was a fait accompli. The event evidently was a big success as it

drew about 1,000 supporters who paid between $250 and $2,700 for a ticket. Clinton also held two other fundraising events in Washington on Monday.

“It would take something extraordinary to get all 13 of us here at one time,” said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). “That something extraordinary is Hillary Clinton.”

Each of the senators appearing Monday night with Clinton has previously indicated at least tentative support for her presidential run. Warren, on the other hand, has stayed studiously neutral while pushing the candidates toward more liberal economic policies.

A senior Democratic aide familiar with the planning for the event did not believe that Warren was invited to participate.

Boxer dismissed the suggestion that Warren’s endorsement holdout might indicate deeper tensions among Democrats. “We have 83 percent of the senators supporting Hillary, and it’s wonderful,” she said Monday.

It was unclear what that figure referred to. Thirty-three of 44 Senate Democrats have officially backed Clinton, or 75 percent, while 93 percent of the 14 Democratic women have.

At that early date, fully three-fourths (75%) of Democratic senators already had endorsed Clinton. Moreover, every single female Democratic senator- except Elizabeth Warren- had done so. Lest we forget, there was enormous eagerness to break the "glass ceiling," to elect as President a woman, especially one named "Clinton," who had been a senator herself and earlier performed a substantive role in her husband's Administration.

But one woman presumably believed that her influence could better be exerted on policy, to extract whatever concessions possible -especially on the economic front- on the eventual nominee. Gearan and DeBonis continue

While Warren has clashed at times with the Obama administration — particularly over appointments to the Treasury Department — her relations with Democratic colleagues on Capitol Hill have generally been positive and respectful. One notable exception was last December, when she criticized Democratic leaders for failing to strip a provision weakening the Dodd-Frank financial regulations from a massive spending bill.

But the fact that Warren has not yet endorsed a presidential candidate has been widely interpreted in Democratic circles as an effort to maintain her influence on the campaign agenda rather than as a snub of Clinton.

The tweet recognizing Warren's courage questioning the Obama Administration's approach to the financial services industry is fairly bold, especially coming from an early and faithful booster of Sanders 2016.  Sirota already had been harshly criticized for drawing attention to Beto O'Rourke's support in the House of Representatives for oil and gas interests and conservative initiatives.

Charismatic Texan O'Rourke is being touted as the brightest, freshest face among Democrats interested in the presidency, reminiscent of the exciting Illinoisan who captured the hearts and emotions of Democratic voters (and ultimately of the party establishment) some ten years ago.

Therefore, there may be a parallel between Sirota's skepticism of O'Rourke and his admiration for Senator Warren having "offered up one of the harshest critiques of Obama’s administration & the Dem Party Establishment." There also is a parallel to Sirota's courage and insight and that of the Massachusetts senator who resisted the pull three years ago to jump aboard the bandwagon of the heavily-favored Hillary Clinton.

Share |