Trump Taking a Cue from an Ex-President

At the Wednesday night televised town hall, Donald Trump was nothing if not Donald Trump. And

When asked who he thought would win the current war, he told his interviewer, CNN anchor Kaitlan Collins, “I want everybody to stop dying. They’re dying. Russians and Ukrainians. I want them to stop dying. And I’ll have that done in 24 hours.”

When asked how he would stop the war in 24 hours he said “I’ll meet with Putin, I’ll meet with Zelensky, they both have strengths and they both have weaknesses and in 24 hours it will be done.”

Pressing him, Collins asked repeatedly, “But you won’t say you want Ukraine to win this war?” Trump ignored the question, saying “I want Europe to put up more money" ...

When asked whether he supported sending more weapons and aid to Ukraine (Washington has already allocated over $113 billion, and of that, has now sent nearly $37 billion in weapons as of this week) “We’re giving away so much equipment, we don’t have ammunition for ourselves right now,” he said. “We don’t have ammunition for ourselves we’re giving away so much.”

Having seen the ex-President give an unsurprising thumbs-up to Vladimir Putin, a couple of Republicans would have none of it. It was a rare show of  lack of cowardice among Republicans as

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called former President Donald Trump a “coward” and a “puppet of Putin” for refusing to say that Ukraine should win in its war against Russia....

“I think he's a coward and I think he's a puppet of Putin,” Christie, a Republican weighing a presidential run, told radio host Hugh Hewitt. “I don't know why, to tell you the truth, but I can't figure it out, there's no other conclusion to come to."

In a phrase I've never uttered and may never do again- credit Chris Christie. Also, declared presidential candidate Asa Hutchinson, who decried Trump's remarks about Ukraine and Russia. Vying for the Profiles in Cowardice trophy, Nikki Haley, who has posed as the neocon's neocon, has as of this moment said nothing.

Understandably, none of the GOP presidential candidates directly addressed the most clever and least intriguing comment about the  war. Trump remarked "I’ll meet with Putin, I’ll meet with Zelensky, they both have strengths and they both have weaknesses and in 24 hours it will be done.”

Fifty-five years later, we heard much the same in that 

As more and more of the Nixon tapes are brought to light - underscoring what a suspicious, vengeful, plotting turn of mind the man possessed - I'm reminded of presidential candidate Richard Nixon's "secret plan" to get the United States out of the Vietnam War if elected in 1968.

It was at a private session with a half-dozen surprised and skeptical editors in the spring of his campaign that Nixon unveiled his get-out-of-the-war plan. Among these Midwest editors were those who had watched Mr. Nixon closely during the cold-war years. They viewed him as a basically hard-line communist-hater who, as president, could be counted on to take a "you can't trust the communists" line.

They could hardly believe their ears, therefore, when Nixon said that, upon becoming president, he would (1) arrange a summit meeting with the Soviet leaders to gain their help in ending the Vietnam War, and (2) seek to "de-Americanize" the Vietnam conflict. About the latter, an editor told me that Nixon clearly was indicating he had a plan to phase out US troop involvement in the war.

We know now, of course, that there never was a summit with the Soviets. Nor was any plan to "de-Americanize" the war a visible part of Nixon's approach to that conflict after he became president.

Indeed, in speeches and statements, Nixon continued to give the "hawks" in this country reason to believe he would carry on the war - perhaps even, as they hoped, stepping up our involvement. Not surprisingly, they fully backed him.

And yet here was Nixon, appearing to share with these Midwest editors a plan to get out of the war. I later heard that he continued to talk along this same line in "background" sessions with other liberal-minded editors during the months before the election. Behind the scenes, he was reaching out to the "doves."

My memory of this was jogged recently at a Monitor lunch, where Nixon's defense adviser in the '68 campaign, Melvin Laird, said flatly of a Nixon pre-election intention to gradually pull US troops out of the war: "He had no such plan."

Mr. Laird, who was chairman of the House Armed Services Committee back then and later was Nixon's secretary of defense, told us that the only Vietnam phase-down plan he knew about was one that was "being developed in the Pentagon." He said Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey heard about it and rejected the idea. "I think that Humphrey would have won if he had accepted and run with that plan," Laird said.

So what was Nixon up to with these "private" end-the-war disclosures? I think he was merely seeking to mute or tone down criticism of his candidacy among dovish-minded editors. And it was from these "off the record" briefings that a story began to circulate among those who wanted the US out of the war: that Nixon had a "secret plan" to bring the boys home. He doubtless was able to win some dove votes from those who felt Humphrey had been too closely tied to President Johnson's acceleration of the war.

The "secret plan" story got around and was a factor in the election. But it simply wasn't true. Nixon had been "playing a little politics." It was a good example of the devious, crafty Nixon at his best - or, more aptly, at his worst.

Richard Nixon, the tough-guy anti-Communist essentially promised "peace in our time" and was elected President in 1968, Yet, on his way to re-election, he increased the bombing of North Vietnam, increased American troop levels and was re-elected in 1972. Eventually, troop levels were wound down and a surrender was finally negotiated by the Administration- by America- in March of 1973. In a tragic, preventable, failure of the media and the political class, the end of the war was not portrayed as the national defeat it was.

Nixon had no plan but Donald Trump, also promising to end a war quickly, does. Similarly devious and crafty (albeit cruder), the ex- President claims "in 24 hours it will be done." It is his own "secret plan" because "within 24 hours," he asserted, "that war will be settled. It'll be over."

It probably wouldn't be over in only 24 hours. The Ukrainians will go on fighting, unsuccessfully, because it's their country and they're not going to give it up without doing all they can to stop the Russian advance.. But it will eventually be over with a Russian victory because as Trump subtly implies, he will be telling  Volodymyr Zelenskyy that we're done and- at best- giving him no further assistance.

It's a page from the Nixon playbook, though more than a half century later, updated for the 21st century. Promise an end to foreign entanglement without offering details.  Like Muhammad Ali's rope-a-dope, a non-plan plan is difficult to attack. It worked once and Donald Trump is betting that it will again.

 

Share |

GOP Con Job Continues

Nancy Mace was first elected to the House of Representatives in November, 2020. Two months later, she voted against the impeachment of Donald Trump for his role in the attempted coup of January 6, 2021. Now: 

“Look, if a former president can be investigated, so too can a current president.”

— Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) claims there are “potential multiple smoking guns” in the investigation into Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings. pic.twitter.com/o4YmEgFOU1

— The Recount (@therecount) May 9, 2023

When during July, 2019 he testified before Congress

former special counsel Robert Mueller noted that part of his decision to refrain from considering an indictment of President Donald Trump was attributed to a long-standing Justice Department policy: According to the agency’s Office of Legal Counsel, a sitting president cannot be charged with a federal crime.

“We, at the outset, determined that, when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a sitting president cannot be indicted,” he said.

The OLC policy itself is relatively straightforward: Most recently reevaluated in 2000, it argues that the executive branch would be incapacitated by a criminal prosecution:

The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions.

That was, and remains, in terms Joe Biden would understand, malarkey. There was no constitutional or statutory impediment to prosecuting a sitting President for a criminal offense. Mueller chose not to state explicitly that President Trump had appeared to have committed a crime because he was a Marine who didn't want to create additional controversy.  However, he did state that the President could be charged with obstruction of justice once he left the office. 

Moreover, as The Hill reported at the time, "hundreds of former federal prosecutors and DOJ officials have signed on to a letter saying that they believe Trump would have been charged with a crime were it not for the guidance" of a policy memorandum from the Department of Justice."  (It shouldn't have stopped prosecution, but it did.)

This is not a hard-and-fast rule. Nevertheless, it was one which a Justice Department in a Democratic Administration followed when it investigated a Republican president. Nonetheless, Nancy Mace wants us to believe that the reason Donald Trump wasn't charged was not because he was a sitting President but because there was little reason to believe he had committed a crime. The Biden Justice Department gave President Trump a break, and now a fairly prominent Republican is trying to gaslight the public in return.

Today, someone who was fine with an American citizen trying to overthrow the federal government is telling the DOJ "to get off their ass.

“The DOG — DOJ — needs to get off its ass … If these allegations — any of these allegations — are proven true, then someone with the last name Biden needs to be charged, prosecuted, and maybe spend a little time in prison.”

— Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) on Biden family probe pic.twitter.com/s2oDt0eXpr

— The Recount (@therecount) May 10, 2023

Representative Mace wants Joe Biden undermined and Donald Trump, the probable 2024 GOP presidential nominee, elected President/ She is never lumped in with bomb-throwing colleagues such as Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, or Paul Gosar. She is among those Republicans considered by the center-left media to be a "moderate" and "normal," demonstrating once again that such an animal is now virtually extinct.

 

Share |

For Mental Health Except When They're Not

I was not even a teenager when the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham, Alabama was bombed in September of 1963, although I do know that the thoughts and prayers of fellow congregants did not stop a crime which killed four young girls. 

The thoughts and prayers of fellow Christian congregants did not stop a crime which killed four young girls at the 16th Street Baptist Church in September of 1963. I was not even a teenager at the time and do not recall what the public sentiment was in response but, whatever it was, Sherilynn Ifill has a valid point:

We are reaching an inflection point, which is when they try to wave you away from the fight. She sounds like the white ppl who said stop marching after the Birmingham Church bombing that killed the 4 girls. “It’s not working.”Trying to make us responsible for their intransigence. https://t.co/HA9SH8dM3H

— Sherrilyn Ifill (@SIfill_) May 7, 2023

Megyn Kelly does not question the wisdom of gun safety legislation, instead throwing up her arms and effectively arguing that opponents of murder throw up their arms in futility. Following last month's school shooting in Nashville, Kelly pulled out the "mental health" diversion. She remarked

There's something wrong with our society and I for one (apparent profanity deleted) am sick of the knee jerk "it's the guns, it's the guns." We have 330 million guns, maybe over 400 million by some accounts, in America. They're not going away. We could do an assault weapons ban tomorrow. They're not going away, alright?

We have to take a serious, honest look at what's wrong with us. And I for one think we need to take a really hard look at, yes, mental illness here and also institutionalization. Institutionalization. We need to make it easier to civilly commit people who are showing signs- red flags- that they may be the next school shooter.

 

It's not only school shooting and Kelly's comments on Sunday came in wake of the murder of eight people at a mall in Allen, Texas. School shooting incidents shock the conscience more than any other but a massacre may be coming to a mall, church, at a place of employment, or anywhere. Anywhere.

There are severe constitutional and budgetary reasons why the institutionalization advocated by Kelly will not take place and is even less likely than modest, incremental gun safety measures. Once upon a time, at tremendous financial cost, common cruelty, and disappointing results, individuals deemed to be mentally ill were institutionalized. After two Supreme Court decisions, in 1975 and 1999, severe restrictions were placed upon placement of individuals into in-patient mental health facilities. Decarceration, or what is commonly referred to as deinstitutionalization, resulted.

 

Without going as far as Kelly, Texas governor Greg Abbott has emphasized the alleged role of mental illness in mass shootings.  After the massacre in Allen, he stated "People want a quick solution. The long-term solution here is to address the mental health issue."

After the mass shooting at Robb elementary School in Uvalde, Texas a year ago, he had argued "We as a state, we as a society need to do a better job with mental health. Anybody who shoots somebody else has a mental health challenge. Period. We as a government need to find a way to target that mental health challenge and to do something about it."

Abbott recently had cut mental health funding in Texas, which already was ranked last in the nation in support of mental health services. Which is to say: the mental health excuse is just that.

Other countries have mentally ill people. None but the USA has more firearms in private hands than there are residents of the country. Megyn Kelly wants us to "take a serious look at us." Most of us have, and realize what is wrong with us is Kelly, Abbott, and the others who are fine with the slaying of men, women, and children.

Share |

Childish in Vermont

If it is always wise to take what politicians say with a grain of salt, it is wise to take whatever Tulsi Gabbard says, especially on Fox News, with a pitcher of the stuff.

A public elementary school just announced it will stop using “boy” & “girl” and instead use "person who produces sperm" & "person who produces eggs.” This seems like a prank, but it’s real. By rejecting the existence of objective truth, they’re conditioning us to accept the truth… pic.twitter.com/5DleRhSZvI

— Tulsi Gabbard 🌺 (@TulsiGabbard) May 6, 2023

Alas, it turns out that Gabbard was not making it up because

On the heels of national backlash, some parents in the Essex-Westford School District let their school board know how they feel about the new sex education policy in one of their schools. And now the governor is weighing in, too.

Tuesday night was the first board meeting since the district announced it is changing how it teaches puberty and reproductive health at Founders Memorial School.

Last month, parents of fifth graders received a letter explaining that educators will now use the phrases “person who produces sperm” or “person who produces eggs” in place of male or female.

The district insists the policy creates a safe and inclusive environment for LGBTQ+ students.

More than a dozen parents spoke at Tuesday’s meeting. The majority agreed with the new policy.

“I am so disappointed in the anger that has erupted in our community over what amounts to space for gender nonconforming students to feel safe and free and express their identity,” said Mary Brodsky, an Essex-Westford parent.

“I am so grateful my boys that go to school here. They are so much more wiser, knowledgeable than I was at their age. I am so grateful of the education they’re getting to understand the breadth and depth of humanity,” said Alexis Dubie, another parent.

Only two speakers raised concerns about the new policy. One said this concept could be confusing for students so young, while another said it discounts biological facts.

It’s not clear if students at other schools in the district-- at A.D. Lawton and the Westford School-- will be using person-first language in their sex ed classes.

Only be advised that the binder which will be available in the main office for review will not be, as Mitt Romney would have put it, "whole binders full of women" but instead "whole binders full of persons who produce eggs." And if a "person who can get pregnant" is asked what the sex of her person before infancy is, she can say "person who produces sperm" or "person who produces eggs." Alternatively, she can use clear language without making a political statement.

Share |

A Racist Lynching, or What We Call Something Before We Know Exactly What Happened

This is an utterly despicable tweet by a member of "The Squad."

He was 30 years old.

Black men deserve to grow old—not be lynched on a Subway because they were having a mental health crisis.

Jordan deserved better. Accountability now. pic.twitter.com/aX5qcryrbx

— Ayanna Pressley (@AyannaPressley) May 4, 2023

Black men certainly deserve to grow old. So do black women, white women, and white men. So do all others, regardless of gender/sex and ethnicity.  (They don't deserve to die violently on a subway nor after eating at Subway, a reference suggesting Ayanna Presley never has ridden on the first).

Reacting to the black lives movement of the second half of 2020, a few whites would express the notion that "All Lives Matter." They were typically derided and mocked as being racist.

The tweet by Pressley, an educated and accomplished individual, may as well have been posted to justify that slogan. Here is a United States congresswoman who could have easily stated "young people deserve to grow old." But, no, when attempting to stoke racial resentment, nothing works quite as efficiently as limiting your wish to "black men." It leaves out a whole lot of people, as it is intended to do.

And of course, the death of Jordan Neely wasn't a lynching, as a member of the United States Congress should know, as she does. A black woman is no more (nor less) justified in using strategically, and dangerous, language  The imagery of a lynching is especially gruesome, however, thus particularly effective at stirring anger. The following were Thomas Shipp and Abram Smith in 1930 in Indiana. I'll say their names. Pressley won't.

Were the congresswoman aware of this post, she might complain that as a black American, she would know more about lynching than I do. It is at that point I'd note that as a white person, I can assure her that there may be no more enduring stereotype of African-Americans than that of a smiling black guy cutting a rug like no one's business. Congratulations to Representative Pressley for reinforcing that puerile image.

Share |

Kamala or Bust For Some

A major problem with conservatives is that so few of them are willing to listen to a dissenting opinion. Though more liberals/progressives will listen to an opinion different from theirs, quite a few of them- us- also refuse to listen to uncomfortable arguments. I suppose it could be years of listening to the likes of Rachel Maddow, Lawrence O'Donnnell, and Joy Ann-Reid, who chat regularly and almost exclusively with those who mirror their own perspective.

Thus, they become enraged at such individuals as Dan Abrams, who regularly engages with folks with views different than his own,  The controversy began when the 9:00 p.m. ET host on NewsNation interviewed Ameshia Cross.

Dan Abrams interrupts @AmeshiaCross, as she's listing VP Harris's recent work, to suggest that it doesn't matter what Harris does if the public "doesn't perceive" her work. He naturally fails to see the irony here. Or the reality Black women face — esp one deemed a threat. https://t.co/oLcnmNdMiI

— Cassandra the Anti-Nihilist (@WriterWarrior) April 28, 2023

Abrams interrupted Cross in the middle of a de facto campaign speech because that is what an actual interviewer does. Cross argued that the Vice President is acting effectively but as Abrams had to explain, a Vice President has no power. Instead, he wanted to focus on the issue he raised, Harris' value to the ticket.

Kamala Harris is no threat to anyone but to President Biden's re-election chances. Though perception is not reality, it has much to do with how individuals vote. Voters perceive Harris as unlikable or are uncomfortable with her, a discomfiting reality for her supporters. Abrams has the crazy idea that Democrats want to win the next presidential election and would act to make that happen. As he recognizes, the latter assumption is debatable, even if he and others are condemned for addressing the topic.

.@DanAbrams says he was "skewered" on social media after he dared to ask whether Vice President Kamala Harris should be on the ticket in 2024 because of her low poll numbers. He's joined by @KrisLKnight to discuss the controversy.

Watch #DanAbramsLive: https://t.co/s8z9kEhRC4 pic.twitter.com/fCRIgJIMtv

— NewsNation (@NewsNation) May 2, 2023

So as a lead-in to Kristal Knight, Abrams explained

Last week on the show, I had the temerity to question, based on Vice President Harris' low poll numbers, whether Democrats and President Biden should consider picking a different vice presidential candidate for 2024. And for posing the question, I've been skewered by many on social media and on my radio show, some accusing me of being a racist. I questioned why it seems few on the left are focusing on this based on President Biden's age and mental acuity. 

Typically, a Vice President wouldn't be a make-or-break issue for a sitting President, unless of course people are concerned that said President may not be able to finish out his term, exactly the case here. A majority of Americans polled say that they think President Biden will not finish a second term, instead believe that Vice President Harris would take over at some point.

A vice president does not do a good or bad job because she has no role under the Constitution other than to cast the deciding vote on the Senate floor when said chamber is deadlocked. And there is no way to determine whether Kamala Harris would be an effective President were an aged Joe Biden to die in office. The only consideration in whether Harris should remain on the ticket is whether she would enhance the prospects of Biden's re-election and, if not, what impact a likely replacement would have.

The inevitable attacks on Dan Abrams as being racist because he merely raised the issue are not only reprehensible but completely invalid. If Kamala Harris were to be dropped from the ticket, her replacement would be someone acceptable to interest group(s) representing the base of the Democratic Party, non-young black women.

It's difficult to determine whether critics of Abrams, or of anyone who dares suggest even the possibility of a vice-presidential nominee other than Harris, fully comprehend the importance of defeating Donald Trump or whomever the GOP presidential nominee is.  Those racemiancs are entitled to their point of view- but they're not entitled to shutting down debate and endangering the re-election of Joe Biden.

Share |

That Elusive Reasonable Republican

Not a President Biden fan but even less a Donald Trump fan, Arnold Schwarzenegger told CNN's Dana Bash on Wednesday

Being a frontrunner of one party and letting them dig this hold deeper and deeper is going to make it easy for the Democrats in the end to win. It's sad to see that they couldn't come up with a new talent with a new face that is a, a reasonable, smart, intelligent person that can lead this country in a Republican way.

                 

"Smart and intelligent," sure. However, one doesn't have to pay attention to the battle between the governor of Florida and Disney to recognize that the leading alternative to Donald Trump, whom Schwarzenegger is convinced would surely lose, is not reasonable. DeSantis is a fanatic in the Trump mold.

Then there is former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, who compared to DeSantis, Trump, Vivek Ramaswamy, and fellow South Carolinian Tim Scott (expected to join the race), is a moderate. No, really, compared to them, Haley is a veritable RINO. But of course:

Meanwhile, Nikki Haley, presidential candidate and former Governor of South Carolina,... shows her support for unbridled gun violence,...by posing with a great big honkin' assault rifle.

"Yay, assault rifles on our streets!" https://t.co/VPYPQiFyQv pic.twitter.com/IXDlKIKkxU

— Roshan Rinaldi (@Roshan_Rinaldi) April 30, 2023

This is par for the course for GOP politicians of the day. Republican U.S. Representative Thomas Massie, as his 2021 Christmas card:

And of course, Lauren Boebert, from her Twiitter account via the Daily Beast, also during the 2021 Christmas season:

From Facebook via USA Today, Representative Andy Ogles of Tennessee, same time period:

There must be something about Christmas that draws out the Republican, the true Christmas spirit, in Republicans. A year later, Marjorie Taylor Greene, now the de facto Assistant Majority Leader in the House of Representatives, would tell (deriding the idea that she was involved in the insurrection) a GOP gathering

Then Jan. 6 happens and next thing you know, I organized the whole thing along with Steve Bannon here. And I will tell you something: If Steve Bannon and I had organized that, we would have won. Not to mention, it would’ve been armed.

So Arnold Schwarzenegger pines for a "reasonable, smart, intelligent" Republican to challenge Donald Trump for the GOP nomination. The message to the former California governor should be: "When you find that reasonable Republican who wants to run- or even not to run- for President, let us know. Take all the time you want."

Share |