subscribe: Posts | Comments      Facebook      Email Steve

Trump wants to “reach out” Democrats? Hell no!



What does Trump do now that his regime is on life support?

  1. Double down on pandering to the far right
  2. Declare war on the disloyal Freedom Caucus and see what he can do with the Ryan wing of the party
  3. Reach out to Democrats

Pragmatism will determine his answer; this particular President has no moral or ideological scruples or, if he does, is perfectly willing to sell out on them if circumstances mandate. So, from a pragmatic point of view, pandering to the far right is not viable. Trump was never their creature; pragmatism dictated his brief flirtation with them, but the Freedom Caucus is on Trump’s hit list now that they deserted him on healthcare.

Working with the Ryan wing is the natural outcome of breaking with the far right. The problem is that the divisions within the Republican Party between the “moderates” and the “right” are not as clear-cut as they seem. Cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans while spending $1 trillion on infrastructure will certainly find fierce opposition among fiscal hawks from both the moderate and more conservative elements—especially now that Trumpcare is dead. Even relatively minor issues, such as women’s healthcare rights and Planned Parenthood, carry the threat of dividing the party. So it’s not clear moderate Republicans can save Trump from this death spiral.

Which leaves #3: reaching out to Democrats. “Trump Considers Bipartisan Outreach” reads the headline on page one of yesterday’s Wall Street Journal. “The White House…may increase its outreach to Democrats if it can’t get the support of hard-line conservatives.”

It makes sense, I suppose, from the point of view of a Trump administration that’s on the ropes and hopes to survive a while longer. Trump has learned he can’t govern like a dictator but must form alliances. He can’t ally with his far right; his alliance with the moderates is increasingly shaky; why not then go back to his roots (he used to be a Democrat) and make nice with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi?

There are two reasons this won’t work. One: we, the Democratic base, won’t tolerate it. Secondly, neither will congressional Democrats, who are in lockstep with the base. Look, after everything Trump said and did to hurt our former President, Barack Obama—a man all Democrats revere—we can never find it in our hearts to forgive him. Nor can we forgive the party he chose to be part of, the Republicans, for their eager participation in the sliming, slander and slurs, which continued in mounting falsehood against Hillary Clinton during the campaign.

Nor can we forgive Trump or the Republican Party for their unholy war on Truth. Trump has been an insult to the human intellect. He has resorted to the basest, most blatant lies. He has pretended to believe in nonsense for the sole reason of appealing to the worst, more deplorable instincts in American civil society. He thus has offended what Democrats hold most dear: a belief in progressive human intelligence, which alone can solve the problems of modern society.

So, President Trump, if you’re considering “outreach” to us Democrats, fageddaboudit. We don’t want or need your help; you need ours, but you’re not going to get it. Yesterday, I emailed my congressional representatives, in the House and Senate, demanding that they not cooperate with any phony attempt by Trump to cozy up to them. He isn’t serious; he does not wish to see Democratic solutions prevail; he has repeatedly trashed the Democratic Party; he is a cancer on our history. Let him stew in his own juices. He created the mess he now inhabits, enabled by a Republican Party that is beginning to see the magnitude of their mistake. Let him sink, slowly, into the morass of his own making, a sinkhole of incompetence, corruption, nepotism, lies and stupidity. Democrats owe not one damned thing to Trump, or to Republicans. Meanwhile, let the various investigations into Russiagate continue. And let Democratic preparations progress for the 2018 elections.

The Republican’s hillbilly problem



After Trump’s disastrous defeat over the weekend, with more catastrophes for him almost sure to occur, the national conversation now turns to how Democrats can regroup for the 2018 elections and beyond.

One heated topic is “the hillbilly” problem. Hillbillies were traditionally rural inhabitants in eastern and southern U.S. regions of the Ozarks and Appalachians. Nowadays, they can live anywhere. I think of the movie Deliverance—the simple-minded albino kid playing his banjo, and the two psychos who raped Ned Beatty in the woods. Among many Americans, there’s always been a certain looking-down-upon condescension towards hillbillies: they’re white, uneducated, prone to violence, love guns, racist and hate “gummint.”.

One meme surrounding Trump’s election is that he was voted in by just these hillbillies, a fact alluded to by Hillary Clinton’s “basket of deplorables” comment. Ironically, there also is in this country what we might call a “hillbilly pride” movement, in which these people—sometimes also called “rednecks” or “white trash”—self-identify with concepts like rugged individualism, not relying on the government, working hard, religiosity of the Christian variety, various forms of xenophobia and racism, and patriotism. Their music is country music, their politics (to the extent they vote) rightwing. And yet, these proud hillbillies have their own form of condescension: against “city folk” or “coastal elites” whom they deem “liberal” (a disparaging term), arrogant, effete, spoiled, entitled, naive and possibly communistic.

Another meme following the election is that Democrats have to do a better job of reaching out to these hillbillies. According to this analysis, the party, and the Clinton campaign, ignored them in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. As a result, these dispossessed farmers and assembly line workers revolted, voting for Trump in a sharp rebuke of Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party. To hear some tell it, Democrats must now figure out a way to regain the trust of these hillbillies.

I strongly disagree. Had a mere 70,000 votes switched in the three states I just mentioned, Hillary would have won. As it was, she took the popular vote in a landslide: 3,000,000. Had Democrats been better at getting out the vote, especially in key districts, particularly among Blacks, we wouldn’t be having this conversation, because Hillary would be President and Trump would still be groping pussy. As for those 70,000 voters, my considered sense is that they’re beyond civil conversation. They’re so stubborn, so resentful, so low information, you just can’t get through to the rational part of their brains. They don’t analyze issues; they live in their Fox “News” and right wing talk radio bubbles, and don’t even know that the Republican Party is shafting them. (How many hillbillies did Trump ever invite to Mar-a-Lago? He wouldn’t have been caught dead socializing with them.) I used to try to reason with these people. Now, I no longer bother. Why bang your head against the wall?

So for me, 2018 is all about turnout. America has always been a Democratic country; when we actually get people to vote, we win. When we don’t, for whatever reason, the bad guys win. I have no desire whatsoever to “reach out” to the hillbillies and rednecks. I do expect, on the other hand, that those “moderate” Republicans with some education who voted for Trump are watching developments closely and witnessing the debacle of this regime.

You know, on my Facebook feed there are a couple pro-Trump people who put up ridiculous claims about him along the lines of “Promises made, promises kept.” I don’t think they can do that anymore. He promised the Wall would go up and Mexico would pay for it. Lie. He promised he’d ban all Muslims from entering this country. Lie. He promised he’d repeal the Affordable Care Act and replace it with something better. Lie. Now, he’s promising some sort of fantastical tax “reform” by which taxes on billionaires like himself plummet, even as he spends $1 trillion on infrastructure, and we’re supposed to believe it will somehow result in a balanced budget? This is not only a lie, it’s a pathological lie.

The hillbillies will never understand this. They don’t want to, and you can’t make a crazy person sane. For that reason—as the guys on Shark Tank say—“I’m out.” I don’t care about hillbillies. I don’t care about reaching out to them. I care about beating them.

Trumpcare’s defeat was a body blow to the tea party



The problem with Republicans telling us that Obamacase is “broken” and “a disaster” is that they—especially their current leader, Trump—have lied to us so often that there’s no longer any reason to believe them.

Remember The Boy Who Cried Wolf? He lied about a wolf so many times that, when there finally was a wolf, no one took him seriously. At the end, an old man explained to the boy, Nobody believes a liar…even when he is telling the truth!”

Donald Trump has lied with such wanton abandon that, like the little boy who cried wolf, his credibility is shot. Obama was born in Kenya. Obama is a secret Muslim. Obama wiretapped my phone. I had the biggest inaugural crowd in history. Hillary’s plurality was due only to millions of illegal votes. Ted Cruz’s father helped kill JFK.

Most of us have got this guy figured out: He’s a pathological liar. We don’t know why he lies; if he’s playing three-dimensional chess, on drugs, or truly crazy. But that he’s an habitual liar, there can be no doubt.

Obviously, providing healthcare for Americans is expensive. But the premise behind Obamacare was that, in the end, it saves money, by treating people preventively and keeping them from flooding emergency rooms. This is something that makes sense to me; I did a lot of healthcare reporting in the 1990s, and I understand this business pretty well. But you don’t have to be a healthcare reporter to know that it’s cheaper to keep someone from getting sick than to treat them once they are.

It’s also the right thing to do. America is the only developed nation in the world that doesn’t provide universal healthcare. We could do it if we wanted; we’re still the richest country on earth. Democrats want universal healthcare. Republicans vote it down every time—no matter how many people are hurt–and they’ve convinced credulous, low-information voters to agree with them. When you factor in Republican tax cuts for billionaires and military buildups, there’s no money left for anything else—which is how Republicans want it.

Obamacare is not a disaster. It’s insured 24 million people, and is saving money. That’s something President Obama should be very proud of. I’m sure there are efficiencies that can be addressed, but repealing Obamacare is insane, which is why Trumpcare had such a rocky ride yesterday.

Is Trumpcare dead? Who knows? Maybe by Friday morning (when you read this), they’ll come up with a Rube Goldbergian contraption that’s has enough stuff to temporarily unite both sides of the Republican Party. Even if there is an eventual bill that Trump signs, the tens of millions of Americans who lose their benefits are going to make life miserable for Republicans—and hand over the Congress to Democrats next year and the Presidency in 2020.

Republicans found it easy to complain about everything Obama did. Of course, they didn’t have to govern. Now, they do, and they’re finding out you can’t just shoot stuff down, you have to come up with solutions. Solutions require good politicians. Obama was a superb politician. Trump clearly is not, and with his high disapproval ratings and the 17% approval rating of Trumpcare, he has absolutely no leverage over his own party. Republicans are discovering they’ve tied themselves to a loser, and the sooner they cut him off, the sooner they can get down to the business of actually doing business with Democrats. They’re also going to have to get rid of that awful House (so-called) “Freedom Caucus,” a cancer on their party if ever there was one. Can some good come of this? Definitely: the end, once and for all, of the tea party, and a return to a more moderate, sane form of Republicanism.

Wall Street Journal fires the first shot from the right

1 comment


Yesterday’ startling takedown of Trump by the Wall Street Journal may well represent the tipping point so many of us have been waiting for. (Here’s a link to it, but you need a login I.D. to read the whole thing. Here’s a link to an article about it.)

By “the tipping point” I refer to that evolutionary jump in the national consciousness whereby a majority of the American public—including Republican leaders in the Congress—conclude that Donald J. Trump cannot remain as President, and must be stopped or removed.

It would be preferable if he were to voluntarily step down. However, this is almost impossible, given that Trump suffers from some kind of mental illness which does not allow him to admit he made a mistake, a sickness compounded by paranoia, which makes him think that any criticism of him is a personal aggression that must be resisted.

Can those close to him—Ivanka, Melania, Jared, Donald Jr., Eric—persuade him to get out? It’s hard to see how that could happen. Trump has elevated them to undreamed-of power which they must be loath to give up. Besides, there’s no reason to assume that his family are any saner than he is, and plenty of reasons to suspect they’re equally mad.

If he won’t quit, then removal is the only option. How can this be done? There’s been endless speculation about Impeachment, as well as about the 25th amendment (section 4), which provides for the legal removal of the President by Congress if “the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.” But to my reading, invoking the 25th amendment won’t work. Trump is obviously “fit” to discharge his powers and duties, in a technical sense. He may be discharging them egregiously, and in a manner that makes America and the world more dangerous; and he may be a pathological liar; but his underlying “fitness” isn’t in question.

That leaves impeachment. The “I-word” began circulating among liberal groups almost immediately with Trump’s Russian-engineered election. It was crazy talk in November, December, January and February, but here we are, at the end of March, and it doesn’t sound so crazy anymore. I’ve been wondering for months what the “tipping point” would look like and when it would occur. Most thoughtful observers realized that, in order for a tipping point to be reached, Republicans themselves would have to turn against Trump.

Well, now, the Wall Street Journal has sounded the alarm. I’ve been as harsh a critic of the Journal as anyone. I have accused them (and their sister media outfit, Fox News) of being tools of Rupert Murdoch’s right wing obsessions. They are—let there be no mistake. But in order for a tipping point to be reached, a paradigm shift must occur, in this case, something specific to the right wing that is so jarring, so unsettling, so terrifying, that they radically alter their own thinking process and start coming to new conclusions.

That is the importance of yesterday’s lead editorial in the Journal. They’re freaked out by Trump. That it took them this long isn’t surprising; better late than never. But that it should happen now, and in such force, was unpredictable. I suspected the Journal would come around, if for no other reason than that their own editorial staff is in near-open revolt against the coddling of Trump mandated by Murdoch. But I didn’t think it would happen until summer. Instead, March 22 was the date the Wall Street Journal’s fired the first shot.

I suppose it was the “Obama wiretapped me” lie that did it. I don’t much like Republicans, especially the tea party-evangelical type, but I’ve always believed that, underneath the junk they profess to believe, they have a core of decency: the kind of decency that instinctively hates liars and bullies, that feels a protectiveness towards their own country, and that will rally for our democracy when the threat to it becomes dire. Trump convinced them that the threat was from “the other”: liberals, gays, Muslims, women, Mexicans, Hollywood, the media and everyone else he’s insulted. It took an awful lot of energy to make his supporters realize that the real threat is from Trump himself. That’s the paradigm shift; that’s the tipping point. We seem to be inching closer and closer to a final resolution of the problem of this insane President, and if he won’t resign, then impeachment remains the only viable solution.

What can we expect next? I don’t know, but here are some possibilities.

  1. The Wall Street Journal calls for him to step down.
  2. The Senate begins killing his legislation, starting with the healthcare bill and stalling if not killing the Gorsuch nomination.
  3. Foreign leaders, including those of Germany and England, publicly excoriate Trump.
  4. The FBI investigation closes in, and his inner circle begin to quit, get fired, or be indicted.
  5. Vivid proof of the sexual allegations in the dossier is revealed.
  6. His polls continue to plummet.

Any, or all, of these events are quite plausible. To be continued…

So what does Comey get for helping get Trump elected?



We found out yesterday that the FBI has been investigating possible collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign since last July—8 months ago—and we got that from the mouth of the FBI director himself, James Comey. He told the House Intelligence Committee how loathe he is to admit or deny the existence of an investigation but, in this case, due to the intense national interest, he felt compelled to do so.

Fine. But there’s a teeny weeny little problem with Comey’s position: He publicly announced the FBI’s investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server one week before the election, while it was still ongoing, only to be forced, days later, to say, in essence, “Oops, forget it. She didn’t do anything wrong.” By that time, the damage was done. Enough swing voters decided at the last minute not to vote for Hillary—an understandable decision, if they thought she was about to be indicted—and Donald J. Trump won.

So how does Comey square this circle? He claims he never talks about investigations while they’re ongoing—yet he did with Hillary–and then he talks about his Trump investigation, eight months in, but only the most historic duress. Was he under duress a week before Election Day to kill Hillary’s chances? If he was, from whom?

Comey cannot square this circle. This man has painted himself into a corner from which escape is not possible. But let us put ourselves into his head and imagine what he’s thinking.

Comey to self: “Sure, I’ve done something reprehensible. I wanted Trump to win, and I did what I had to, even though it cost me many friends and, probably, my reputation. But so what? I still have my job—Trump wouldn’t dare fire me. And when I leave, in 2023, I’ll be able to name my price. Maybe Goldman Sachs: I’m told they’ll pay me $10 million a year. Let’s see: reputation versus ten mil. What will it be? Hmm, give me a second. Okay, second’s up: Ten mil it is!”

There was much talk during the hearings of how many dots there are leading from Trump and his campaign and associates all the way to the Kremlin. Adam Schiff pointed them out; so did André Duncan, the Democrat from Indiana, with whom I was particularly impressed. The question is if the dots are connected, or just a coincidence. Nobody knows the answer, yet. But I went through Watergate, followed it intensely. Lots of dots there too. Nobody knew how they were connected for a couple of years, until dogged reporting, followed by Congressional hearings and a Special Prosecutor Republicans did not want but could no longer avoid, connected them. As it turned out, they led all the way to the Oval Office—and we know how that ended.

Yesterday’s hearing was very significant. Trump will fight this every inch of the way, using his usual methods of lies, smears and disinformation. His credulous, low-information supporters might even buy it. But I believe that the end game is coming, and it will bring him down, as well as many of his associates. As for Comey’s post-Trump career, let him make his millions. His grandchildren will have to live with the legacy that their grandpa sold his soul to the devil and immeasurably harmed America.

Why Democrats should filibuster the Gorsuch nomination



There’s one huuuge reason: Because Repubs wouldn’t even allow Merrick Garland to have hearings. That was so unfair, so extremist, so partisan, it poisoned the well for Trump’s SCOTUS nominee/s—or should have, in a “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” reckoning.

Democrats seemed slow to get the message, at least in my reading of the situation. They couldn’t stop Gorsuch from having his day before the Senate Judiciary Committee—a courtesy denied Garland. And they won’t be able to outvote the committee’s Republicans, who then will send the vote to the floor for an up-or-down vote of the entire Senate.

But what Democrats can do is filibuster the nomination. The “filibuster,” you’ll recall, is a procedural tactic, applicable only in the U.S. Senate (but not the House of Representatives), by which a Senator, or group of Senators, can delay or prevent a vote from taking place. The only way to break a filibuster is if a super-majority of Senators—sixty, or three-fifths–votes to end it, in a move known as “cloture.”

The filibuster obviously has been, and can again be, used by either party, to obstruct a vote on a nominee it does not care for. This is why some Senators, both Republican and Democrat, have favored eliminating it entirely, since it goes against a central concept of our democracy: the majority rules. In recent years, especially since the Republicans took over the Senate, an alternative concept has arisen: the “nuclear option.” This is where the Senate’s presiding officer—the president pro tempore, in this case, Orrin Hatch—can rule that a simple majority is decisive in judicial nominations, thus ending the sixty-vote requirement, effectively killing the filibuster.

I love the term “nuclear option” because of its metaphoric symbolism: a thermonuclear bomb. Nobody wants an H-bomb to drop on their heads; it is literally the worst thing in the world. Republicans have implicitly warned that if Senate Democrats try to filibuster the Gorsuch nomination, they will invoke the nuclear option. This would result in two outcomes: it would guarantee a vote on Gorsuch (which would probably be favorable) but it also would end the filibuster in the future, when a Democratic President and Senate may make judicial nominations Republicans don’t like.

Democrats have seemed rattled by this possibility. Their thinking, until very recently, seems to have been: “If we have to accept Gorsuch in order to keep the filibuster, let’s do it.” I strongly disagree. For one thing, if both sides lose the filibuster, that would be a fair, even outcome. Neither side could complain it got the worse of the deal. For another, there’s no guarantee that, if Senate Democrats filibuster Gorsuch, McConnell will actually go ahead with the nuclear option. He said recently that the nuclear option “is up to our Democratic friends,” meaning that he’s not going to say in advance that he will or will not invoke it, until Democrats indicate whether or not they will use the filibuster. This thus becomes a game of chicken: both sides are in their souped-up cars, revving the engines; the cliff is 100 yards away. What will happen?

We can’t know, but there’s a third reason for Democrats to filibuster: the symbolism. What has annoyed and pissed off the Democratic base for years has been the appearance of Democratic Congressional leadership’s cravenness and spinelessness when it comes to fighting back against Republicans. The revolt of the left (for lack of a better phrase) is due to this sense among the rank-and-file: Republicans play hard and dirty, Democrats play fair and nice, and Republicans win. This revolt, which we have seen assume the magnificent form of The Resistance, is what my senior Senator here in California, Dianne Feinstein, has been feeling since the inauguration. A moderate centrist, Dianne always has gone along the path of least resistance, voting most of the time for Republican nominees; but in the last few weeks, she has heard from her constituents, loud and clear, that “moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” (Readers: Do you know where that quote comes from?) Dianne is in the process of discovering her inner warrior woman, which she’ll have to do if she wants to run again and be re-elected next year.

A filibuster would be the surest sign yet that Democrats are listening to their base. It would satisfy us that they’re no longer willing to roll over for their Republican colleagues; moreover, such an encouraging sign would come at a time of increasing restiveness among Congressional Republicans, as their President’s mental instabilities are increasingly evident. In fact, should nervous Republicans in the Senate wish to send Trump a message that they’re close to reaching their breaking point with him, a good way to do it would be for McConnell not to invoke the nuclear option. He could argue that it would be bad for Republicans in the future, a viable dodge; and while it would enrage Trump, what could he (Trump) do? He’s alienated nearly every power center in Washington; he needs his Congressional Republicans in order to institute his policies. McConnell, in other words, is holding the high cards.

So, to Democrats in the Senate, I say: Filibuster! Roll the damn dice, do the right thing, and let the chips fall where they may. After the weakness you have shown year after year, you owe this to us, who have remained loyal to the Party.

Comey: “No wiretapping.” Trump must apologize



In today’s hearings before the House Intelligence Committee, FBI director James Comey assured us, “We will follow the facts wherever they lead.”

Why should we believe him? This is the man whose anti-Hillary interference in the recent election resulted in Trump’s victory and, in so doing, Comey may well have violated U.S. law.

The committee’s tea party chairman, Nunes, immediately let the world know how unseriously he takes his own committee’s hearings by asking the most ridiculous, irrelevant question of Comey and Rogers: Is there any evidence that the Russians tinkered with election results in a half-dozen states Trump won? The answer from both of them was an emphatic “No.”

Look, nobody ever suggested Russia physically interfered with voting results in individual states. No one, ever, period, hard-stop. The influence on American voters by the Russians was psychological, not technical: Comey’s announcement, one week before Election Day, that Hillary Clinton was a target of investigation caused enough swing voters to vote for Trump and against her. So, again, this red herring from Nunes was dastardly, and one can only conclude that his mind is made up: he is determined that nothing damaging will be found against the Trump administration, and no matter what anyone says, Chairman Nunes is going to protect his President, his party, and his majority in the Congress.

That is not patriotism; that is not justice; that is not bipartisan. It is a coverup.

Another smokescreen the Republican congressmen, particularly Gowdy, threw up was to focus on the leaks, which they professed outraged them—and, incidentally, to which they ascribed political, personal, “nefarious” motives, rather than high-minded whistleblowing. Of course the Republicans want to shift attention to the leaking, because they want to divert attention away from the content of those leaks. This, too, is shameful. America’s integrity is at stake here: the very soul of our democracy—our electoral integrity–is on the line, and what are Republican worried about? Leaks. (And by the way, Republicans had no problem when Trump urged Putin to leak Hillary’s emails—which he did. A little hypocrisy here.)

But the real action yesterday was Comey and Trump’s lie that Obama wiretapped him. Schiff got the action going, citing Trump’s libelous slander of Obama. “Was the President’s statement true?

Comey: “I have no information that supports those tweets.”

Schiff: “The President accused Obama and the FBI of engaging in McCarthyism. Do you agree?”

Comey: “All I can tell you is we have no information about that.”

Well, that’s it. Comey himself said it out loud, for everyone to hear: “No information that supports those tweets.”

While I watched the hearings I had Trump’s two Twitter pages onscreen. He seems to use @realDonaldTrump more profligately than @POTUS; often, @real refers to events almost immediately upon their occurrence. In this case, Trump’s most recent tweet went up several hours before the hearings began, but they tell us he was already worried. What about all of the contact with the Clinton campaign and the Russians? Also, is it true that the DNC would not let the FBI in to look?”

Interesting how he tried to deflect attention away from Comey’s testimony even before he (Trump) knew what Comey was going to say! Has there been any suggestion whatsoever about Clinton campaign contact with the Russians? None that I’ve heard. Clearly another invention, like “Obama tapped my phones.” And what’s this about the Democratic National Committee? Have you heard anything about that? Me, neither. Another smokescreen.

So, really, this should end it. Comey pounded the last nail into the “Obama tapped Trump Tower” coffin. It didn’t happen—and Trump is going to have to deal with the political fallout and embarrassment of his lie, as well as to apologize for slurring President Obama and lying to the American people. But—to mix metaphors—there are more shoes to drop: Roger Stone, Michael Flynn and Paul Manafort, for starters.

« Previous Entries Next Entries »

Recent Comments

Recent Posts