Month: October 2018

Robert E. Lee

Retired Army General Stanley McChrystal has a new book, called Leaders, Myth and Reality.  He also had some things to say about the President’s plan to send 5000 plus regular US Army troops to the Southern Border. In an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, the General spoke about what the troops could do, mainly support operations like erecting tents and building barricades, and what they couldn’t do; act as the “Border Patrol.”  He made a significant point:  while all of the things the Army could do at the border some other force, the National Guard or even civilian contractors could do as well; sending “TROOPS TO THE BORDER” was the point.  McChrystal did not come out against the President, but he made it clear that the President’s actions were much more symbolic than necessary.

It fits the “caravan invasion” scenario that Mr. Trump has been touting on the campaign trail, just as his threat to repeal birthright citizenship is a political ploy.  The 14^thAmendment to the Constitution in “black letter law” states:  All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

While it’s clear that a few of the President’s advisor would like to quibble about “subject to the jurisdiction,” claiming that illegal immigrants who have children here are in fact not subject to jurisdiction and therefore their offspring do not have the right to citizenship; the Courts immediately claim jurisdiction when those same immigrants cross the border, are found “guilty” and sent to jail.

And of course, if you really want to quibble with wording, than let’s look at the Second Amendment, with the hanging opening clause:  A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If jurisdiction applies to citizenship, then well-regulated militia must apply to bearing arms.  The Court decisions for over one hundred years argue that neither is true.

It’s all about optics and politics.  It is unlikely that the President would try to change the Constitution through Executive order, nor is it likely that he will even bother to pick the fight after November 6^th(though with Trump it’s hard to tell.) Even Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would have a tough time agreeing with him on that.

But it was something that McChrystal said later in the interview that caught my ear.  The General said that for decades he had a portrait of Robert E. Lee in his office, given to him by his wife.  He saw Lee as the kind of leader that America can produce, and the kind that McChrystal wanted to emulate.

Four Star General McChrystal had a storied career, completing Special Forces training and ultimately commanding US Special Operations, but was removed from his last command as Chief of Forces in Afghanistan.  He said “too much” to the press, ridiculing his civilian commanders including Vice President Joe Biden, and President Obama asked for his resignation.  It was a sad way for a great General to leave service, but just as necessary as General MacArthur being removed by President Truman during the Korean War.  The foundation of the American military is civilian control, both MacArthur and McChrystal were reminded of that the hard way.

So McChrystal, a General who made a serious mistake, was an admirer of Robert E. Lee, the storied leader of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. But McChrystal said that he re-evaluated him, after the Charlottesville incident last year, where right-wing Nationalists rioted over the removal of a statue of Lee.

At the beginning of the Civil War, Lee, a career officer in the United States Army and top of his generation, chose to turn down US command and offer his services to the Confederacy.   Our history books have always taught this as “honorable,” choosing to serve Virginia rather than the nation.  But evaluating this decision today, Lee’s actions prolonged the war (by his generalship) and cost hundreds of thousands of lives.  McChrystal saw Lee as committing a tragic mistake, and after Charlottesville took the picture down.

I am a Civil War “buff;” trooping battlefields to imagine the struggle and sacrifice.  And I too saw Lee’s actions in a “neutral” way; making a difficult life choice in a time when all were forced to chose.  But, after listening in General McChrystal, I see a different analysis. Lee, a tremendous strategist and tactician, got the great question of his time wrong.  He chose the past, the “Southern cause;” rather than the future that even his own father’s peers saw for America.  Lee was the next generation from the founding fathers, his father, “Light Horse Harry” Lee was a Revolutionary hero and friend of George Washington.

Those men saw the future of the United States, and while they did not (or could not) end slavery, they compromised to get a nation based on “all men created equal.”  Robert E. Lee, did not see this future; instead he saw a past that he tried to defend. He failed, both in his decision, and his effort to maintain the slave South.

While we can look with sadness and admiration at the great sacrifices the Confederates made in Lee’s honor, we must also see that the greater tragedy was the decision Lee made in the first place.   Like the career of General McChrystal, Lee earned the right to be respected, but must ultimately be judged on failure:  not his failure to win at Gettysburg or the rest, but his failure to see America’s future.  I don’t have any portraits of Lee hanging in my office, but I have taken one down in my mind.

This is the same standard we should hold our own leaders to today.  We should stop thinking of  “moral neutrality” in our choices, for the past or future.  Whatever you think of President Trump, “Make America Great Again” is a march to the past.  That is how he should be judged.

Pittsburgh

Jenn and I went to Pittsburgh for the first time this weekend.  Some friends of ours, die-hard Steelers fans, love Pittsburgh, and they wanted us to see it through their eyes.   We literally did the tour:  seeing the stadium, the old Fort Pitt (the original point of civilization in the American frontier,) ate at a Kelly O’s Diner (as seen on TV,) had awesome meatballs in a restaurant on Penn Street.

In Pittsburgh they have San Francisco-like hills leading from the rivers that surround the downtown. And like San Francisco, Pittsburgh built cable driven cars to go up the incredibly steep hills, called “Inclines.” Two are still working, and on Saturday morning we went to the top the top of the Duquesne Incline.  After seeing the awesome view, we rode back down to river level, waiting for our tour bus.

From all over town came the wail of sirens:  police heading through the maze of tunnels and bridges and “uptown.”  One of our friends, a police officer, thought it seemed like a mass shooting kind of response.  A new acquaintance we met in the Incline car from Northern California turned his phone into a police scanner, and we began to hear the awful news. It started with this broadcast to police, “…don’t go out on Wilkins Avenue, you’ll get shot!!”  We watched the armored SWAT vehicle race through town, then more police, and then ambulance after ambulance.

Our next stop was the Rivers Casino where we saw the tragedy revealed on television.  Pittsburghers were saddened, worried about the dead and wounded, and about the police officers that were injured trying to end the carnage.  But they also were resilient; it’s a big town with a lot to do, and a lot of people there for all sorts of different reasons.  So we went on, seeing the monument to Mr. Rogers (the attack was in Mr. Rogers’ actual neighborhood) and following the news on our phones.

That evening we went to an Irish pub on the “Strip Section” (not from strippers, but from strip mining that leveled the area in the late 1800’s.)  The owner was holding a benefit for Haiti, but he spent time talking about the members of his “pub family” who were affected by the attack as well.  We sang Amazing Grace in their honor, and Haiti relief did very well, especially from the visitors from Ohio who became part of the Malaney “pub family” for the night.

Sunday most of the guests in our hotel were headed to the Steelers/Browns game.  But while the inevitable talk was about the game (and how the Steelers would win:  they did) there was always a pause, and sad eyes, and “what is wrong with the world” conversation.  On TV was the Mayor of the city, exhausted, talking about gun control and AR-15’s.  The rest of the media world wondered:  how can we, in this week of attempted bombings and a completed mass shooting:  how can we get our nation to stop raising the rhetoric so high that those on the edges fall into madness?

And in our little hometown of Pataskala, there was outrage about the “Haunted Hoochie” (a series of barns where they scare the hell out of you for $25 – it’s Halloween) who decided that Saturday night was right for “swastika night.”  Wear a swastika as part of your costume (or painted or tattooed on your body) and you get in free.  They argued that swastikas represented real horror; but a lot of the community commented that it never was acceptable, it certainly wasn’t the night when eleven Jewish folks were murdered in their Synagogue by a racist with a rifle. There were a few who didn’t get it, and there probably were a few in Pittsburgh who didn’t either.  But most of the town was outraged.

It has to stop.  We need leadership who backs civility, not pays lip service to it then jokes about having a “…bad hair day.”  We need the President to stop calling the news the “…enemy of the people (Trump-10/29/18 am);” and dabbling in conspiracies like a “…Soros funded Caravan from Central America.”   It isn’t that the President and these others are causing violence, but they have contributed to the climate.

President Trump is not anti-Semitic.  His  daughter and son-in-law are  conservative Jews, he could have been at the service on Saturday. And Trump sees himself as a great supporter of Israel.  But he has allied himself with some who would use anti-Semitism to further their political goals:  the dark conspirators on the internet, who see George Soros and Tom Steyer and Chuck Schumer not as loyal Americans, but as a part of a Jewish cabal looking to take over the world.

Next week’s election may not change that.  Changing the President might not either:  Trump is a symptom, someone who caught onto this, not the creator. It will take a lot of communicating for all sides to get back to what America can be.  The Steelers and the Browns fans rose together for a moment of silence on Sunday, maybe there’s a way for all of us to find common ground for talk, even if we disagree.  That’s what our leaders need to do, from whatever party or view they represent.  Common ground to end the killing ground we are creating.

 

 

 

 

 

On a Happier Note

My wife and I are headed out; it’s time for retired folks to travel!!  I’ll keep on writing, (computers work everywhere, but probably not for the next few days or so) but before I leave I wanted to point out some “happier” news in our world.

We live in Licking County, Ohio, in the middle of “Trump Country.”  That’s also in the heart of Ohio’s 12^thCongressional District, the one that Democrats almost flipped in the August Special Election. Two years ago the Republican won with 66% of the vote, in August it was a mere .02%.  The polls show it’s just a close for the November 6^thelection. If Dems can win here, they can win everywhere.

Of course we voted, early, at the Licking County Board of Elections in Newark, Ohio.  And we did have to stand in line for fifteen minutes, I hope (and think) that’s a good sign.  As we stood in line, we got to witness an uplifting event.  An extended family, my guess would be of Indian or Pakistani descent, were casting their first votes as American citizens.  There were the great-grandparents, grandparents, parents and young kids (they came along for the ride) all casting their first votes.  Some were given help with translating the ballot language (Ohio has a State Issue that reduces drug possession penalties in favor of treatment) and they completed their civic duty.

After they voted, they all gathered in front of the building, under the “Licking County” sign, and took a family picture.  It reminded my of how important the vote is to those who may not have had that opportunity in their past lives. In our nation where less than 50% vote even in the most important elections, these new citizens made it a family outing to go and exercise their rights.  I don’t know who they voted for, and there was some “unrest” in the line as “L County” dealt with diversity, but I was proud of those new citizens, and proud of the nation they joined.

The other uplifting recent event in our lives started with sad news.  A young friend was diagnosed with breast cancer, faced with the struggles of chemotherapy and surgery.  She and her husband are also confronted with the reality of American healthcare:  no matter how well you are financially prepared, a major health crisis creates a major financial crisis as well.  My wife managed the effort to raise funds, not necessarily to cover the costs (estimated at over $400,000 in the next two years) but to help keep their lives going, as our friend missed work due to treatments and dealt with the day-to-day bills.

We asked our small town, Pataskala, to buy T-Shirts and raffle tickets (Ohio State football tickets on the line) and drop their change in cans in the local stores.  And, as this town does, the folks of Pataskala helped out, and we raised close to $3000 in a couple of weeks. No one asked whether you were a Trump supporter (though by the averages, most of Pataskala was) they just helped out.  The town mayor stopped by and bought a T Shirt and a ticket – $30 – for $100. By the way, when the internet explodes with small town crisis, he posts pictures of goats and sunsets to calm everyone down. He’s what you want in a small town leader.

Local stores asked what they could do, from gift certificates for raffles to donation jars on their counters.  Everyone we asked wanted to help, from bars to beauty salons.

Maybe our small town is best symbolized by this story.

We set up our camper in the Hardware store parking lot on Sunday morning in the rain. The goal was to sell T-Shirts, but it was cold and wet, and we weren’t sure anyone would stop. At ten, just as we got setup, a mini-van pulled in and a man jumped out. “I saw this on Facebook,” he said “and didn’t want to miss out.”  He dropped $10 in the can, and said “God bless you.”  We asked if he wanted any of the items we had to sell, but he said no, he just wanted to be a part of helping.

Eventually it warmed up a little, and the sun came out, and we made close to $1000.

In our world, dominated by the negativity of the President and the frustration of politics, it’s easy to get so “them against me” that we end up “sticking to our own side.”  It’s good to see, even in Pataskala, Licking County, Trump and God’s country, that people can still be people; willing to help and excited to be Americans.  Good things still happen.

As we grow more fragmented and polarized, that’s important to remember.

Respect

Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, Eric Holder, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, George Soros, John Brennan, CNN, Maxine Waters, Robert DeNiro, Joe Biden – List of those receiving mail bomb attacks as of 10/25/18 AM

A very big part of the Anger we see today in our society is caused by the purposely false and inaccurate reporting of the Mainstream Media that I refer to as Fake News. It has gotten so bad and hateful that it is beyond description. Mainstream Media must clean up its act, FAST! – President Donald Trump Tweet, 10/25/18

 The mail bomb attacks on high profile Democratic opponents is not the President’s fault.   It is a product of the environment; of our time of polarization and divisiveness.  We all know it.  It takes two sides to have a fight, and while Democrats (including me) would place blame on the President himself, in reality both sides have engaged in an ugly fight.

Ask Brett Kavanaugh.

But there is also a time when we expect the President of the United States, our President; to step across the divide and, at least for the crisis, try to unify the nation.  We are in one of the crises; two former Presidents have been attacked as well as a long list of those who have voiced their opposition to Donald Trump.

But the President sees everything in “us and them” terms.  It is the Trump trademark:  when you get hit, hit back harder.  The President can’t “hit” back against the bomber, but he can strike against those who might blame him for the environment.  So, in this moment of national fear, the President has followed the failed path of his Charlottesville strategy.  He allowed cooler heads in the White House to prevail for a moment, for the scripted call for “national unity.”  Then he got on Air Force One, flew to Wisconsin, and went right back on the attack.  “Lock her up” and  “Fake News” were part of his rant last night and this morning’s tweet.    He even mocked “being nice.” But for the Grace of God, the Secret Service and the NYPD (and the rest) they could have all been dead.

Donald J Trump does not respect the Presidency.  He doesn’t understand the role of leader of the United States.  And it’s not just in this moment of domestic terrorism:  last night the New York Times reported that the President continues to use unsecured mobile phones, disregarding the advice of his National Security advisors.  The Times reports that Chinese and Russian intelligence are listening to his conversations, gathering information, and developing operations to influence the President using his own words.

This is a President whose main campaign slogan was “lock her up.”  He claimed that Hillary Clinton, in using a private email server, violated US security laws and should be imprisoned.  So a President who uses unsecured communications that he KNOWS is being tapped by foreign intelligence agencies is better?

One line in the article, quoting Administration officials, is chilling.

They said they had further confidence he was not spilling secrets because he rarely digs into the details of the intelligence he is shown and is not well versed in the operational specifics of military or covert activities.

The President can’t reveal secrets because he doesn’t know them. Another sign of disrespect for the Office; he won’t even do the work required to protect the nation.  And the unnamed Administration officials who “leaked” this story, said they did so not to damage the President, but to get him to listen to their concerns.  He won’t hear them in person, but he will “read it in the Times.”

There are more bombs out there.  As I write, they found a second mailed to Joe Biden.  Lets hope they are all found, without loss of life.  It’s a tough day to be a Postal Worker.  And every day is a tough day to be President of the United States.  It is a complex role, one that Americans look to during times of ultimate crisis.  In American history “lore,” there is the belief that those who become President “unprepared” grow into the job.  Harry Truman is the most recent example that historians cite.

We are waiting Mr. President.  Waiting for you to show that you understand the Presidency.  The first thing you can do is to show respect for the awesome gift the country has granted you.  You haven’t yet.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not a Nationalist

I am a Patriot.  I believe in the United States as an exceptional nation.  I believe that America, despite all of its flaws and failings, has been the “shining city on the hill” of Ronald Reagan’s voice, serving as an example to the world. I believe in the foundation of the Declaration of Independence, that all are created equal, and the structure of the Constitution.  They represent a hope of freedom and prosperity unprecedented in world history.

I am not a Nationalist. While I believe in American exceptionalism I do NOT believe that it was founded on some warped and racist view of white supremacy.  I, in fact, believe in the opposite:  that the strength of the United States is in its admixture of cultures, ethnicities, and races.  America is best represented by its Main Streets:  Chinese, Mexican, Italian, Southern, Soul, McDonalds and Starbucks all lined up beside each other.  That is the America I believe in, one that draws strength from all of its diverse cultures.

I share in the dream of the “caravan” forming thousands of miles away in Central America.  They have lived in danger, in poverty, in fear for their children’s lives.  They are looking for a better life and a better place; of course they are coming to America.  While that represents a problem, they  represent the BEST of what America offers the world. How we respond, either with compassion, love and respect for the risks they took; or with guns, prisons and families ripped apart:  that will say what America is today.

The President of the United States has tapped into a dark side of America.  The fear and inadequacy that some feel; the loss of unearned power based on skin color and wrongful tradition, have left a sad few looking for answers in hate and repression.  The President has found a way to tap into the power of that fear, and use it to leverage the ballot box and subvert the principles of his political party.  That fear is strong enough to silence or ostracize those within his party that dare to speak differently.

We used to speak of “dog whistles;” quiet signals of nationalism and racism that only few could hear.  Mr. Trump has carried us into a different age, where there is no need to whisper. He has shouted the dog whistles into clarion calls.  Not only does he speak of “nationalism” as positive, empowering the hate, but he has given license to all those petty acts of racism that go on day to day.  Whether the police are called for “blacks barbecuing in the park” or “restaurant staff speaking in Spanish,” or folks are publicly shamed through the anonymity of Facebook; we are in a new age of hate.

This is nothing new to America.  In my college dorm room in the early 1970’s I put quotes on my wall.  One was Robert Kennedy’s:

 There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why?  I dream of things that never were, and ask why not?

He represented the best of what America could be, ripped away at the moment we needed him most.  But contemporaneous with him, was an American “nationalist,” George Wallace, who stood on the capital steps in Montgomery, Alabama and stated: 

In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.

There were of the same era and the same political party.  Wallace’s “greatest people” were white.  The “tyranny” he fought was the Federal government enforcing integration and equal opportunity.  I had both quotes on my wall to remind me what we were fighting for, and against.

We thought, and hoped, that the sentiments of George Wallace had faded away.  They certainly were suppressed and made unacceptable in public discourse.  But clearly they were not gone, and Mr. Trump has become a new voice for their sad views.  He can’t even claim to have invented this old fear, he simply has made it “acceptable”  again and given it power.

He is stoking those suppressed views to bring out his vote, to stand against the America of the future.  It is disheartening to see our nation revert to the arguments we thought we left on the wall in some dim dorm room forty years ago,  but here we are.  We need to fight the fight and win once again.  So pick up your protest sign, cast your ballot, and stand for what is great in America.  We changed the world before, we can do it again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anticipation

Carly Simon playing in “Anticipation” in the background

There seems to be a growing malaise among Democrats about the coming mid-term elections.  We are told that the “Trump Base” is being energized by the lies the President is spouting:  from the “invasion of the caravan” to the “Democratic Mob (it’s funny how those two seem to get conflated – is he really saying Democrats are bringing in 6000 immigrants to add to a “mob” against him?)   And now there are the phantom riots in California (of course California) not to be confused with the “Bowling Green Massacre” of yore.

The common theme seems to be if the “Trump Base” shows up at the polls, they win, just like 2016.  We can see it in the polling; what looked like a Democratic sure-thing two months ago now seems a lot shakier.

To quote the kids from Parkland – I call B.S.  Here’s why.

First of all, let’s look at history.  Since Franklin Roosevelt became President in 1932, in the twenty-one midterms held, only three times has the President’s Party House NOT lost votes in the House; 1934, 1998 and 2004.  In fifteen of those elections the Party in power lost votes in the Senate as well. It is traditional, historic, and it makes sense.  After two years of a President, Americans have always had a tendency to “hedge their bet,” giving more power to the Party out of the White House.  We have a tradition of wanting more “checks and balances” on the now not-so-new President.

Yes we are in the “post-apocalyptic” Trump Era; where all rules seem to be “off;” but the weight of history still weighs on the Democratic side – for this election.

Second, polling is not just the “random” phone calls placed to thousands of people that we think of from the “old days.”  Fifty years ago, the biggest concern was that somehow a polling sample would be biased like the famous 1948 polling that showed Republican Tom Dewey defeating Democrat Harry Truman.   Its biggest problem was that it depended on telephone responses in an America where many didn’t have phones yet.

Today polling is done with much smaller numbers of respondents, and their responses are weighed to match their proportion in the voting population.  This “voting turnout model” tries to match the profile of the respondent with a predicted voter model, that they then use to anticipate how that group will show up to vote.  It all sounds technical, and it is, but the key point is this:  Democrats traditionally don’t show up for mid-term elections, so polling models will reflect that tradition.  If Democrats overwhelm the model, with a significantly larger voter turnout, then the outcomes will be different.

If Democrats didn’t vote in mid-terms, they surely didn’t show up for special elections.  But in the “Trump Era” they have, over and over again. They showed up overwhelmingly in the Alabama special Senate election where Democrat Doug Jones won.  It happened in the Pennsylvania special House election where Democrat Conor Lamb won.  It happened in the Ohio House special election where Democrat Danny O’Connor nearly won, almost flipping a District that voted two-thirds for the Republican in 2016.  Recent history trends to a large Democratic turnout.

And Republicans – they always show up.  That’s been the history over the same seventy-two year period.  So if Republicans always show up, and Democrats usually don’t; but Dems are showing up now – that should mean a big change.

And why wouldn’t Democrats show up.  There is a huge list of issues that should drive Democrats to the polls, led by healthcare.  Yesterday the Trump Administration issued rules allowing states to exempt themselves from parts of the Affordable Care Act, including the pre-existing conditions clauses (Huffington Post.)  This week the President is examining ways of removing civil rights from the transgendered.  The United States is threatening to withdraw from nuclear weapons treaties, and the Republican leaders of Congress, having given away trillions in tax cuts, are now discussing how to reduce Medicare and Social Security costs.

If that doesn’t get Dems to the polls, DACA, child separation, Kavanaugh, all should motivate them.  And if those issues motivate Republicans too, so be it.  History shows that when Dems show up, they win.  They would have in 2016 too, had the total negativity of the election not persuaded many to stay home.

Don’t let today’s negativity stop you.  History is on the Democrat’s side.

Vote.

Winner Take All

• A battle that you win cancels any other bad actions of yours. In the same way, by losing one, all the good things worked by you before become vain.
• Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you.

      Niccolo Machiavelli

President Trump was interviewed by Leslie Stahl of CBS’s Sixty Minutes the other night.  One of the questions she asked, was how the President justified mimicking the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford.  Ford testified that as a teenager, she was sexually attacked by Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh.

Stahl:  And you mimicked Professor Blasey Ford.  You mimicked her. 

President Donald Trump: Had I not made that speech, we would not have won.  I was just saying she didn’t seem to know anything. 

The telling point:  had  “I” (Trump) not done that, we would not have won.  To the President, it’s all about “winning and losing.”  Trump believes that his actions opened the way for Republicans in the Senate, and in general, to attack Ford’s testimony.  It allowed them to deny her “truth” as a victim, and opened the way for others to arrive at the contorted logic of Senator Susan Collins; that while she believed Ford was a victim, she didn’t believe Kavanaugh was the attacker.  Kavanaugh is on the Supreme Court: the outcome is “everything.” What happens along the way is simply “collateral damage.”

He applies this same logic to the fate of Jamal Khashsoggi at the hands of the Saudi government.  Regardless of who’s at fault for the torture, death and dismemberment of Khashsoggi, “winning and losing” is about defense sales to the Kingdom.

Trump:   I tell you what I don’t wanna do. Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, all these com– I don’t wanna hurt jobs. I don’t wanna lose an order like that. There are other ways of– punishing, to use a word that’s a pretty harsh word, but it’s true.

Winning:  it’s about the deal Trump made with the Saudis.  It’s about money.  It really doesn’t  have much to do with morality, the focus is on tangible cash.  Winning is the central image of the “Trump Brand,” and the central goal of the Trump Administration.

Of course this has been the trajectory of the Trump Administration since it first began: burning all bridges as he came down the golden escalator in Trump Tower, calling Mexicans drug dealers and rapists. Trump found a sympathetic rhythm with some of the electorate; worn thin by changing mores and political correctness. The common morality:  respecting others, not calling people names, not intentionally lying; these were no longer important, at least to those who found common cause with him.

It is the basis for the opposition outrage, beyond what many felt for even Ronald Reagan when he was first elected.  Trump, daily, challenges the rules of behavior we hold in common, and “gets away with it.”  Put that in contrast with President Barack Obama, known for his calm, cool, and empathetic actions, and the extremes exacerbate the situation.  The “Resistance” not only disagrees with his policies, but they see the man himself as a profanation of what the President of the United States should be.

From a political perspective, does Trump’s behavior represent a “sea-change” in American politics, or is it just an aberration restricted to only him?  Democrat Michael Avenatti demands that the Party fights “fire with fire,” willing to use the same concepts of morality to combat him.  He claims that Democrats are “too nice” and “too bound by rules.”  Other Democratic leaders, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder, have said similar things.

The problem with that, is it requires Democrats to accept the “ends” as well as the “means.”  For many Democrats, steeped in the liberal tradition of empathy and civil liberties; using those “means” to achieve anything, is in itself an unacceptable “end.”

To Trump, it’s all about winning, at whatever the cost.  President Trump proposed another tax cut last night, and called on Congress to pass them before the mid-terms.  He knows Congress is in recess until after the mid-terms, but it doesn’t matter.  He threatens to send the military to the border to stop a “caravan” of migrants coming north from Central America, even though that would violate the law.  He says he will protect Medicare and Social Security, even as his Party’s majority leader plots to cut them.

It energizes his base, and undermines another pillar of the foundation of truth.  But if he can “win” on November 6^th, then it doesn’t matter.  The modern father of politics, Machiavelli said it best:  A battle that you win cancels any other bad actions of yours.

But Democrats can take some heart in the second part Machiavelli’s phrase:  by losing one, all the good things worked by you before become vain.

We can only vote – and hope.

Eyes on the Prize

Fox News Headlines (Thursday, October 18^th)

• DEM OPERATIVE ARRESTED IN ASSUALT STAYED EMPLOYED DESPITE REPUTATION FOR “HOSTILE” TACTICS
• ELIZABETH WARREN’S DNA EXPOSES PARTY’S BIGGEST FLAW
• STATE DEPARTMENT DILEBERATIVELY MISLED IN HLLLARY EMAIL LAWSUITS

Note:  first mention of Khashgogi torture/death – eighteen items down on webpage, behind cloud pattern that looks like eyes and man who fell into mine shaft and kills three rattlesnakes.

Trending on Facebook: why care about Khashoggi when four Americans killed at Benghazi?

Democrat and Independent Friends who want to begin to change the Trump Administration:  to use the hallowed expression of the Civil Rights movement, we need to keep “Eyes on the Prize.” The prize:  the mid-term election in less than three weeks, control of the House of Representatives and maybe the Senate, and a majority of the state governors. There are lots of issues that distract us away from this goal – some by our own party members.

The issues that should energize Democrats and Independents to go to the polls:

• Healthcare – including affordability and covering pre-existing conditions
• Stagnant income; most workers have not seen a rise in real income in years
• Maintaining the rights of women, and LGBTQ
• Safe and compassionate border control
• Improving Educational opportunities and reducing the burden of student debt
• Protecting folks from gun violence
• Protecting the environment
• Working to end opioid epidemic
• Making sure everyone eligible to vote, can vote
• Changing the “tone” of America.

Those Democrats and Independents that are motivated by what is going on in the Mueller Investigation are going to show up and vote.  The don’t need to be encouraged, and they don’t need to hear talk of “impeachment.” Americans will be ready for that process if, and when, convincing evidence is presented to them.  Until that time, it is premature and self-defeating to talk about it. Keep your “Eyes on the Prize.”

There will be a robust competition for the Democratic Presidential Nomination in 2020, and that competition will certainly begin shortly.  But for the next three weeks it’s not about 2020, it’s about Right NOW.  Elizabeth Warren trying to resolve her Native American ancestry; Hillary Clinton trying to justify her husband’s actions in light of the #MeToo era; Joe Biden trying to stay relevant, the “Sanders Wing versus the Clinton Wing:” none of this is making it more likely that Democrats will gain control of the House and Senate.  They need to stop and get their “Eyes on the Prize.”

There will be distraction after distraction.  Democrats will be called “radicals” and “mobs”; we will be threatened with “Argentina” and “antifa” as the results of Democratic control.  And (can you believe it) now:  THE CARAVAN is coming.  The George Soros/Nancy Pelozi Party is (supposedly) paying people to come from Central America to “storm” our borders; the ARMY may be needed to protect us.

Fear, Fear, Fear, Fear: that’s what President Trump is selling his followers.  Fear that Democrats might get some power, fear that they might shine a light on what the Trump Administration is doing on multiple fronts.  Be scared:  so get out and vote for Trump.

Democrats are faced with a different problem.  It’s not about fear (though fear of what Trump might do next does motivate some.) It’s not complacency, it’s more about “giving up.”  Democrats need to get their voters to believe that things can be different, they need to get their voters to vote for change, they need to get “Eyes on the Prize.”

Nineteen days until the mid-term elections.  The choices are actually pretty stark:  fear or change, the last two years or a different future, a nation focused on helping the top 1% or one that works for everyone.  Nineteen days until we can begin to change.  Don’t get distracted, don’t get sucked into old arguments or old “memes” created in a building in Russia.

“Eyes on the Prize.”

 

 

Voter Suppression

America is changing. The demographics of our country are becoming “browner;” and within twenty years “white people” will no longer be a majority.  This is not because the “white” population is shrinking, but other groups, particularly Hispanics, are growing faster.  The America of 2040 will look different than the America of 2000, and for some that’s terrifying.

After Mitt Romney’s failed Presidential election of 2012,  the Republican Party did an “autopsy” report.  The bottom line:  the Republican Party needed to broaden its appeal beyond the white rural and suburban populations because those groups aren’t big enough to secure victories anymore. The Party needed to expand, particularly into the growing Hispanic populations in swing states like Florida.

But, with his very first speech announcing his run for President, Donald Trump threw the report out the window.  He “doubled-down” on border control and racism, speaking of  “…murderers and rapists coming from Mexico” and crossing the border.  He automatically limited Republican outreach, but helped generate a backlash of white voters enough to gain the Presidency.

So the Republican Party is faced with finding different means of maintaining electoral power.  Their 2010  “Redmap” plan to win state governments and gerrymander districts put them in charge of a majority of state legislatures.   Gaining control of the state houses allowed them not only able to draw the maps, but also set the standards for voting.

Through leaders like Kris Kobach of Kansas, the Party “created” a problem:  illegal voting in elections.  While every objective analysis of US voting shows there is almost no illegal voting occurring, the Republicans generated a “crisis” of “thousands and thousands” of illegal voters, changing the outcome of elections.  They then passed a series of laws to restrict access to voting.

To white suburban voters some of these regulations seemed reasonable.  Photo identification of voters, the need to have a current residential address, purging the voting rolls of those who failed to vote for several elections:  all seemed like a good way to “secure” elections from those phantom illegal voters.

But for those who live in urban areas and don’t drive, for those who are young and changing their residence often, for those who only get interested in Presidential elections: all of these changes take away their vote.  Disenfranchisement has its greatest impact on the poor, minorities, and the young.  It is little surprise that those groups tend to vote Democratic; the Republican plan is to maintain power by reducing the power of the electorate.

MSNBC, in a series of recent reports, has highlighted specific areas of voter suppression directly effecting the 2018 election.  The first is in North Dakota, where Native American voting may well determine the Senate election between Democratic incumbent Heidi Heitkamp and her Republican challenger Congressman Kevin Cramer.  Voters in Native American reservations traditionally don’t have “street addresses,” instead receiving their US mail at a Reservation Post Office box. That PO Box serves as their “official” address for the purposes of the tribal identification documents.

The North Dakota state legislature, under Republican control, changed the identification requirements for voting.  Starting with this election, all voters must have government (or tribal) identification with a “street address” listed.  As the reservations don’t have “street addresses” the law effectively attempted to disenfranchise thousands of Native Americans.  In 2012 the total of votes in North Dakota Senate race was 319,738; the difference between the two candidates:  1,936. The reservations voted overwhelming for Heitkamp, the Democrat.

While tribal officials are fighting a desperate battle to get their votes counted, voters on the reservations are likely to face challengers at the polls, questioning their right to vote.  Even if the votes ultimately do count, it is likely that the voter turnout will be reduced by the crisis.

In Georgia, over 53,000 new voter registrations have been “flagged.”  A new Georgia voting law, passed by the Republican legislature, requires that all names and addresses on registration documents must be an exact match to government identifications.  This includes differences in commas and hyphens.  These new registrations have not been processed, and those voters are NOT notified that they can vote. The 53,000 will be allowed to cast “provisional” ballots, but those will be challenged and the voters forced to produce documents verifying their information.  Over seventy percent of the registrations are minorities.

And North Carolina, a state that has a long record of blatant black voter suppression, continues to “tweak” the process.  This year they have, like neighboring Georgia, reduced the number of early polling locations; making it harder to get to them, and creating longer lines at the polls. Also the new North Carolina law makes it difficult for counties to open for Sunday early voting, requiring them to open all of their polling places if they open one.  Sunday voting is favored by many black churches, who go after services.

This is all intentional: keeping Democratic voters from voting. Lower voter turnout favors Republican candidates.  But, as Martin Luther King and Barack Obama both quoted:  “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.”  Ultimately the changes in the American population will change our government.  But for this election:  Democrats must fight through the tactics of suppression, overcome the obstacles; and vote.

 

 

 

 

Our Friend Saudi Arabia     (thanks West Wing)

“Who will rid me of this meddlesome Priest?” – Henry II of England, speaking of Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury.  Four of his knights then murdered him. 

“Here we go again – guilty until proven innocent” – President Trump about Saudi involvement in the Jamal Khashoggi murder

So the Saudi “re-write” of the murder of Jamal Khashoggi is coming out.  Now his torture, death, and dismemberment is being blamed on “over-achieving” subordinates of Prince Mohammad Bin Salman, MBS.  MBS plotted to have Khashoggi drawn back to Saudi Arabia earlier in the summer, probably to be held in custody.  Since Khashoggi wouldn’t fall for those inducements to return to Saudi Arabia, the unofficial word now is that the Prince’s subordinates took it to the next level, without his knowledge.

Turkish authorities have released the names of the fifteen Saudis who arrived on two separate private jets the morning Khashoggi disappeared.  Eleven are listed as members of Saudi security forces or the Saudi Royal Guard.  One, Khalid Aedh Alotaibi, has travelled with MBS and other top members of the Saudi Royal family on past US trips.  Another, Muhammed Saad Alzahrani, is a direct bodyguard of the Prince.

We are now to believe that the elite guards of Prince Monhammad bin Salman, took it upon themselves to commit international murder of a US resident and Washington Post columnist without the knowledge of their boss.  And we are also to believe that the “poor” Prince has been in a deep depression since the killing.

It’s Saudi Arabia, and if necessary, heads will roll, literally, to keep the reputation of the Prince intact.  The cover story is coming together, and like the famous opening lines of the Mission Impossible franchise, “…should any of your force be caught or killed, the Prince will disavow any knowledge of your actions.”  Only the victim was killed so far, but the international outrage that resulted may require a “full disavowal.”

The next question is what will the United States do?  Secretary of State Pompeo was sent by the President to “go talk to Prince bin Salman,” but the images that came back from that conversation looked more like a pleasant conversation with a photo op.  And the President himself has been a driving force in the cover story; the first to release the idea of the “rogue agents” acting alone, and already is building excuses for the Prince.

The rest of the Republican leaders are trying to provide the “moral cover” for the Party.  Lindsey Graham said about MBS:

 “This guy is a wrecking ball, he had this guy murdered in a consulate in Turkey, and to expect me to ignore it, I feel used and abused.” 

But don’t expect Graham and others to act on their statements; as soon as the cover story is fully in place, they will condemn MBS for not controlling his subordinates, then let relations with Saudi continue on their “merry way.”

That’s about jobs and money, American jobs and money.  While the President has vastly overstated Saudi commitments to buy US weapons, saying the deals have been made for $116 billion (the actual number is closer to $30 billion,) as he says, Boeing, and Lockheed (or Lock-heeyeed,) and Raytheon are depending on Saudi contracts. What’s the murder of one Saudi citizen, who happened to live in Virginia and write for the Post, compared to that?

It’s also about the Trump/Kushner “grand plan” for Middle East security.  Jared Kushner, who has developed an extremely close relationship with Prince bin Salman, sees Saudi as the Islamic pillar of his peace plan, cooperating with Israel to counter-balance the force of Iran.  The US arms sales are to build Saudi up to compete with Iran, ultimately pushing the Iranians back out of Syria and Iraq, and reducing their influence with extremists in Lebanon and Palestine.

All of this sounds persuasive:  a master plan to rebuild the Middle East, based on the power of US and Israeli arms and the strength of Saudi Arabia.  The problem with the strategy:  Saudi Arabia historically has been a “transactional partner” with every nation.  They make the best deal they can at the time, but that deal does not mean any kind of long-term commitment.  If the next deal from someone else is better, they go with that.  To sink billions of dollars of weapons into Saudi may be a good short term US economic move, but does not guarantee Saudi loyalty to a future Middle East vision.

What it does do is show that the United States is no longer a nation dedicated to principle.  We are willing to allow “our friends” to violate international law, and even murder those who are under an umbrella of US protection, as long as the “price is right.”  Our international standing, long based on the “City on a Hill” image of the US, is now based on cash; a transactional one, like the Saudis.

No wonder they get along with the Trumps.

He said I was Stupid, I’m Not Stupid

(another Hamilton quote – it’s amazing how that musical resonates with our time.  “History doesn’t repeat – it rhymes” – and Lin-Manuel Miranda found the rhythm)

The President of the United States used the “Saudi” line yesterday to try to explain the fate of Jamal Khashoogi.  Khashoogi, a Saudi citizen and critic of  his government, lived in Virginia and worked for the Washington Post.  He walked into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey on October 2^nd.  He never came out.

The Turkish government states that a fifteen man Saudi hit squad flew into the country and met at the Consulate.  They tortured and killed Khashoogi, dismembered his body and removed it from the country.  Turkish intelligence claims to have actual audio evidence of the torture and killing. The Saudis claim that Khashoogi left the Consulate, and have denied any knowledge of his fate.

President Trump yesterday stated that he had a conversation with King Salman of Saudi Arabia, who denied any knowledge of Saudi action, and floated the possibility that a “rogue unit” of the Saudi government might have been involved.  The President lent some credence to the King’s denial, repeating with emphasis the conversation, and leading us to believe that this is the only evidence he has seen.

We’re not stupid, Mr. President.  We know that you start every morning with the Presidential Daily Brief on your personal I-Pad (though we also know you have it shortened to match your attention span.)  We know that US intelligence agencies have better knowledge on this issue than the media, and we hope that you listen to them.  Today, rumor has it, that the Saudi’s will change their story, coming up with a “botched interrogation” defense.  But it’s clear they did exactly what they wanted to do; you don’t bring a “bone saw” and a forensic specialist to an interrogation.

We also know, Mr. President, that the operational leader of Saudi Arabia is not eighty-two year old King Salman, but your son-in-law’s best buddy Prince Mohammad bin Salman.  We know there are serious questions about the mental health of the King, and it is more than possible that he doesn’t know what’s going on.  To quote him as the “authority” of the Saudi state shows that either your stupid, or you think we’re stupid.

Please don’t call us stupid, Mr. President, we’re not stupid.

And then there’s the even more insidious story, that seems to show the White House as “not stupid.” It’s about the media revelation of the Blasey-Ford letter, leading to the crisis in the Kavanaugh nomination.

The Republicans, and by extension the White House, have claimed that somehow the Blasey-Ford letter, accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault as a teenager, was leaked by Democrats at the last minute to derail the nomination.  Republican Senators, including Tom Cotton of Arkansas, have called for an investigation into the matter, targeting Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein’s office.

So how did the Ford letter get leaked to online newspaper The Intercept?

At first, it seemed reasonable to assume that it was from a Democratic source in Feinstein’s office, or the minority committee staff, or from Democratic Congresswoman Eshoo’s office (who originally received the letter from Blasey-Ford.)  It fit into a “Democratic game-plan” to derail the nomination, and while many fellow Democrats shook their head at the timing, they accepted the action as the “hard-ball” required to prevent a conservative Supreme Court takeover.

Eshoo and Feinstein have publicly and vehemently denied their staffs’ involvement, going so far as to outlining the restrictions imposed on knowledge of the letter.  The committee staff seems to have found out about the letter from The Intercept article, ruling them out of the process.  So either Feinstein or Eshoo is flat lying, a possible but wholly indefensible position that will ultimately be revealed, or there was some other process.

Feinstein did release the letter to one other source prior to the “leak,” the FBI.  We all hope that the FBI would never step into another political snake-pit, and it is unlikely that they leaked the letter.  But, as it was made clear by subsequent events, the FBI regarded this as a background check with rules differing from their normal investigations.

The FBI regards background checks as “working for a client,” the client being the agency that requested the check.  The FBI neither vouches for information nor draws conclusions; they pass the information onto the “client” for their consideration.  So the Blasey-Ford letter, sent from Feinstein, would have been passed to the “client:” the White House Counsel.

And why would White House Counsel Don McGahn leak out the Ford letter?

If McGahn was worried that the Blasey-Ford story was going to come out, controlling the release of the information would be an important first step to managing the crisis. Keeping the “investigation” in the controlled environment of the Judiciary Committee, rather than letting the information “appear” on the floor of the Senate during final debate, would give Republicans an opportunity to do exactly what they did:  corral their votes, control the story, and slide Kavanaugh onto the Court.  And, it would give them a final talking point about the “mob-ruled” Democrats in the process:  claiming they would do anything, including breaking the Senate rules (enter “Spartacus”) to stop Kavanaugh.

It worked.  Kavanaugh is on the Court.  Maybe McGahn’s not stupid either.

Two Years Past and Present

“I was so much older then, I’m younger than that now” – Bob Dylan – My Back Pages

Two years past:  it was mid-October of 2016.  The nation was in the literal depths of the Presidential election.  Hillary’s emails were already being leaked; the “Access Hollywood” tape was out.  The nation’s leaders secretly knew that our election was being influenced by a foreign power (Russia, not China as President Trump suggested again last night.)  They determined that revealing that information would have a greater impact on the future President, than concealing it.  These smart people, President Obama among them, who knew polling and how to run national campaigns – they knew Hillary was going to win (what that leaves us is why, or if, they were really wrong?)

Only one bomb was left to explode – FBI Director Comey’s public investigation into convicted pervert Anthony Weiner’s laptop, looking for more Clinton emails.  That’s something any political campaign would want to happen to their opponent – a pervert, named Weiner, husband to the candidate’s closest advisor, with the candidate’s classified emails on his laptop (alongside the perverted pictures – it’s a great visual.)  It was a “bell” that couldn’t be “un-rung,” even when the investigation ultimately revealed nothing.

We learned about “bots” and “bot farms.”  We learned (at least this sixty-two year old did) that more people got their information from Facebook then they did from the news media.  We learned that the Russians were working hard to influence our politics; adding fuel to our fires, splitting our alliances, and disrupting our conversations with extreme views that stopped our dialogs.

We found out that secretive companies, as well as other governments, had “psycho-graphic” programs that could identify and single out individuals and carefully persuade them of a particular political view.  We found that the data used was handed to them by a company we trusted as a “social network;” that the brilliant Mark Zuckerberg had found a way to make billions of dollars on the information we gave him, and wasn’t all that concerned with what happened to it once he got his payments.  We discovered that the “line” between persuasion and manipulation was crossed long ago.

And, quietly, we heard that our actual voting system was compromised.  How much and to what effect no one will admit – even now.  But it seems likely that what we’ve already heard is just the “tip.”

But we are not the same as we were in 2016.  We are now in the “#MeToo” era, we have watched the Women’s March, we has seen the power of the Parkland kids, we know the utter disaster of Trump’s Presidency. We have been energized and mobilized and we need to change the world.

It’s October of 2018, three weeks before “the election after the election.”  Our government has really done little to “fix” any of the undue influences in our process, mostly because the “winning Administration” views any question about the election as a question of the legitimacy of their win.  They should.

So as we go back to the polls, the polling shows much the same as two years ago, that the United States is polarized, but there seems to be a “wave” of Democratic support coming. We know that “the bots” still live: there already are trending chats re-hashing the Clinton/Sanders battles of two years ago.  We see the “polls” that say more people think Trump will be re-elected in 2020.  We need to realize:  NOTHING HAS CHANGED in the digital world.

NOTHING HAS BEEN FIXED – so don’t fall for the same tricks that worked in 2016.  There is no incentive for the “winners” of 2016 to alter things; that’s what they used to win.  And the “big money,” in campaigning,  and for the social media companies, is in manipulation – so they continue to do so.

It’s all “in the mind” of the voter.  And if that mind is strong enough, to resist the dragging weight of the “bots” and the “false flags,” they can go to the polls and vote.  And, if they actual election systems aren’t fully compromised, then there will be change.  And it the systems are compromised, we will know, and a whole new battle will begin.

It’s about the vote. Do it.

 

 

Senators in Glass Houses

I fear that there’s going to be an assassination. I really worry that somebody is going to be killed, and that those who are ratcheting up the conversation … they have to realize they bear some responsibility if this elevates to violence.  – Senator Rand Paul (R-KY)

 

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky is worried that the escalating rhetoric surrounding the mid-term elections and the Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination might lead to violence.  Paul knows about violence, earlier this year a neighbor attacked Paul in his backyard, breaking ribs and bruising a lung.  While the attacking neighbor was very different from Paul politically, there also was a “lawncare” issue of blown yard waste that festered to a breaking point.

Paul was also present at the attack at a Virginia baseball field where Republican Congressmen were practicing for the annual inter-partisan game. Four were shot, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.  The shooter was crying out, “…this is for health care.”

Paul spoke out after former Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton told listeners that Democrats “…can’t be civil anymore.”  In addition, former Attorney General Eric Holder stated that “…if Republicans go low, kick ‘em,” in contrast to Michelle Obama’s 2016 “…if they go low, we go high” mantra.  New Jersey Senator Cory Booker, California Congresswoman Maxine Waters and others have also encouraged citizens to confront legislators.

Republicans are concerned.  They are confronted in the hallways of the Congress by protestors who see their basic rights being threatened.  And those confrontations have had more of an impact than just inconveniencing the passage from office to hearing room.  The elevator confrontation between Arizona Senator Jeff Flake and two sexual assault survivors is in part credited for the delay in the Kavanaugh nomination to allow for further FBI investigation.  While the investigation itself was a sham (with the White House circumscribing the witness list) it did show the impact of protest.

Republicans have also been confronted in more private settings. Senator Ted Cruz, Secretary Kristen Nielsen, White House Advisor Stephen Miller, Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, and Presidential son Donald Trump Jr. have all been either harassed in restaurants or denied service.  They didn’t like it.

This is the political party that has embraced the confrontational tactics of the Right to Life movement for decades, including harassing patients going to clinics, sending out inflammatory mailings and messages, and turning a blind-eye to abortion clinic violence.  The “movement” justifies their actions by saying – “we are trying to save life.”  Agreement or disagreement on the question of abortion isn’t the issue:  the GOP has embraced these tactics as being “acceptable” in the pursuit of “life.”

So it shouldn’t surprise Republicans that many on the left are willing to embrace similar tactics when they see children separated at the border, healthcare coverage denied, and the rights of women, minorities and LGBTQ folks threatened.  The continuing actions of President Trump, with rally after rally of inflammatory rhetoric, threatening opponents with jail (“lock her up”) and demeaning critics and the news media, simply serve as more fuel on the fire.

There is no question that the political “temperature” is high. Historians are comparing our present age to the 1960’s Vietnam Era, or worse, the 1850’s pre-Civil War Abolitionist time.  But for the Republicans:  the White House, Majority Leader McConnell, and Senator Paul; to try to thrust the blame on the Democrats is simply one more step in ratcheting up the tension.

Perhaps that’s what they want.  Republican voters were motivated by the Kavanaugh hearings, now that he’s on the Supreme Court  the drive to go to the polls has lessened. Meanwhile Democratic voters are even more incentivized:  it’s the only way they can change the current path.  So Republicans leaders resort to scaring their constituency; creating fear of the “mob” and the “radical left.”  Get out to vote or “violence will rule.”

They should remember they live in  glass houses.

 

 

 

 

 

Kick ‘Em

There is an ongoing debate in the Democratic Party:  has the nature of politics changed?  With the election of Donald Trump as President, have we entered a new period of “reality show” campaigning?

Television had been around since the late 1940’s.  One of the first major political impacts of the medium was the televised McCarthy hearings in 1954, where Senator Joseph McCarthy led a hunt for Communists in the American government. The fervor of the chase led to a loose attitude about evidence, culminating in attorney Joseph Welch, defending a younger member of his firm saying:

“Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last?”

It was on TV, to a national audience.  The statement struck Americans, and began the decline of McCarthy (and has been echoed in recent times in the Strozk and Kavanaugh hearings – by both sides.)

In the election of 1960, Vice President Richard Nixon was the Republican running against Democratic Senator John F. Kennedy.  Nixon had been a World War II vet, a Congressman, Senator, and Vice President for eight years in the successful Eisenhower Administration.  Kennedy was also a vet, and was elected to the Congress and the Senate. He had been touted as a possible Vice Presidential nominee in 1956 for Adlai Stevenson. 

But it wasn’t until the televised Presidential debates of the 1960 election that TV came to the fore. Nixon, a star debater, thought he was well prepared to show Kennedy as ignorant.  Kennedy, on the other hand, had a much better understanding of what a national television audience would expect.  Kennedy was well prepared, but he was also “cool,” in the Frank Sinatra, Peter Lawford (his brother-in-law) sense.  Americans ended up seeing Nixon as a pale, unshaven (he had a terrible five o’clock shadow and refused to use makeup) and sweaty detail guy; while Kennedy was a tanned, well spoken, “cool guy.”  It made the difference.

There are many Democrats who see a similar change in politics today.  With the advent of the “reality show” Presidency, where the “good guys” and “bad guys” are called out and challenged, and the issues simplified to basics; should the Democrats find a “reality show” candidate?

I admit, I’m not a fan of reality shows.  But I have watched enough World Wrestling to understand the concept.  There are good guy competitors and bad; the crowd cheers for the good guys, boos the bad guys, and fully expect the bad guys to cheat and sometimes even win.  And while everyone in the stands recognizes that the outcome of the “matches” is pre-determined, a rehearsed show, it doesn’t slow down their enthusiasm.

There is a good reason that Linda McMahon, a former CEO of World Wrestling, was appointed by President Trump as the head of the Small Business Administration.  Trump learned to reach people through her business model.

So Democrats are faced with a conundrum:  join the reality show or follow a more traditional model.  Michelle Obama gave her answer to this question in the 2016 campaign:  “…when they go low, we go high!”  But former Attorney General Eric Holder, a potential 2020 Presidential candidate, this week modified her statement by saying, “when they go low, kick ‘em.”

Attorney Michael Avenatti, also eyeing a Presidential run, has taken this to it’s logical extreme, challenging Donald Trump Jr. to a mixed martial arts match (for charity) to resolve the ongoing Twitter insults they have exchanged.

The Obama’s had enormous political success staying out of the fray.  Perhaps the greatest contrast of our age is the “cool class” of Barack Obama, and the “crass braggadocio” of Donald Trump.  And we all saw the sad spectacle of Republican candidates trying to match Trump’s crudeness; the sweaty discomfort of Marco Rubio making penis size comments is still a national embarrassment.

There needs to be a larger discussion of what we want America to be.  Are we now the “reality show” nation, with campaigns a series of insults and unbelievable statements with the crowds cheering “lock her up?” Or are we going to determine the future of our nation in a more serious conversation, where intent and intelligent folks put forth their vision?  It’s not just up to us, it’s up to America.

Death in the Post-Truth Era

Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi citizen who wrote for the Washington Post, is probably dead.

He was exiled from his homeland.  He made the cardinal sin of criticizing the Saudi Royal Family, and particularly the new leader of the Kingdom, Mohammad Bin Salman. At thirty-three, the young leader doesn’t tolerate criticism, particularly written by his own citizens in Washington, DC newspapers that go straight to his friends in the White House.

Khashoggi seemed safe in the United States.  But he fell in love with a Turkish woman, and went to Istanbul, Turkey with her.  In order to marry, he had to have some paperwork from the Saudi government; documentation of his prior divorce.  When he called the consulate to get it, they asked him to make an appointment.

On the appointed day, fifteen Saudi “hit-men” flew into Istanbul.  When Khashoggi left his fiancé in the consulate parking lot, the squad was waiting for him.  He entered, and disappeared.

There are gruesome stories emerging from Turkish authorities:  bone saws and plastic bags; a body “dissolved.”  The “hit-team” disappeared as well, boarding two different private jets and flying to different airports, eventually going back to the Kingdom.

In our current era, it has become more and more common for authoritarian leaders to “get rid” of criticizing journalists.  In Russia, dozens, and perhaps even more, have died at the hands of Vladimir Putin. In Turkey, a dozen have been murdered under Recep Erdogan.

The United States has always stood up for the right of journalists to report, and the power of the free press to keep governments honest.  But, while President Trump has said some “appropriate words” about the Khashoggi disappearance, the Trump Administration has been signaling otherwise for quite some time.

The President has made his views on the media quite clear.  From constantly claiming the media lies, crying “fake news” at every story critical of his administration, to showing open and public disrespect for journalists.  As recently as last week, he made a public comment about ABC journalist Cecilia Varga, saying “…I know you’re not thinking, you never do.”

Insulting NBC’s Chuck Todd, CNN’s Jim Acosta, the “failing” New York Times, the “Amazon Washington Post” all set an example of the American government’s view of the press.  If Trump can do that, what will those with absolute power do?

He has also shown his respect for the authoritarians of the world.  Putin, Erdogan, Kim of North Korea, Xi of China:  the President of the United States has had high praise for all of them (and perhaps “love” for Kim.)  As for bin Salman, the President sent his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, to gain Salman’s trust.  In fact, Kushner stayed with bin Salman the week before all opposition leaders in Saudi were rounded up and put in custody, an operation the US probably signed off on.

And now it is emerging that US Intelligence intercepted messages from bin Salman ordering an operation to bring Khashoggi back to Saudi.  While the Intelligence agencies have a “duty to warn” if harm is intended towards an individual, they don’t have to warn of an intended “arrest.”  Khashoggi knew that bin Salman was after him, but he didn’t think it was with murderous intent.

When the “leader of the free world” ignores the importance of a free press, and shows a clear disdain for their role in American life; it’s not too much of a stretch for the authoritarians of the world to get a message:  do whatever you think you need to do.  Certainly the way President Trump acts, threatening news agencies and seeing the media as an impediment to his message, it would be a stretch for him to defend a “free press.”

The disappearance of Khashoggi is probably not the Trump Administration’s fault, though it’s not out of the range of possibility that they had some warning of it.  But their clear attitude about the media has made it “open season;” if you silence the press, you won’t hear the US complain.  It’s not what we stand for.

Money and the Straight Party Line

True confession:  I am a lifelong Democrat.  Ever since my Mom pinned a JFK for President button on my sweater in 1960, I’ve supported Democrats, worked for Democrats, and campaigned for Democrats.  Just wanted to get that off my chest.

There are a couple of times in the forty-four years of voting (I’m pretty sure I never missed an election – even drove back to Cincinnati one time to vote) I’ve actually voted for a Republican.  It was always personal, in the sense that I knew the Republican running, and that they were a better choice than the Democrat, and it was invariably for a local office.

In the old days (and probably still in some cities) you could pull a lever and vote for every candidate of one party or the other.  Straight party voters didn’t make individual choices, they simply supported “donkeys or elephants.”   It was a lot quicker.

But the more typical American voter reserves the ability to choose “by person” in each office.  Most Americans vote “for the man, or for the woman” rather than by political affiliation.  Many spend a great deal of time actually studying the ballot, knowing the candidates, and choosing individuals.  We have been taught from our earliest lessons the power of a single person to change history.  Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, King, and more recently the re-telling of the Alexander Hamilton story:  all were individuals who powerfully made a difference in America’s story.  From that tradition we see the individual as crucial in the government, and want that individual to hold office, choose the path of government, and make a difference.

So having made that seemingly obvious case, I’m going to tell you to do something different.  For Federal and State offices, you should vote straight party line this time.

Our Federal and State governments have followed a Constitutional model, with three separate branches of government.  As such, we have always depended on the tensions among those competing branches to serve as a check to the power of the government.

This is as opposed to a Parliamentary system, where the legislature chooses the executive who then chooses the judiciary.  In a parliamentary system the political party is ascendant:  a majority in the legislature means control of all of the branches of government.  In countries with a parliamentary form of government, Party is everything.

Today our Constitutional governments at both federal and state levels are acting more like parliamentary bodies.  This is in part because of the power of money; to hold office even at a district level it costs huge amounts to win.  The influence of those who can provide that money is such that fealty to their causes has become the primary factor for a candidate.

Ask Susan Collins, whose position on abortion absolutely made Brett Kavanaugh an unacceptable choice. But because she was a Republican, depending on Republican funds to continue in office, she did the “mental gymnastics” of convincing herself that Kavanaugh would leave Roe v Wade as “settled law.”  There is nothing in his judicial history to show that will be true, and everything to show he would support overturning the decision.  But it didn’t matter, because Collins couldn’t stand against him.  She literally couldn’t afford to.

Money has placed the three branches of government into the control of one party, both here in Ohio, and in the United States.  Voting for the “good” member of a party that doesn’t represent your ideals, is simply putting the other party in power.  Individuals don’t exercise power; at least not for long.  While we have the trappings of a Federal system with checks and balances, we have practically become a Parliamentary system.

Our party tensions are narrowly balanced, with the Presidential popular vote in the negative for the winning candidate, the Senate 51-49, and the Supreme Court 5-4.  In the State of Ohio, where one party has almost unanimous control, the actual voting patterns are near even as well.

As such, you need to vote your party, not the individual.  To put the system back into balance, and to have your ideas represented, you currently don’t have the luxury of voting for “the person.”  Someday, when we find a way to get the money (on both sides) out of the system; in a world where ideas, not cash, make a difference, we should go back to our historic view of individualism:  but not today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why We Fight

1943, in the midst of World War II, movie director Frank Capra made a series of films called Why We Fight.  The goal was to explain to Americans why we were fighting World War II, what the stakes were, and how they could help. In the beginning stages of the War when United States forces were struggling to come back from losses in the Pacific and in North Africa, the movies helped solidify public support.

It is October 7^th, 2018, the day after the Supreme Court majority was turned over to the right wing conservative Federalist Society.  I sit here typing, watching Trump Advisor Kelly Ann Conway smiling smugly over the Trump judicial victory, and listening to her spewing layer after layer of nonsense into the air.  It is a low point for “the Resistance.”

As if it couldn’t get worse, a new movie has reopened the wounds of the Democratic Party of 2016, tearing at the scars of Sanders and Clinton.  The carefully re-constructive surgery performed by the National Committee is being pulled and pressed, barely knitted together after the stitches were removed.  A united Resistance to the Trump era is now starting to turn upon itself.

It is also twenty-nine days before the 2018 mid-term elections, the real “first chance” to change America since the disaster of 2016.  After yesterday, with the narrowness of the defeat, and the bitterness of the failure, it would be easy for “the Resistance” to quit.  Reading post after post on Facebook, there are many who would choose that path.  They depended on a Republican Senator, Susan Collins, to go against every power in her party, and stand up for women.  It shouldn’t have been a surprise:  she didn’t do it.

It is time to remember, Why We Fight.

We fight for those who can’t afford health insurance.  There are many Americans who cannot access health care because they can’t pay for insurance, and they can’t pay for care. And even for those with insurance, the cost of a catastrophic diagnosis may well drive them into bankruptcy.  Americans are forced to ruin their financial lives, to save their actual lives.  In our modern society, this is unacceptable.

We fight for those who live at the lowest incomes in our society.  We fight to create a “living wage” so that getting a job means getting paid enough to live, not working full time hours only to fall short.

We fight for all of those who don’t meet  “the norms” of 1950’s America.  In the past seventy years, we have learned that being “different,” does not mean “lesser.” We, as a nation, have recognized the right of folks to choose their lifelong partner, regardless of gender, and gain the legal rights that marriage offers.  We recognize that young black men are at greater risk of violent death than any other group, and that their lives do matter.  And we know that women are a co-equal force in every aspect of our lives, and need to be legally recognized as such.

We fight for a nation that recognizes that a child might determine that they are different than their biology, and should be nurtured and protected so that they can become the person of their fullest potential.  We fight so that child, or any child, can go to a school that hasn’t become a fortified prison, get an equal opportunity with all other children to learn and grow, and be protected from the weapons of war we have distributed into our society.

We fight for a nation where our leaders are not indebted to a hostile foreign power.  We recognize that Russia “fooled us once.”  Shame on them, but we fight to make sure, “we don’t get fooled again (thanks Mr. Townsend.)”

We fight for the child ripped from their mother’s arms at the border.  We believe in an America that treats everyone with respect, even those who come to us unbidden to find a better life.  It doesn’t mean we don’t have borders, it means we treat all with humanity regardless of their legal state.  It also means that  someone  raised in America, and  living as an American,  needs to have a way to become a legal American.  We fight for humanity, and for an America that enjoys the benefits of all races and ethnicities.  We fight against the white, male, elitist society that is being thrust upon us.

We fight to protect our world, and to make it a better place environmentally.  We fight to stop the changes in law that will allow more pollution in our air and waters, and create more warming of our climate.

And we fight for the right to vote, without restrictions or barriers, so that all Americans can participate in our Republic.

We have a lot to fight for. We have a nation depending on us.  We know that the America of today is not the America we believe in.  And we know that we can make a difference.  This weekend we lost a single battle in a long-term conflict.  We can mourn for the loss of the Kavanaugh seat later, for the next battle is near. Right now, we fight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Manchin’s Survival

Joe Manchin, Senator from West Virginia, was faced with a difficult choice this week.  Manchin is running for re-election in West Virginia, the most “Trumpian” state in the country.  He is the last of the “old school Democrats” of West Virginia, the Democrats elected by the coal miners union and the folks  “up in the hollars;” the voters that sent Democrat Robert Byrd to the Senate for over fifty years.

As a Democrat, Manchin represents a key vote in the Senate, where the current split is 49 Dems to 51 Republicans.  When it comes down to the most critical issues, such as the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, where every single vote counts, Manchin may well tip the balance.

So it is no wonder that he waited to the last to vote on the procedural motion on Kavanaugh.  If the cloture vote failed, then there would be no final  vote on the candidate.  While most Republicans, and all  Democrats other than Manchin, had committed, there remained three Republicans wavering.  Senators Flake of Arizona, Collins of Maine, and Murkowski of Alaska all had expressed doubts about the fitness of Kavanaugh for high office.

Flake voted to end debate and confirm Kavanaugh.  Murkowski voted against.  Manchin waited.  Clearly, if Susan Collins chose to vote against cloture, then Manchin would be the deciding vote (a tie would bring in the Vice President, who would vote for the Republicans.)  By holding his vote, he made it pretty clear that a Collins “no” would mean a Manchin “no” as well, and the end of the Kavanaugh candidacy.  It also might mean the end of Joe Manchin’s service in the Senate, as West Virginians were in favor of Kavanaugh 62% to 38% (MetroNews.)

When Collins voted to end cloture, it freed Manchin from the determining responsibility.  He voted to protect his re-election, joining the Republicans and the 62% of West Virginians to confirm Kavanaugh.  He solidified his position in West Virginia to win.

We can only project which way Senator Manchin would have gone if Collins had voted “no,” but the timing of his late vote indicates he would have joined his fellow Democrats if it had made a difference.  And his fellow Democrats gave him the “space” to make that choice.

The more progressive members of the Democratic Party have complained that Manchin is “more Republican” than “Democrat” in his voting.  What Manchin really represents is a test of how “big the tent” of the Democratic Party is.  If Democrats still represent a broad view of politics, from the “blue dog” Democrats (fiscal conservatives, social progressives) to the “social-Democrats (Bernie Sanders types) then there needs to be room in the party for Joe Manchin.

And on a more practical note:  if there is a “blue wave” coming in November, then the Senate could hinge on a single vote. Senate seats in Florida, Nevada, North Dakota, Missouri, Arizona, Tennessee and even Texas are up for grabs: if Democrats can gain a majority, Joe Manchin will be part of that block.

Now is not the time for Democratic leaders to push Manchin into the Republican Party.  Now is the time for Democrats to build their “big tent” inclusive of a wide range of political thought.  Manchin needs to have a place in that tent, for Democrats to have the best chance of controlling the Senate and to act as a barrier to the Trump Administration.

That “big tent” needs to be the model for the Democratic Party in 2020, when the Presidency will be back in play.  As the “more progressive” wing of the Party gains greater power, they should  see the need to keep moderates, and even somewhat conservatives like Manchin, as part of the group.  That will keep the Party representing the greatest swath of American thought, instead of continuing the current process of polarization.

Joe Manchin did what he had to do.  Keeping him in the Democratic fold is important, and accepting his views as part of the mélange of Democratic thought is important too.

Oh Lindsey, We Hardly Knew Ye!

Over the past three years, the senior Senator from South Carolina, Lindsey Graham, has made a strange journey.  It started with his Presidential ambitions, entering the Republican primaries in 2015.

“I want to be president to meet our problems head on,” Graham said. “Honestly and realistically, for the purpose of solving them, not hiding them or taking political advantage of them.” (Atlantic)

At that time he was asked to describe Donald Trump:

“ …That he’s a jackass. That he’s bringing his name down, and he’s not helping the process, and he shouldn’t be commander and chief.”(CNN)

And Senator Graham in 2015 was known as a best friend to Republican Senator John McCain.  McCain (jokingly) called Graham his “illegitimate son.”  Graham was a hawk on foreign policy, but a moderate on immigration, mirroring McCain in his acceptance of the need for a pathway to citizenship for current illegal immigrants.

But his Presidential bid failed quickly, and he was out of the running before Christmas of 2015.  He returned to the Senate, a senior member of the governing party, and seemed to be a moderating force in the now Trump-dominated GOP.  He was willing to call the President out when he did or said inappropriate things, but he was also able to play golf with him and keep “in his ear.”

John McCain, constantly insulted and degraded by the President, was diagnosed with a fatal brain tumor.  As McCain left the political arena, many looked to Graham to take up his mantel representing the “old Republican Party” against the new Trumpers.

But Graham took a different path, moving more and more in line with the President.  He went from being a member of the “three amigos” (McCain, Democrat Joe Lieberman, and Graham) to a stalwart defender of the President in the Senate.  It was telling that in the National funeral for McCain, one carefully orchestrated before-hand by the deceased, Presidents Obama and Bush, and Senator Lieberman were given ample time for eulogies; but Graham was consigned to reading a short Bible passage.

Graham has made himself an ardent supporter of the President.  His position was best outlined last week in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  During the tense hearing on the sexual assault charges against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh the questioning turned, and the “special assistant prosecutor” narrowed in on the candidate’s inconsistencies. It seemed that Kavanaugh was in the “cross hair.”   A recess was quickly called, and when the Senators returned, the “special assistant” was done.  Graham took the floor, and immediately launched a harangue against the Democrats that changed the course of the hearing (CNN.)  It was no longer about Kavanaugh, it was about the Democratic strategy to stop the nomination.

Many saw this as Graham’s audition for Attorney General, a position that, with the rumored firing or resignation of Jeff Sessions, may soon be vacant .  But it was really an audition to a much greater audience than just the President.  Listening to Graham’s vitriolic rant, it seems that he was reaching beyond the President to appeal to his base.

Lindsey Graham has made a political decision; he has determined the “writing on the wall.”  He has cast his lot, not with the mainstream or “old school” Republicans that John McCain represented, but with the “reality television” politics that Donald Trump has created.  Graham’s rant was a declaration; a declaration of his candidacy for the Presidency and his claim to Trump’s base, should the President chose not to run in 2020.

Graham has an opening. Vice President Pence has taken a subdued path, quietly supporting the President, but also quietly separating himself from the excesses of the Trump Presidency.  He seems to be reserving his role as the “replacement”, first determined before the election when the “Access Hollywood Tape” was released, and the Republican leaders thought to replace Trump. Graham, on the other hand,  is vocally in the President’s corner, and is reaching around the quiet Pence to gain the support of the base.

It is said that every Senator is running for President, and Lindsey Graham is seriously infected with the “Presidential bug.”   He has made a tactical choice, leaving behind his ideology and mentors of the past, to take on the mantel of Trump.  He is “all-in.”

Lindsey Graham  must know better than almost anyone how John McCain felt about that choice. While it seems to be an ultimate betrayal, perhaps in their last conversations McCain gave his blessings to Graham’s ambitions.   It is likely we will never know what was said.  For those Americans who hoped that Trump was an aberration in politics, and that we could go back to a less polarized world, McCain, and by extension Lindsey Graham, represented hope.  But Graham has seen his future, and it is a future of Trumpism and strife.  Both he, and his vision, are a huge disappointment.

Is it 2016?

So let’s, for today, throw out all of the arguments about the legitimacy of the 2016 election. Let’s ignore the Russian interference, and possible hacking into our electoral processes. And let’s ignore the impact of Director Comey’s actions in particular, and the FBI in general. Let’s look at the voter turnout, and what voters were willing to accept.

We know that Hillary Clinton was a weakened candidate.  The Sanders campaign, the continuing email scandal, and the years of Republican hard work to undercut her image took their toll.  House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy  said this about the impact of the endless Benghazi hearings:

“Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not fought.”

We also know that Donald Trump was an “outlier” candidate, beyond  the boundaries of normal political decency and the Republican Party itself.

A significant portion of the American population were willing to accept the absolute “political incorrectness” of Donald Trump.  They were willing to accept his abusive and lascivious attitude towards women, his insulting and bullying actions towards those he saw as enemies, and his outright lies about his own life.  They knew, and know today, that they are making this choice; they see it as a way to “Make America Great Again” or more specifically, take America back to what  it was like seventy years ago.

We also know that a large portion of Americans were turned off by the entire campaign.  The old adage, “hold your nose and vote,” didn’t play for many, particularly groups that generally vote Democratic, and they decided to skip the entire process.  Bernie Sanders voters were mad, young people were disenchanted, and there was an undercurrent of  “malaise.”  The fact that Bill Clinton and Anthony Weiner were tied into the “Clinton Family” negated much of the impact of Trump’s transgressions.  It was ugly every direction you turned.

President Trump is using the Kavanaugh nomination to try to recreate the atmosphere of 2016.  He is trying to brand Democrats:  particularly a woman – Nancy Pelozi, and a Jewish man – Chuck Schumer – as “…destroying a good man and his family to gain what they couldn’t earn at the polls.”  Trump believes he can drag this election into the same mud bath that he found in 2016. In that ugly hole, he’s the best!!

So it shouldn’t come as a surprise that the President mocked sexual assault victim Christine Blasey-Ford in a rally this week.  He is not just reading the “tea-leaves,” he’s also seeing polling data showing that the Kavanaugh crisis is firing up his base.  He has found the critical appeal:  your “white son” could be falsely accused, and destroyed, by the Pelozi-Schumer Democrats!

Trump thinks he can save the Republican Congress by putting himself “on the ticket.”  By making every Congressional Republican vote a vote for Trump, he believes he can bring out his base, and maintain a Congressional majority.  Kavanaugh gives Trump the perfect stand-in, particularly after the anger-filled display he made in the last Congressional hearing.

The Trump voters will turn out, just as Republicans always do.  It was a Democratic “pipe dream” to believe they wouldn’t.  But that is not the determinate factor in the mid-term elections.  The question is now, and always was,  will Democrats turn out?

Will Democrats take the passion generated in the special elections of the past eighteen months, and channel it into the November polls?  Or will they allow the ugliness of the Kavanaugh situation, win or lose, to drag the election back into the “everyone’s dirty as usual” mindset that will kill their turnout.

Democrats needed to fight Kavanaugh with every weapon “at their disposal” in order to keep faith with their base, and maybe, to actually win the fight.  The vulnerability of Roe v Wade, the Affordable Care Act, and all of the other Democratic foundations, required that action.  And the fact that the Republicans have orchestrated  a “whitewash” of an FBI investigation will make it an issue in the future.

But to be honest, from the Democrats point of view, the Kavanaugh nomination needs to be over, one way or the other.  There are four weeks left before the election, a lifetime in political terms; and Democrats need to get back to the battle of healthcare, jobs, children at the border, and the failed Trump promises of the past two years.  That’s a better strategy to fire up turnout, because when Democrats show up, they win.