Month: March 2019

Trump 2020

The release of Attorney General Bill Barr’s letter summarizing his “conclusions” about the Mueller Report has unleashed President Donald Trump.  There has been the obvious political strategy:  proclaim victory and decimate the opposition before the actual Mueller Report hits the scene.  But there is much more going on here than just the political maneuvering expected of anyone in the President’s position.

In what seems like a politically suicidal move, the Trump Administration has ordered the Justice Department to take a legal position that if successful, would completely wipe out the Affordable Care Act.  While Trump enthusiasts would say “promises made, promises kept;” it’s difficult to see the electoral upside to the end of pre-existing conditions coverage, coverage expansion, wellness care, and twenty-six year old staying on parents’ insurance.  

Mr. Trump has said, over and over, that it will be replaced with a “better” plan, but there is no such plan in sight, and little consensus among Republicans on what that kind of plan might look like.   The calculation by someone on the Trump political team has determined that literally “nothing” will contrast well against the 2020 Democratic candidates plans to expand government involvement in health care: the reality of a loss of health care by up to forty million people might have a different effect.

The President has once again doubled-down on the border (by now, it must be something more like quadrupled down, or “octupled” down.)  He again threatened Mexico with closing the entire border unless they control the northward flow of migrants, and he now has added the threat of cutting aid to the Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador; the origin of most of the migrants.

This reverses what most has seen as the single effective long-term strategy for dealing with the migrant issue, improving conditions in the Northern Triangle.  The Departments of Homeland Security and State were unaware of the pending announcement, scrambling to adapt to the new plans.  And while the $500 million in aid must be tempting, it is unlikely that it could be diverted to the President’s proud project at the border, the Wall (Washington Post.) 

They have also declared the need to deport  “unaccompanied minors,” those who have crossed the border without parents (NBC.)

It is clear that Trump 2020 has made the decision that “the Wall” is their winning strategy; and that “promise kept” must be defended at all costs, even if it hasn’t really happened. 

The Education Department, led by their insipid Secretary, Betsy DeVos, has become the striking point for reducing the reach of the Federal government.  While the proposed cut of federal funding for Special Olympic was dramatically reversed by the President; it was only the tip of the iceberg for Education Department cuts of programs.  Millions of dollars have been reduced, but even more have been transferred from existing programs to Ms. DeVos’s pet projects in charter and independent schools.

2020 Trump will point to this as a signature move to get “the government” out of education, and give “choice in education” to “the people;” a rallying point for the right.

And behind the scenes, the Administration has continued its assault on protections for American wildlife and lands.  The Interior Department lifted endangered species protection on the greater sage grouse, with the net effect of opening nine million acres of US controlled land for mining and oil exploration.  Not only does this pay off the President’s friends in those industries:  it feeds into his narrative that there is no need to explore alternative energy sources (Washington Post.) 

As the current swirl over the Mueller Report fills the air, the Trump campaign for 2020 is laying the groundwork for the election.  They are intent on reenacting the campaign of 2016, added to “#MAGA” the Vice President’s mantra of “promises made, promises kept.”  It is a strategy that will do little to expand the President’s electoral base, but it is one that will energize the support he does have.  

The second part of that plan must then be for the Democrats to in some way self-destruct, in order to recreate the electoral math of 2016.  Democrats – the choice is yours.

Second Grade 

I was in Miss Meyer’s second grade class at the “annex” to Clifton Elementary School.  My Mom was 5’4” and my Dad was too (at least so he claimed) so I definitely wasn’t the biggest kid in the class, but it wouldn’t have mattered out on the playground anyway.  The playground belonged to “Marshall.”  At the time, I thought Marshall was a fourteen year-old fourth grader (remember I was seven) though he probably was closer to eleven.  But he was huge, and he was strong, and he wanted my milk money.

And he took it, daily, for weeks.  Standing up to him wasn’t really an option, he would just push me down and take it anyway. My friends didn’t like it, but there was little they could do; if they protested, Marshall would take their milk money too.  He ruled the playground like a fiefdom of the Cincinnati Public Schools; I can’t remember the Principal’s name, but I absolutely remember Marshall’s.

Finally my parents intervened with the school, and Marshall went away.  We kids thought he went to juvenile prison (isn’t that what they do with robbers?) but I really don’t know what happened.  Marshall was gone, and my daily donation to his fiefdom was over. I remember my Dad taking me in the backyard and showing my some boxing moves; that’s how he handled the kids that bullied him for having a German last name after World War I.  But I’m glad I didn’t punch Marshall, he’d have slain me.

Second grade:  a time when things were simple, and the monsters were fourteen.  When you called your friends “pencil necks” and “dumb butts,” or maybe one of the “magic words” you heard the older kids use in the woods behind the house when they saw two dogs locked in love.  It was a time when there was no difference between common sense and “apparent” sense. 

• “If there was such a food crisis in China, why didn’t they go to a different grocery store?” 
• “Of course you couldn’t send a space ship to the sun during the day, you had to land at night.” 
• “All of those famous explorers who froze getting to the North and South Poles should have gone in the summer.”

Second grade in Miss Meyer’s class was a learning time for me.  I learned that left-handed people didn’t write correctly, and that sometimes you got knocked down for your lunch money.   And I learned that sometimes your heroes get shot in a limousine in Dallas.

But as I grew up, I learned that what seemed logical to second graders isn’t really logical at all.

So it is always with some surprise that I listen to our current President of the United States, speaking last night at a rally in Grand Rapids.  I have to reach back fifty-seven years to the Clifton School Annex playground and Miss Meyer’s room to understand what he is saying.  To hear him call Congressman Adam Schiff, Democratic Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, “pencil necked” and “not a long ball hitter” (not a golfer myself, my guess is that is some vague sexual reference) puts me back playing four-square in the sun.

I think of those watching as like my friends in the circle around Marshall and me, wanting to do something to stop him, but knowing if they act, then Trump would turn on them, and take their “milk money.”  

I hear that same second grade “apparent logic” we used:

“You’d be doing wind, windmills, whirr.  And if it doesn’t blow you can forget about television for that night. ‘Darling I want to watch television. ‘I’m sorry, the wind isn’t blowing.’ I know a lot about wind.” (Trump, Rally in Grand Rapids 3/28/19)

It’s too bad they haven’t evented some kind of energy storage devices, maybe that could retain the power developed by the windmill, to use when the wind isn’t blowing, then recharge when it is.  

I bet a fourth grader could figure it out.

To my Trumpian Friends:

Once I have the opportunity to read the Mueller Report, I will accept his finding of no criminal conspiracy with Russia. I say once I see the report, because I am sorely disappointed that Attorney General Barr has ignored the non-partisan intent of the Special Counsel regulation, and has made a political decision with his four Page “summary.”

But I will not accept that all of the evidence of cooperation with Russia is false – because it’s not.

I know Donald Trump Jr., Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner met with Russian representatives in Trump Tower with the intent of getting “dirt” on Hillary Clinton.  This is a fact.  Donald Jr. said he’d “love it.”

I know that Donald Trump lied to the American people about his business dealings with Russia throughout the 2016 election campaign. Not only did Cohen testify to it, but Trump himself and his lawyer Giuliani acknowledged it.

I know that campaign manager Manafort and his assistant Gates met with a Russian operative in the Cigar Bar in New York and passed him campaign polling data.

I know that National Security Advisor Michael Flynn made multiple contacts to Russian officials, then lied to the FBI about it.  I know that in some of these calls, he promised a change in the future administration’s policy if they would ignore the Obama administration’s sanctions for election interference – and the Russians did.

I know that either Roger Stone is a soothsayer able to predict the future, or he knew about the subjects of the WikiLeaks email releases well before they happened.  As I don’t believe in supernatural powers, that leaves Stone in contact with Wikileaks.

I see a record of lying about Russian contacts from the President, the children, and the campaign staff that has stretched over three years. Why did they lie if there was nothing to hide?

You ask why we “liberals” can’t just let this go. You state: “…see,  we told you there was no collusion (whatever that word means.)” But what I actually “see” is evidence of exactly that.  I hope that the Mueller Report will address my concerns because what Bill Barr is saying is; “believe me, not your lying eyes.”

Legal constraints on Robert Mueller in his Special Counsel position may have pre-ordained the outcome of his investigation.  There are two issues that hamstrung the Special Counsel, unlike the Independent Counsels of the Nixon, Reagan and Clinton eras. Those Counsels were operating under a law passed by Congress, creating their position and guaranteeing its independence from the rest of the Executive Branch.  While there were questions about the Constitutionality of creating such an office, while it existed it could operate in the Justice Department as an independent entity.

Mueller was given no such powers.  He was appointed under the Special Counsel regulation of the Department of Justice itself.  He was never independent, but an employee of the Department of Justice, and subject to its restrictions and controls.  He served under the Attorney General (or Deputy Attorney General during the recusal of Jeff Sessions) and had to run major decisions through him.

The Special Counsel regulations require that if the Counsel and the Attorney General disagree about a decision, that has to be reported to the Congress.  What the Regulations don’t mention, is that if a Special Counsel knows there will be disagreement, and therefore does not bring an issue to the Attorney General, there is nothing to be done.

Robert Mueller is an honorable man.  He was well aware of the rules of his new office.  One of those rules was that the Department of Justice would not bring an indictment against the President of the United States.  This means that regardless of the outcome of his investigation, Robert Mueller knew that he could not bring an indictment of Donald Trump.  It was unreasonable for anyone to expect differently, Mueller is a straight-ahead litigator, he is not a rule breaker.   He was not going to demand a re-write of long established policy.

So what if Mueller found evidence that President Trump broke the law?  Leon Jarworski, the Nixon Independent Counsel, didn’t indict the President, but named him as an unindicted co-conspirator.  Robert Mueller didn’t do that, but the Federal Southern District of New York has all but done so, naming him as “Individual One” who participated in Cohen’s crimes.

But Mueller also knew his greater task, to let the nation know what really happened in the election of 2016.  Those details, the evidence that might serve Congress in an impeachment of the President if required, are in the Report.  That’s why the Barr Letter is so dissatisfying; it, intentionally or not, hides the facts.

In addition, when the new Attorney General, Bill Barr, was appointed; Mueller knew full well that Barr had a unique view of Presidential power. Barr ascribes to the “Unitary Executive” theory, granting all powers of the Executive Branch in the single individual, the President.  Under this theory, the President cannot obstruct justice, as obstructing an investigation by the Department of Justice is theoretically just stopping himself. In the same way, the President can fire any executive branch personnel for any reason. He is the sole decider. The only Constitutional check on the President recognized by the theory is the power of Congressional impeachment.

Mueller could have brought a recommendation to indict President Trump for obstruction, but that would run counter to both Department policy (indicting a President) and the avowed views of the new Attorney General. Instead, Mueller did what a good prosecutor does, he presented his evidence for the Congress and the Country to decide.

We will, when we get the opportunity to see the Report.

So I am sorry my Trumpian friends and Attorney General Barr, it will take more than your say-so to overcome what I already know. I believe in Mueller, but I need to see what he saw to understand his conclusions. In our current world of “fake news” – created by this – President – it’s the only way to know.

Payback Tour!!

Like it or not, the Mueller Investigation was unable to prove that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia.  The explanation that we are now expected to accept, is that there were a series of contacts with Russia, from Flynn to Don Junior to Manafort, that were not coordinated on the Trump side.  We now “know” that all of these and more; Papadoupolos, Stone, and the President himself, lied to the American people about their interactions: for no particular reason?  Sometimes what apparently is what it really is:  the Trump campaign was clumsy, and ignorant, and unaware of the multiple attempts Russian intelligence was making to influence their campaign.  We await the actual Mueller Report.

But with Attorney General Bill Barr’s little letter to the Congress, the President and his campaign are off the conspiracy hook.  The Trump apologists are in full cry:  we need to punish those who dared called out the Russian connections.  Press Secretary Sarah Sanders stated that critics called the President an agent of Russia, committing treason, a death penalty offense. As Emerson said,  “When you strike at a king, you must kill him,” because if you fail, he will definitely try to kill you.

The Trump Campaign 2020 has sent a list to news program producers, detailing the folks who should not be allowed on the air, “… given the outrageous and unsupported claims made in the past.” Senator Mike Blumenthal, Congressmen Adam Schiff, Eric Swalwell, and Jerry Nadler, DNC Chairman Tom Perez, and former CIA Director John Brennan are, according to the campaign, to either be blackballed, or attacked for their prior statements.

Senator Lindsey Graham, who admitted to advising John McCain to turn the Steele Dossier over to the FBI, has a list of investigations he wants to reopen as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  He wants to follow the Jim Jordan plan:  attack the FBI leadership from Comey to McCabe to Strzok; investigate the Carter Page FISA warrant; and perhaps even re-open the Hillary Clinton email investigations.  He and fellow traveller Trey Gowdy were at Mara Lago with the President last weekend, clearly preparing their responses to the Barr letter. 

So while the House of Representatives will continue to investigate the Trump Presidency, with Committees looking at everything from taxes to obstruction to conspiracy; the Trump Administration has moved aggressively into attack mode.  It’s not just against the Trump critics.  They have opened a full-on assault against the “MSM” (mainstream media – not a Microsoft product) and particularly the big four, the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC and CNN.  

They have also doubled down on their attacks on the new young Congressional Democrats, accusing the entire Party of being anti-Semitic.  Even Benjamin Netanyahu joined in, echoing the Trump propaganda in his speech to AIPAC, the American-Israeli lobby.  

So with “the enemy” on the run, the last thing any political entity would want to do is step on their own message.  From the Trump perspective, ride the “vindication” of the Barr Letter for as long as he can; who knows what will happen when the actual Mueller Report emerges. But of course, this is the same Trump operation that had dozens of contacts with Russians, supposedly without the right hand knowing what the left hand was doing; so it should be no surprise that the “payback tour” would get cut short by a move of their own making.

The first action in “stepping on the message” actually occurred before the Letter was released. Last week Trump released the proposed budget for 2020, including a line item cut of Medicare of $845 Billion. While the real “cut” is closer to $595 Billion, cutting Medicare going into an election year is always going to be a tough sell.

Then yesterday, the Department of Justice weighed in on the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.  Up until this time, the DoJ had taken the regular position of defending the law passed by Congress, but yesterday their brief was a full out attack on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.   Should the Administration prevail in the case that undoubtedly will in end in front of the Supreme Court, ALL of the Affordable Care Act would be gone.

Getting insurance with pre-existing conditions, Medicaid expansions, keeping children on parents insurance until twenty-six, wellness care, Medicare drug cost reductions, purchasing individual insurance on the marketplace:  all would end.  The Trump Administration has failed to put forward any alternative plans, and neither have the Republicans in the Senate, so if this were to come to pass, the United States would be back in 2009 as far as healthcare is concerned.   That’s not going to be popular.

At first glance, it might seem that Mr. Trump is so embedded in hatred towards John McCain that he would take an impossible political position just in spite.  But all of this “payback tour” is really part of a clear campaign strategy.  The Trump/Republican strategy is one based on the election of 2016; essentially conceding that they are unable to get a majority of Americans to vote for him. Giving up “winning” means that the campaign will need to follow the extremely narrow path they fell upon in 2016, winning by narrow margins in enough states to tip the Electoral College to their side.

So in fact, the “tour” is exactly what it seems to be, more “red meat” to the Trump base.  They don’t need to win the “popular” vote, they need to hold their 40% and get enough of the rest in Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and Wisconsin to win the Electoral vote.  Their actions are specifically targeted:  the “victimhood” of the investigation, the continued state action to restrict voting rights (Florida legislators are in the process of undoing the Florida Constitutional Amendment granting former felons the right to vote,) and the continual lying about healthcare (we will have a “great” system – “trust me;”) all aimed at their narrow base.

It looks like “paybacks” but it’s actually the new campaign strategy:  and we’re not even in 2020 yet.

Food Poisoning

So Sunday night I found myself in and out of bed with food poisoning. Lost six pounds – and Monday was spent laying low. Many of my “Trumper” friends will say it wasn’t food poisoning at all – but “Barr Poisoning” — maybe so.

Special Counsel Mueller has found that there was no indictable conspiracy between the Trump Campaign and Russian assets. There’s a far legal cry from not guilty to innocent, but it doesn’t matter. While we still await Mr. Mueller’s actual report, the bottom line is that Russia can no longer be a Democratic focus. Mueller has spoken – regardless of what seemed to be a huge circumstantial case, we need to move on. Dwelling on what he should have found won’t change what has passed, and it won’t win in 2020. We must leave it to historians to determine what happened.

The Trump side demands an apology.  Tell them as soon as we get one from Trey Gowdy, we’ll think about it.  After seven years of Benghazi and now more threats of FISA and Clinton email investigations – don’t bother. There was more than enough probable cause to believe the President was conspiring – it just couldn’t be proved.

And while it is the right, and perhaps the duty of the House of Representatives to investigate the President’s potential obstruction of justice, it would be difficult to convince the nation that there was an involved cover up of a crime that didn’t occur. Americans are common sense people, and “that dog won’t hunt” for most.

So, my disappointed Democratic friends, let’s move on. We celebrated the appointment Mueller as the “umpire,” we can’t complain about the calls. And it’s not like there isn’t plenty to complain about with the Trump Presidency, as my “Trump Friends” point out, it’s onto healthcare, the environment, income inequality, and all of the other issues that a vast majority of Americans can see are being bungled. The “Trumpers” see those as winning issues – but we know they aren’t.

To quote Hamilton – “…if we can get this one right…” we can demonstrate that Trump has done exactly what we knew he would do: make the rich richer, the powerful stronger, and make America “white” again.

That’s enough. Democrats have the answers that the majority of Americans want. Let’s get that done, and not spend time on what might have been.  Get to work!

What Democrats Shouldn’t Be Talking About

There are three major “plot lines” in Democratic politics today.  The first, and what should be the most important; is what can a Democratic House of Representatives get accomplished in the next year and a half. What proposals can they put forth to the American people; ideas that, if they could get a Democratic Senate and/or Presidency, would make America a better place.  Ideas like extending health care to more Americans, making major improvements to protect the environment, and working towards a higher minimum wage; all are things that Democrats should be talking about.  

The second is the behavior of the President of the United States.  It is the legitimate authority of the House of Representatives to oversee the actions of the Executive Branch.  There are many, many questions about the actions of the President; his unusual affinity for dictators and potentates, his personal financial gains in the Presidency, the behavior of his appointees from the Department of the Interior to the Environmental Protection Agency.  

If there is a swamp in Washington, it’s the one appointed by Donald Trump.  There’s a lot to investigate, beyond the actual questions about the President himself.

And the third “plot line” is the 2020 election, the excruciatingly long campaign for the Democratic nomination for President.  Eighteen have officially declared so far, with several, most importantly Joe Biden, still waiting in the wings.  They are barnstorming the nation, talking about almost everything, and trying to find a way to rise above the crowd.

In trying to gain some of that visibility, there should be some topics that simply aren’t given much discussion, because they are distracting from critical issues, and give ammunition to whomever the future Republican candidate might be (if not the President.)

The Electoral College should be off of the table.  Yes, it’s an anachronism, with hints of the same kind of compromises that made slaves 3/5’s of a person.  It gives more power to smaller states, though in the end a large enough popular vote offsets the effect.  And, from the Democrats side, it has resulted in winning the popular vote in two elections in the past sixteen years, but losing the Presidency.  It’s easy to envision a much-altered history with Al Gore instead of George Bush, or Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

But it doesn’t matter. There is no conceivable way that Article II and Amendment XII of the Constitution of the United States are going to be modified.  Even if two-thirds of the Congress were willing to make the change, there wouldn’t be the three-fourths of the states to vote for an amendment that many would consider against their own interests.  

So it’s a non-starter, and fodder for the alt-right media and politicians who will use the discussions to energize their base.  There is little to gain from discussing it, and lots to lose.  Candidates need to say exactly that; and move onto more important issues.  So should “bloggers” (like me) who get sucked into theoretical Constitutional discussions. It ain’t gonna change, so get over it, and gain enough popular votes, including the 77,744 votes that would have changed  the electoral votes of Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to “blue” in 2016.

“Socialism” has been a Republican “bête noire” since the New Deal era of Franklin Roosevelt. Democratic candidates for President shouldn’t get trapped on the flypaper of “are you a socialist” questions.  The United States has a capitalist economic system, and that’s not going to change.  Even the most “left” Democratic candidates recognize that, and see their role in government as regulating capitalism so that it doesn’t take advantage of the people, and to secure basic human rights like housing, food, healthcare, environmental protection and individual opportunity.  

So unless Eugene Debs is running for the Democratic candidacy (founder of the Social Democratic Party in 1898 and five time Socialist Party candidate) everyone else should acknowledge that we’ve got a lot of work to do to improve our capitalist country, but capitalist is what we are.   There is no reason not to be ready for the question, and even the extreme left supporters of Sanders and Warren would recognize the reasoning.

And finally, Presidential candidates shouldn’t be talking about impeaching the current President.  Impeachment discussions, while they might be warranted, are premature.  Americans view impeachment as a quasi-judicial action by the Congress; they don’t like their judges and jurors deciding a case before the trial, and we don’t want the Congressmen and Senators running for President to pre-judge the case either.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has it right.  The committee chairman, Nadler, Schiff, Cummings and Neal; will make sure that the investigations are carried out properly.  They will provide the evidence and if impeachment is warranted that evidence will trigger the issue.  There’s no need to continue discussion until it is presented, and that’s a matter of time.

In the meantime, the Democratic candidates should be telling voters how they will make our nation better, heal it from the intense divisions we face today, and improve the life of our citizens.  That’s what folks are looking for, not the inflammatory rhetoric that serves only to galvanize the opposition without any real chance of success.

Christmas Morning

When I was a kid in Kettering, Ohio, Christmas was a big deal.  I remember waking up early, six-ish, and waiting in bed until I thought I could wake my parents.  But when I went up to their room, I was groggily admonished, “not until seven!!” So I sat on the end of their bed, counting the clicks on the stone faced clock they had on the dresser.

Nine hundred:  it was the number of “clicks” in fifteen minutes. Nine hundred:  counting anticipation on Christmas morning.  Now, I feel like I’ve been counting clicks for weeks; we must get to nine hundred soon.  It’s not just the Mueller Report were waiting for:  it’s the other half of the Russian indictments.  Thirteen Russian nationalshave been indicted on conspiracy to defraud the United States by putting false propaganda (is that redundant?) on social media.  It is the Russian “side” of the conspiracy, but there has been only one indictment on the American side,Richard Pinedo, the California man who helped launder the money paid to social media. He pled guilty, and was sentenced to six months in prison, and six month of house arrest.

It is the core of the Russia question.  Did Americans, and specifically members of the Trump Campaign, conspire with Russians, either in the use of Clinton Campaign emails, or social media.  There is a tremendous amount of “smoke,” it will be in indictments or the Report that we will discover if Mueller found a “fire.” 

It might include the “misfits;” Roger Stone, currently under indictment but not for Russian conspiracy;Jerome Corsi, who stated he was threatened with indictment by the Mueller team; and Carter Page, who has either effectively “played the fool” in the Russia saga, or is an exceptionally clever Russian agent.  And of course Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks and still hidden in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London.  Assange has been indicted in the US, though not directly on charges relating to the Trump Campaign.  But he clearly conspired with Russian Intelligence to put the Clinton Emails into the campaign.  There is circumstantial evidence that Stone, Corsi and Page were connected to either Wikileaks or Russian Intelligence itself.

Or it can be the secretive “dark forces” behind the Trump Campaign.  Steve Bannon, campaign director who was connected to Cambridge Analyticaand the Mercer family.  Brad Parscales, the social media director for the Trump Campaign, and the nexus of Facebook, Twitter and the Trump social media strategy.  Paul Manafort, already serving seven years in jail, but never charged with crimes directly linked to Russia, even though his associate, Konstantin Kilimnick, a “former” Russian Intelligence agent, was indicted for obstruction and witness tampering.  And, perhaps the Mercer familyitself,  the founders of Cambridge Analytica and the “big money” behind the Trump Campaign.  They providing  Bannon, Kelly-Ann Conway and the use of Cambridge Analytica for the general election campaign, and the fortune’s founder, Bob Mercer, is already on the hook for tax evasion.

Or, it could be the “family,” the central core of the Trump Campaign.  General Mike Flynn may be directly involved, but has a plea bargain with the Mueller team, and is providing them inside information.  Does he, or Manafort’s deputy Rick Gates, also with a deal; have details on conspiracy by Donald Trump Jr, Jared Kushner, or Ivanka Trump.  They were the real forces directing the Trump Campaign; if the campaign was cooperating with Russian Intelligence or Wikileaks, it’s impossible that they wouldn’t have known, consented, and participated.

And finally, is there evidence against “the big enchilada,” the President of the United States.  Like it or not, the US Department of Justice won’t indict a sitting President, a determination made as a side note when they were indicting the Vice President, Spiro Agnew, in 1973.  So if there are indictable actions by Donald Trump, otherwise known as “individual one,” it will be seen either as an “unindicted co-conspirator” in other indictments, as was done by Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski to Richard Nixon, on in the text of the Report itself.

If the family knew, Trump knew.  If they are indicted, it’s difficult to see how he could not be, barring the “Presidential exception.”

Soon, the “nine hundred clicks,” and the arguments will be over.  We will know if the Trump Campaign cooperated, colluded, and most importantly, conspired with Russian Intelligence or their agents.  Robert Mueller will give us the answers: I have faith that the former FBI Director and Marine knows where his duty lies; to give honest answers to the people of the United States.  

Then we open the presents:  will we be excited, or will we be disappointed? Either way, the next fight will soon begin.

De Mortuis Mil Misi Bonum

I gave him the kind of funeral that he wanted, which as president I had to approve. I don’t care about this. I didn’t get thank you. That’s ok. We sent him on the way, but I wasn’t a fan of John McCain. – President Trump Speech, 3/21/19

 Many Americans are appalled – President Trump is attacking deceased Senator John McCain again, on Twitter, in speeches, and in statements to the press.  McCain died in August of 2018; even in Roman times it was said, “de mortuis mil misi bonum;”do not speak ill of the dead.  The Romans were aware of the “social inappropriateness” of attacking the dead; and while there was a certain “danger” in stirring the spirit world, it was really more practical:  society saw it as an unfair attack, as the dead could not defend themselves.

The Romans had a strong view of heroism as well. There history was filled with great generals and soldiers.  Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus was one of the most famous citizen/soldiers:  drawn from his farm to lead the Roman Army against invaders, given absolute power to defeat the enemy, winning, then relinquishing his power and returning to his farm.  He was the model of the citizen/soldier/leader that Romans, and history, has looked to for inspiration.

Sedona was where John McCain’s home was in Arizona; the “farm” where he spent his final days.  McCain, regardless of what the President has said, was a war hero, a man who flew carrier bombers and was shot down over North Vietnam.  He spent five and a half years in the “Hanoi Hilton,” a North Vietnamese prison. He returned, served a few more years in the Navy, then retired and ran for office, first in the House of Representatives, then as Senator from Arizona from 1987 until his death.

McCain certainly had has flaws (though the internet nonsense about his career as a pilot, including accusations of starting a fire that almost destroyed the carrier Forrestal, have been proven scurrilous.)  He was one of the “Keating Five,” accused of accepting campaign funds to influence Federal regulators (he was cleared of ethical violations, but rebuked by the Senate for “poor judgment.”)  And he was well known for his legendary temper.

But McCain was best known for his “maverick” attitude.  Generally a conservative Republican, he often took stands against his Party on issues like campaign finance reform, opposing pork barrel spending by the Congress, and regarding US military intervention overseas.  It was his final maverick act, the “thumbs down” vote against the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, that gained the eternal hatred of Donald Trump.

Many Americans think that Mr. Trump is simply getting revenge, the same way he has attacked many Democrats and even the husband of one of his own senior advisors.  They feel that it is simply Trump, that his mind “wanders” to those that he feels have betrayed him, and attacks.  

But there is a more targeted reason that the President is attacking a dead, war hero, Senator.  Like everything else in Trump’s world, he is sending a message to those who really have the President’s fate in their hands.  It’s not his “base,” that 35% who will stick with him without regard to the facts that come out about him.  They accept his “fake news” categorizing of any critical facts, and are willing to take whatever he does as acceptable conduct.  It was probably to Trump’s surprise that he found he really could stand in the middle of 5^ThAvenue and shoot someone, and it would be OK.

His attack on McCain is much more refined.  There are forty-five Democrats in the Senate, and two Independents who vote with them.  That leaves fifty-three Republicans in the current body.  If the Democrat controlled House of Representatives votes to impeach Mr. Trump (a simple majority) it would take a two-thirds vote of the Senate to convict and remove him.  That would require sixty-seven votes; twenty Republican Senators would need to turn against a President of their own Party.

The President is sending those twenty (whichever they may be) a message:  I can go so far as to attack a dead hero of the Senate, an American Cincinnatus; what do you think I will do to you.  What would be the result of such a concerted attack?  While the “base,” the 35% percent who would applaud alongside 5^thAvenue, is not a majority of voters; it is a majority of voters in the Republican primaries.  Mr. Trump believes that he can turn them against his enemies in the Party should they look to waver on an impeachment vote.

Mr. Trump, and the public, are awaiting the Mueller Report, and the House Congressional investigations that are forthcoming.  We don’t know what “facts” may be revealed by these investigations, but it is clear the President is being proactive in attacking them, whatever they are. Should they turn out to be as bad for him as it might seem, then it will require some Republican Senators to take a closer look at Cincinnatus, and at McCain.  It might be time for them to make their stand, and return to their farms.  Their political careers might end, but their place in history would be secured.

Immorality

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul, or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?  – Matthew 16:26 KJV

I had a long conversation with a friend of mine, discussing the morality of the Trump Administration.  I took what I thought was a “pure” view (who would have thought “pure” was in my vocabulary) that Donald Trump was an immoral man, creating an immoral time, and never had the moral standing to be President of the United States.  My friend disagreed.

She started by giving Mr. Trump a “pass” on all personal immoral behavior prior to being President.  Quoting scripture, Matthew 7:1, “judge not, that ye be not judged,” she stated that judgment is between Mr. Trump and the Lord; and made the argument that we should evaluate the President only through his current acts, not by his past behavior.  More than that, the personal morality of the President, even now, should not be an issue: it is only the benefits he brings to the nation that we should examine.

Democrats aren’t “pure” on this issue either.  Bill Clinton was (and is) a man of questionable personal morality (the Epstein scandal might involve the former President as well.)  He was impeached for having an affair with a twenty-one year old intern literally in the Oval Office, in our current #METOO era he makes Senator Al Franken’s transgressions seem trivial.  Yet many Democrats supported Clinton, taking the stand that his personal morality was not a political issue.   Democrats took several steps down a slippery slope that we are still struggling to climb today. (see an earlier essay on Trump World – Bill Clinton Should Have Resigned)

The argument about Trump’s past immorality seemed insoluble, so we switched the conversation to his current actions.  I brought two issues to the table that I thought were clearly immoral:  the separation of children from their parents at the border, and the President’s clear preference for world leaders who are brutal dictators.  We argued back and forth about child separation.  The issue was: were the migrants actions, crossing the border without permission and “risking” their children, “immoral” acts that “cancelled” out the immorality of the government.  In fact, did the government have a “moral duty” to protect those children.

Not surprisingly, I didn’t buy that argument.  Many of the migrant parents are faced with an awful choice; stay where they are and risk the lives of their children from the gangs and crime, or take almost equal risks to travel to the United States and try to find a safer life.   I failed to see how this could be a choice in morality; it must ultimately be moral to protect your child.  But the actions of the government, essentially kidnapping children from the parents they hold in custody, removing them far away and permanently separating some; this can be nothing but immoral.

And as far as the President’s “friends” from Mohammad bin Salman, to Kim Jong Un, to Vladimir Putin: all have jailed, tortured and murdered to maintain their power.  Mr. Trump has demonstrated an affinity for them, in my view a disturbing admiration for their ability to control their citizenry.  He has abandoned a “moral” view of American foreign policy, instead making deals with dictators to the detriment of their own people.  My friend’s argument, that the President’s friendships are to the benefit of the United States and therefore are good for us, is reminiscent of Henry Kissinger’s Real Politik theory of foreign diplomacy.  It views diplomacy as a “zero sum” game, with the United States either winning or losing. Trump, Kissinger, and my friend, would argue that it is an amoral stand, but that benefits to America are clearly moral. We have to be winning.

So I asked a final question: if we find that Mr. Trump is in fact compromised by the Russians, either financially or otherwise, and that he cooperated with them to get elected, can we finally determine he is unacceptable? 

My friend refused to answer the hypothetical.  She demanded to “wait for the facts” before drawing any conclusion.  

My concern:  in our current climate, where “truth” is as malleable as a Facebook post; will we ever be able to find a consensus on “the facts.” I worry that we will be left with cries of  “fake news” that leave us divided, not in a moral quandary, but in a struggle of conflicting views of the truth that cannot be resolved.  

After the revelation of audio tapes definitively showing his guilt, Richard Nixon resigned from office. 29% of Americans believed he should remain in office.   In our current age of moral convenience and differing facts where 69% of Christian Evangelicals still support the President, how many Americans would choose not to believe “the facts,” regardless of what they concluded?

Why is Ohio Red?

Listening to the “pundits,” Ohio is becoming a state no longer “in play.”  Traditionally Ohio was a most important swing state, often determining which Party would control the Presidency.  But more recently, Ohio has trended more and more Republican, not so much in the Presidential elections (Trump won in 2016, but Obama won in 2012 and 2008) but in statewide offices.  The Governor, Attorney General, Secretary of State, and Auditor are all held by Republicans, as are five of the seven elected Supreme Court Justices.

So is Ohio now just a “Red” state?  It sure feels that way, as the State Legislature becomes the incubator for every ideologically based Republican law.  This is most obvious with the passage of the anti-abortion “heartbeat bill,” banning abortions from the moment a fetal heartbeat is discovered, between six and eight weeks of pregnancy, often before a woman even knows she’s pregnant.  Under the current US Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade, the law is unconstitutional, but Ohio’s Republicans are happy to be a “test case” for the new Supreme Court of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.  

The Republican Party in Ohio is so anti-abortion that Republican Governor John Kasich appointed the leader of the State Right to Life organization as President of the State Medical Board, even though he isn’t a physician (he no longer is the President of the Board, but remains a member.)

Ohio was also “ground zero” for the Republican “RED MAP” plan, gerrymandering the state to maximize Republican voters and minimize Democrats.  The secret deliberations and street by street computer mapping, held in a hotel in Columbus with neither Democrats nor the public allowed to participate, was so effective that even Republicans themselves were surprised.  John Husted, the current Lieutenant Governor and former Secretary of State, found the results so biased that he put forward and passed reform of the redistricting process that will go into effect for the 2022 elections.

But there is one giant “anomaly” in the Ohio elective results, Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown. Brown is a “progressive Democrat” and has held elective office in Ohio since 1975.  In what seems to be a “reddening” state, Brown is the big blue difference.  Add the Presidential results from 2012 and 2008 and it raises the question; is Ohio going “red,” or are Democrats simply not competing?

In the 2018 elections, “not competing” was the operative term.  Looking at the candidates for office, led by Richard Cordray running for Governor, Ohio Democrats failed to find standard bearers that could spark excitement.  Cordray was a candidate from the Hillary Clinton mold, a good administrator and a well-known name, but unable to impact on the average voter. He would have made a great Governor, but wasn’t a dynamic candidate. Brown won by seven percent, but Cordray, facing an aging Mike DeWine lost by four.  The rest of the statewide ticket followed suit, with every statewide Democrat losing by around four percent.

That sounds like a massive defeat, because it was.  But to look at it politically, in 2018, with an uninspiring slate of candidates, the Ohio Democrats were within four percent of statewide office.  Republicans in Ohio have a dearth of “exciting” candidates as well, with Husted probably the heir apparent to take the lead.  So Ohio remains under Republican control.

What will it take for Democrats to overcome the four percent gap?  In 2020, a Presidential turnout of voters may well be enough to put Ohio back in the “Blue” Presidential column, but for statewide offices, up for election in 2022, it is going to take more than retread candidates from the 2018 campaigns.  Ohio Democrats need to reach out to find inspiring candidates, candidates that can “fire-up” not just the base in the strongholds of the Northeast and central cities, but can cross the line to make gains in the suburbs that control Ohio politics.

It can happen.  The Twelfth Congressional District special election in August of 2018 is the playbook, as Democrat Danny O’Connor came within two thousand votes of Republican Troy Balderson in a heavily Republican area.  O’Connor made huge gains in the northern suburban areas around Columbus, demonstrating the path to regaining Democratic success. 

It will take exciting candidates.  It will take clever strategies.  And, of course, it will take money (something that O’Connor had in the special election, but not so much in the general election three months later.)  But the claim that Ohio has turned “Red” for good is premature.  Ohio is still within the grasp of the Democrats: they need to find the Conor Lambs or Elaine Lurias as well as the solid Democratic veterans.  And find the money to support them.  Do all that, and Ohio can stop being the “proving ground” for all of the far-right Republican strategies, and get back to governing for the people again.

The Day After St. Patrick’s Day

There is a line from a not-so-great movie with Harrison Ford and Brad Pitt, by an Irish terrorist (Pitt) hiding in New York, discovered by a NY Cop (Ford.) The movie was  “The Devil’s Own.”  I remember watching the show with my parents, as Brad Pitt murmured his lines in an Irish brogue. My Mom understood every word, but my eighty-nine year old father struggled to hear through the Irish accent as Pitt said:  “Don’t look for a happy ending. It’s not an American story. It’s an Irish one.”

My mother was an O’Connor, her father a cooper (barrel maker) born in County Kerry, Ireland.  She grew up in England, but in the years before World War II she described stories of Irish cousins, fighting for independence from the British Empire, hiding from the British soldiers.  As she said, “I saw the world through rose colored glasses, and my politics were a little rosy too…” and just maybe a little green.

We look at our politics today, and think how divided our land is.  There seems to be no room for compromise or discussion: Trumpers versus Resistance, pro-birth versus pro-choice, Second Amendment versus gun control.  We are a nation that seems to be facing insurmountable fractures; even if the election of 2020 changes the Presidency there will still be a substantial number of Americans who will feel they have been cheated.

But on the Day after St. Patrick’s Day, as I, Martin O’Connor Dahlman, nurse my St. Patrick’s weekend headache and my voice recovers from songs of Revolution (it’s good to be retired) I think about how bad things could really be.  It wasn’t just when my mother was young in the 1920’s and 30’s; the conflict in Ireland lasted until 1998.  It was a war among people with everything in common: a shared island, language, culture, and history. But it was that history dividing them: a history of religious warfare between Catholic and Protestant, so bitter that it lasted from 1642 until nineteen years ago – 357 years.  It makes the two years of Trump World seem puny.

Catholic and Protestant: they even agreed on most of the religious tenets. Theirs was an argument about “process,” one that cost 3500 lives in just the last chapter, the “Troubles” from 1969 to 1998.  Bombs blew up stores and churches, the IRA (Irish Republican Army) versus the “Unionists” and the British military in the streets of the cities and the small villages of Northern Ireland.  And yet, even the “troubles” ended  peacefully – though it was an “Irish story, not an American one.”  At least as long as the current Brexit deal doesn’t upend the twenty-year peace; a real concern on the currently open border between the Republic of Ireland (in the European Union) and Northern Ireland, a part of the departing United Kingdom.  

So when we look at the forces that divide us here in America; forces of hate and discrimination that seem insurmountable, we need to remember that we can overcome this era, just as we have overcome divisions before.  We are a nation divided, but for most this is not a matter of religious process, but of those who are afraid of the future, and those who look forward to a changing and growing society.  It’s a matter of facing inevitable change, or trying to turn the clock back.  

Unlike the “troubles” in Ireland, we are a nation that has found a way to overcome our differences.  Only once have we resorted to warfare, and while violence is a part of American culture, it isn’t a preordained outcome.  We are a nation dedicated to becoming “A More Perfect Union.”  It is in that constant perfecting that we have written the American experience, and with work, we will continue to do so. We Shall Overcome, and face the future together. 

After all, this isn’t an Irish story, it’s an American one.P

The Cover Story                                              


Trump Tweets – 3/15/19

More “New evidence that the Obama era team of the FBI, DOJ & CIA were working together to Spy on (and take out) President Trump, all the way back in 2015.” A transcript of Peter Strzok’s testimony is devastating. Hopefully the Mueller Report will be covering this. More So, if there was knowingly & acknowledged to be “zero” crime when the Special Counsel was appointed, and if the appointment was made based on the Fake Dossier (paid for by Crooked Hillary) and now disgraced Andrew McCabe (he & all stated no crime), then the Special Counsel…should never have been appointed and there should be no Mueller Report. This was an illegal & conflicted investigation in search of a crime. Russian Collusion was nothing more than an excuse by the Democrats for losing an Election that they thought they were going to win…THIS SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO A PRESIDENT AGAIN! 

Let’s get this clear.  The story the President wants us to believe, is that the FBI and Department of Justice were aligned against him in the election of 2016.  He wants us to think that an FBI “cabal,” led by Director James Comey, plotted to stop Trump from being elected, and keep him from serving as President.  He needs us to accept his assertion that the evidence that began the “Russia” investigation in the summer of 2016 was the “Fake Dossier,” (or “Dodgy Dossier” as Carter Page would say) developed by former British intelligence operative Michael Steele.   In fact, he really wants us to believe that the only Russian collusion that occurred was the Clinton campaign colluding with the Russians through Steele.

If we accept all of this, then the President concludes that all of the crimes that have occurred since; all of the obstruction, perjury, witness tampering, and bribery; were done to protect themselves from a false premise, and therefore are “process” crimes, and, according to the President and his supporters, not important.  As we grow closer to the climax of the Russia investigation; the final Mueller Report and what are likely to be a series of indictments of those closest to the President, the din of Trump produced “fake news” will grow even louder. 

In June of 2018, the Republican led House Judiciary Committee had a series of closed hearings with those that they considered “the leaders” of the “Plot to Stop Trump” movement.  Peter Strzok, former Deputy Director of Counter-Intelligence; Bruce Ohr, former Associate Deputy Attorney General and leading expert on Russian organized crime; and Lisa Page, Justice Department Attorney; each were brought before the committee and questioned for several hours.  The transcripts were kept sealed at the time, and the minority Democrats were bound by secrecy from revealing them.  Republicans “cherry-picked” a few key sentences to try to make their points, but Democrats characterized the testimony as debunking the conspiracy theory.

When the Democrats gained control of the House, this same Committee brought Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen in to testify in open and closed sessions.  The impact of the Cohen testimony was dramatic; he accused the President of the United States of multiple crimes.  His testimony was telling, and came across as truthful, particularly as much of it was backed with documentation.  

To counter the Cohen testimony’s impact, Republican Congressman Doug Collins, the Ranking Minority Member on the Judiciary Committee, took it upon himself to change the discussion.  In the past two weeks, he has leaked the full transcripts of Strzok, Ohr and Page; each hundred of pages.  Unlike the Democrats who respected the Committee rules, Collins did so without the permission from the Chairman or the majority.  

Obfuscation is defined as making something obscure, unclear, and unintelligible.  By dropping hundreds of pages of testimony, Ranking Member Collins tried to bury the Cohen testimony.  The problem is that in all of that testimony, the Republican Committee members were unable to prove their key assertions.

The most important for them, was that the FBI, CIA, DOJ and the Obama Administration were trying to “take out” Trump from 2015.  The FBI opened their investigation into members of the Trump campaign because they were informed that Trump campaign members had contact with Russian intelligence regarding the hacked DNC emails.  Their first source was the Australian Ambassador to the United Kingdom, who reported a conversation with Trump Foreign Policy Advisor George Papadoupolos, when Papadoupolos bragged about knowing about the emails.  This was long before public knowledge that the DNC was hacked, and long before the Steele Dossier was available.  

Once the FBI began to look at Trump personnel, they realized that there were multiple contacts with multiple Russian Intelligence sources.  Papadoupolos, foreign policy advisor Carter Page, Campaign Manager Paul Manafort, and chief foreign policy advisor General Michael Flynn all had documented interactions with Russian sources.  We know now that in addition to these, Donald Trump Jr. and Jared Kushner met with representatives of the Russian government, as well as campaign surrogate Senator Jeff Sessions.

The President has a fundamental  (and intentional) misunderstanding of the role of the FBI. They don’t have to “know” that there’s a crime to investigate.  The agency, particularly when acting as the counter-intelligence arm of the United States, investigates to see IF a crime has been committed.  They begin with “probable cause” that a crime may have occurred, then dig in to see whether there was an actual crime.  When the evidence led to the possibility that the President of the United States might be involved, a Special Counsel was appointed.  We now await his results.

While we wait, we can examine the fundamental flaw in the President’s “FBI conspiracy” theory.  If there was a plot to stop Trump, the obvious way to do so would be to leak the existence of the Russia investigation before the election.  Just as the Comey announcement of the re-opening of the Clinton email investigation impacted the election, certainly information that Trump was under investigation would have done the same.  If Comey, McCabe, Ohr, Strzok, Page and the others were plotting to stop Trump, why didn’t the investigation leak?  Thanks to Mr. Collins, we can hear Ms. Page’s answer to that question.

Ms. Jackson – Lee:  If someone at the FBI was trying to stop Donald Trump from being elected President, yourself or Mr. Strzok or others, do you think they could have publicly disclosed that his campaign was under investigation for potentially colluding with Russian Government actors?

Ms. Page – That’s why you would think.

Ms. Jackson-Lee:  But to your knowledge, no one at the FBI did disclose this fact publicly, correct?

Ms. Page:  No, ma’am.

Ms. Jackson-Lee:  Would you consider this strong evidence that there was not a deep state conspiracy at the FBI to stop Donald Trump from being selected-elected?

Ms. Page:  Yes, ma’am. That and the fact that this is an extraordinary (sic) conservative organization.  So the notion that there’s a deep state conspiracy about anything is laughable.

The conspiracy wasn’t in the FBI or Department of Justice. The conspiracy today is among the Republicans, from Doug Collins to Donald Trump, trying to undercut the Mueller investigation.  It isn’t a “crime” to conspire to undermine an investigation (though crimes may be committed in doing so) but it is wrong.  Americans need to know the truth, even though that truth may do the opposite of setting the President and his friends free.

The Blurry Line

Tuesday a huge scandal broke:  rich people were buying their kid’s enrollment in some of the top universities in the United States!  USC, Stanford, Wake Forest, the University of Texas, Georgetown, Yale, and UCLA were all named.

Wait a minute – rich people have been buying their kids into schools for years.  That’s why there are buildings with rich peoples’ names on them, endowed “chairs” in varying departments (remember the “bin Laden” chair at Harvard), and named fields and stadiums.  Sure the kids have to meet entrance requirements, but in the “black box” of college admissions, they get a “legacy” boost and a “financial endowment” boost. 

So what’s different about Tuesday’s outrage?  Well first, unlike the vague quid pro quo of donating money to the institution and depending on the admissions office to recognize the effort, this was more of a “sure deal.”   We should assume that the “rich kids” probably had good grades in high school (quid pro quo works even better in private prep schools) but didn’t have the College Board scores to make the cut.  The two scams used here either guaranteed an outstanding College Board score, or guaranteed an athletic admission waiver allowing a lower score into the institution.

Both of those are currently legitimate ways to get into school.  Great grades, average Board scores, but run 10.2 in the 100 meter dash? USC needs you, and that 100 meter  clocking will make up for an average test score.  Did you really think all those football players at Notre Dame met all the academic entrance requirements?  The Fighting Irish want to win some football games too.

What’s different about this example, is that these weren’t 10.2 100 meter runners, or 347 pound football tackles.  These were kids with “created” credentials, not actual athletes at all.  The forged athletic successes weren’t good enough to be on scholarship, just strong enough to make it onto the tail end of the water polo, or rowing, or tennis teams (not that these kids could even play the sports.)  It was those last few team slots, where coaches don’t have scholarship money but do have some enrollment “waivers” to fill out their squads.  Add faked credentials to a huge sum of bribe money, and the coach put the “athlete” in for enrollment.

I’m sure some coaches decided that was a great fundraiser.  I can hear the internal conversation now:  “…well, I can get the money the school won’t give me to make my team better, more competitive, build a new track, and it only costs me a spot on the roster that wouldn’t probably play anyway.  It’s just like an endowment!!?”  Or some coaches: “I deserve a raise, I need this to support my family, I always wanted to go to the Bahamas!!!”

None of this makes the fake credentialing and lying right.  It was absolutely cheating, and sets a horrible example for the team members and other students.  But it really not a huge leap from what happens today, just a little shuffle over an already blurry line.

And what about those kids who cheated on the ACT or SAT?  Here’s another dirty little secret:  success in college is much more closely correlated to success with grades in high school than with the outcome of a single standardized test.  A good friend in college had a 4.0 GPA out of an elite prep school, but completely froze on the SAT.  A combined score of 850 (out of a possible 1600) meant that the top colleges were off the list.  Luckily for him and us, Denison University was willing to look past the test score, and we got a brilliant and successful student.

But the most competitive schools in the nation have to find some way to sort out their admissions. Everyone has a 3.9 or 4.0 (or in this modern age of grade inflation, a 4.4 or 4.5!!)  So the next step is using the Boards, get those 36’s on the ACT and 1600’s on the SAT (and even higher with the essay portion kicked in.)  They know it isn’t a matter of future success, but there has to be some way to take the almost 30,000 applicants to Yale and narrow it down to the 2000 that are accepted.

There’s a major industry in “teaching the test” today.  Parents pay $43/hour (Sylvan Learning Center, Columbus, Ohio) to tutor kids and raise those scores!!  Reality for parents is that it can be a good investment:  in the state universities in Ohio, the scholarship money starts at 25 on the ACT and goes up dramatically with each additional point.  A few thousand now could save many thousands in tuition costs later.

For those kids who have grades and simply aren’t good test takers, there are plenty of great colleges in the United States for you.  But if parents have to have their kid in Stanford, or Yale, or USC or the others, and the test prep classes won’t cut it – then they have found a way to spend their money – cheat on the test.  Have someone else take it or have the test proctor correct it afterwards.  It’s all cheating, and it’s all about money.  Pay off the Proctor, put the correct fingerprint on test, then have the brilliant “test proxy” step in and score another 36!!

No:  it’s cheating, forging, and defrauding the test and the colleges.  But if the standardized test score really doesn’t say that much about future success in college, why not?  They are just buying a sure thing, instead of a risky college endowment that might not result in admissions.

Sure, the kids who don’t cheat, and the parents who can’t buy their way in, get screwed.  There’s no denying it’s wrong, and the real damage being done is that it simply is one more way that the rich get richer, and the poor get worse.  But something to think about:  it’s only different in “degreed” from what colleges accept everyday.  Sure it crossed a line, but it’s a very blurry line, one that’s been moved a whole lot already.  Sure the cheaters who got caught should be in trouble, but the whole process was slanted for the money before.  To make it “right,” it will take a whole lot more than sending some celebrities to jail. 

Born to Be In It

Beto O’Rourke – announcing his candidacy for President of the United States

Former Texas Congressman Beto O’Rourke declared his candidacy for the Presidency of the United States.  While he made an official “social media” announcement, sitting on the couch beside his wife; in almost Trumpian fashion he preempted his own headline with a premature tweet to his hometown newspaper twelve hours before.

He joins a crowded field, with fifteen other candidates already declared.  Three others (and probably more not “out” yet) are expected to announce, including the “elephant in the room,” former Vice President Joe Biden. It’s reminiscent of the Democratic primaries of 1992 and 1976, when there was no apparent front-runner.  In both, a “dark horse” candidate emerged to win the nomination, and go onto secure the Presidency; Jimmy Carter in 1976, and Bill Clinton in 1992. (Yes I definitely ignored the 1988 primary, when Michael Dukakis emerged to run against George HW Bush.  I don’t think the end of the Reagan Presidency, despite the Iran-Contra Affair, was analogous to the post-Nixon election in 1976, or the Ross Perot candidacy in 1992.)  

There are many reasons why so many candidates are running for President.  The first is the “blood in the water” scenario, as Democrats see the more than troubled Presidency of Donald Trump as an opportunity.  The belief is:  IF you can catch on and survive the primary process to win the nomination, defeating Trump in the general election will be the easier of the two races.  They see this is “their time,” or more exactly, their “best shot;” particularly if they were “born to be in it;” the Presidency of the United States.

But it’s not just political considerations and ego that brings them into the race.  Each of these candidates see the United States at some crossroads:  generationally (time for the baby boomers to go,) environmentally (the Green New Deal,) culturally (the #METOO and LGBTQIA movements) and economically (income inequality.)   And all of them see the Trump Presidency as an American disaster, one that has placed the fate and future of the nation at risk.

One potential candidate who has already withdrawn from consideration is Ohio’s Senator Sherrod Brown. In the crowded field, Brown could not find his path to the nomination, but his brief interest in the Presidency has already impacted the campaign.  From Amy Klobuchar to Beto O’Rourke to Elizabeth Warren, almost every candidate has adopted Brown’s message of the “dignity of work,” appealing to American laborers to vote their economic interests, instead of the “wedge” issues offered by Republicans (wall, abortion, “socialism,” kneeling during the National Anthem.)

For many Democrats, O’Rourke offers the uplifting candidacy reminiscent of 2008 Barack Obama (and for West Wing aficionados, he offers the joy of the Matt Santos campaign.)  He took on and almost defeated Ted Cruz in red/red Texas, maybe in a more purple nation he can thread the needle of a more moderate Democrat and still appeal to the “new” millennial vote.

Should Vice President Biden enter the race, he and O’Rourke will share an ideological lane.  Both are from the “moderate” wing of the Party, particularly when compared to Senators Warren and Sanders.  Current polling shows Biden as having the best chance of defeating Trump in 2020.  He is the “surest” candidate, and yet is some ways he is also the most vulnerable. Biden’s age is definitely a factor; at seventy-six years of age, if elected in 2020, he would be eighty-three at the end of his first term.  

As a career politician, Biden brings with him all of the experience, and all of the baggage, that stretches back to his first election in 1970.  He was elected to the Senate in 1972.  While that incredible depth of experience, including eight years as an extremely active Vice President in the Obama administration, obviously makes him the most qualified candidate in the race, it also brings with it the baggage of three failed Presidential bids, the Clarence Thomas hearings, the crime control act, and a plagiarism scandal.  

For the left wing of the Democratic Party, neither O’Rourke nor Biden offer the dramatic economic changes that Warren or Sanders suggest.  For the environmental wing, they don’t have the intense focus of Jay Inslee.  And for those looking for diversity, for the end of “white dudes” as candidates, they don’t offer the diversity that Castro, Harris, Booker, Gillibrand or Buttigieg  represent.

Beto O’Rourke is in. He’s gotten a ton of attention, and hours of time on MSNBC just this morning.  But the Democrats have a long way to go before they face the ultimate test: moving America away from the disaster that is the Trump Presidency.

ADDENDUM – The President (Trump) has decided that his derogatory nickname for Beto is “Robert Francis” – presumably after Bobby (Robert Francis) Kennedy. Kennedy was the candidate who was able to unite liberals and workers in the Democratic Party – hardly a derogatory thing!!! check out the Vanity Fair spread on Beto

Declared Candidate for the Democratic Nomination for President in 2020 (3/14/19)

• John Delaney – former Congressman from Maryland, Entrepreneur
• Andrew Yang – Tech Entrepreneur
• Julian Castro – former HUD Secretary, former Mayor of San Antonio
• Kamala Harris – US Senator from California, former California Attorney General
• Cory Booker – US Senator from New Jersey, former Mayor of Newark
• Tulsi Gabbard – Congresswoman from Hawaii, Hindu, Iraqi War Veteran
• Elizabeth Warren – Senator from Massachusetts, founded Consumer Protection Bureau
• Amy Klobuchar – Senator from Minnesota, former corporate lawyer
• Bernie Sanders – Senator from Vermont, career socialist/independent
• Jay Inslee – Governor of Washington, former US Congressman
• John Hickenlooper – Governor of Colorado, former Mayor of Denver, Entrepreneur
• Kirsten Gillibrand – Senator from New York, former Congressman, corporate lawyer
• Pete Buttigieg – Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, gay, Afghanistan War veteran
• Marianne Williamson – best selling author of 12 books on spirituality 
• Beto O’Rourke – former Congressman from Texas, former El Paso Councilman, Entrepreneur
• *Joe Biden – former Vice President, former Senator from Delaware
• *Stacey Abram – former Georgia State Rep, former Georgia Governor Candidate
• *Eric Swalwell – Congressman from California 
• * – not declared

If this be Socialism – Let’s Make the Most of It

1787 was the year the founding fathers met in Philadelphia to re-think the government of the United States.  The current establishment, the Articles of Confederation Congress, was unable to control thirteen states with disparate interests; too weak to govern, too poor to lead, too hamstrung by the “nine state majority rule.”   It was only a year later that the Constitution was ratified, and the nation was put on course towards firmer national unity.

But as flawed as the Articles of Confederation form of government was, it did manage to keep the colonies together through the Revolution, winning a war of attrition against England.  And it did develop the Northwest Ordinance.  This law set the precedent for what America would do with its greatest resource, the land stretching to the Mississippi (at that time) and later to the Pacific coast.

The Northwest Ordinance established how a territory could become a co-equal member state in the Union. The law called for three to five states to be created out of what is today Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin.  It established that those areas could become separate territories when their population reached 5,000, and could petition to become a “sovereign and co-equal” state once they reached 60,000.

One of the most significant aspects of the Northwest Ordinance was the emphasis it placed on the government’s role in education.  Portions of land in each township were set aside to support public education, and larger sections set aside for the development of state universities.  Ohio University in Athens, Ohio, was the first of these “land grant colleges,” enrolling its first students in 1809.

Government involvement in education was “baked-in” even before the writing of the Constitution.  Public education, even in 1787, was considered a legitimate role of government, along with protection from attack (military) maintaining of order (police) and development of infrastructure (roads, bridges, canals.)  

Today we hear a hue and cry over Democratic political views that public support for education needs to be expanded beyond the current K-12 public schools.  Critics deride as “socialism” the idea “the government” should pay for most or all of college education.

But it is a natural progression.  The United States has from it’s beginning realized that a democratic citizenry needed to be educated.  Public education, with all of its current flaws, has expanded from the one room schoolhouse to thirteen years.  We have made it a “right” for children in America.

We all now agree that the thirteen years are not enough to prepare them for life and work in our complex and changing world.  We recognize the need for education beyond high school, but we have decided that the demands of  “capitalism” means that we require steep payments to gain those additional, necessary years.  For thirteen years student costs are “covered” by the government, but the next four, even at the “land-grant schools” envisioned by Northwest Ordinance, could cost over $100,000.  

The United States has always paid homage to the concept of “meritocracy;” that we are a nation where a citizen, regardless of their parents’ economic condition, could “rise to the top.” But our public schools are already economically skewed, with the rich getting richer. Here in Ohio the state Supreme Court recognized that disparity in 1997 (DeRolph v State) but in the twenty-one years since, has done little to “even the playing field.” However, there is no greater disparity than what is now told to high school graduates:  your diploma is not enough, you need an even more advanced degree, and you must literally mortgage your or your parents’ future to get it.

It’s not “socialism” to say that we need to prepare our young citizens for their future.  It’s not “socialistic:” it is a responsibility that has been recognized for as long as we have had our nation.  It’s not a question of political “philosophy,” it’s a question of political will.

To provide the opportunity for two more years of public education to every student, might cost the United States $100 Billion a year.  That sounds like an enormous amount of money, but is it really?   The Federal government is already spending $91 Billion a year in grants and loans, so a large portion of the money is already there, and just needs to be reapportioned. In addition, there are fifty states; each would be required to pay a portion of their own costs, just as they pay for K-12 education today.  

So it’s easy for critics to deride Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren for “pie in the sky” “socialistic” dreams like free college education.  They are called “socialists,” and for most critics that epithet is enough to end the conversation.  But the reality is that America has a long tradition of educating its citizens, and we all need to recognize that more is needed.  It’s not socialism:   it’s American. 

In every political campaign (at least the good ones) there is a “book,” outlining the issues the candidate will face, and the arguments and positions the candidate takes.  It is so everyone on the campaign is literally on “the same page” when it comes to that issue. I’m not running for office, but over the next several weeks, I will be presenting a series of issues for my “briefing book.”

Reality on the Border – The Briefing Book

Customs authorities at the Port of New York announced the seizure 3200 pounds of cocaine yesterday, the second largest bust of all time.  The Columbian cocaine was secreted in a shipping container of dried fruit.  Authorities became suspicious when the typical hardware used to secure the container was altered.

Like most illegal drugs entering the United States, this cocaine came in through a legal port. While most drugs enter through the Southern Border, they come through the legal points of entry, hidden in semi-trucks, or cars, or trucks.  The “romantic” view of drugs coming in backpacks through the desert, or catapulted over a fence, or through tunnels into suburban homes in San Diego, while true, aren’t the main means of entry.  

No wall will prevent these shipments.  

What is needed:  more detecting equipment, more personnel, more intelligence to interdict attempts to cross the border.  What is needed even more:  a nationwide effort to reduce the “demand” for drugs.  As long as the United States remains the “great marketplace” for drug use there will be a motivation for drug smugglers to find a way to get it here.  And with stronger and more dangerous drugs being imported, the consequences of drug overdose are deadly.  It is likely that had the New York cocaine gotten into the market, it would have been cut with Fentanyl to make it more potent (Fentanyl is cheap, making the 3200 pounds of cocaine go farther.)  This means that potential cocaine users wouldn’t know that they were inhaling Fentanyl as well.

Does this mean legalization and regulation of now “illegal” drugs is the answer, as some European nations have done (Portugal, Germany, Netherlands?)  That is one solution (not the only one) for removing the profit incentive for drug smuggling.  Getting rid of the profit is the only real solution to long-term drug control.  

President Trump has recently quoted the following Customs and Border Patrol figures:

In February, 66,450 people were apprehended between ports of entry on the Southwest Border, compared with 47,986 in the month of January and 50,749 in December. In FY18, a total of 396,579 individuals were apprehended between ports of entry on our Southwest Border. (Customs and Border Patrol Website)

He uses this increase as “validation” for his plan to build a wall on the Southern Border.  

What this statistic fails to mention, is that the Customs and Border Patrol have intentionally slowed the process of “legal” border crossing.  In the past, Presidents have met migration surges with increases in personnel at the border to process asylum seekers.  Lawyers, judges, and others needed to make asylum decisions were rushed to help move migrants through the system, either to gain asylum, or return back across the border.

With the current increase in migrants from Central America, the President has actually slowed the legal processes.  The lines forming at the border are extremely long, with only a few daily being allowed entry into the asylum process (this may well be a violation of treaty and international law.)  The inexorable pressure on all of those migrants stuck in the Mexican border towns, is making crossing the border illegally a more acceptable alternative. Surprise:  the number of illegal entries is going up, and the number of family groups trying to make the trek through the wilderness to the United States is increasing as well.  The President has established policies that are causing the problem.  He has gotten his self-fulfilling prophecy; and created a “crisis” he needed to back his emergency declaration.

The answer isn’t a wall. The long-term answer isn’t even more personnel to the border.  The response needs to be to the initial problem, the reason that all of these migrants have chosen to risk their families on the thousand-mile trek to the US border.  Addressing the problems in Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Honduras; poverty, crime, and political oppression; is the answer.  Until those problems are resolved, no amount of walls, or border personnel, will be able to prevent folks from trying to improve their lives, a very American thing to do.

And the final issue:  the President’s claim that undocumented migrants are responsible for increasing crime. The President has used “Angel families” to emphasize his claim, the surviving family members of individuals murdered by undocumented migrants.  And there is no question that those “Angels” have lost a loved one, and are incredibly sympathetic.

Here’s the fact:  100% of undocumented aliens have committed a crime – they are undocumented.  That doesn’t make them dangerous criminals, it makes them violators of US citizenship and immigration laws.  When that factor is accounted for, undocumented criminal rates are actually lower than the surrounding “legal” population.

With that in mind, the statistic about the percentage of undocumented persons in the Federal Prison system makes more sense.  It is estimated that undocumented aliens represents one in thirty in the US population, but the one in six in the Federal prison population.  That statistic has been used to trumpet the “dangers” that must be addressed by a wall at the border.  But again, as crossing the border is a Federal offense, many of those in the Federal prison population are being held for illegal crossing and related crimes. 

There is no such number as an “acceptable” number of violent crimes, and no one can deny the pain of the “Angel families.”  But, when comparisons are made between “apples and apples,” crime rates minus the “crime” of being undocumented, there is no greater criminality of the undocumented over “regular” citizens, and in fact, they commit fewer violent crimes.   

A Wall is expensive, estimated at over $30 billion.  A wall is disruptive, to the private property owners on the border and to the sensitive environment along many parts of the border (Big Bend National Park area being only one.)  If the United States is going to spend that kind of money, and disrupt so much of the border life, it better be for a real reason, one that would make a difference. 

“Build the Wall” is a great campaign slogan, and makes for loud cheers and chants in political pep rallies.  But it is a simple answer, and like most oversimplifications, won’t solve the complex of problems at the border. 

Old White Dude Rules

Federal Judge of the Eastern District of Virginia TS Ellis has been on the bench since his appointment in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan.  He is seventy-nine years old, a “senior Judge” in the Federal Court system.  When he was appointed to the Bench, the number one song was “Walk Like an Egyptian,” the top movie “3 Men and a Baby” and the top TV show, “The Cosby Show.”  Less than 20% of homes in the US had personal computers, with most of those computers built by IBM.

It’s called the “Rule of Eighty.”  After a judge has reached the age of sixty-five, if they can add their age and their years of service on the Federal Bench together and reach eighty, they can take “Senior Judge” status.  This allows them to continue on the Bench, working part-time, and still draw their judicial salary.  Prior to “Senior” standing being established in 1919, judges either had to serve full-time or resign.  Today judges do have the option of full retirement as well.

According to the “Rule of Eighty,” Judge Ellis is at one hundred and eleven.   He has been on “Senior Status” since 2007.

Judge Ellis has tremendous academic credentials; Bachelors in Engineering from Princeton, Magna-cum-Laude from Harvard Law, and an additional Law Degree from Oxford University. He presided over high profile cases in his career, including John Walker Lindh, the American Taliban (sentenced to twenty years); and Khalid El-Masri, who sued the CIA for rendition and torture (case dismissed.)

Judge Ellis also presided over the corruption trial of former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson, where $90,000 was found in a freezer in the Congressman’s Virginia home. The money was part of a bribe paid by an FBI informant. Jefferson claims that he was cooperating with an FBI sting of foreign officials, but a jury found the Congressman guilty on eleven of sixteen counts of bribery and corruption, and Ellis sentenced him to thirteen years in Federal prison (subsequent to the Supreme Court ruling in McDonnell v United States, Jefferson appealed, and was ultimately released after five and a half years.)

Most recently, Judge Ellis presided over the Eastern District trial of Paul Manafort, brought by the Special Counsel’s office of Robert Mueller.  From the pre-trial hearings, Ellis expressed his skepticism towards the Special Counsel; commenting that the eighteen charges against Manafort, from tax evasion (over $6 million owed) to defrauding the United States, did not include any conspiracy charges with Russia.  Ellis, in open Court, decried that if Manafort hadn’t had a role in the Trump campaign, the other charges wouldn’t have been brought.

Ellis seriously entertained a defense motion to reject the charges, based on the limited authority of the Special Counsel to investigate the Russia matter.  However, after deliberating for several days, he found that Mr. Mueller was acting within his scope of authority.  That ruling didn’t seem to alter Ellis’s antipathy towards the Special Counsel’s office though, and prosecution lawyers faced continuing interruptions and restrictions from the judge throughout the proceedings.

Manafort was a long-time Republican operative from his beginnings in the Nixon campaign (along with his friend and business associate, Roger Stone.)  Manafort worked for Ford, Reagan, George HW Bush and Dole, as well as taking his “talents” overseas.  The firm of Black, Manafort and Stone served as political consultants to dictators and despots in Africa, and later in the former Soviet Union.   It had been since the Dole campaign that Manafort was involved in US politics, but he volunteered himself to the Trump Campaign, and quickly was appointed Chairman.

The jury found Manafort guilty of eight of the eighteen counts, the other ten counts were declared a mistrial – a single juror voting against conviction (That juror later admitted that she was influenced by the President’s tweets about the trial being a “witch hunt.”)  According to Federal sentencing guidelines, Manafort could have been sentenced to up to twenty-four years in prison.

Judge Ellis sentenced him to four years, with nine months already served.  When questioned about his departure from the guidelines, Ellis stated: 

“The Court also has to take account of the guidelines. They’re not mandatory, but they’re advisory. These guidelines are quite high. They provide for a sentence that is from 19 to 24 years, roughly. I think that sentencing range is excessive. I don’t think that’s warranted in this case.”

And in determining the sentence of Manafort, convicted of a pattern of criminal activity going back over a decade:

“The defendant is a Category I in criminal history; that is, he has no criminal history. He is a graduate of a university and law school here, Georgetown for both, and he’s lived an otherwise blameless life. And he’s also earned the admiration of a number of people, all of whom have written the Court about him.”

Congressman Jefferson must have been ineligible for the “blameless life” status, nor was his Bachelors from Southern, Law Degree from Harvard, and Masters in Law from Georgetown good enough to qualify for the Ellis “discount.” Of course, the disgraced Member already had two strikes against him:  he was a Democrat, and he was black.

It is certain that Judge Ellis was doing what he thought was just towards Jefferson and Manafort.  The Judge did not take a bribe, or is some other way violate the law.  He seemed to operate on two principles in his sentencing: his open disagreement with the authority of the Special Counsel, despite his ruling to the contrary, and his empathy for the wheelchair bound Manafort, struck from the highest levels of American political life.  That would be the “old white dude” rule; the obvious standard of judgment throughout the American judicial system. Ask the former Congressman.

The Holy Alliance

Fox News, the alt-Right, Trump, American Zionists, and the Christian Right:  which of these is not like the others?  

It’s not too difficult to draw a political line from Trump to Fox News (if you need reinforcement, read Jane Mayer’s treatise in The New Yorker).  And, despite the contradictions of a moral group supporting a demonstrably immoral man, the Christian Right has “sold-out” for Mr. Trump. They are willing to accept his personal immorality in return for his dedication to their causes:  an end to legal abortion, privatization of schooling (and the use of public money to fund private schools,) and rolling back LGBTQIA rights (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual or Allied – the IA were new to me, and I want to be thorough).  

And while others in the Trump Administration would deny it, the President has made it clear that he sees “…fine people on both sides.”  Trump owes the ideology of his rise to political power to the “alt-right,” from the members of his staff like Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon, to the more established hate groups (“…I don’t even know who David Duke is…”) to the absolute crazy conspiracy theorists of Q-Anon, a group that Trump quietly and consistently signals his approval.  

So how do American Zionists, mostly Jewish, end up in such a mix?  Traditionally American Jews have supported the Democratic Party platform, are moderate to liberal on social issues, and have been the target for right-wing attacks.  Anti-Semitism was a foundation of the Ku Klux Klan and the neo-Nazis; of the three civil rights workers killed during the Mississippi “Freedom Summer,” two were Jewish. 

The President has placed his son-in-law, Jared Kushner in charge of Middle East Policy. Kushner, a Modern Orthodox Jew, has close links to Israel.  And it’s more than just his connection to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Kushner’s father was a close friend of Netanyahu, and Kushner was educated from a young age in Zionism (New York Times.)  Trump himself has connections to the Jewish community, with one of his earliest mentors being attorney Roy Cohn.  And Trump has  more recent found political backing from billionaire casino owner Sheldon Adelson, whose pro-Zionist views are well known.  When Trump moved the US Embassy to Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Adelson was given a seat on the podium, and when Adelson wanted to build a casino in Japan, Trump brought the subject up to Prime Minister Abe.

But President Trump isn’t the only nexus between pro-Israeli forces and the conservative right.  Since the late 1960’s, Christian evangelists, starting with Billy Graham himself, have supported the Jewish state in the Middle East.  Christian Zionists see modern day Israel as a sign of Biblical prophecy come true; foretelling the coming of the “end of days” as written in Revelations. 

Both Christians and Jews are encouraged to “own a piece” of the Holy Land. To Christians, Israel is the land of the Second Coming, to have a piece of that land gives a “foothold” for the End (check this Youtube offer to buy 1 square inch for only $49.99!!!) And Jews too can a piece of the Jewish Homeland – $36 for one square cubit near Mt. Carmel, a great Bar Mitzvah present on E-Bay! They even send you a “Deed” with the Star of David (and written in English.)

Sure, someone is making money off of these “land” deals, but it also gives thousands of American Christians and Jews another reason to support Israel; defending their own land!

Democrats have been put into a difficult position.  They used to have the monopoly on Zionism, but the Trump coalition has cracked that wide open.  Democrats are more politically aligned with the Labor Party in Israel, the dominant political force through the late 1990s.   More recently, the Labor Party has been eclipsed by the right-wing Likud Party, led by Netanyahu.  As Democrats try to represent other legitimate interests, including the fate of Palestinians and the concept of the two-state solution to Middle East peace, they are treading a thin line:  it has become difficult to criticize Netanyahu’s policies, without being attacked as Anti-Semitic.  It doesn’t help Democrats that the most recent face of criticism has been a Muslim Congresswoman from Minnesota, playing into the right-wing “trope” for Muslim hatred.

In current Israeli politics, Likud is polling at 30% and Labor at 18%.  Israel has fourteen political Parties, it takes an alliance of multiple parties to gain the majority.  The coalition around Likud is polling at 61%.   Israel is itself divided, so it’s should be no surprise that support for Israel in the United States is divided as well.

It is possible to be pro-Israel and not accept some of the actions of the Netanyahu administration. It is possible to be in favor of a two-state solution, Israel and Palestine, and still be supportive of a Jewish state.  It is possible to be concerned about the fate of the Palestinian people, trapped on the West Bank and in Gaza, without being anti-Semitic.  But in our current political climate it is difficult to be nuanced; every action is exaggerated to its extreme, broadcast from the mountaintop by Trump and Fox News.  

And somehow, they have laid claim to the power of declaring who is Anti-Semitic.

While We Wait

We are waiting: waiting for the next move by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  Waiting for more indictments, for a final report, for something!!!!  Waiting, waiting; for the other shoe to drop, twiddling our thumbs, spinning in circles:  on hold until the next step in our history is revealed by the Special Counsel’s office.

And meanwhile we watch the Democrats in the House get twisted around a freshman member from Minnesota, trying to balance anti-Semitism against anti-Muslim words and “tropes.”  We listen to Republican moderators demand that Democrats renounce “SOCIALISM,” while still supporting programs that are by definition socialistic.  But those programs are exactly what Democrats should be standing for; if socialism means caring for the poor and the “least” among us, we ought to be doing it.

To quote a line from Hamilton (as always); can we get back to politics?

The Presidential election of 2020 is tough to sort out.  The first assumption, that Donald Trump will be running for reelection, is so dependent on the waiting game we are playing, that it’s tough to go to the next step.  And Democrats have a lot of sorting out to do, with some of the major players, Biden for instance, still sitting on the sidelines, waiting for – well – I’m not sure what Biden’s waiting for.

But there are other elections in 2020, elections that may have just as dramatic an impact on the nation as the Presidential one.  In 2018, Democrats made a lot of noise about trying to gain a majority in the United States Senate.  It was a bridge way too far for the Party, the electoral map depending on not only winning a tough race in evenly split Florida and an upset in Texas, but also by holding Senate seats in Republican Missouri, North Dakota, Indiana and West Virginia.  Only Joe Manchin in West Virginia was able to hold on, by acting as more of a voting Republican than some actual Republicans.

2020 is a far different story.  Republicans today have fifty-three Senate seats, a three vote majority plus the tie-breaking Vice Presidential seat.  Democrats have forty-five actual seats, but the two Independents (Bernie Sanders and Angus King) both caucus with the Democrats, giving them a working forty-seven seat minority.  Thirty-three Senate seats are up for re-election, twenty-two now held by Republicans, and twelve by Democrats.

So Democrats are already at an advantage, defending significantly fewer seats.  That’s important when it comes to apportioning money into the electoral process, particularly in a Presidential election year when finances get sucked into the national process.

But even more importantly, eleven Democrats running are in a “safe” position, running in states that traditionally elect Democrats anyway:  New Jersey (Booker), Massachusetts (Markey), Oregon (Merkley), Peters (Michigan), Rhode Island (Reed), New Hampshire (Shaheen), New Mexico (Udall), Delaware (Coons), Minnesota (Smith), Illinois (Durbin) and Virginia (Warner). Even with Booker running for President, his replacement, if needed, would likely still be a Democrat.

Thirteen Republicans are running “safe” in many states as well:  Tennessee (Alexander), West Virginia (Caputo), Louisiana (Cassidy), Arkansas (Cotton), Wyoming (Enzi), South Carolina (Graham), Mississippi (Hyde-Smith), Oklahoma (Imhofe), Kentucky (McConnell), Idaho (Risch), South Dakota (Rounds), Nebraska (Sasse) and Alaska (Sullivan). 

So here’s the math: Republicans are defending twenty-two seats, and thirteen are “safe”, leaving eleven seats in some jeopardy.   Democrats are defending twelve seats and eleven are “safe”, leaving one at risk.  

So here are the “high risk” Senate races, two Republican and one Democrat.  Susan Collins (R-Maine) is in for the fight of her life.  Her flip-flops and final vote on the Kavanaugh nomination have made her a target of pro-choice and pro-women groups, and at the same time her vote against repealing the Affordable Care Act didn’t improve her Republican standing.  Maine does not easily fall into a political category, but Collins definitely looks to be a likely Democratic (or Independent) pick-up.

The second Republican “high risk” seat is the one Martha McSally was appointed to (the John McCain seat).  McSally ran and lost in the other Arizona Senate election (to Democrat Krysten Sinema) and is likely to face an even tougher Democrat, former astronaut and Gabby Gifford’s husband Mark Kelly, in 2020.

The Democratic “high risk” seat is from Alabama, the election won by Doug Jones in 2017. Jones ran against Roy Moore who was saddled with accusations of being a pedophile, and Jones is likely to face a more normal opponent in 2020.  While the South is changing from it’s solid Republican tradition, it’s unlikely that Jones will survive a “normal” election.

The “high risk” seats won’t change the majority in the Senate.  However, Republicans are faced with four more “risk” seats and the Democrats have none;  Texas (Cornyn), Colorado (Gardner), Perdue (Georgia) and Tillis (North Carolina). Texas and Georgia would be particularly vulnerable if the two stellar candidates from 2018, O’Rourke in Texas and Abrams in Georgia, chose to run.  This would require Beto to ignore the lure of the Presidential race, and Stacy to chose to not wait for a re-match with Kemp for Governor.  

So with the “high risk” and “risk” seats going to the other parties, the Senate would flip: Democrats 52, and Republicans 48. This would not even require a Democrat winning the Presidency (and Vice Presidency) to control the tie-breaker.

Flipping the Senate (and holding onto the House) will not be an easy task for Democrats.  The Presidential election will absorb much of the electoral energy; Democrats will need to have an “eye on the prize” for both the White House and the Capitol.  

Who Counts?

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.²  The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.  US Constitution Art 1, §2, Clause 3

Could there be anything less controversial in the Constitution then the Census?  It is the basis for our representative democracy, but it’s the simple counting of heads to determine the apportionment of representatives and taxes. No complications, just count everyone.

From the very writing of the Constitution, the Census was counting more than just “citizens.” As written, free persons, including indentured servants, were counted at one each.  Indians were excluded, and all other persons, namely slaves, were counted as three fifths of a person.  With the 14^thAmendment to the Constitution, the “three-fifths” compromise was deleted, and after 1900, Indians both on and off of reservations were beginning to be counted.  By 1930, Indians were fully included.

It is supposed to be a head count of every person in the country.  Recently there have been concerns about “under-counting” of homeless folks and those who are in the country without documentation.  The current census is done by “household,” with the “head of household” filling out information for everyone who resides under their roof.  But for those who don’t have literal “roofs” it is more difficult to gather the information. However, the census takers try, physically going to find those folks.  That’s how serious the Census is about counting – everyone.

To many Americans, it seems innocuous that the Census Bureau was asked to include this simple question on the 2020 survey:

•  Is this person a citizen of the United States?
•          ____ Yes, born in the United States
•          ____ Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, US Virgin Islands, or
• Northern Marianas
•          ____ Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents
•          ____ Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalization – Print year of
• naturalization ________
•          ____ No, not a U.S. Citizen

There have been several censuses where they asked about the number of toilets in the house, the access to internet, and the income of the household.  Up until 1950, the census always included a question about citizenship, so why shouldn’t the Census gather this information?

It is both a question of intent, and of consequences.  If it is the intent of the Census (and it is) to count everyone in the United States, then this question that will without question create an “undercount” of persons,  and should not be on the census.  In our current climate regarding illegal immigration, with seemingly random and capricious ICE raids, dragging people from their long established homes for deportation, how likely are the “heads of households” where undocumented immigrants live to answer the citizenship question?  And since not answering the question could serve as a “trigger” for further investigation, it is so much more likely that the head of household will simply fail to fill out the census document itself.

That’s illegal, by the way. Failing to fill out a Census form or falsifying the information can result in a $5000 fine and up to sixty days in jail.  And while the Census Bureau is not an enforcement agency and rarely prosecutes folks who fail to file, they will actually send workers to a household that fails to fill out the form. Despite this, placing the citizenship question on the form is likely to result in non-compliance and will result in fewer forms being returned.

The Census Bureau promises that all information provided is confidential, and will not be personally identified to anyone, including other government agencies like ICE.  But “trust” in government among minorities and the undocumented is pretty low.   It doesn’t help that today it was revealed that the Census Bureau is proposing to get data from the Department of Homeland Security about individual citizenship status, including full identifying information; name, address, and even the alien registration number of those who aren’t US citizens.

The professional staff at the Census Bureau were well aware of the consequences of asking the citizenship question, and advised the political leadership against it.  Yet the orders to include it literally came from the top, from Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross.  The Secretary went to some lengths to obscure it as his request, asking the Justice Department to “ask him” to include the question, but the origin clearly came from Ross and the White House political staff.  This raises the question – what was their intent in wanting this controversial question added to the 2020 census?

The Republican Party has for a decade waged a legal campaign to restrict the impact of the changing demographics of America.  From the “Redmap” gerrymandering plan that has successfully maintained Republican majorities in many state legislatures and Congressional districts despite changing voting patterns, to legislation that served to restrict voting such as Voter ID laws; Republicans have searched for legal ways to maintain political power regardless of shrinking party membership and votes.

What happens if the 2020 Census undercounts undocumented migrants?  It isn’t like they are voting, despite the alt-right cries, the worst recent voter fraud seems to have been committed by Republicans in North Carolina. So what’s the difference if they aren’t counted?

The Census population is used to determine the “apportionment of representation.” Members of the House of Representatives are divided by ALL of the population, so if areas are undercounted, they will get fewer Representatives, and other areas will get more. Since the areas with greater numbers of undocumented also tend to be Democratic, that means fewer Democrats in Congress.  In addition, votes in the Electoral College, the body that actually chooses the President and Vice President of the United States, are determined by the number of Members of the House (plus the number of Senators plus three.)   If the population is undercounted, then those representatives and electoral votes will go to more Republican areas.

Ultimately this is a partisan question with partisan outcomes.  This has been confirmed by two US District Court Judges, one of whom said that;

“… Secretary Wilbur Ross acted in bad faith, broke several laws, and violated the constitutional underpinning of representative democracy when he added a citizenship question to the 2020 Census.” – US District Judge Richard Seeborg.

The case has been “fast tracked” to the US Supreme Court, where the Federalist Society majority will be forced into a difficult choice.  Their philosophical foundation is to follow the “original intent” of the founding fathers, who in clear language wanted everyone counted (other than Indians and two-fifths of slaves.)  But their political desire is to help and maintain the Republican Party, and particularly the current President.  It will be interesting how they reach a conclusion, because in the end there is only a basic choice:  the question is on, or it is off.