Day 132 of Nat'l Emergency: Lawn Sign for Justice, Petty President, Will Trump Take a Shot

We have proudly joined the woke lawn sign brigade. Designed by Gilda, our sign displays an illustration of eight children of various ethnicities next to a Martin Luther King Jr. saying, “Injustice Anywhere Is a threat to Justice Everywhere.”

Presidential adviser and not-too-secret white supremacist Stephen Miller notwithstanding, Jews have been at the forefront of civil rights activism. We believe in the legitimacy behind the Black Lives Matter movement but have been repulsed by the open antisemitism and anti-Israel stances of some of its leaders and followers, made all the more reprehensible by the organization’s failure to call out repression and discrimination common in Arab Moslem lands. 

Our sign already has won approval from neighbors. We’re at the end of a cul de sac so the sign will get limited exposure. But it’s the sentiment that counts, not the number of eyeballs that see it.

Petty President: The pettiness, the mean-spiritness of Donald Trump continues to know no bounds as it continues to amaze. His latest denigration of the office of the president involves the removal of the official portraits of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush from a public viewing area and their placement in a non public room of the White House.

He couldn’t remove Barack Obama’s portrait because it has not been officially unveiled in deference to the longstanding animosity Trump has toward his immediate predecessor.

One has to wonder how Trump will be treated by his successor, an especially trenchant thought if it is Joe Biden in 2021 or a different Democrat in 2025. Will he be invited to ceremonial functions? Will he be shunned by the members of the exclusive Past Presidents club? 

Will foreign governments welcome him, not that he was an avid jet-setter before his election? As he was not overly complimentary to most foreign leaders while in office, his options for frequent flyer points are limited. Okay, he could visit Turkey, Russia, Brazil. And Israel. Perhaps his good buddy Kim Jong-un will invite him to a deeper visit inside North Korea. Or Xi Jinping might want to show him China’s biological warfare labs that Trump is always talking about.  

Will He Take the Shot? Should an anti COVID-19 vaccine be introduced while he is still in office, will Trump display presidential leadership by publicly taking the shot, or will he punk out and reinforce the cautionary call of the anti-vax brigade that rejects all types of inoculations? Perhaps he will claim an exemption to the injection because of a flareup of his bone spurs.

The current fight over wearing a mask to contain the pandemic’s spread will be child’s play compared to the opposition anti-vaxers will wage, especially if anyone administered the vaccine becomes infected (https://nyti.ms/2OAxMM1). 

It is truly a sad time when the health care system once touted as the best in the world has become a shell of its former prominence. 

Feds vs. States: Where does federal vs. state responsibility begin? States’ rights vs. federal authority. 

During the coronavirus pandemic, Trump has chosen to push responsibility for containment of the virus to governors, except when he sees political gain advocating opening up the economy and schools. He is trying to strongarm states to do his bidding even as case numbers and deaths rise. But his bottom line is that states, not he, are responsible for the pain the country is experiencing.

On the other hand, having clearly lost his bid to be a successful wartime general in the battle to beat COVID-19, Trump has shifted gears to be the law and order president by sending in federal troops to Portland, OR, to arrest and control Black Lives Matter and related protesters. No state or local official asked for federal troop assistance. Indeed, they have vociferously rejected their presence.

But Trump doesn’t care because this narrative fits the image he wants to project to his base and to voters who might feel threatened by the protesters. 

American Values Are Worth Saving

Misspeaks by politicians are nothing new. From Bill Clinton's finger-pointing avowal, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” to Richard Nixon's jowel-shaking, “I am not a crook,” Americans have been treated to one doozy after another as our ruling class and would-be members try to balance the need to talk a lot with the difficulty of not saying or doing anything controversial.

Does Hillary's “a basket of deplorables” spring to mind? Or do you remember “mucaca” (monkey) from George Allen's run for a U.S. Senate seat from Virginia? How about Howard Dean's exhilarated scream to rally downcast supporters after he lost the Iowa presidential nominating caucus many expected him to win. He never recovered from the over-exuberance. 

To this short, incomplete record of history add Andrew Cuomo's foot-in-the-mouth comment that America has never been great. Never mind if he is right. All that matters in political misspeak is, does it provide an opponent endless opportunity to exploit the comment to stir up his or her base while sowing doubt among the speaker's cohort and potential followers.

The "Make America Great Again" candidate and now president pounced. Rightly so, for in politics nuance does not secure votes. Cuomo stumbled and no amount of backtracking will erase a videotape that will launch a thousand shiploads of negative ads.

There's another reality in current political conversation. No matter what Donald Trump says or does, his base will not falter. Elected Republicans and those wanting such status will not abandon him. Only those retiring or already out to pasture speak out. The former, however, still vote the party line, the party these days being the Party of Trump.

To unseat Trump independents and brainwash-free Republicans will have to put greed aside to save the republic (ignore the economy, patriots). It won’t be easy.

We hear a lot about American values. How Trump and his disciples push ideas and actions—on immigration, bashing dissenters, tax relief, support of autocrats, to name several—that are not reflective of those values, at least the values most often identified with America since the end of the second world war.

But just how complementary or contradictory is Trump to our historic values? Perhaps, our history is different than our values of the last seven decades. Perhaps, Trump is the mirror we cringe at looking into because we would see a long history of slavery, worker exploitation, racism, xenophobia, restrictive immigration, eugenics, repression of dissent during times of war, boundless executive authority, discrimination of the latest wave of immigrants.

Cuomo might well have been thinking of these stains on our heritage when he spoke. But telling the American people the truth is not always the wisest or safest road to the White House.

A year ago, former vice president Joseph Biden talked about American values in an Op-Ed printed in The New York Times.

Under the headline "Reclaiming American Values," Biden phrased them thusly: inclusivity, tolerance, diversity, respect for the rule of law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press. If these are the democratic principles we wish to see around the world, America must be the first to model them." https://nyti.ms/2y0xPq9

Let's be honest. America did not always embrace them. Sadly, Trump gets a failing grade for all of them. Even more sad, the Republican Party has abandoned its principles to blindly follow him down the rabbit hole. Saddest of all, nearly half the American public has turned its back on what it should have learned in any basic civics class.

Politics and Poker Don't Mix in the Age of Trump

The monthly poker game was at my house Tuesday night. Unlike a scene in the Tony award winning musical Fiorello!, which ran for 795 performances on Broadway beginning in November 1959, we did not talk politics while cards shuffled around the table. 

In case you’re not familiar with the song “Politics and Poker,” here’s a link to the original cast rendition (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APsYihdXPRE. For those not interested in musical diversion, here are the appropriate smart and jaunty chorus lyrics that encase deliberations of New York City Republican machine politicians grappling with the difficulty of finding a candidate to run for Congress in a district thought to be unwinnable): 

Politics and poker, politics and poker 

Shuffle up the cards and find the joker 

Neither game's for children; either game is rough 

Decisions, decisions, like 

Who to pick, how to play, what to bet, when to call a bluff 

Politics and poker, politics and poker 

Playing for a pot that's mediocre 

Politics and poker, running neck and neck 

If politics seems more predictable 

That's because usually you can stack the deck! 

Politics and poker, politics and poker 

Makes the average guy a heavy a smoker 

Bless the nominee and give him our regards 

And watch while he learns that in poker and politics 

Brother, you've gotta have that slippery haphazardous commodity 

You've gotta have the cards!

My poker buddies don’t smoke. We didn’t talk politics because, frankly, it’s too depressing. To my knowledge they all share my progressive leanings. 

Not that I am not friends with Trumpsters, few though they may be among my acquaintances and relatives. It’s just becoming a lot less taxing to simply avoid them or set ground rules for discussion topics.

Trump is not unique in dividing allegiances among the populace. Think back to the tenures of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. But with Trump the divide seems to be deeper, more extreme, more personal. 

Perhaps it’s a Forseter gene, but my sister Lee feels the same way. She has permitted me to share an exchange we had the other day after it became known that Trump waged a global war against breast feeding in favor of corporate America’s infant formula empire.

“The worse it gets the angrier I get at people I know that still support him,” wrote Lee.

“Or as they say, ‘we agree to disagree’. I’m about to tell them that their reckless silence or support of his behavior is so disgusting to me that I can no longer value them as friends and until they realize how hurtful he is and what a threat he is to democracy I do not wish to associate with them.

“Endorsing his hateful attacks on minorities and children and weaker nations is bigger than any friendship I feel for his supporters, regardless of how long I have known them. I feel I then become complicit in supporting him by not rejecting my friends.”  

“I informed David (her husband) that there will be no Fox News allowed in our home anymore. Certain radio stations are also banned. Emails are also off limits if they support him. Our home will be purged of all conservative venues.

  

“As for my friends, I am still confused and struggling with what to do. But the worse it gets the harder it is to remain connected to those who advocate and support him.”

When I first read those words I felt the real pain engulfing Lee, a retired early elementary school teacher in a mostly Hispanic neighborhood in Los Angeles, and still a semi-practicing psychiatric social worker. I identified with it. 

A year ago in late May I wrote about the Trump fatigue factor (“The fatigue factor is setting in. Donald Trump and his gang that couldn’t shoot straight is overwhelming me. There’s too much to write. If I miss a day the accumulated copy weighs me down.”)

I am not as depressed by Trump’s actions as I am by the reaction of too, too many of my fellow Americans. As Maureen Dowd observed in The New York Times the other day, “On the occasion of America’s 242nd birthday, we must ask who we are, if we can see accounts of infants snatched from their parents and returned covered in lice, and not worry about our country’s soul.”

Could be a timing coincidence, but I was intrigued by an article, “The Power of Positive People,” currently among the most popular on The Times Web site. Teased with the question, “Are your friendships giving you a boost or bringing you down?,” the article opines, “Friends can exert a measurable and ongoing influence on your health behaviors in a way that a diet never can,” according to Dan Buettner, a National Geographic fellow and author, later adding, “I argue that the most powerful thing you can do to add healthy years is to curate your immediate social network” (https://nyti.ms/2m4V7Hr).

Sounds like a no-brainer, but keeping the Trump Fatigue Effect from infecting my personal relationships could become a full-time job. Not something I would relish in my retirement.

By the way, in case you’re interested, I won $10 Tuesday night, not enough to cover the expense of hosting the game, but better than losing at poker. For the short term, at least, national politics is a lost cause.

Fasten Your Seatbelts for Another Bruising Court Nomination Battle

There is no relief in sight. I’m not talking about the weather, which, depending on what part of the country you are in, continues to assault living creatures with floods, fires, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, mudslides, hail storms and excessive heat. 

No, I’m talking about nonstop big news events, some thrust upon us by Mother Nature, others part of the natural course of daily life, and still more by the actions, pettiness and peculiarities of Donald Trump (notice I didn’t mention principles as I do not believe he has any. And neither does he. How many remember a statement Trump made in the Oval Office to John Dickerson of CBS News last year? When pressed by Dickerson for his position on an issue, Trump demurred, saying, “I don’t stand for anything”).

It has been an eventful 18 months: Paris Climate Accords; NAFTA; Trans-Pacific Partnership; NATO; Russia Election Meddling; Neil Gorsuch; Iran Nuclear Deal; Jerusalem Embassy; Wedding Cakes for Gay Marriages; Muslim Travel Ban; Zero-Tolerance Border Policy.

Tweet after tweet on matters consequential and not. 

It will be up to late night TV talk-show hosts to get us through the coming travails.

Brace yourself for another bruising, months-long battle, the choice of a successor to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy who announced his retirement Wednesday. Apart from the selection of a new member of the high court, bound to be hailed by Republicans, trashed by Democrats, the fiercest part of the confirmation debate may well be over timing—Senate Republicans will want to nominate and confirm prior to the midterm elections in November.

Democrats will be fighting to delay, delay, delay a vote. They will be using the court vacancy as another example of why citizens must register and vote in November so there can be a definitive counterbalance to the administration’s conservative tilt.  

But even if Republicans should lose their majority, newly elected senators would not take office until January, giving Republican Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his caucus eight additional weeks to approve Trump’s choice. 

Keep in mind that just 51 ayes, not 60, are now required to end debate on Supreme Court nominations, a McConnell legacy from the Gorsuch confirmation process.

Minority Leader Charles Schumer will be tested to try and contain the process. Doubtful he will be able to succeed any better than the Gorsuch experience. 

Kennedy’s retirement also will place greater pressure on Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both in their 80s, to do all in their power to delay leaving the bench as long as possible, at least through the 2020 inauguration of what they hope would be a Democratic president. 

Pundit Hits It: Chris Hayes of MSNBC characterized Trump’s actions thusly: He treats those fleeing ISIS as if they are ISIS, those fleeing MS-13 as though they are MS-13. 

How sad that under Trump our nation has closed its shores to refugees. Did we not learn anything from our heartless response in the 1930s and 1940s to Jews seeking asylum from Nazis and the Holocaust?

Carson Was Prescient: Trump has tweeted his displeasure with late night TV comedians, specifically Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, Jimmy Fallon and “that guy on CBS.” 

That guy is Stephen Colbert. Noting that Trump said they lacked the talent Johnny Carson had on The Tonight Show, Colbert Tuesday night agreed Carson had talent. And he played a January 31, 1992, Tonight Show clip proving he was a legend ahead of his time:. https://youtu.be/994SI2rT5JA (the clip is just 31 seconds long—worth the link. For those not familiar with Gennifer Flowers, she alleged having an affair with Bill Clinton while he was governor of Arkansas.)

Guns Pose a Danger, And That's the Truth. Plus, Who Was Marjory Stoneman Douglas?

It is often argued that only a liberal, Democratic president can alter progressive policy. Only a Republican president can do an about face on conservative dogma. Thus, a Richard Nixon could open a dialogue with and recognize Red China. Bill Clinton could institute work requirements for welfare recipients.

In the wake of the Parkland, FL, high school shooting, with numerous corporations retreating from financial discounts for National Rifle Association members and major retailers like Walmart, Dick’s Sporting Goods and the Fred Meyer division of Kroger tightening gun sale guidelines, it is no wonder that Donald Trump is seeking cover for his heretofore unassailable backing of the NRA. He is, at least publicly, rethinking his previous unqualified support of second amendment rights that many have come to believe far exceed the intent of the founding fathers.

It is a savvy move by Trump but one that does carry risk. Savvy because Trump needs to expand his base. What better way to appeal to independents, and even some Democrats, than to crater into their gun control mindset? Trump is a master at reading the public mood. Clearly there is growing momentum for a review of our national gun toting policy, finally, after the second largest student death toll. 

Sure, NRA members and Trump’s conservative base won’t like it, but at this point in time he is their man. No one else in the Republican party can buck him at the polls. So they’ll vote for him because they know any Democrat would demand even tighter gun laws.

Savviness comes with risk. If Trump doesn’t deliver more restrictive gun control he will be held accountable by independents and Democrats as an empty suit (which, given his corpulent state, is hard to imagine any suit he wears being less than overfilled). He would not be able to claim Democrats wouldn’t vote for gun control. Nor could he allege Republican congressmen and senators thwarted him because, as already evident, Trump now controls the GOP.  If he truly wants gun control it will happen. 

He must deliver on his promise.

Delivering on any promise is, of course, a challenge for Trump. More than once he has reneged on public promises. Recall how, with cameras rolling, he told a meeting of bi-partisan legislators he would accept any deal they brought him on the future of undocumented workers and border security. Just days later he rejected their proposal. So pinning Trump down on gun control may be as difficult, especially after he gets an earful from Wayne LaPierre and his fellow NRA sharpshooter elite. 

It’s always amusing and often instructive to listen to how late night comedians parse the news. After Trump told a televised bi-partisan meeting of legislators Wednesday he would favor taking guns away from “mentally ill people or others who could present a danger without first going to court,” (https://nyti.ms/2t6wkJo), Stephen Colbert noted he was “doing something Obama never did—he is coming for your guns!” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6dIrs0RurA)

If I were an NRA member, or simply a gun enthusiast, I wouldn’t worry. The odds of Trump following through on this initiative are as long as his ability to tell the truth.

Speaking of telling the truth, departing White House communication director Hope Hicks is reported to have acknowledged to the House Intelligence Committee earlier this week that she occasionally had told “white lies” in support of Trump’s candidacy and presidency.

“Well, duh,” commented Colbert. “Telling lies to white people is what got Trump elected.”

Touché. But not really. You’d have to be pretty naive to believe politicians and their staffs don’t dissemble the truth, not now-and-again, but pretty regularly. Just accept it as the price of any government doing business, hopefully, in the best interests of their constituents. Of course, that’s why we need a free, unbridled press to put the truth on the record.

Perhaps I missed it, but in all the coverage of the mass murders in Florida there has been nothing on Marjory Stoneman Douglas, the woman for whom the high school was named. Gilda passed along this article from prospect.org that provides a vibrant portrait of this extraordinary champion of environmental and women’s rights: http://prospect.org/article/who-was-marjory-stoneman-douglas

Will Greed Trump Our National Values?

How far can greed take you?

Are you willing to give up truth?

Are you willing to give up compassion and aid to the needy and infirm?

Are you willing to stoke bigotry?

Are you willing to weaken the foundations of government?

Are you willing to disengage from international protocols?

Are you willing to abandon decency?

Are you willing to forego civic and social values?

Are you willing to live with fewer environmental protections, with fewer consumer financial protections, with fewer worker protections, with fewer food and drug safety protections, with fewer civil rights for all?

Are you willing to live with brinksmanship rather than diplomacy?

Are you willing to discard the promise of the Statue of Liberty, willing to extinguish its beacon of opportunity extended to all who yearn “to breathe free”?

These are all relevant questions in the Age of Trump.

Lest we forget, Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign in 1992 set the template with its sharply pronounced slogan, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Under Trump the stock market keeps going in the direction set by Barack Obama—up.  Consumer confidence has skyrocketed. Unemployment remains low. Productivity is above 3% two quarters in a row. 

People, especially the rich, are feeling flush. You might say even greedy. They want “more.” 

But at what cost to our national id? 

Can more value in our asset bank trump our national values? Can more money make us proud to be Americans at the risk of losing what it has meant to be an American? 

I surely hope not.

Choosing the Right Title for Trump, Truth Be Told

The children’s ditty that only “sticks and stones can break your bones but words or names can never harm you” has been upended or, in Trumpian terms, disrupted, by the petulant responses The Donald has to any negative commentary on his physique or reign of terror.

Which leads me to the statement, I can’t do it anymore.  I can’t call him president. Or 45, as some scribes have used when pointing out his rank in presidential succession. Nor is he entitled to be called commander-in-chief. He has failed to earn the respect that traditionally accrues to the occupant of the White House.

Rather, aside from using his name, Donald Trump, or just plain Trump, or Trumpster, or the aforementioned The Donald, to the best of my abilities I am no longer going to confer on him the legitimacy of calling him president. Instead, I will refer to him by any number of sobriquets that through words and deeds he has earned the right to be called, including:

Dissembler-in-Chief

Liar-in-Chief

Fabricator-in-Chief

Reneger-in-Chief

Spender-in-Chief

Groper-in-Chief

Golfer-in-Chief

Disrupter-in-Chief

Con-Man-in-Chief

Demeaner-in-Chief

Conflict-of-Interest-in-Chief

Exaggerator-in-Chief

Huckster-in-Chief

Groper-in-Chief

Putin-Puppet-in-Chief

Whiner-in-Chief

Cyberbully-in-Chief

Pussy-Grabber-in-Chief

Peeping-Tom-in-Chief

Voyeur-in-Chief

Truth Squad: It is not enough for the media to point out, after the fact, the fabricator-in-chief’s misrepresentations. Corrections must be done in real time as Peter Alexander of NBC News did during the 77 minute press tirade a little more than a week ago when the dissembler-in-chief falsely stated his Electoral College victory was the biggest since Ronald Reagan.

So the question is, will Democrats arraigned before the huckster-in-chief during a joint session of Congress Tuesday night sit idly as he misleads the American public or will they shout out “Not true” when the Trumpster tramples on the truth?

You may recall Republican Congressman Joe Wilson shouted “You lie” when President Barack Obama addressed Congress on his then-proposed health care plan. Wilson later apologized for the breach of decorum and was widely criticized by members of both parties.

Democrats especially said they never treated George W. Bush or Ronald Reagan with such disrespect. But these are extraordinary times. We have a president who not only flirts with untruths but does so repeatedly even after the truth has been pointed out. We have a president who demeans other elected officials, war heroes, allies, immigrants, other nations and their citizens,  indeed anyone who does not see the world through his gold-tinted glasses. He has diminished the office of the presidency and the reputation of the United States. Perhaps a taste of how the British prime minister must stand before the House of Commons each week for 30 minutes and respond to the vocal challenges of the opposition party would bring some humility and context to the cyberbully-in-chief. 

Absent that quaint parliamentary custom the American alternative of an after-presidential-address-address is insufficient to convey and correct the damage to the truth a big con man like Trump can foist on a naive and uninformed public.

Will they do it? Will Democratic senators and representatives rise to the status of the vocal opposition even at the risk of being censured by their respective houses of Congress?

Probably not. Pity. They would have forgotten how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell muzzled Senator Elizabeth Warren a few weeks ago as she read a letter by civil rights icon Coretta Scott King. They would have forgotten how McConnell would not allow the Senate to consider Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court. They would have forgotten how House Republicans over and over again investigated Hillary Clinton’s role in the Benghazi tragedy and her email server, yet have shown no inclination to probe Putin-puppet-in chief’s ties to Russia, his conflicts of interest and Russian interference with our elections. They have forgotten how the Tea Party disrupted their town hall meetings six and seven years ago but now that the GOP is in the majority Republicans are avoiding standing before their constituents at town hall meetings.

The time for staid, polite adherence to the norm is long past. Politics is a blood sport; it is time for Democrats to inflict some pain, even if it means interrupting a speech to set the record straight. The truth demands it.

Republicans at the Barricades? Given the minority status of Democrats in Congress, at least for the next two years, conventional wisdom is that any hope to limit the excesses of the Trump administration rests on the precarious shoulders and patriotism of Republican members of the House and Senate.

Early indications are we are witnessing a hunchbacked GOP that is more than willing to ditch its patriotic duty in exchange for electoral dominance.

There are exceptions, at least in verbal stances, though the real test in voting one’s conscience has been lacking. Only Republican senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska broke ranks and rejected Betsy DeVos as secretary of education despite her obvious lack of qualifications for the position. 

 DeVos, in turn, argued against Attorney General Jeff Sessions who wanted to rescind the Obama rule allowing transgender students to use the school bathroom of their choice. But when confronted with the reneger-in-chief’s backing of Sessions despite his campaign pledge to support the LGBTQ community, DeVos knuckled under rather than take the admirable path and resign. So much for standing up for principle.

Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsay Graham of South Carolina have been caustic in their evaluation of Trump actions. But they have yet to cast decisive votes against him. 

The bottom line is the public should not count on Republicans to counter any Trump initiative no matter how shameful it is, how obvious a conflict of interest it may be or how any nominee might lack the experience or credentials to effectively manage the people’s interests. 

Can We Talk? Some people criticize Trump for his inarticulate, incomprehensible English, as if that should automatically disqualify him from office. 

Yes, all my educated friends, listening to Trump is an assault on our ears and brains. But let’s not forget we live in a bubble of intelligence. I’ve met many real estate developers during my publishing career. Some of the most successful could barely string a proper sentence together. 

And let’s also not forget that George W. Bush was equally challenged compared to Bill Clinton’s verbal facility, yet he sat in the Oval Office for eight years. So buckle up. The ride will be bumpy. 

Rain or Shine, Donald J. Trump Takes Control Friday

As surely as the sun will rise Friday morning (though rain is in the midday forecast for Washington, D.C.), Donald J. Trump will be sworn in as the 45th president of the United States of America at noon.

Under Trump’s presidency we’re going to see if the government can be run as a business or like a business. There’s a difference. 

To be run as a business requires a balanced budget (even a surplus), which means tough decisions on how revenues are raised and appropriated. The last president to produce a surplus was Bill Clinton. Generally speaking, Republican dogma has called for lower taxes tied to reduced expenditure allocations to social welfare programs. The GOP also advocates diluted, if not eliminated,  protections for consumers, workers, the environment, civil liberties and voting rights.

To run the government like a business implies leeway in strict adherence to capitalism, layering in programs to help the less fortunate and vulnerable. As President Franklin Delano Roosevelt said in his second inaugural address in 1937, “The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.”

A few months prior, in the acceptance speech for his renomination, FDR said, “Better the occasional faults of a government that lives in a spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a government frozen in the ice of its own indifference.” 

Those are compelling thoughts during a time when health care coverage for 20 million people hangs in the balance, when environmental regulations may be stripped away in the name of creating a better business climate, and social service initiatives, such as Medicare and Medicaid, may be severely cut back because Republicans have never been supporters of FDR’s New Deal or Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Great Society programs.

Trump can claim he saved jobs at Carrier (700 or 1,100 depending on whom you believe) and 700 more at Ford, both rescues the result of pressuring those companies to jettison projected job relocations to plants in Mexico. Whether you like Trump or not, you’ve got to be happy for those who will continue to receive paychecks.

But Trump’s bully pulpit to end globalization that kills American jobs, coupled with his determination to Make America Great Again, ignores seismic changes occurring throughout the national and international economies. As much as he might want us to return to a simpler time, progress—the future—will not be stopped.

Take, for example, what is happening in the retail industry. More and more sales are transpiring over the Internet. The industry has known for decades that it is overstored. Macy’s is but one of many chains that will shutter stores. It will close 100 of its 730 units and lay off 10,000 workers. Their jobs are not going south or to some other exotic locale. The jobs are lost to cyberspace. 

King-of-electronic-retailing Amazon says it will hire 100,000 workers, an impressive sum, but hardly as many as the workers at brick and mortar retailers dislocated by the emergence of electronic retailing. 

Retailing is like the taxi/limousine field affected by Uber and Lyft, like the hotel business assaulted by Airbnb, like the newspaper business devastated first by Craig’s List and then by Web news sites, real and fake—it is being intermediated by technology. No amount of jawboning or handwringing will slow the inevitable adaptation of our  economy. 

Going forward we are also going to see how thick is the Trump straw that stirs the drink, or if Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, in concert or separately, can sway Republican control of the government. Trump’s stated views on a replacement for Obamacare, for example, differ markedly from Ryan’s and McConnell’s. 

In addition, we will wait to see which John McCain will show up for what probably is his last term in the Senate. Will it be the maverick straight shooter who charmed the electorate in the mid-2000s, or the sycophantic senator who clutched Trump’s coattails to win reelection last year?

It’s politics as usual down in the swamp. After campaigning he would drain the swamp Trump is the head of a muck mired in self-aggrandizement, ethical challenges and broken campaign promises. 

Throughout his campaign he railed against the influence of Wall Street and specifically Goldman Sachs. Yet since the election he has proposed filling three key financial spots with men affiliated with Goldman Sachs and is in favor of reducing constraints on the financial community. 

Politics will color our interpretation of events during the next four years. But hard facts will provide an objective report card on Trump’s vow to “make America great again.”

Trump will be judged on the state of the country and the world in 2020, so here are markers, financial and global, we should check in September 2020 against September 2016, with specific attention to results in the four swing states that chose him over Hillary Clinton—Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio:

*Annual domestic economic growth rate

*Size of national debt

*Size of annual deficit 

*Size of trade imbalance

*Small business growth rate overall 

*Small business growth rates in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio

*Level of Dow Jones Industrial Averages 

*Unemployment rate overall

*Unemployment rates in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio

*Black/African-American unemployment rate overall

*Black/African-American unemployment rate (16-19 year olds)

*Labor force participation rate overall

*Labor force participation rate among Black/Afro-Americans

*Jobs created last four years nationally

*Civilian jobs in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio

*Number of manufacturing jobs nationally

*Number of manufacturing jobs Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio

*Average weekly earnings manufacturing jobs

*Number of construction jobs nationally

*Number of construction jobs Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio

*Average weekly earnings construction jobs

*Number of mining/logging/oil/gas jobs nationally

*Number of mining/logging/oil/gas jobs Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Ohio

*Average weekly earnings mining/logging/oil/gas jobs

*Number of federal government jobs

*Number of government jobs nationally

*Number of uninsured for health care

*Average tax bill for middle class family

*Average national price of gallon of regular gasoline

*Inflation rate

*30 year mortgage rate

*Number of homicides

*Number of hate crimes

*Number of people living in poverty

*Number of military personnel in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Germany, Japan, South Korea

*Status of wars in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan

*Status of Iran nuclear deal

*Level of imports from China

*Status of North Korea

*Status of Israel-Palestinian conflict

*Number of police officers killed nationally

*Number of minorities killed by police

Four years is a long time to wait for results. But they need not be filled with cowering. If you want to see how Trump and his advisors, particularly Kellyanne Conway, can be handled politely but appropriately, watch how Seth Meyers interviewed her last week. It’s a seminar in solid interviewing/reporting all journalists and TV/radio talk show hosts should study and learn from: https://youtu.be/U_dv5qAsJMU

That said, there is reason to not be comfortable after 12:01 pm Friday. Take the time to read Politico’s roundtable discussion with three of Trump’s biographers about what to expect from the new president: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/trump-biographers-presidency-legitimate-214655

If you made it through the depths of that article, you might not be criticized for believing this is a time to worry and fret. But do not despair. For encouragement read David Leonhardt’s analysis of President Obama’s impact and the difficulty Republicans will have in trying to knock down his legacy: https://nyti.ms/2jAji0t

Beyond that, take heart in Orphan Annie’s ballad to FDR: “The sun will come out tomorrow …”

Déjà vu: The GOP House Seeks an Impeachable Offense to Stymie a Clinton Presidency

As per FBI Director James B. Comey and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton learned this week she will not be indicted for her email indiscretions, but she may well face an impeachment process if she is elected president. If we have learned anything from Republican behavior during the Obama years and, yes, during the Bill Clinton presidency, it is that the GOP will do almost anything to obstruct a Democratic president from devoting the necessary time and energies to serving the country.

House Republicans are laying the groundwork for such a move after grilling Comey during a hearing Thursday for four hours. They are not convinced he was right in determining Clinton did not commit a prosecutable offense by handling top secret emails on her personal server. Indeed, they will seek further investigation by the FBI as to whether Clinton perjured herself during testimony before Congress. 

If she is elected president, and Republicans remain in the majority in the House, expect impeachment talk to be front and center from the start of her administration. Don’t expect Donald Trump to bring impeachment up during the campaign as it would hint he doesn’t think he would win. But if he loses, expect a fusillade of tweets and rants that Hillary should be impeached.  

The Constitution states a president may be impeached for “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Clinton’s alleged failures fall under the vaguely-worded “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Former President Gerald Ford, when he was House minority leader more than four decades ago, defined an impeachable offense as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” (http://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html)

A GOP majority in the House jumps that hurdle.

However, it is uncertain if actions taken before she was elected president would qualify Clinton for impeachment. Doubters need only look to Ford’s analysis to expect a positive take on that question from a Republican House.

Impeachment, though, would not kick Clinton out of the White House, as conviction would require a two-thirds vote by the Senate, a level of agreement difficult to attain in a forum expected to be almost equally divided by the parties. As more than a dozen Democrats would have to vote to convict, Hillary, like her husband, would remain in office after acquittal by the Senate.

For Republicans, however, the reward of impeachment is not necessarily in conviction as even then the presidency would remain in Democratic hands. Rather, the GOP goal is to stymie Clinton, to divert her attention from governing. 

Clinton would not be the loser. The country would, unless you believe in the Republican mantra first espoused by Ronald Reagan that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem,” and any reduction in government is a benefit, even if it means harming, perhaps irrevocably, our national institutions.   

Let the Debate on the Debate Begin

Did you see the same debate I did last night? If so, there can be no debate Mitt Romney bested Barack Obama during their first face-to-face square-off. Yeah, square-off is a good term. Both of them looked so un-cool it was disturbing how much greyness they projected.

But getting back to their actual words, body languages and demeanors, in my assessment, without the aid of listening to or reading any of the so-called expert opinions from spinmeisters or pundits, Romney carried the night. He didn’t score an outright knockout or even a technical one, but he definitely won the first round of the debates on points. Here’s why:

For starters, Romney’s flag pin was twice the size of Obama’s. He was more animated, moving fluidly at his lectern. His helmet-hair was softer-looking, not so plastic as in prior televised events. At the start and finish of the debate, they stood shoulder to shoulder. By not being dwarfed by Obama, as John McCain was four years ago, Romney appeared the equal of the president. 

Obama seemed to employ a rope-a-dope strategy with few discernible counter-punches. For example, despite repeated assertions by the former Massachusetts governor that the president cut the Medicare budget by $716 billion, Obama barely deflected the charge. It left the impression Romney was right. Here are more examples: who’s right about the tax benefits of moving a plant overseas? Obama said it was a tax dodge, Romney said in his experience as a businessman it doesn’t exist. Why didn’t Obama counter with a specific instance or tax code rule? If he’s going to make the charge, have the back-up to support it. If Romney, despite his denials, is advocating a $5 trillion tax cut, as the president says he is, why didn’t he cite specific speeches or pages on Romney’s Web site where he proposed it? Instead of referring to actions taken in 2001 and 2003, why didn’t Obama specifically link Romney by name to George W. Bush’s failed policies? When Romney accused Obama of not working with Republicans, why didn’t he counter with specific instances where Republicans failed to work with him? Often, the split TV screen showed Obama wincing or smiling, as if ready to pounce in response to one of Romney’s allegations. But his retorts were as toothless as an old lion's. He simply let Romney get away with portraying his presidency on Republican terms.

Overall, Romney came energized with statistics both to bolster his arguments and bombard Obama’s positions. Sure, some fact-checkers today will deflate Romney’s bluster. But it won’t matter, as fewer Americans will see the corrections, much as retractions to page one stories are buried deep inside newspapers. The time to poke holes in Romney’s barrage was during the debate, and Obama did not do so strongly enough. Americans want a president who will not let anyone—not al-Qaeda, Cesar Chavez or the candidate of the opposing party—push pie in their face. Obama, this morning, is wiping meringue from his.

It didn’t seem to bother Obama. He lacked passion. You can disagree with Romney all you want, but his energy and passion came through clearly. A lot of that had to do with their speaking styles. Obama was professorial, with waaaaay too many “ANDs” linking his thoughts. Nothing new to anyone who’s listened to him before. Romney channeled his bond salesman being, talking rapidly, with conviction. You gotta buy this option or your future is bleak, Romney was saying. 

It was a disheartening performance by Obama, especially in light of the resounding rebuttal Bill Clinton provided at the Democratic National Convention. If Obama wants to win, he must alter his approach. He must reveal a passion for a vision of America that he, not Romney, can provide. 

Righteous Indignation

And so it was that, exactly one year to the day when the next president of the United States will be inaugurated, we are being served a full portion of righteous indignation by one Newt Gingrich.

Perhaps with an eye toward this Sunday’s NFL conference championship games, Newt tapped into an old football axiom, that the best defense is a strong offense. He verbally exploded with righteous indignation during Thursday night’s South Carolina presidential primary debate, challenging CNN’s John King for repeating charges made by his second wife that Newt wanted an open marriage.

Why is it that “family values” has only a one-way meaning for conservative Republicans? Why do they decry the supposed lack of family values among Democratic politicians, tsk-tsking affairs by Gary Hart, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, et al, but turn a blind eye when one of their own transgresses? They ignore the fact that Ronald Reagan impregnated Nancy before saying “I Do.” They forget that while Gingrich and his GOP pals in Congress Henry Hyde and Bob Livingston were lambasting Clinton and calling for his impeachment, they were conducting their own extra marital affairs, six years running, by the way, in Newt’s case.

How does Callista, wife number three of the cherubic (let’s be nice and not call him portly) former speaker of the House, a reportedly devout Catholic who sings for pay in her church’s choir, jibe her faith with being a marriage buster, with engaging in pre-marital sex, and, since she was of child-bearing age back then, of having sexual relations not for pro-creation purposes? Since she’d become first lady if Newt were elected, these are not irrelevant questions given the raking over the coals Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton suffered when their husbands ran for office and were elected. The public looks to the president’s wife as a beacon of rectitude, not as a sexual predator. How could she or any Newt administration figure counsel abstinence, or integrity, or the sanctity of marriage when the hopeful commander-in-chief couldn’t keep his saber sheathed in front of another woman?

Gingrich’s response is that his past is his past. If it’s a problem for people, so be it, but he’s moved on. These personal failings, he believes, are not to be equated with policy failings by his opponents. Newt can flip-flop between beds, but Mitt Romney is not allowed to change his position from abortion rights to right-to-life.

Perhaps the best summation of Gingrich’s strength as a candidate and possible leader of the free world came from John Oliver of The Daily Show. Thursday night he said Gingrich would be the best person to negotiate with China. “Chinese culture is based on shame,” said Oliver, “and Newt Gingrich has none.”

How Superstitious Am I?

Only a crazed sports fan would relate to what I am about to write.

How superstitious should I be today? Should I adhere to my time-honored practice of sitting in our den to watch the NY Giants on our 35-inch, 21-year old Mitsubishi console television, a TV that has served me well during the recent playoff drive and previous Super Bowl contests (let’s forget, for now, the debacle in 2001), or should I tempt fate and lay on my bed to watch the Giants take on the Green Bay Packers on our wall-mounted 52-inch LCD, High Definition Sharp Aquos television?

Normally, Gilda prefers I seclude myself in the den, but she’ll be at the gym later. I lean towards going with what’s gotten me, and the Giants, to their present possibility of upsetting the Packers, but I am tempted by Saturday’s viewing of the Saints-49’ers game on the big screen. No doubt about it, everything popped brighter, more vibrantly upstairs. It was indeed sharper on the Sharp.

But if the Giants lose, will I blame myself for switching? Non-sports fans (if they’ve read this far) are no doubt shaking their heads at the absurdity of my thoughts. How infantile can I be?, they are saying. They just don’t understand sports superstitions. Never have. Never will.


From Sports to Politics: You don’t need a TV screen to follow the tussles within the Republican party presidential primary. I’ve got a passing (yes, pun intended) interest in Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

For Gingrich, my link is to his money-bagged buddy, Sheldon Adelson. As I wrote back in May, Adelson was not one of my favorite business contacts. He is transfixed on what he sees as right, and uses his money and influence to advance his causes. Here’s what I wrote eight months ago: http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2011/05/my-link-to-newt.html

Memory fails to confirm if I ever met Mitt Romney some 20 years ago when I interviewed several Bain Capital executives about their interest in retail companies, such as Staples. This much I do remember—the three men I did meet all dressed the same. They could have stepped out of a Brooks Brothers catalog with their blue suits, white buttoned down shirts, rep ties, and black oxford shoes. They were clean-shaven with short, dark hair, not one strand out of place.

No, I can’t say Romney was among them. I have met two presidents before they became our nation’s chief executive. Jimmy Carter crossed my path during his 1972 presidential campaign while I was covering an event attended by Rep. John Monaghan of Connecticut. Carter was testy that night, I recall.

Bill Clinton was a guest at an annual shareholders meeting of Wal-Mart about 30 years ago. Sam Walton always liked to have the governors of Arkansas make an appearance and talk about the business-friendly climate in the Razorback state and how Wal-Mart was good for the local economy. A few years later Walton solidified his ties to Clinton by appointing Hillary to Wal-Mart’s board of directors. She served from 1986 to 1992.

Politics, As Usual and Unusual

You might have noticed I’ve taken a short hiatus from political commentary. It’s hard, repetitive work continually finding fault with politicians. Look what Gail Collins of the NY Times has to do—each time she writes about Mitt Romney she has to figure out some way to include the fact he strapped the family dog to the roof of the car when he took his family on a vacation to Canada. If I were paid to write about politics, I’m sure my keyboard would be ablaze with fiery ire. But since this is just an avocation. I’m trying to keep my biases in check. At least for the short term.

Speaking of my biases, I’m against men showing skin when they cross their legs. So it was comforting to see President Obama learned his lesson and wore appropriate high socks during his Sunday 60 Minutes interview. Correspondent Steve Croft, on the other hand, exposed his shins to America. Disgusting.

(Real long-time readers of this blog might recall one of my earliest posts railed against the “shins of the president.” As it’s a short entry, I won’t make you click a link to it, I’ll just reproduce it here:

“Now a word about proper sock length. Watching a clip Sunday of Barack Obama on "This Week With George Stephanopoulos," I was struck by the fashion no-no displayed by the president. Sitting with his legs crossed, Obama showed viewers several inches of bare skin where his pants leg did not meet the top of his socks. It is inexcusable, it’s a fashion faux pas, especially considering his wife’s keen fashion sense, that the commander-in-chief of the United States does not wear knee-high socks when he is dressed up. Indeed, anyone, anyone who is in politics, in business or in any way in a public situation, should wear knee-high socks. There is nothing appealing or sexy about seeing a man’s shin-bone skin. Bottom line—if you’re going to wear socks, make sure they cover all of your lower leg. Here’s hoping someone in the White House reads this before Obama’s appearance on Letterman tonight.”)

Someone with sartorial sense and a keen eye must have gotten to Obama.


My “vacation” from political writing has coincided with the ascent of Newt Gingrich as a key player in the Republican presidential sweepstakes. How interesting that many evangelicals and other supposedly values-oriented religious voters have made light of Gingrich’s rather sordid past. They’ve thrown their support to the twice-divorced former speaker of the House. They’ve chosen to ignore his abandonment of the Protestant religion in favor of Catholicism. They’ve accepted his admission of past sins, even the one where he told a previous wife he was leaving her while she suffered from cancer. They don’t hold it against him that he twice (at least) had affairs while married, that he hypocritically tried to impeach Bill Clinton for actions from inappropriate extra-marital sexual activity while he himself was guilty of the same vice. How beguiling that he ignored one of Jesus’ most famous precepts, “Judge not lest ye be judged.”

But then, it is hard to fathom an electorate blind to the failings of their anointed leaders. Ronald Reagan impregnated Nancy Davis before they were married. Not to be outdone, Democrats stood by Clinton and John F. Kennedy. It’s only when they flaunt their improprieties, as Gary Hart did, or try to cover them up, as John Edwards did, that voters rebuff them. Gingrich, with his deep, stentorian tones, has embraced his imperfections, has recanted his sins, so attractive to an evangelical community that sees salvation in faith by atonement.

What they don’t see is how destructive GOP policies on health care, unemployment compensation, pollution, education support and other social issues have been and would be to the family. There can be honest disagreement over abortion rights, but when did the Bible lose its compassion for the poor, for the downtrodden, for the orphaned? When did it become religiously acceptable for the community to abandon the less fortunate? When did the Bible end its advocacy that the rich take care of the needy? The Bible is not a capitalist manifesto. If anything, it is a social contract where those better off are instructed to help the rest of society.

Perhaps if they studied which political ideology has time and again worked to make life easier and more comfortable for the vast majority of our nation, and not an exceedingly small sliver, they will rethink their support for those who would strip away benefits from the masses while safeguarding the treasures of millionaires and billionaires.


If Only He Had Taken the Bet....I’d be $10,000 richer. Like Mitt Romney during Saturday night’s Republican presidential candidate debate with Rick Perry, I proffered a $10,000 bet, the subject of which was, who hosted the mid-1950s CBS TV show, You Are There?. My adversary, a much smarter fellow than I, whose adult education class I attend, and who shall remain nameless so as not to embarrass him, said it was Edward R. Murrow. He said he had tapes at home with Murrow as the host.

I, on the other hand, vividly remember the host being Walter Cronkite. One of my earliest TV memories is watching You Are There. Cronkite would relate the background for the half hour program that recreated historical events as if they were developing news stories, then place an earphone to the side of his head while intoning, “You are there.” The show’s dramatization of the David and Goliath story stays with me even to this day. At least in my mind’s eye, the climactic scene begins with David reciting the 23rd psalm as he walks out to confront Goliath.

Google “You Are There Walter Cronkite” if you need validation of my claim. Murrow, it turns out, hosted another show, See It Now, a newsmagazine and documentary series, also on CBS.