The Re-Selling of a Would-Be President

Donald Trump generally has nothing good to say about George W. Bush, but his campaign has adopted an important strategy that helped propel W. into the White House. Just as Bush, rather than Al Gore, became the guy you wanted to sit down and have a beer with, Trump is recasting himself as an everyman who, despite his alleged billions of dollars of net worth, is a typical American who chows down KFC and McDonald’s like everyone else, who lets Jimmy Fallon muss up his hair, who seeks the comfort and approval of Dr. Oz to “reveal” his medical history. No doubt next we will be treated to seeing him read The Pet Goat to schoolchildren (as Bush was doing when informed of the 9/11 terror attacks).

He’s remaking himself into a lovable, huggable Teddy bear. 

The birther controversy? 

Who me? It was Hillary and her campaign back in 2008 that started it, he’s saying now, an allegation deemed false by independent fact checkers. 

(http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/16/donald-trump/fact-checking-donald-trumps-claim-hillary-clinton-/ 

and http://theweek.com/speedreads/649186/no-hillary-clinton-did-not-start-birther-movement)

Trump is taking credit for ending any doubts Barack Obama was born in the United States. Though he reluctantly admitted the truth Friday morning, the damage from his five year campaign to delegitimize the president remains. 

According to Public Policy Polling, 59% of those who said they viewed Trump favorably think Obama was not born in the United States. In addition, two-thirds of such voters believe Obama is a Muslim (http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/poll-two-thirds-trump-supporters-think-obama-muslim#sthash.5sMlFugI.dpuf).

Trump is also refashioning his campaign positions to make them more appealing to non core constituency voters. He has, for example, appeared to soften on mass expulsion of all illegal immigrants the moment he gets sworn into office as well as proposing paid maternal child care. 

Of course, when you’re running for president, unlike when you’re engaged in a primary contest and must cater to hard core party voters, it is standard procedure to promise the world. Only a naive voter would expect all campaign promises to be kept.

But there is one way to measure the probability of some promise fulfillment. If a president comes into office with his or her party in the majority in the House and Senate there’s a good chance at least some of those promises will become law. That’s how the Affordable Care Act came into being, though it did not have all the features Obama had promised.

Hillary Clinton will need huuuge coattails to flip Congress Democratic in November. Her prospects of signing legislation for anything on her wish list are dim. She will be confined to be the resister-in-chief, pushing back against repeated attempts by a GOP Congress to roll back progressive legislation or executive actions of the past eight years. (She’ll also have to combat right wing determination to impeach her.)

Trump, on the other hand, may work with a GOP Congress to reverse much of what has been put in place, including Obamacare.

But the softer side of Trump may be more problematic for a President Trump. As currently constituted Congress has few Republicans who would go along with such progressive legislation. They would see paid maternity leave and other social welfare benefits as Trump-the-businessman has—as burdens on corporate profits.

Thus Trump would preside over a regressive administration, backed up, no doubt, by a more conservative bent on the Supreme Court and lower federal panels once he starts appointing judges.

To get to that pinnacle of ratings status—the presidency, or said another way, the entertainer-in-chief—Trump is trotting out all the theatrics he can. His supporters are rabid fans who care little about truth and integrity. They’ve been so conditioned by all the so-called “reality TV” shows.

So there’s nothing unexpected in recent polls that show Trumpsters more enthusiastic for their candidate than are Hillary’s supporters. It’s human nature for more people to complain than to compliment. 

Nonetheless, Clinton’s campaign must rev up the excitement quotient and, more importantly, the fear factor. Every day it must be pointed out what is at stake, not just for the Oval Office but also in Congress. 

Specifically, but not exclusively, at stake are:

• the prestige and standing of the United States as first among nations
• the balance of the Supreme Court as a progressive bulwark
• reform to Obamacare that does not strip it of meaningful affordable healthcare for all
• funding for Planned Parenthood
• a woman’s right to choose
• minimum wage increases
• safeguards against employment discrimination
• safeguards against food and drug abuses
• safeguards to worker safety 
• environmental protection including an acknowledgment that climate change is real
• business oversight legislation
• voting rights enforcement 
• the continued belief in National Parks 
• Wall Street oversight
• a thoughtful, reasoned foreign policy

To Russia With Love

When my generation was young and more radical, a common retort by the powers-that-be (or should that be, “powers-that-were”?) was, “If you don’t like it here, move to Russia.” 

Now, it would appear, Russia might be the preferred locale for those “job creators” who don’t want their high incomes taxed too highly. According to KPMG, cited in Wednesday’s NY Times, at 13% Russia has the lowest top individual income tax rate among nine industrialized countries. Here’s how the top rates stack up: Sweden, 57%; Japan, 50%; Britain, 45%; Germany, 45%; Italy, 43%; France, 41%, soon to be 44% with the possibility of it going as high as 75% if new president François Hollande has his way; United States, 35%; Canada, 29%; Russia, 13%. 

The Times article painted a dire portrait of Frenchies scurrying to relocate to more tax-friendly countries, such as Belgium, as Hollande’s scheme to get them to pay more gathers momentum (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/08/business/global/frances-les-riches-vow-to-leave-if-75-tax-rate-is-passed.html?pagewanted=all). 

All of which begs the question, if the lower Bush tax rates on high incomes are allowed to expire at the end of the year, would our wealthy elite abandon the good ole’ USA to live, say, in Moscow or Vladivostok, in case they want a view of Sarah Palin’s home? Maybe not, given recent reports about Russian capitalists choosing to leave (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/04/world/europe/ex-kgb-banker-and-putin-critic-plans-to-sell-assets.html). They might find criticizing their new country’s leader, as they have been wont to do toward Barack Obama, slightly more problematic on many a foreign soil.

Of course, money, keeping your money, does talk. Here’s how two French business people explained the tax issue to The Times:

“‘People have an acceptable amount of taxes they are willing to pay,’ said Mr. (Steve) Horton, the (Parisian) accountant, ‘and if it goes above that, they will move somewhere that’s more reasonable.’” 

“‘The thing French politicians don’t seem to understand or care about is that when you tax away two-thirds of someone’s earnings to appeal to voters, productive people who can enrich businesses and the economy won’t come — or they will just leave,’ said Diane Segalen, a corporate headhunter.” 

Maybe. After all, during the Eisenhower years when our economy blossomed, the highest personal tax rate was 91%. I don’t seem to recall many corporate titans abandoning America back then. Nor did they flee America during the Clinton years when the top tax rate was 39%. 

Political Analogies: I never liked SAT tests or other exams that asked you to figure out what two sets of data had in common. But I am intrigued by this grouping: Birth Certificate is to Obama as Tax Return is to Romney.

Republicans are finding the shoe on their foot is no less tight than it was on Obama’s during the inane birther controversy that should have been resolved when Hawaii released copies of the president’s birth certificate. Obama is legally qualified to be our chief executive. Mitt Romney can stonewall all he wants about his tax returns for the last decade, but sooner or later he will have to give in and do what Obama did with his birth certificate—make it available to the public. 

For those defending Romney’s right to privacy, why is it that cabinet secretaries and other officials confirmed by the Senate must divulge more tax information than he is willing to? Romney is running for our country’s highest office. If he has nothing to hide, let’s get on with it and show the goods. If he does have something to hide, he should be reminded of the first rule of any political transgression: it’s not the foul that gets you in trouble, it’s the cover-up.

One interesting footnote to this dust-up between Romney and Sen. Harry Reid (who claims Romney paid no taxes for 10 years) is that both of them are Mormons. I wonder what the elders of the church think about all this brotherly “love”?

A Call for Real Answers

As a former reporter and editor I retain a healthy skepticism for what politicians say. “Spin doctor” is a kind description of what most of them do. But my patience was truly lost this morning as I listened to NPR interview Florida congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who also happens to be the chairperson of the Democratic National Committee, and a short while latter heard two Democrats and two Republicans square off on CBS Face The Nation about the presidential election.

Asked directly why President Obama was not polling higher among married women and white women, Schultz responded with standard talking points about why he is good for women and why he should be re-elected. Challenged that she didn’t answer the question, the congresswoman insisted she did. The interview ended on that note, either because NPR determined its audience was being buffaloed or the segment ran out of time. I hope it was the former, as the media must start showing some muscle in its dealings with politicians. If they won’t answer the question, cut them off and don’t give them a free ride to poison the air with their obfuscations.

Which, unfortunately, is what happened on Face the Nation. The Republicans accused Obama of turning negative. Hello? What do they think happened the first three years of his presidency? Does the word “birther” kindle any memories? Does the voice of a GOP congressman screaming out “You lie” during the State of the Union address revive any memories? Have they forgotten how they refused to compromise, how they thwarted any attempt to gain a balanced approach to our nation’s fiscal problems, which, they have conveniently forgotten, are mainly due to George Bush’s two wars and his senior citizen prescription medical reimbursement plan. 

We have 93 more days before the election. Three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate. All in October. Maybe, if we’re lucky, the format will exact specific answers from each candidate. Maybe, again if we’re lucky, the moderator will show some respect for the American people and demand specific answers rather than platitudes, innuendos and gibberish. Oh, we should be so lucky. 

Memorial Day Thoughts

Madonna and Lady Gaga are no strangers to controversy. Now they are providing an almost parallel case study of tolerance by two of the worlds great religions, Islam and Judaism. Lady Gaga had to cancel her June 3 concert in Jakarta, Indonesia, after fundamentalists railed against her as a devil, not being in the best interest of Islamic morals. Violence was threatened. 

Madonna, meanwhile, has been targeted by Jewish extremists. Her concert in Tel Aviv Thursday is still on but there's no guarantee she will not submit to religious pressure, too, or that protests could mar the event.

FYI, Lady Gaga has scheduled a Tel Aviv concert for August.

On another religious note, here's something I overheard in a car full of teenagers last week: “Why is the devil evil if he punishes bad people?” Feel free to discuss among yourselves.

One of the most emailed stories from The NY Times last week profiled Robert Page, the founder and CEO of Replacements Limited (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/business/replacements-limiteds-stand-for-gay-marriage-draws-repercussions.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&pagewanted=all&adxnnlx=1338241661-BqQxE1UZC3c8Xh5s2X9OYA). Replacements is a host’s salvation for filling in missing or broken pieces of discontinued china, crystal and flatware. 

Page outwardly supported opposition to the North Carolina constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a position that has hurt Replacements’ business. Page is gay; with his partner of 23 years he is the parent of 13-year-old twins adopted in 1999 in Vietnam.

I've known Page since 1991 when my magazine profiled him as an Entrepreneur of the Year selected by Ernst & Young. About 10 years ago I visited Page in his showroom outside Greensboro, N.C. He couldn’t have been more gracious and proud of his company.

I know all the reasons businessmen avoid taking public stands on controversial issues. Here are two comments posted on The Times Web site about the story. They pretty much capture the sentiment surrounding the plus and minus of speaking out: 

“Any smart business person will tell you that picking a public political fight is almost always bad for business. Good intentions rarely bring profits,” said Robert from Tuckahoe.

On the other hand, Rob from New York City said, “How sad more people aren't like Mr. Page and stand up for what is right. ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’” That quote is from Edmund Burke.

I wonder if Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana believes in that quote. Recently defeated in a Republican primary by a conservative candidate who has openly said he would not compromise with Democrats (actually, Richard Mourdock said his view of bipartisanship entails Democrats acceding to GOP positions), Lugar told CBS’ Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer Sunday he has no plans to campaign for Mourdock. As part of his explanation for being defeated, Lugar opined, “A large portion of the Republican Party of Indiana believed, apparently, in the idea of individualism as opposed to community, a sense of compromise, or a sense of talking across the aisle."

Fair enough, but if he were truly a patriot, Lugar would campaign against such narrow-mindedness. He’d put country over party. If he truly believes Mourdock and those similar to him, who have taken control of the Republican Party and turned it into a bastion of individualism versus community, how could he not support candidates who would embrace compromise, even if they are Democrats?

It’s taken me two weeks to get to it, but I’ve started to fill out the crossword puzzle from the May 13 Sunday NY Times Magazine. Lo and behold, I’ve uncovered an anti-birther bias. The correct answer to the clue for 41 Down, “Obama’s birthplace,” is “Hawaii.” 

Take that, you skeptics, including the secretary of state of Arizona (who just dropped his threat to keep Obama off the ballot if he couldn’t verify his birth certificate), Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona who has fielded a voluntary investigation unit into the matter in Hawaii, and Donald Trump who once again is stoking the fires of disbelief Barack Obama was born in the United States and qualifies to be president.

Ah, well, it’s Memorial Day, a time to reflect on the service and sacrifice men and women provided our country in support of the liberties we hold dear, including the right to challenge reality. Last evening Gilda and I had the pleasure of spending time with a veteran of World War II, Herb Bilus, and his family. Herb served in the Coast Guard and was part of a landing craft team that ferried troops to the shores of Normandy on D-Day. At 91, he’s slow afoot but still sharp as a tack. 

Memorial Day weekend has special significance for our family, as well. Twelve years ago, at the national collegiate Ultimate Frisbee championships in Boise, Idaho, our son Dan started dating Allison. Six years later they married. 

The News Marches On

In response to the question, “When did you start beating your wife?”, President Obama released the long form of his birth certificate to prove he could not have hit Michelle before August 4, 1961, his official birth date in Honolulu.

Now that we have settled the birther controversy, at least for those who retain some degree of sanity, Obama’s educational qualifications are the new fertilizer of Republican mudslinging. This from a political party that lionized the underachievements of George W. Bush’s academic career. Bob Schieffer of CBS News said it best last night on the network’s evening newscast with Katie Couric. Of Donald Trump’s questioning of Obama’s merits for entry into Columbia University and Harvard Law School, Schieffer said, "That's just code for saying he got into law school because he's black. This is an ugly strain of racism that's running through this whole thing.”

Reporters are supposed to refrain from dishing out opinion, but Schieffer’s bold and honest characterization of Trump and others who would support The Donald’s bigotry is to be commended and, hopefully, emulated by thought leaders in the media and politics.

Let’s hear unequivocal support for the legitimacy of the president from John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and other paragons of the right. They can challenge his policies all they want, but stirring up racial divide is not in the best interests of the country.


Cursive Class: The digital age is endangering the ability to read and write script. As related in The NY Times, precious little teaching time is spent instructing elementary school students in the art of cursive writing, of attaching rounded letters into words (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/us/28cursive.html?_r=1).

As I blogged last October, I’ve had a lifelong challenge reading my own handwriting. If I don’t transcribe notes soon after they’re written there’s a good chance I won’t be able to decipher them later on. My parents recognized my shortcoming. Though they steadfastly encouraged me to write better, my proficiency ended with learning the correct manner to hold a pen or pencil.

Nevertheless, I did earn an “A” in penmanship in fourth grade, much to the consternation of my parents, so much so that my father forced my mother to lodge a formal complaint during a parent-teacher meeting. Turns out the teacher based her grades on four reports we had to submit. Knowing that, I had painstakingly penned them with precision befitting a medieval monk transcribing sacred text (a real feat considering I attended a Hebrew day school).


To Serve Man: Yesterday was Administrative Professionals Day, more commonly referred to as Secretary’s Day. Having never been a coffee or tea drinker except on rare occasions, I mostly avoided the demeaning practice of having my assistant bring me hot liquid refreshment (for the record, I didn’t ask for cold sodas, either).

Regrettably, proffering coffee was accepted as part of a secretary’s job description, as noted by Lynn Peril in an Op-Ed piece in The Times. To rebel against this form of servitude could cost you your job: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/opinion/27peril.html.

Commerce can liberate women from traditional roles, but even business sometimes can be bound by tradition. As I wrote in March about memories of our family trip to Japan 20 years ago, women’s status there was so stunted that should the highest executive at a meeting be female, she was still expected to serve tea to all the men present. One can only hope that in the ensuing two decades that unseemly practice has been shelved (and not replaced by having a secretary do the chore).


Matzah Meal: Do birds like matzah? I’m going to find out as I’ve put leftover Passover matzah into one birdfeeder. And not just any matzah, but “shmurah matzah,” what some call the Rolls-Royce of matzah because it is made under stricter supervision than regular unleavened bread.

If they don’t like it will they turn into angry birds, purposely flying into my windows?


Royal Treatment: I can’t say I’ve been caught up in the excitement about Will and Kate’s nuptials tomorrow, though I will admit I’ve set one of our DVRs to record 6 hours of royal wedding pomp, circumstance and pageantry. Gilda and I were more invested in William’s mother’s marriage to Prince Charles, mostly because of our British friends, Dave and Gemma. Though they had already returned to London after a three-year sojourn as our neighbor when Diana joined the Windsor clan, our interest in the Mother Country remained strong.

As noted once before, Dave was a top rank tabloid journalist, with a particular knack for getting under the royal skin, especially when it came to Diana. As an editor of The Sun, Dave ran pictures of a pregnant Princess Diana at the beach (pregnant, if memory serves me correctly, with the very same William the world is now ga-ga over). Anyway, for breaching royal etiquette, The Sun was forced to apologize. Dave complied, but ran the apology alongside a copy of the picture Buckingham Palace objected to in the first place.

Some years later, as editor of The Daily Mirror, Dave authorized publication of photos showing Princess Diana exercising at a London gym. Quite scandalous, resulting in a flurry of articles on the privacy to be extended to members of the monarchy. To give Dave a taste of his own medicine, other news outlets staked out his home with round-the-clock cameras.

As befitting the queen of her household, Gemma was not amused.