Showing posts with label Elizabeth Warren. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elizabeth Warren. Show all posts

Monday, February 17, 2020

Democrats Fail the Ivory Soap Purity Test

Bernie Sanders is a socialist who flies around the country in private jets. While head of the Senate Judiciary Committee Joe Biden let Clarence Thomas become a Supreme Court justice and helped pass criminal laws that incarcerated too many minority men. Amy Klobuchar is a woman hiding a mean temper behind a Midwestern aw-shucks smile. Elizabeth Warren is too wonky.  Apart from being gay, Pete Buttigieg’s two terms as mayor of South Bend, Ind., is too, too trivial to qualify for the presidency and lacking in solid relations with minorities. Tom Steyer has even less experience in public office and we’ve seen how that can impair performance as president. Michael Bloomberg failed as mayor of all the people—read that, minorities—of New York City. Besides, who wants another president who always believes he knows best.

There you have it. Not one Democratic candidate for president passes the Ivory Soap purity test. If you want perfection, just hitch your phone line to the progenitor of the “perfect” phone call to the president of Ukraine. Let’s call off the election right now and cede the Oval Office in perpetuity to The Donald and his offspring, for surely the perfectionist-in-chief dreams each night of surpassing the Kennedys, the Bushes, the Clintons, and, if he knew any history, the Adamses, for spawning political dynasties.

I am tired, as Pearl Bailey used to drawl (google her if you don't know who she was), so tired of pundits who cast doubt on a candidate’s purity when the most tainted incumbent in our history feels empowered to hollow out constitutional rights and governmental and social norms.

I am all for vetting records. But the past is no surety of future behavior, though Donald Trump’s record would argue the opposite. Trump was bigoted as a real estate developer—his actions on immigration, his comments on blacks, Hispanics, Africans and Moslems reveal his bigotry has not left his body.

Unlike Bloomberg, Trump has not apologized for mistakes such as his belief that the Central Park Five raped a jogger. He called for their execution. Even after they were exonerated years later Trump maintained they were guilty.

Given a choice between the “perfect” Trump and any of the remaining imperfect Democrats, do you really want the former?

Now, single issue voters might. Right to Lifers. Israel right or wrong voters. One percenters. Isolationists.  Anti-immigrants.

The character of our country was molded in our ability to transform from a closed to a more universal culture.

Like animals that eat their young Democrats are devouring young and old contenders. Men and women. Straight and gay. Liberal, moderate or progressive.

The attacks on Bloomberg have been particularly virulent. Here’s a sampling of anti-Mike venom:




Sharpened knives will be out in force Wednesday night as the candidates debate in Nevada whether Bloomberg appears on the podium or not.

There is nothing wrong with vetting a candidate, but seriously, people of the Democratic party, remember who the ultimate foe is. The state primary program is intended to expose the efficacy of and affinity toward campaign platforms. It is not meant to attack and expose a candidate’s failure to attain purity.

No one, no one can measure up to the idealized candidate.

Not even George Washington is safe from criticism. In time for his birthday February 22, a revisionist take on our first president has hit the bookstands. Suffice to say, he didn't chop down that cherry tree (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8008559/amp/George-Washington-illiterate-LIAR-cheated-way-new-biography-claims.html).

Sunday, January 26, 2020

Are You an ABT Voter—Anyone But Trump?


Are you an ABT voter—Anyone But Trump?

Wait. Before we get into the original subject of this blog, let me aver that I believe The New York Times, specifically columnist Bret Stephens, must have hacked my iPhone. Heck, if Jeff Bezos’ iPhone could be hacked, who am I to think mine couldn’t, especially when it contains a really juicy story idea about ABT voters. And to show you how nefariously ingenious The Times’ caper is, the paper also ran an Op-Ed piece entitled “Jeff Bezos’ Phone Hack Should Terrify Everyone” (https://nyti.ms/37oujrL), directly above a Stephens article on ABT voters. How cunning to try to misdirect the scent of the crime from its editorial room.

Late last week I started writing a blog on ABT. As I often do, I wrote the beginning on my iPhone in bed before sleep stopped my progress. But I couldn’t fall into deep slumber. Too much on my mind. Too many tasks to accomplish. So I wrote a To Do list in my iPhone before finally allowing zzzz’s to overwhelm my consciousness.

Not suspecting any skulduggery I posted a Friday blog on my recent purchases of cardigans instead of the Anyone But Trump theme.

Imagine my excitement then when Saturday afternoon I opened The Times to see the following headline:
“Anyone But Trump? Not So Fast,” a column by Bret Stephens printed directly under the aforementioned opinion piece on Jeff Bezos (https://nyti.ms/2Rnl0mc). 

I quickly checked my iPhone for literary comparisons to what Stephens wrote. After all, it is not uncommon for good ideas to simultaneously formulate in the minds of several journalists. That’s when the hacking was “revealed” to me. Revealed might not be the right term, for my ABT story and my To Do list were nowhere to be found in my iPhone.

Now, some of you might be thinking I just forgot to save the ABT story. You know, you’re thinking he’s already admitted to being “old,” another synonym for forgetful or just plain tech-challenged. Yeah, true on all counts. But why would I lose the To Do list, as well? I’m thinking The Times hackers stole that file to really mess with my sanity.

I’ve no proof for these wild allegations. Just a deep-seated journalist’s hunch. Or more probably, a pixieish imagination. Anyway, time to talk about ABT and Stephens’ analysis.

I am an ABTer, though I admit I am not enthusiastic about any of the choices Democrats are proffering. There’s goodness in most of them and cautionary traits as well. Unlike many punsters on the left and right I do not fear a Warren or Sanders presidency tilting our government too much to the extreme. None of the Democratic candidates has the bellicosity Trump has displayed to cower the party into cult-like submission. Any Democratic president will have to work with Democrats in Congress to forge consensus, middle of the road changes that first and foremost restore progress achieved in the Obama years to environmental, civil rights, labor, health care, and abortion rights causes, to name a few initiatives. 

Anyone, I believe, would be better than Trump. 

In offering a defense against Trump’s impeachment, Stephens wrote, “First, the argument (for impeachment) overstates the extent to which this presidency has eroded the foundations of liberal democracy at home and abroad. Has Trump abandoned NATO? No. Has he lifted sanctions on Russia? No. Has he closed the borders to all immigrants? No. Did the president steal the midterms, or stop Congress from impeaching him? No. Has he significantly suppressed the press? Again, no.”

I disagree.  Has Trump weakened respect for the judiciary? Yes. Has he weakened our constitutional checks and balances system of government? Yes. Has Trump strained relations with allies? Yes. Has he eroded the credibility of our intelligence and law enforcement services? Yes. Has Trump strengthened the dark forces of white nationalists? Yes. Has he emboldened despots and autocrats around the globe? Yes. Has Trump corroded America’s historic values? Yes. Has he debased the bond our word used to be throughout the world? Yes. Has Trump made lies and falsehoods the new standard of presidential speak? Yes. Has he made Americans and the rest of the world lose trust in what America stands for? Yes.

But all of those actions do not rise to the level of an impeachable offense. They just show he is a bad, dangerous president. 

What are impeachable offenses are his attempt to extort Ukraine into interfering in the 2020 election by announcing a corruption investigation into his political rival, Joe Biden, in return for a White House meeting and the transfer of withheld military aid approved by Congress, and the obstruction of the House of Representative’s probe of his actions by refusing to release documents and allowing his aides to testify about the Ukrainian affair. 

Stephens and I shared an editorial construct. But we diverged in our execution. I prefer mine to his. I hope you do, too.


Wimping Out: While I’m blasting away at The Times, let me also opine that the flagship newspaper of American journalism wimped out when it came to its dual endorsement of Senators Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar as the best choices for the Democratic Party presidential nomination. 

I’m not against the failure to choose a singular candidate. Rather, what immediately struck me as cowardly is the decision to publish the joint endorsement on a Monday, not on Sunday. 

I know that Monday, January 20, coincided with commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr. Day and was exactly one year prior to the inauguration of our next president, but if The Times wanted the biggest bang for its buck it would have printed its choices in the issue with the largest circulation of the week (1,087,500 copies)—the Sunday edition—which enjoys readership almost double that of the weekday issues (571,500).  

Tuesday, June 25, 2019

Will Biden or Trump Be Target at Dem Debates?


Chum is filling the waters surrounding Joe Biden, bringing in political sharks eager to rip his candidacy to shreds. At times, inadvertently, Biden himself contributes to the bloody waters. All the while his Democratic rivals are doing Donald Trumps’ unspoken bidding in weakening his appeal. 

With each passing day, each revelatory past and present quote or vote, Biden is discovering for the first time that being a campaign frontrunner means the dissection of the corners, sometimes the dark, obscure corners, of his public life and his family’s private lives is fair game (
https://mol.im/a/7167911).

Biden can take small comfort that other candidates are under intense scrutiny. For Bernie Sanders it has meant explaining how a self-proclaimed socialist became a millionaire (a book contract and book sales). Bernie’s wife also has had to answer questions about her business conduct. 

Elizabeth Warren has earned veteran status answering queries about her heritage. Native American or not? Who really cares? Only those, including Trump, who care more about appearances and less about the substance of a campaign to ease the economic burden of struggling families. 

Mayor Pete Buttigieg is finding out how one nationally reported incident involving the shooting of an unarmed black man by a white policeman can dispel the tranquility and image of a well-run city. 

But it is Biden who has the most baggage from four and a half decades of public life in Washington. Votes he is proud of. Votes he regrets. Votes he once was proud of but now regrets. The press is eager to cite his shortcomings either through its own investigations or through “oppo” research provided by Democratic and Republican detractors. 

Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination—the first debates are Wednesday and Thursday nights in Miami—he or she will face an incumbent whose integrity and character are shameful but irrelevant to much of the electorate. Yet, he or she will be held to a higher standard. 

Not fair, but surely true. Which leads us back to Biden. How should the acknowledged-by-all-frontrunner deal with the Chinese-water-torture drip of negative stories? Should he explain those were different times? Should he apologize? Should he recant and state new positions as he did with the Hyde Amendment restriction on federal financing of abortion (he’s now against any restriction)?

Or should he let the voters decide if he is Trump-challenger worthy? I’m inclined to pick that course, combined with selective usage of the recant and restate option. 

No candidate will emerge perfect and unscathed during this looooong nomination process. The media will do its share of nitpicking and hole punching. Other Democrats, on the other hand, must refrain from poisoning their brethren. They must remember the real objective is unseating Trump. It means nothing to secure the nomination if the prize eludes the nation because of party fratricide. 

They also must keep in mind that national elections are won by appealing to the broadest section of the electorate. Most Democrats and Independents are centrists, not radicals. The country is tiring of Trump’s extremism. It is not looking for a pendulum swing all the way to the left. Voters are seeking equilibrium with traditional American values. Democrats would be wise to heed the words of Charles Sykes, a conservative Wisconsin-based political commentator on how not to blow the election (https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/06/25/democrats-trump-election-2020-227215?cid=apn).


“She’s not my type.”: In other words, if she was, then, yeah, maybe I would have done it. 

That, in essence, is Trump’s latest defense against a claim of sexual assault in his pre-presidency days. Pictures at the time repudiated his alibi of never having met E. Jean Carroll. So he falls back on a frat house response to date rape. Nah, I wouldn’t touch her ’cause she’s not my type. 

As if that ever mattered to an oversexed, entitled-believing misogynist who has been outed for cheating on his two previous wives and on his current spouse just days after she delivered his fifth child. He at first denied the Stormy Daniels tryst but her version of their encounter apparently is the factual one. 

Undeniably Unreliable: I was amused by this AP headline above an article on fallout from Trump’s last minute decisions not to strike Iran for shooting down an unarmed American surveillance drone and for postponing the start of an ICE roundup of illegal aliens:

“AP Analysis: Trump moves show him to be unreliable partner” (https://apnews.com/a47ecf2848ee4df5a6cf62e84c35bed8)

I was amused because Trump’s personal history has time and again shown him to be an unreliable partner. He has cheated on all three of his wives. He has stiffed numerous contractors for work they have done on his properties. He has defaulted on loans. His businesses have declared bankruptcy six times. He has bilked thousands of customers who enrolled in his “university.” He has reneged on deals he made with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. 

People! Hello! What more proof do you need before realizing he is not to be trusted?

Friday, February 15, 2019

Too Much to Read? Here's More


Did you ever muse that there’s just too much to read? Of course, I am not referring to No Socks Needed Anymore, but seriously, there’s lots of intriguing (not necessarily good) journalism out there, so your faithful servant/scribe has taken it upon himself to alert you to articles or videos worthy of your time.


To start, I left out of my last blog a cute-as-a-puppy clip from CBS Sunday Morning’s tribute to Valentine’s Day love: https://www.cbsnews.com/video/love-story-reagandoodle-and-little-buddy/


Sticking with the subject of love, though not the pure kind epitomized by the doggie clip, here’s an eye-popping article on sex workers you might have missed from the Style section of The New York Times: https://nyti.ms/2UOmRiL


I cite The Times more than any other newspaper, but I am not elitist when it comes to recommending local media. Thanks to Gilda, who reads the local papers from Omaha and Boston where our children live, here’s a profile of John Pehle from the Omaha World-Herald of a mostly unheralded hero of 75 years ago who saved thousands of lives: https://www.omaha.com/columnists/hansen/hansen-an-omahan-saved-countless-jews-during-the-holocaust-then/article_357296fc-cd60-563a-a221-8c18456c5c9a.html


Many consider Robert Mueller a hero. They can hardly wait for the special counsel’s report on the entanglements of the Trump campaign and presidency with Russia. But as this piece from NBC News notes, full disclosure of his findings is not automatic: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/you-may-be-disappointed-mueller-report-n971601


She’s not eligible to run for president for more than five years, but pundits already have her hat in the ring for the 2024 election, championing radical solutions to our national and world problems. The irony is that Trump’s declaration Friday of a national emergency so he could build a wall along our southern border (assuming the courts uphold his power to do so) makes freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez a nightmare for conservatives (if she wins) and a dreamy candidate for extreme progressives. Here’s Politico’s take on it from a former speechwriter for President George W. Bush: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/02/14/trump-national-emergency-border-precedent-225055?cid=apn

Elizabeth Warren provided an enlightened explanation of what might transpire in years ahead:  She tweeted, “Gun violence is an emergency. Climate change is an emergency. Our country’s opioid epidemic is an emergency.”

A future president could ban all gun sales, could confiscate all long guns, could limit ammunition sales, all under emergency powers. 

A future president could ban construction along shorelines, could order the relocation of residents along the shoreline, could order the construction of massive sea walls, all under emergency powers. 

A president could postpone indefinitely future elections under emergency powers. 

Sounds crazy but Republicans in Congress have forfeited their power. 

Think the courts will stop it all? Trump has been appointing federal judges who believe in the imperial presidency so don’t look to them for any brakes on presidential power. 

Dictators look for power vacuums to consolidate their hold. Republicans just let the air out of our checks and balances form of government. 


He doesn’t own it anymore, but Trump’s first major Manhattan project, The Grand Hyatt Hotel adjacent to and above Grand Central Terminal, will be torn down, replaced by a scaled down hotel as part of a mixed use development (https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-yorks-grand-hyatt-hotel-to-be-torn-down-11549567095). I wonder if he has any sentimental feelings about that news. 

Sunday, December 9, 2018

Want To Get People Talking? Ask Them for Their Opinion on Joe Biden for President


The conversation during Friday night’s dinner started to take on an edge when the discussion turned to potential Democratic presidential candidates. Former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick just dropped out, someone lamented, adding that former New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu also withdrew his hat from the ring. As should Senator Elizabeth Warren, a third voice chimed in.   

At the mention of Joe Biden a chorus of “god forbids” or words to that effect cascaded across the room. I disagreed. Loudly (I was, after all, the host, so raising my voice was within the bounds of master of the house). 

While I have not jumped on the Biden bandwagon I reject arguments that he is too old or that his admittedly lapsed leadership as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill confrontation during the former’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing utterly disqualified him from seeking the presidency. These were among the arguments Frank Bruni laid out in The New York Times the next day (https://nyti.ms/2G7OLUr). 

God has yet to create the perfect candidate. All politicians make compromises. All have skeletons, some visible, some not, that inhabit their closets. Has Biden atoned through his work over the last quarter century for his failure to believe and protect Anita Hill in 1991? I’d like to think so. 

As for the age factor, absent examples of dementia, Biden’s age should not disqualify him. As a society we have come a long way in recognizing the contributions senior citizens can make. Keep in mind, Biden’s learning curve for what a president has to master would be much lower than any other candidate, including the current occupant of the White House.  

The main obstacle Biden must overcome to secure his party’s nomination is the primary and caucus system. He doesn’t generate rabid enthusiasm, the type of momentum needed, especially now that the power of superdelegates has been diminished. Primary/caucus voters often are looking for a fresh face. 

Short of nominating a total disaster, however, Democrats should be able to count on winning at least the same states Hillary Clinton did in 2016, I believe. To garner at least 270 Electoral College votes the nominee needs to win some combination of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Florida. 

Those are older, working class population states with voters who align well with Biden’s core constituencies. Biden might not carry those or any state in a primary where young zealous advocates often opt for the fresh face, but against Trump in a national election he would present solid Democratic values. 

On the other hand, most of the other possible nominees lack the working class credibility Middle Western voters seek. And Biden exudes an aura of accessibility, even a vulnerability given the tragedies that have befallen his family. Down on their luck voters may find it easier to identify with him. 

Coupled with a qualified ticket-balancing vice presidential candidate, someone like Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, or Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Biden could defeat Trump and restore dignity to the Oval Office and our standing in the world. 

I am not endorsing Biden. I just do not believe he should be dismissed out of hand. 


Thursday, June 15, 2017

Beauregard Sessions Cares More for His Honor Than for Info on Russian Election Interference

The news business being what it is, the attempted assassination of Republican congressmen Wednesday morning in Alexandria, VA, pre-empted the horrific, deadly London apartment house fire as the lead story throughout the day. Both events co-opted our attention from the more important ongoing investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 elections and the Trump administration’s seeming lack of interest in safeguarding our national heritage.

Perhaps the most damning piece of testimony from Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ testimony Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee was his admission that he knows nothing more about Russian activity “than what he has read in the (news)paper.”

Asked by Senator Angus King (I-Maine) asked if he believed Russians interfered with the election, Sessions said, “It appears so. The intelligence community seems to be united in that. But I have to tell you, Senator King, I know nothing but what I’ve read in the paper. I’ve never received any detailed briefing on how hacking occurred or how information was alleged to have influenced the campaign.”

Sessions went on to acknowledge he never asked for or attended a briefing from the intelligence community or read a report of their findings. 

Is it possible that our standards for public officials have dropped so low that our top law enforcement officer cares not a whit about actions that could destroy our democratic ideals? And that Trumpettes, masquerading as U.S. senators, coddling favor with their egotistical, autocratic chief, do not show any inkling of consternation or anxiety about the assault on our most cherished right as citizens?

His voice dripping with righteous indignation, Sessions defended his honor against any suggestion he colluded with Russians or knew of any such activity by Trump campaign associates. If dueling were legal, you could easily picture Beauregard—that really is his middle name,  his full name being Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III— slapping the side of Sen. Ron Wyden’s (D-OR) face with his glove and demanding satisfaction for his persistent, some might say impolite and impolitic, questioning. 

Committee chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) had hoped his colleagues “would focus their questions today on the Russia investigation,” but he might have been equally well-advised to ask Sessions to be similarly focused, as the attorney general revealed little interest in uncovering the veracity of Russian interference in the 2016 elections or even the widely reported contacts by campaign officials with Russians. That incredulous position prompted comedian Stephen Colbert to say Tuesday night Sessions “really seems to know nothing, which explains why he was the first senator to endorse Trump.”

As political theater the hearing provided some fireworks and little by way of information as Sessions invoked a premature claim of executive privilege on behalf of Trump, an odd practice as executive privilege, which can only be invoked by a president, usually must be cited prior to testimony before Congress. As Trump did not make such a claim, Sessions refused to answer questions just in case Trump would at a later date seek executive privilege. 

What the hearing did provide, however, was the complicity of Republican senators in the administration’s efforts to reject the validity of the allegations that the Trump campaign had contacts with Russians and that former FBI director James Comey was fired because he aggressively pursued an investigation into such activity. GOP senators failed to seek the reasons behind Comey’s dismissal, why Sessions would not answer questions about conversations with Trump, and why he had not immersed himself in the details of the intelligence reports.

The hearing also provided another example of Republican antipathy toward female senators, particularly if they are Democrats. For the second time in a week Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) was interrupted, admonished, during her questioning of a witness. Earlier this year Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) was cut off on the Senate floor when she tried to read a letter from Coretta Scott King. And let’s not forget that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) chose a group of 13 men–not one woman—to draw up a replacement for the Affordable Care Act. 

Monday, February 27, 2017

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. 


Saturday, June 18, 2016

Political Potpourri: Wedge Issues, Romney, Bridgegate, Trump as Candy Man, Couturiers

In the wake of the Orlando massacre, another wedge issue has moved to the forefront in defining the race for the presidency as well as campaigns for control of the House and Senate: gun control, specifically, the ability to deny the legal sale of firearms to those on the Do Not Fly and Terrorist Watch lists or to those with mental health issues. A subsidiary issue is the availability of assault rifles such as the AR-15 to the general public. The Orlando shooter, as well as the San Bernadino shooter and other mass killers, used an AR-15 rifle.

Wedge issues this year include abortion rights, Planned Parenthood, the Supreme Court, immigration, income inequality, same-sex marriage, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Islamic terrorism, campaign finance, and the minimum wage. 

The essence of each wedge issue can be summed up as the forces of fear and bigotry vs. the forces of hope and tolerance.  . . .


The Democrats’ best friend in this election might be Mitt Romney. The 2012 Republican standard bearer has been vocal in his antipathy, even animosity, toward Donald Trump. If he can sway fellow Mormons to withhold their votes for Trump, Hillary Clinton could win some Mountain States that are a challenge to any Democrat (http://nyti.ms/1XR6ktS).

But Trump’s negative coat tails might not paint the Senate blue as Mormons and other anti-Trump voters might prefer to keep the Senate red as a counter-balance to a liberal president.  . . .


Just when you think this election season can’t get any weirder two reports this week evoked Watergate memories. First came word that Democratic Party files had been breached, not physically as in Watergate but electronically. Not by Republicans but by Russians who wanted to gather data on Trump.

Second, the spirit of Rosemary Woods lives on.  The 18-1/2 minute gap in Richard Nixon’s White House tapes, allegedly created by an inadvertent contortion Woods performed at her secretarial desk while transcribing them, possibly has been matched by lost or erased emails and texts from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, communications linked to the investigation into Bridegate, the allegedly illegal disruption of traffic across the George Washington Bridge to punish the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee for not endorsing Christie’s reelection bid.  . . . 


Donald Trump and his fellow Republicans want to reduce tax rates, especially for the wealthy. They also profess a desire to return to simpler times, as life was in the 1950s. They lambast Democrats for wanting to impose higher taxes on the rich. Elizabeth Warren, says Trump, wants to impose a 95% income tax rate. 

Sounds Draconian, until you realize that back in the 1950s under President Eisenhower, when unions were strong and  the middle class grew, the top effective tax rate was 91%.  . . . 


Trump is not alone in issuing damning statements about Hillary Clinton. The other week on NPR I heard U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.—one of the three female House members who prefer to be called “congressman”) attack Clinton, saying she lies and cheats while “Trump is a candy man” who gives people what they want.

I seriously doubt Blackburn knows that “candy man” is street talk for drug dealer. It would be an appropriate description for a candidate who is trying to dupe the electorate. . . 



Should Hillary Clinton win the presidency, the most negatively impacted group would be couturiers. After eight years of stunning gowns, dresses and ensembles showcased by first lady Michelle Obama, fashionistas would no longer have a White House muse to clothe. There are, after all, just so many variations on the tuxedo Bill Clinton can be expected to wear.


Your election witticism of the day, courtesy of whowhatwhy.org:


Don’t buy a single vote more than necessary. I’ll be damned if I’m going to pay for a landslide. —Joseph P. Kennedy

Friday, May 20, 2016

2016 Mantra: It's the Supreme Court, Stupid

The reason establishment, conservative Republicans have swallowed their pride, eaten their words, and have held their noses at the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency can be summed up in one acronym: SCOTUS. Supreme Court of the United States.

Forget about the wall and making Mexico pay for it. Or deporting 11 million illegal aliens. Or meeting with North Korean strong man Kim Jong-Un. Or scrapping Obamacare. Or permitting Japan and South Korea to develop nuclear weapons. Or by sheer force of his personality making America great again. However bad Trump might be as the leader of the free world, as the next president he might pick one to three, or even four, Supreme Court justices, jurists who could guide the nation back to a time when prejudice and bias dominated employment, housing, electoral and education standards, while environmental, labor and safety safeguards were secondary to corporate profits.

In releasing his list of potential nominees last week Trump cunningly calculated the correct connection his candidacy posed to conservatives and the Republican establishment. The elites know a president has temporary powers, four to eight years, but a properly picked Supreme Court justice can wield influence and power for decades, for a generation or longer. So they are all in on their Faustian deal with The Donald. Even if Democrats unseat Trump in 2020 they wouldn’t be able to unseat picks he made for the court in the next four years.

Did you ever stop to analyze why Hillary Clinton is so hated by Republicans? She did, after all, vote with George W. Bush for the Iraq war. She’s generally as hawkish as they are. They blame her for the deaths of four Americans in Libya, but they say hardly a word about the thousands who have died and the billions of dollars squandered in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan based on lies by Bush and Dick Cheney. She is a capitalist, as her speaking fees clearly show. She is liberal, but less so than Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren. She showed strong family values by standing by her man when he was accused of sexual indiscretions. She hasn’t been accused of sexual infidelities as have numerous Republican politicians. She hasn’t been proven to be corrupt and criminal as have some GOP leaders, such as former Speakers of the House Dennis Hastert and Tom DeLay.

No, the reason they hate her so is the threat she represents to their way of life. Hillary would place progressive justices on the Supreme Court.

Which brings up the most important theme Hillary and other Democrats must repeat over and over: the future of the Supreme Court and that of our country is at stake in this election. They need to draw stark contrasts from today’s rights and protections versus the rollbacks a conservative majority would impose.

Barack Obama must become the campaigner-in-chief for his legacy. This is no time to be an above-the-fray president. 


To paraphrase the 1992 Bill Clinton campaign mantra, the drumbeat for 2016 should be, “It’s the Supreme Court, stupid.” 


Your election witticism of the day, as provided by whowhatwhy.org:

George Washington is the only president who didn’t blame the previous administration for his troubles. —Author Unknown


Friday, October 10, 2014

Have You Noticed ...

Have you noticed … a certain sameness to the rhetoric coming from the political left and right? Both want to take the country back.

Here’s what U.S. senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) told Bill Maher last Friday: 

“We now have a government that works for millionaires and billionaires and Fortune 500 companies, but it’s leaving real families, real people behind. And so, what we’ve got to do is we’ve got to get over there and we’ve got to be willing to fight back, to take this country back.”

A conservative, retired friend of mine sent along a right wing screed that contained the following:

“We didn’t fight for the Socialist States of America; we fought for the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” … Yes, we are old and slow these days but rest assured, we have at least one good fight left in us. We have loved this country, fought for it, and died for it, and now we are going to save it. It is our country and nobody is going to take it away from us. We took oaths to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that is an oath we plan to keep. There are those who want to destroy this land we love but, like our founders, there is no way we are going to remain silent.”

It’s an “us vs. them” attitude that has overtaken much of our political dialogue. Solutions are rarely advanced beyond “throw-the-bums-out.”

I pointed out to my conservative friend that the fighters of WWII, Korea and Vietnam “fought to defend social security, the GI Bill, Medicare and Medicaid, the FDA, national parks, Civil Rights, and other progressive programs, all of which were passed and in place by 1965 at the latest and many pre-WWII. 

“If we want to blame Obama for anything, let’s blame him for reducing unemployment to its lowest levels in about a decade; for saving the domestic car industry; for extending health care to millions of uninsured; for having the longest run of positive job growth; for following through on Bush’s contract with Iraq to remove US troops (he’s now being blamed for doing what Bush signed on to do, another mess W. left).”


Have you noticed … that despite daily reassurances by broadcasters, doctors and government officials that it is hard to contract Ebola even from an infected carrier, many Americans are panicking, believing the deadly disease will invade our shores and kill thousands, even millions, of us? Why? Because there are too many dumb people living among us. 

First, let’s note the obvious—more people than you care to believe don’t wash their hands before leaving the bathroom. Second, and perhaps more important, Americans are mostly ignorant about stuff that really matters. We choose political leaders based on emotions not reasoned thinking; we prefer mindless TV shows and movies over thought-provoking performances; we celebrate and emulate celebrities with no talent. I could go on but the point is, we are a shallow people, easily led by media that has an agenda that is anti-Progressive.


Did you notice … the article in Thursday’s New York Times about expensive watch collectors and their weekly Red Bar meetings to ogle and fondle time pieces worth the down payment on a Manhattan co-op? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/fashion/for-luxury-watch-buyers-one-just-isnt-enough.html?_r=0

I couldn’t believe one attendee admitted to regularly bringing half a million dollars worth of watches to the gatherings. That sort of ostrich-head-in-the-sand attitude toward crime just invites foul deeds. I’m reminded of a post I did back in 2010 about a metal detector enthusiast whose house was burglarized after I profiled him in The New Haven Register and, by newspaper policy, had to include his address story (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2010/07/too-much-information.html). As with my story, sometimes too much information is too much.


Have you seen … the new Republican Party TV ad that tries to soften the image of the GOP by portraying “Republicans are people, too”? With a # IAMaRepublican in the lower left hand corner, the ad shows various shades of “Republicans”—a black woman, a woman with a tattoo, a man with a tattoo and beard, a young professional-looking white man reading The New York Times in public, and other activities not generally associated with conservative types, such as recycling, shopping at Trader Joe’s, using a Mac, driving a Prius, listening to Spotify and putting together Ikea furniture.

A warm and fuzzy ad, only all the pictures are stock photo images. There’s no assurance all or any of them are Republicans or even U.S. citizens. Heck, as Stephen Colbert pointed out, the man standing next to a Prius is a Swede. Given that country’s social welfare system it’s highly doubtful he has much in common with Republican, especially conservative Republican, values.


Let’s end on an amusing note about the differences in our national society, sent to me by my aforementioned conservative friend:  

You may have heard on the news about a Southern California man who was put under 72-hour psychiatric observation when it was found he owned 100 guns and allegedly had 100,000 rounds of ammunition stored in his home. The house also featured a secret escape tunnel.

By Southern California standards, someone owning 100,000 rounds is considered “mentally unstable.”

In Michigan, he’d be called “The last white guy still living in Detroit.”

In Arizona, he’d be called “an avid gun collector.”

In Arkansas, he’d be called “a novice gun collector.”

In Utah, he’d be called “moderately well prepared,” but they’d probably reserve judgment until they made sure that he had a corresponding quantity of stored food.

In Kansas, he’d be “A guy down the road you would want to have for a friend.”

In Montana, he’d be called “The neighborhood ‘Go-To’ guy.”

In Idaho, he’d be called “a likely gubernatorial candidate.”

In Georgia, he’d be called “an eligible bachelor.”

In North Carolina, Virginia, W.Va., Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky and South Carolina he would be called “a deer hunting buddy.”


And in Texas: he’d just be “Bubba, who’s a little short on ammo.”

Monday, May 12, 2014

"Nothing Is Dearer Than a Daughter"—Euripides

Every pundit is talking about the inevitability of a Hillary Clinton Democratic party presidential run, if not election, so I thought I might as well give my take on her chances of securing the nomination and who would be her Republican opponent. 

With Euripides’ quote in mind, that “to a father waxing old, nothing is dearer than a daughter,” I researched the offspring of the last 12 presidents. During the 2012 election cycle, I determined that candidates with daughter(s) had greater opportunities to sit behind the desk in the Oval Office (http://nosocksneededanymore.blogspot.com/2012/06/political-offspring.html?m=1). Six of the last 12 presidents, including the last three, restricted their fatherhood to daughters. Only Dwight D. Eisenhower had exclusively male progeny. It was thus a no-brainer to predict Mitt Romney, father of five boys, would fail in 2012 to unseat Barack Obama and send him and his two daughters, along with Michelle, back to Chicago. 

Hillary has only one daughter, Chelsea, whose magic might have been used up to elect her father in 1992, leaving her mother to be double-teamed in the 2008 primaries by Malia and Sasha Obama. 

Fast forward to 2016: Now, Hillary faces the prospect of running against the three daughters (no sons) of Andrew Cuomo and the two daughters (plus two sons) of Joe Biden. My money, nonetheless, remains on Hillary, especially if Chelsea rewards her with a granddaughter later this year (it wouldn’t hurt Chelsea’s own chances in, say, 2036, if she delivers a girl).

Clinton, Biden and Cuomo have the early star power, but if they falter or choose not to run, pundits see these other Democratic wannabes: Maryland governor Martin O’Malley, two girls, two boys; Virginia senator Mark Warner, three daughters; Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, one daughter, one son; New York senator Kirstin Gillibrand, two sons; and Minnesota senator Amy Klobucher, one daughter. 

Clearly Warner has the advantage in the second tier grouping. 

On the GOP side, Rand Paul strikes out. Not one of his three children is a girl. And my dark horse candidate of retired general Stanley McChrystal comes up short. He has but one son. 

For sheer numbers of offspring, Rick Santorum can’t be beat. Nine, count ’em, nine children, four of whom are girls. But Santorum’s a wacko only the far right, besides his wife, can love, which doesn’t automatically eliminate him from primary contention but surely does from the general, thinking, electorate, assuming there still is a majority of those voters around in a sufficient number of states to electorally elect Hillary.

Another wacko, with one daughter out of two spawns, is Rick Perry. No “sane Republican” (hopefully, that is not yet an oxymoron) could vote for him. 

With one daughter out of their respective three children, Congressman Paul Ryan, ex-Florida governor Jeb Bush, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal and former Arkansas governor and current talk show host Mike Huckabee just didn’t try hard enough during their family formative years. 

Chris Christie and Marco Rubio each have two girls among their respective four children. They could be serious contenders for the Republican nomination and the general election. But the clear, focused winner for the nomination is Texas senator Ted Cruz. Cruz’s cruise missile twice bombarded his wife with Y-chromosomes. The result: Two daughters.


So there you have it—it’ll be Hillary Clinton vs. Ted Cruz, a pairing that will make both sides shutter at the possibilities. 

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Who's to Blame and The Dems' Giant Problem


Here’s an example of what I just can’t seem to understand about the American electorate:

On the CBS Evening News with Scott Pelley Monday night, Chuck, an independent North Carolina voter, explained why he was volunteering to help elect Mitt Romney after working for Barack Obama in 2008. He lost his job as a salesman for a plastics company in 2009. He blamed Obama for making unspecified decisions that have left him unemployed since then. He blames Obama for losing his house and for being temporarily homeless. “I don’t feel I would have lost my career and so many others would be struggling if they would have made different decisions and our country was in a better state,” said the 46-year-old. 

He was obviously pained. Byron Pitts, the CBS News correspondent, pointed that out. But was Chuck kidding or just numbed by his experience? The economic stresses that cost him his job and home were deeply in play before Obama took office. Businesses rarely lay off salesmen if there’s a hope of getting fresh business. Yes, more people lost jobs after Obama was sworn in, but over the last 30 months there has been a net gain in jobs every month. 

Are Chuck and like-minded voters happy that even as corporate profits soar, even as they pile up cash, companies are not eager to hire back workers? Are they content to watch the earnings power of the working class and middle class erode as the corporate elite fatten their bank statements? Do they really believe in trickle down economics? Have they forgotten what adherence to that mantra meant during the Bush years? Have they not watched as Republicans in Congress stomped on any jobs initiative proposed by the president? 

Earlier in this campaign season it was explained that many hard-pressed workers don’t vote their wallets but rather vote their religious conscience. If they oppose abortion, they’d rather see a Republican in office because they would rather have the reward of a good hereafter than a good material life. But that doesn’t explain Chuck et al. I just don’t understand ...


Tackled: It is widely reported Democrats have the advantage among women and minorities. Republicans have more loyalty among white working class and middle class male voters. Last week Mitt Romney & Company tried to appeal to women. This week the Democrats hope not only to solidify their appeal to women and minorities but also to change some minds among the GOP-leaning faithful and independents, especially those men. Wednesday night they will feature Elizabeth Warren, candidate for Senate from Massachusetts and the architect of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and former president Bill Clinton. Clinton is sure to wow the audience in Charlotte and for that matter, many who tune in to the convention coverage.

Only problem is, many of those desired white male voters will not be watching. They will be glued to their TV sets taking in the season opener of the new National Football League season pitting the Super Bowl champion New York Giants against their arch-rival, the Dallas Cowboys. The game will be carried on NBC, so forget about seeing Brian Williams and Tom Brokaw provide live convention coverage and analysis. Warren and Clinton will be speaking from 10 to 11 pm, during what probably will be the third quarter of the game. Even a lopsided score at that time won’t drive viewers away from the gridiron. 

Women might seek refuge from the football game to watch the convention speeches. Perhaps Warren and Clinton might swing some more of them into the Democratic column. In a tight race, that could offset the wattage lost by having Democratic star power tackled by a Giants-Cowboys football game.