Tuesday, April 30, 2019

A Fitting Response To The Worst Hard Time Of April 18, 2019 & Thereafter

In the numbed fortnight following the release of the Mueller -Report- Nothingburger (thanks to massive redaction), the WaPo's Dana Milbank went on a family trip over spring break along The Civil Rights Trail in (mainly) Alabama. His essay provides balanced insight into really bad times at an earlier time. If this is a (fair & balanced) tonic for a troubled era, so be it.

[x WaPo — DC Fishwrap]
We Shall Overcome Trump —We Have Survived Worse
By Dana Milbank


TagCrowd Cloud provides a visual summary of the following piece of writing

created at TagCrowd.com

My wife and I took our kids on a civil rights tour of the South over spring break, a trip planned before we knew it would be the week Muellermania engulfed Washington.

As it turned out, though, the Civil Rights Trail offered an ideal perspective from which to view the mayhem in the capital caused by the special counsel’s report.

While Washington churned, I walked along a quiet hillside above Montgomery, AL, home of the year-old National Memorial for Peace and Justice , a monument to the 4,400 African Americans lynched by white mobs between Reconstruction and the civil rights era. There hang 800 oxidized steel columns — one for each American county where lynching occurred — like hideous lollipops. As I stood awed by the pain they represented, an older black man approached and told me about his ancestors who fought in colored regiments during the Civil War.

Then, as we gazed together at the dangling blocks of metal, he said something I don’t often pause to consider: “As bad as things are now,” he said, “we’ve gone through much worse.”

He’s right, of course. Robert Mueller exposed the rot in our government and the moral bankruptcy of our president. Donald Trump’s amoral team welcomed help from America’s foes to win the presidency, and in 10 well-documented instances, the president himself made every effort to obstruct justice. Whether he’s impeached, he’s patently unworthy of the office.

But for all the damage Trump has done, and will do, the United States remains a better place today than it was. My family began our tour of the South in downtown Birmingham, AL, where in 1963 a bomb killed four girls at the 16th Street Baptist Church, and where Eugene “Bull” Connor turned his dogs and fire hoses on children. We stood at the cell door that confined Martin Luther King Jr. when he wrote his immortal “Letter from Birmingham Jail” [PDF] (“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”) — 56 years to the day earlier.

We ended in Memphis at the Lorraine Motel, where an assassin’s bullet killed King. In between, we saw Oxford, MS, which rioted over integration, and Selma, AL, where Sheriff Jim Clark’s men cracked young John Lewis’s skull as they used clubs and tear gas to stop the peaceful march Lewis led over the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

Today, 79-year-old Lewis, a longtime member of Congress from Georgia, leads another cause. In January 2017, he became the first prominent Democrat to call Trump’s presidency illegitimate because of Russian interference. As the one man who stood against both Clark and Trump, Lewis has unrivaled authority to compare the two movements.

“In his own way,” Lewis tells me, Trump “is stirring up some of the ways of hate and division, and he happened to bring out some of the ugliness in America.” Sometimes, Lewis fears that “we have lost our way,” and turns to a Negro spiritual sung during the movement: “I’m so glad trouble don’t last always.”

But Lewis agrees with the man at the lynching memorial. “We have survived worse,” he tells me. And you don’t have to go back to slavery or to the depths of Jim Crow. “Even in the height of the civil rights movement, people were being beaten, arrested and jailed,” he says. “People were lynched, the Klan marched through . . . burning homes and churches, castrating African American men. So we have seen worse.”

From my removed vantage point on the civil rights trail, the Mueller report offered reasons for hope. It showed that some of Trump’s most-trusted advisers — Donald McGahn, Rick Dearborn, even Corey Lewandowski — thwarted his attempts to obstruct justice; Trump can’t blame a “deep state” conspiracy when even his closest aides resist his abuses. The Mueller report also illustrated how blessedly bumbling Trump and his team are — alternately ignorant of the law and unable to execute. Like the hotheaded Connor and Clark, whose clumsy responses to civil disobedience turned public opinion against them, the erratic Trump weakens his own cause.

We hear in Trump a refined version of Connor and Clark and George Wallace as he exploits racial fears that have always been with us. This time, it’s a fear of immigrants and minorities trying to “take away our history and our heritage,” as Trump says, leaving the “culture of our great country being ripped apart with the removal of our beautiful statues” of Confederate heroes.

John Lewis stood against such ideas when he faced Clark’s thugs in 1965. I stand with Lewis today when he promises to cause all “necessary trouble” to face down Trump. “Whatever he tries to do, he cannot take us back,” Lewis says. “During the next few weeks and months and next year, there will be some setbacks. But the American people are not going back.” ###

[Dana Milbank is a nationally syndicated op-ed columnist. He also provides political commentary for various TV outlets, and he is the author of three books on politics, including the national bestseller Homo Politicus (2007). Milbank joined The Post in 2000 as a Style political writer, then covered the presidency of George W. Bush as a White House correspondent before starting the column in 2005. Before joining The Post, Milbank spent two years as a senior editor at The New Republic, where he covered the Clinton White House, and eight years as a reporter with the Wall Street Journal, where he covered Congress and was a London-based correspondent. He received a BA cum laude (political science) from Yale University (CT).]

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Post



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2019 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Monday, April 29, 2019

Blather About A Media-Tempest — Humbuggery!!!

Along with today's 'toon, Tom/Dan wrote:

Greetings to new subscribers! We have a wave of newbies this week, thanks to a small subscription push I posted on Twitter this week. Your patronage is immensely appreciated. I am not kidding when I say that my client list has dropped precipitously over the past five years or so, and this little email list right here has basically compensated for the loss. So I thank you sincerely for helping me to keep this boat in the water -- and apologies in advance when I inevitably piss you off about something or another.

I KNOW THAT I'M LATE TO THE TOPIC, with this cartoon! It was scheduled to run last week, but was pre-empted by the release of the redacted Mueller report. This ginned up controversy feels like it happened a million years ago, since we're all living in dog years (or, as I have suggested previously, trapped in the event horizon of the black hole in the president's brain). But these attacks are by no means over — Karl Rove just published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last week, decrying Omar's remarks and demanding an apology.

Also, I'm actually on a quick vacation this week — the first real trip I've taken since the old life fell apart that wasn't due to either my father or my son. (I had a fantastic vacation with my son last summer, just to be clear!) Anyway that means a quick note this week, and I just want to let the newbies know that I usually write a bit more than this.

Until next week...,


Dan/Tom

And there you have it. This 'toon about the media blather reminded this blogger why he has imposed a cone of silence over the cable news media: no MSNBC to Faux News, No time-filling blather to justify their advertising rates. So, today's 'toon was irrelevant to this blogger. If that is the (fair & balanced) reality of the third decade of the 21st century, so be it.

[x TMW]
The News Cycle: A Case Study
By Tom Tomorrow (Dan Perkins)


Tom Tomorrow/Dan Perkins

[Dan Perkins is an editorial cartoonist better known by the pen name "Tom Tomorrow." His weekly comic strip, "This Modern World," which comments on current events from a strong liberal perspective, appears regularly in approximately 150 papers across the U.S., as well as on Daily Kos. The strip debuted in 1990 in SF Weekly. Perkins received the Robert F. Kennedy Award for Excellence in Journalism in both 1998 and 2002. When he is not working on projects related to his comic strip, Perkins writes a daily political blog, also entitled "This Modern World," which he began in December 2001. More recently, Dan Perkins, pen name Tom Tomorrow, was named the winner of the 2013 Herblock Prize for editorial cartooning. Even more recently, Dan Perkins was a runner-up for the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning.]

Copyright © 2019 This Modern World/Tom Tomorrow (Dan Perkins)



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2019 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Sunday, April 28, 2019

In 1858, Illinois Had A Senatorial Choice Between The Railsplitter (Lincoln) And The Little Giant (Douglas) & In 2020 We Could Have A Presidential Choice Between Clueless Joe (Biden) And The Big Ginger (Weld)

The Resistance Against the HA (Horse's A$$) in the Oval Office and his minions is a damp and dark place filled with the dashed hopes and crushed hopes of those seeking relief from the long national nightmare. The most recent aspirants to lead The Resistance in 2020 are Clueless Joe Biden (D-DE) for the Dems (and Dose) and The Big Ginger (6'4" with reddish-orange hair) William F. Weld (R-MA) for the Dumbos. Yesterday's post featured Clueless Joe and today's post is an introduction to The Big Ginger. Is either of these erstwhile challengers up to the task for driving the HA out of the White House? If this is a (fair & balanced) search for the answer to the Big Question of 2020, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap 'Zine]
Meet the Other Resistance: The Republican One
By Mark Leibovich


TagCrowd Cloud provides a visual summary of the following piece of writing

created at TagCrowd.com

William F. Weld is not likely to become our 46th president. But he was here in New Hampshire, no other Republicans were and that was something

“I think it’s important to at least call out the current incumbent of the White House on his simply amazing behavior, and for the pettiness, his vindictiveness and the unreconstituted meanness he displays,” Weld was telling the crowd who had turned out to see him on a rainy Sunday afternoon in March at a house party in the town of Dover. Fergus Cullen, a former chairman of the state Republican Party, was hosting the gathering in his honor.

Weld, a two-term Republican governor of Massachusetts more than two decades ago, is 73, tall and slim with a mop of orange hair and a face the hue of Pepto-Bismol. A Harvard and Oxford graduate, Weld worked in the Reagan Justice Department but quit over a series of ethics scandals involving his boss, Attorney General Ed Meese. He ran briefly for governor of New York after leaving Massachusetts, endorsed Obama in 2008 and raised a bunch of money for Romney in 2012. He has written thrillers, dabbled in historical fiction and was last heard from in 2016 as the vice-presidential running mate to the Libertarian nominee, Gary Johnson. He sets off some dilettante alarms.

But he was the only Republican candidate who had announced his exploratory plans — he would officially declare his candidacy in April — to run against Donald Trump in the 2020 Republican primary. This made him the lone official vehicle for the aspirations of a persistent group of Never Trump Republicans. For the better part of two years, they had waited for a premium primary challenger to come along from a fantasy field of Nikki Haleys, Ben Sasses and Mitt Romneys — all of whom eventually opted out of running. Even Weld seemed disappointed by this. “I have been astounded that no one else has stepped forward,” he told the assembled guests.

So holdouts of the battered GOP establishment had, for now at least, gathered in Weld’s slim lifeboat. Stuart Stevens, just two presidential election cycles removed from being Mitt Romney’s chief strategist in 2012, is advising Weld and accompanied him in New Hampshire. Jennifer Horn, a two-time congressional candidate and the former New Hampshire Republican chairwoman, is running his communications. Cullen and his wife, Jenny, opened their home to Weld and 80 or so supportive guests, what you might call Whole Foods Republicans.

Weld seemed to be enjoying himself. “I knew I was going to have a good time here,” Weld said, warming up the crowd. “But what I didn’t know is that Jenny and I both played Yum-Yum in ‘The Mikado.’ ” This is not the kind of icebreaker you typically hear at a Trump rally.

He went on to bemoan the “New York City and Palm Beach socialite” and “malignant narcissist” in the White House. “As you can tell, I have a lot of crows to pick with this guy,” Weld said. “He cottons to dictators.” Trump does not appreciate that America is a melting pot, Weld continued. “Adolf Hitler didn’t like it, either.”

The depth of Weld’s alarm over Trump, he explained, was informed by his experience in the Meese Justice Department (where, as head of the criminal division, he appointed a young Robert Mueller as the US attorney in Boston). It was there that he saw the danger of law enforcement’s becoming enmeshed with politics. “Republicans in Washington have become the silence of the lambs when it comes to Trump,” Weld said. “Hopefully we can show at least a few people that we’re not all a bunch of lambs.”

The crowd in Cullen’s living room applauded. People came up to Weld afterward, many of them actual Republicans who do not care for Trump — maybe a 10-to-20-percent subgroup of the party, but probably bigger here in New Hampshire, where Weld rents a house and says he plans to spend the bulk of his campaign time. “When someone steps forward to say things publicly that so many Republicans have been willing to say privately,” Cullen said of Weld, “to me that person deserves support, encouragement and a little bit of help.”

Primary challenges are like the NFL draft, an exercise that exists almost entirely in hype, speculation and on TV. The prospects almost never pan out. There will be plenty of disappointment and dashed expectations. But getting there will yield opportunity, if only to state who you are and what you stand for — or what your party is and what it stands for.

And who is to say where this four-year rumble ride we’ve all been on will land us — or to whom it will lead us? Who saw Pete Buttigieg coming from South Bend, or Tom Brady in the sixth round, or for that matter, Trump on the escalator? In a span of a few months, something called Michael Avenatti can go from every cable channel in America to Iowa to (maybe) prison. Trump’s victory crippled so many of our notions of political certainty — of who or what can be safely discounted.

Trump’s support among Republican voters has been a rare solid line in an otherwise whiplashing presidency. As such, the notion of an anti-Trump Republican has a certain Jews-for-Jesus disconnect about it. There is no question that resistance to Trump inside the GOP has proved a treacherous road. While there appeared to be some semblance of an opposition to Trump inside the GOP in 2016 even after he won the party nomination, the dissidents in Republican officialdom steadily dropped off as he settled into the White House. They died (John McCain, George [H.W.] and Barbara Bush), made their various Faustian bargains (Paul Ryan, Lindsey Graham), confronted voters in Trump-friendly places and self-neutered accordingly (Ted Cruz in Texas, Mitt Romney in Utah), retired (Senators Bob Corker and Jeff Flake) or were primaried out of their misery (Representative Mark Sanford).

The die-hard remnant population of Never Trumpers comes most visibly from the class of Republican consultants, conservative media personalities and a few GOP officeholders safely removed from the considerations of re-election campaigns. The best-known Never Trumpers have seen their profiles soar in disproportion to their actual influence among Republicans. Still, “there is merit in maintaining a rebel army,” the Republican strategist Rick Wilson told me. “There is a moral case to be made for standing up for nonauthoritarian conservatism.”

There is also money to be made: Wilson’s anti-Trump manifesto, Everything Trump Touches Dies: A Republican Strategist Gets Real About The Worst President Ever, became an instant No. 1 New York Times best seller in 2018, and he is now a constant cable-TV presence. He has another book on the way, lucrative speaking gigs coming in and magazine assignments — though he says it has not offset the $4.5 million in income he estimates he has lost in recent years from would-be clients.

But despite this heightened media presence, waging what has become a shrinking insurgency can exact a psychic toll. “I’m not going to pretend that I’m not disappointed that we’ve had this attrition,” said Charlie Sykes, a conservative former radio host in Wisconsin whose umbrage over Trump has gained him cable ubiquity and a book of his own (How The Right Lost Its Mind [2017]). “It’s been this rolling, soul-crushing disappointment, watching people that you thought you knew.” But this, he added, had only strengthened his conviction. “It’s really not a hard choice,” he said. “There are advantages to being an only child.”

Never Trumpers are not so much a political movement as they are a slingshot army aimed at a single target. Finding someone to challenge Trump in a primary has been a persistent preoccupation. There have been varying degrees of hope. Jeff Flake, the Arizona senator, enjoyed a small boomlet in 2017 with his sustained critiques of Trump from the Senate and did not rule out running — until he did, and signed on as a commentator with CBS. John Kasich, the former Ohio governor whom Trump defeated in the 2016 primaries, has remained a kind of default possibility as someone who ran before, has continued to criticize Trump and appears to still irritate him, for whatever that’s worth.

“All options are on the table, that’s all I can tell you,” Kasich said when I reached him by phone, before caveating: “I’ve got a lot of things. I’m starting a company. I’m at CNN, writing a book, speeches and a lot of things.”

Wilson told me he hoped that the former defense secretary Jim Mattis, who recently exited the Pentagon over his differences with Trump on NATO and troop commitments, would run. (Not happening, per the Mattis camp.) “If you had asked me a month ago, I would have said Ben Sasse,” Sykes said, referring to the Republican senator from Nebraska who is an occasionally vocal Trump critic, though one who reliably votes with the president. But Sasse lost Sykes when he voted in support of the president’s effort to declare a national emergency at the Southern border as a means of attaining funding for his long-promised border wall. Just as well: “The only race Ben’s thinking about is his re-election,” said James Wegmann, Sasse’s spokesman.

Sykes and others have also been talking up Representative Mike Gallagher, a handsome Marine from Wisconsin, who opposed Trump’s emergency declaration, has criticized him on occasion and just turned 35. “That would be my fantasy choice,” Sykes told me. And a fantasy he will remain: “There is no need to include Representative Gallagher in this piece,” his spokesman, Jordan Dunn, told me when I asked about Gallagher’s presidential prospects. “He supports President Trump.”

“To me it was always the fundamental character of the man,” William Kristol, the conservative pundit, told me. We were eating lunch at a restaurant near the office of The Bulwark, the conservative online publication and Never Trump redoubt Kristol helped start in January, with Charlie Sykes as its editor in chief. “It is one thing to have a president of conventionally bad character, or even questionable character. But it is such another scale entirely with Trump.”

Kristol has been trying to recruit a primary challenger starting pretty much on Election Day 2016 — though “ ‘recruit’ is the wrong word,” he said. “It’s not as if I can just snap my fingers and get someone to run.” (That seemed self-evident enough.) He prefers the word “catalyst.”

Kristol belongs to the category of affable gasbag that Trump marginalized as a relic of whatever nonpopulist establishment still exists inside the GOP: He was the chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle, a loud and influential champion of invading Iraq (which he predicted on C-SPAN would be a “two-month war, not an eight-year war”) and someone who has probably picked over as many greenroom fruit plates as anyone in Washington.

In the early days of the new administration, Kristol and other shellshocked conservatives around Washington started getting together to commiserate. One of the more regular meetings took place every other Tuesday morning, hosted by the Niskanen Center, a new libertarian think tank started by alumni of the Cato Institute. Hosted by Niskanen’s co-founder, Jerry Taylor, the meetings — which participants called “the Meeting of the Concerned” — were held in a conference room in the basement of the CNN building near Union Station.

The gatherings attracted a roster of right-of-center familiars: the columnists Mona Charen, David Frum and Jennifer Rubin; the former Oklahoma representative Mickey Edwards; and onetime Republican administration officials like Linda Chavez. They were invitation-only and off the record. Guest speakers were brought in, along with bagels. “There was a lot of discussion around what exactly is going on in the Republican Party,” recalled Sarah Longwell, a DC trade association, think tank and advocacy veteran who was a semiregular attendee. “We were trying to figure out whether Trump was a symptom or cause.”

It was at these confabs that Longwell met Kristol, co-founder of The Weekly Standard, a conservative journal that became an outlet for Trump criticism until it ceased publication last December. (Kristol attributed The Standard’s demise to the hostility it faced as an anti-Trump organ operating inside the Trump-dominated right — an antipathy he said extended to its financial backers.) The two started Defending Democracy Together, an organization that among other things aimed to resist Trump and Trumpism inside the Republican Party.

Kristol had tried to stand athwart the Trump train before. In early 2016, as Trump consolidated his hold on the Republican nomination over a field of increasingly hapless opponents, Kristol sought out potential independent candidates to run against him. That April, along with Joel Searby, a Republican strategist, and Rick Wilson, Kristol made overtures to Mattis, the eventual secretary of defense, about a possible run. Mattis considered it seriously, Kristol said, but opted not to.

Kristol met with Romney in early May, again to no avail. Later that month, he seemed to at least hook a much smaller fish: David French, a constitutional lawyer and National Review writer, whose brief interest was sufficient to annoy Trump. “If dummy Bill Kristol actually does get a spoiler to run as an Independent, say goodbye to the Supreme Court!” he tweeted.

Then in July, Kristol received an email from a former C.I.A. operations officer and congressional staff member named Evan McMullin, saying he was open to running. McMullin announced his candidacy in August. Searby ran his campaign, with help from Wilson. McMullin managed a decent showing (21.3 percent) in his home state of Utah, but finished with 0.54 percent of the vote nationally in November. In his postelection rallies, Trump made a running joke of having no idea who McMullin was.

Starting in 2018, Kristol and Longwell commissioned focus groups and polling of Republican voters to gauge the strength and depth of Trump’s support inside the G.O.P. They concluded, based on the research, that it was soft. It is not so much about any particular issues, Longwell told me. The respondents approved of many things Trump had done in office, particularly his conservative judicial appointments and his tax policies and deregulation agenda. It was more of a general weariness. “We hear the word ‘exhaustion’ a lot,” Longwell explained when I met her in March in the lobby bar of the Madison Hotel, a few blocks from the White House. “That’s where Trump is vulnerable.”

The “gettable Republicans,” as she called them, are focused on Trump’s overall behavior and the toll he takes on politics and American society in general. “There’s this feeling that things are a little too hot and a little too angry,” Longwell said. “It comes out in our focus groups, absolutely. Our president should not live in our heads this way.”

It’s easy to be skeptical of this conclusion, given Longwell’s and Kristol’s possible confirmation biases, not to mention Kristol’s past misadventures as a prognosticator (The Washington Post’s Paul Farhi has called him “a kind of cult figure of wrong”). But it is at least partly backed up by some recent polls of New Hampshire and Iowa voters, which show that around 40 percent of Republicans would at least like to consider an alternative. Axios recently reported the findings of a focus group of Ohio voters who supported both Obama and Trump. They mostly craved “normalcy.”

In fashioning a message for a potential challenger, Kristol said the trick is to get people to envision what another four years of Trump might look like. “The retrospective judgment is not the same as the prospective judgment,” he told me. There is a tendency among voters to hold on to what initially made them pull the lever for Trump. “He’s better than Hillary” remains a powerful argument to them nearly two and a half years after the last race ended. “There’s a reason Trump likes to keep relitigating 2016,” Kristol told me. “The prospective case for Trump is harder to make.”

Beating it, of course, requires a case for someone else, and Kristol had not yet found that person — but he was not giving up yet. In a few days, he would be attending the Baltimore Orioles’ opening day at Camden Yards as a guest of Larry Hogan, the Republican governor of Maryland.

On a recent Monday afternoon in Annapolis, Governor Hogan sat in his office, musing over a question about what nicknames Trump might come up with if he were to run against him: “Cancer Boy,” maybe — he overcame non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2015 — or “Fat Larry.” He chuckled.

Hogan, who is 62, resembles a driver’s ed instructor: built like a fireplug, thick glasses, barking cadence. He became the instant Never Trump front-runner in November after he was overwhelmingly re-elected to a second term in the solidly blue state, in part on account of his vocal criticism of Trump. He then made an obliging visit to the Niskanen Center in December. He is term-limited, has little use for Trump and has ruled out nothing for 2020. The Washington Post columnist and Never Trump eminence George F. Will, noting the intense chemotherapy Hogan underwent while in office, surmised “he has endured something almost as unpleasant as Donald Trump.”

When I met him, Hogan had just finished his weekly news conference, in which he became animated about the battered state of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. “It’s outrageous and unacceptable,” he told reporters. “I mean, you have potholes practically swallowing cars.” There was something refreshing, in 2019, about watching a chief executive hold forth on something as workaday as pavement after a weekend in which the actual chief executive of the federal government had railed on Twitter against everything from his portrayal on “Saturday Night Live” (a rerun) to John McCain’s “last in his class” rank at the Naval Academy (60-plus years ago) to the travesty of Jeanine Pirro’s suspension by Fox News.

Hogan seemed to be enjoying the role of hypothetical Republican alternative. To a question about the trip he made to Iowa at the beginning of March, he pointed out that he was the vice chairman of the National Governors Association, and Iowa happened to be where one of its regional workshops was held, so nothing to see there. “I thought it would just be great to spend 48 hours in subzero temperatures in Des Moines,” he deadpanned. “But that doesn’t mean I’m actually running for anything.” He took another question about whether he might run or not.

Hogan likes to remind people that he was the first Republican governor in 2016 to say he could not vote for Donald Trump, whom he opposed on general character and temperament grounds — just the opposite of the kind of panting allegiance to the president that you often hear from elected Republicans. Instead, Hogan wrote in his late father, Lawrence Hogan, a three-term Maryland representative in the 1970s. The elder Hogan, who died in 2017, was the only Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee to vote for all three articles of impeachment against President Nixon. Hogan’s father counseled him to do something else for a while before getting into politics, and he spent much of his adult life as a real estate developer. He had run unsuccessfully for Congress but never held any elected office until, at 57, he won an upset victory in 2014.

“I’m boring,” Hogan said in his office, excitedly. He pointed to something that the Johns Hopkins political scientist Yascha Mounk told The Times last year: “For the last two years it’s been impossible to go to a bar on a Monday night and not have to talk about politics. Most Americans are sick of that. I think you can win in 2020 by promising that if you become president, people can go back to talking about football.” Americans, Hogan told me, wanted a president who would “just fix stuff.”

“Just Fix Stuff” is about as close as Hogan comes to putting forth a governing philosophy. He talks about his ability to “reach across the aisle” and be “less divisive” and restore a more inclusive tradition in the party. (That may be a relative proposition: Amid a heated legislative fight with the Maryland General Assembly last month, Hogan accused Democrats of being “pro-criminal.”) “I think the party has been sort of hijacked by this guy that really is not a traditional Republican,” he said of Trump.

As we spoke, it was hard to ascertain what Hogan’s animating reason for doing something like this would be, whether he has any particular passion for ideas or theory of the future — or whether he is entertaining the notion simply because he has a high approval rating (69 percent, per a Goucher Poll in February). He told me he’s not willing to launch a “suicide mission” against Trump if he has no chance. And he is not really thinking about a campaign, except when people ask him about it (which they do all the time, he mentions — all the time). Anyway, a lot can change. Filing deadlines are a ways off, he pointed out.

I asked why, if Hogan was not really thinking about running for president, he would be visiting Iowa and New Hampshire in consecutive months. As he began to answer, his communications director, Mike Ricci, jumped in to say he had to leave soon for an appointment with someone named Traffic Jam Jimmy. “Traffic Jam Jimmy is a nice guy from Fox 45,” the governor explained. “He does traffic in the morning. He’s a character. I could ride around in the car with him; we could talk all afternoon.”

Ricci left to check in with Traffic Jam Jimmy. “What were you saying?” Hogan asked, turning back to me. “Oh, yes, New Hampshire.” He had accepted an invitation to speak at the regular “Politics and Eggs” breakfast hosted by St. Anselm College — the same event where Weld announced his exploratory committee in February.

Kristol has been egging Hogan on, telling him that if he runs, the Republican ground might be more accommodating than he thinks. There will be ample donors, staff and supporters waiting to help him. He was hopeful that the special prosecutor Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation report might nudge the governor a bit closer to running.

Still, when we spoke early this month, Kristol seemed to be hedging his bets. “I just sent Weld a check for a thousand bucks,” he said. ###

[Mark Leibovich is the chief national correspondent for the NYT magazine. He is known for his profiles on political and media figures. Leibovich has written Big Game: The NFL in Dangerous Times (2018). See his other books here. Leibovich also received the National Magazine Award for profile writing. He received a BA (English) from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.]

Copyright © 2019 The New York Times Company



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2019 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Saturday, April 27, 2019

The Nation's Joan (Joanie-No-Baloney) Walsh Offers An Honest Assessment Of The Most Recent Entrant Into The 2020 Presidential Sweepstakes

This blogger has some real concerns about Joseph (Joe) Biden (D-DE): his plagiarism scandal and his performance as the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee when Anita Hill, a former government lawyer, accused her former boss, the Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, of sexual harrassment when they both worked at the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). And, if that was not enough, Biden has been accused by multiple women of inappropriate behavior at various political events. The HA *Horse's A$$) in the Oval Office, an expert on inappropriate behavior, has put out word that he considers Biden to be his toughest potential opponent in 2020. Gee, when a guy who confuses "origins" and "oranges" in his profound public blather, is it possible that the HA actually means "weakest" instead of "strongest" when describing Biden as a potential opponent in 2020? Joan (Joanie-No-Baloney) Walsh offers clarification about Joseph (Joe) Biden as a presidential aspirant in 2020. If this is (fair & balanced) political commentary, so be it.

[x The Nation]
Good Luck, Joe Biden — You’ll Need It
By Joan (Joanie-No-Baloney) Walsh


TagCrowd Cloud provides a visual summary of the following piece of writing

created at TagCrowd.com

I’ll admit it: I’m skeptical about former vice president Joe Biden’s third presidential run. But when I read last week—in The Atlantic and the Philadelphia Inquirer, two outlets I trust—that he planned to launch his campaign with a speech in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Wednesday, I thought: That’s bold, given the backdrop of the appalling August 2017 white-supremacist riot there that killed protester Heather Heyer, which Donald Trump refused to condemn. That’s daring. Maybe he’s going to run a campaign that’s in step with the new, multiracial, progressive Democratic Party.

But within a day or so, the same outlets reported that no, Team Biden wasn’t doing that. Instead, he’d launch with a video announcement on Thursday, and then head to Pittsburgh for his first official appearance, in a union-heavy crowd, on Monday. Nope: It’s clear Biden still intends to center his campaign on blue-collar white men. Meanwhile, he can’t care about his reputation for being too close to corporate America, the author of a bankruptcy bill that’s emerged as a case study in how Democrats, not just Republicans, sold themselves out to the banking industry—and sold out millions of Americans. Biden’s first actual campaign event—it’s not public—will be at a fund-raiser held by Comcast senior vice president David Cohen in Philadelphia on Thursday.

Biden may still be the frontrunner in this race, but there’s absolutely no sign that he gets where he’s out of step with the party base. I hope he enjoys his campaign launch, because it could be his best week on the trail.

To be fair, Biden’s announcement video leads off with Charlottesville: pitting the lofty ideals of its most famous resident, Thomas Jefferson, against video footage of Nazis in khakis marching through the streets shouting, “Jews will not replace us!” (He mentions that “a young woman” was murdered protesting the riot, but does not name Heyer.) He centers Trump claiming there were “very fine people, on both sides” of the clash, along with his own response at the time, when he proclaimed in an op-ed, “We are in a battle for the soul of the nation.” As we see familiar photos of World War II battles, civil-rights marches, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and a suffragist rally, Biden intones, “We have to remember who we are: This is America.” The video is titled “America Is an Idea,” and its big idea is that only Joe Biden can make America America again.

I doubt he’s intentionally riffing on the famous Langston Hughes poem “Let America be America Again,” but Biden calls it to mind—along with Hughes’s moving refrain “America never was America to me.” I’m reminded that, for most of us—women and Americans who aren’t white—America hasn’t yet been the America of the great dreams and soaring rhetoric that Biden brings to the video. Make no mistake, it’s a lovely video, but it’s backward facing. Biden is running against Trump, but he has to get through at least 20 Democratic rivals for the right to do so. This video doesn’t give me confidence he’ll get there.

For one thing, Biden doesn’t entirely seem to realize that you don’t campaign by video. I’m struck that he dodged, or at least delayed, a formal, in-the-flesh campaign announcement, the same way he dodged an in-person apology for a lifetime of over-familiar, cringe-making treatment of women when it became an issue earlier this month, after former Nevada assemblywoman Lucy Flores and others complained about it publicly. That Biden video, like this one, was well-produced and appealing (though it was certainly not an apology). But when he actually appeared in public for the first time after releasing it, he was Clueless Joe, “joking” about asking for permission to hug men at a white-male-dominated union event, insisting he “regrets” nothing, making clear to every woman who harbors reservations about his behavior that no, he doesn’t get it.

And once again, he has chosen to make his first public campaign appearance at what is expected to be a white-male-dominated union event, in Pittsburgh on Monday—instead of a rally in Charlottesville, which would have felt courageous and compelling. Of course many candidates soft-launch their campaigns with videos, and then make a public debut in a comfortable setting: Senator Kamala Harris in front of 20,000 fans in Oakland, California, near her Berkeley birthplace; Senator Elizabeth Warren in her home state of Massachusetts; Senator Cory Booker at home in Newark. (One could argue Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar were more daring: Gillibrand standing in front of Trump Hotel and Tower, and Klobuchar braving a blizzard in Minnesota). Generally, there’s nothing wrong with a video soft launch, and there’s certainly nothing wrong in scheduling your first event in front of a crowd that’s going to love you; that’s expected.

But with his choice of a video, and not a rip-roaring rally and conversation with reporters, and with his choice of a Pittsburgh union hall but not Charlottesville, Biden is dodging the biggest questions about his candidacy. More than any other candidate, he needed an in-person, full-charisma kickoff to demonstrate that he’s not, at 76, too old and out of touch, and that he can handle the tough questions—his crime bill, his bankruptcy bill, his opposition to school busing; the Anita Hill hearings, his political career of so-called “handsiness” with women (which amounts to not respecting our personhood)—straight off the bat.

Maybe worst of all is heading straight for a corporate fund-raiser. Biden doesn’t intend to soft-pedal his ties to corporate America; he’s announcing them. But that underscores one key weakness: Ironically, it’s fund-raising. Biden has no small-donor base—nothing like that of his chief rival to date, Senator Bernie Sanders, or Beto O’Rourke, or even Harris. Politico reports that Biden sounded the alarm in a conference call with donors, telling them: “The money’s important. We’re going to be judged by what we can do in the first 24 hours, the first week.” (Sanders and O’Rourke raised around $6 million each in their first 24 hours, and Harris $1.5 million.) Biden may feel he has no choice but to head straight for a big fund-raiser; he may be right.

Let me be clear: If Biden is the nominee, I will wholeheartedly support him despite my reservations (well-articulated here, as usual, by Rebecca Traister). If his backers are right, and he’s the best candidate to beat Trump, so be it. Although I’m on record as being annoyed by the attention paid to the so-called “B-boys”—Biden, Bernie, Beto, and (Mayor Pete) Buttigieg—at the expense of women and candidates of color, now he’ll have to face those same candidates in debates—and I expect them to rise to the occasion. If they don’t, that’s on them.

I look forward to Warren grilling him on his bankruptcy bill; to the way he’ll make Harris look like a genuinely progressive prosecutor, given his crime bill; to the contrast between the way Klobuchar, Booker, and Harris eviscerated Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Biden’s handling of Anita Hill’s charges against Clarence Thomas. This won’t be a battle of videos, but one of principles and accomplishments. It’s a tough test, and one Biden hasn’t risen to in two previous tries. Maybe the third time really is a charm. We could find out sooner than later. May the best person win. ###

[Joan Walsh is The Nation’s National Affairs Correspondent and an MSNBC political analyst. Prior to joining The Nation in 2015, Walsh was the editor-in-chief at Salon. She is the author of What’s the Matter With White People: Finding Our Way in the Next America (2012). See her other book here. Walsh received a BA (history) from the University of Wisconsin at Madison.]

Copyright © 2019 The Nation



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2019 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Friday, April 26, 2019

Roll Over, Jimmy Breslin — Your Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight Was Preferable To Dana Milbank's Gang That Couldn't Govern Straight

Instead of impeachment, the Dems (and Dose) in the House might gain more traction with the 25th Amendment. for "...Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of President of the United States.." The HA (Horse's A$$) in the Oval Office is guilty of ignorance and stupidity beyond ALL of his predecessors.If this is a (fair & balanced) diagnosis of Extreme Narcissistic Personality Disorder, so be it.

[x WaPo — DC Fishwrap]
Mueller’s Findings: Too Stupid To Conspire & Too Incompetent To Obstruct
By Dana Milbank


TagCrowd Cloud provides a visual summary of the following piece of writing

created at TagCrowd.com

I learned the hard way that predictions are perilous in the current age: I literally ate a column asserting that Republicans would never nominate Donald Trump for president.

So please forgive this victory lap as I claim total EXONERATION(!) by the Mueller report for my forecast in November 2017 that the president and his aides might be saved by their own stupidity:

“With all the documentation of Russian collusion piling up, President Trump’s best excuse may be that his people were too incompetent to organize a conspiracy. Luckily for him, an innocent-­by-reason-of-stupidity defense has the virtue of being plausible. For example, there is clear and compelling evidence that Donald Trump Jr. is dumb as a post.”

This was essentially Robert Mueller’s conclusion as he recounted the June 9, 2016, Trump Tower meeting, for which Russian interests promised “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary” Clinton and Trump Jr. replied “if it’s what you say I love it.”

Prosecutors “considered whether to charge Trump Campaign officials with crimes in connection with the June 9 meeting,” Mueller wrote, but couldn’t “prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals acted ‘willfully,’ i.e., with general knowledge of the illegality of their conduct.” Specifically, prosecutors couldn’t prove “the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context.”

Apparently unaware that this meant he isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, Trump Jr. welcomed Mueller’s findings Thursday as vindication. “TOLD YA!!!” he boasted.

Who says ignorance of the law is no excuse?

Mueller’s findings on obstruction were similar: Not guilty by reason of incompetence. “The President’s efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests,” Mueller concluded, listing former FBI director James Comey, former White House counsel Donald McGahn and former White House deputy chief of staff Rick Dearborn.

After two years of investigation, Mueller’s findings about Team Trump can be roughly summarized as follows: Too stupid to conspire. Too incompetent to obstruct [emphasis supplied].

These findings are entirely consistent with what I’ve found covering the Trump campaign and administration. I’d submit only one addendum: Too dumb to govern [emphasis supplied].

Many Democrats are disappointed Mueller opted against charging Trump and top aides. But Mueller captured the essence of Trump. Some of Trump’s actions are hateful, some are ideological and some stretch the bounds of constitutionality. But above all, Trump is bumbling.

Federal judges have ruled against the Trump administration at least 63 times so far, an “extraordinary record of legal defeat,” The Post reported last month.

Trump routinely proposes illegal actions to top aides — the secretary of state, the secretary of homeland security, the White House counsel, Pentagon officials — and they ignore him. Though Trump claimed Monday that “nobody disobeys my orders,” The Post’s Aaron Blake assembled a list of 15 instances of aides doing just that.

His advisers quit and are fired at a record pace, leaving vacancies, placeholders and semi-functioning agencies.

He flopped in repealing Obamacare and botched implementation of his travel ban and his family-separation policies.

He shut the government down in fruitless pursuit of a border wall and managed to help create a crisis on the border where none had existed before.

He spews falsehoods by the thousand and announces policies that don’t exist.

He floats wacky nominees — on Monday, Herman Cain withdrew from consideration for a seat on the Federal Reserve — and routinely undermines existing appointees.

He eschews briefing books and devises policy with a toddler’s attention span; in one emblematic episode, economic adviser Gary Cohn reportedly swiped a letter from Trump’s desk so that he would forget about killing a trade pact.

Now Mueller has documented more of the same. Trump’s campaign was happy to accept help in the election from Russia but didn’t pull it off. Trump wanted to obstruct the investigation but was thwarted by aides. And the man who claimed he had “one of the best memories in the world” said more than three dozen times in response to Mueller’s questions that he couldn’t recall the answer.

The president, perhaps sensing that “too dumb to fail” isn’t a good reelection slogan, went from claiming “total EXONERATION” before the report came out to “total bullshit” after.

And Trump’s error-prone lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani proclaimed on Sunday that “there’s nothing wrong with taking information from Russians” — exactly the wrong lesson of the past two years.

Does incompetence fit the definition of high crimes and misdemeanors? That’s up to the House. I, for one, celebrate Trump’s clumsiness. His fondness for authoritarianism and his disdain for the free press and the rule of law would be much more worrisome if he were effective. Trump, with his “enemy of the people” shtick, might talk like Joseph Stalin, but — fortunately — he governs more like Homer Simpson. ###

[Dana Milbank is a nationally syndicated op-ed columnist. He also provides political commentary for various TV outlets, and he is the author of three books on politics, including the national bestseller Homo Politicus (2007). Milbank joined The Post in 2000 as a Style political writer, then covered the presidency of George W. Bush as a White House correspondent before starting the column in 2005. Before joining The Post, Milbank spent two years as a senior editor at The New Republic, where he covered the Clinton White House, and eight years as a reporter with the Wall Street Journal, where he covered Congress and was a London-based correspondent. He received a BA cum laude (political science) from Yale University (CT).]

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Post



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2019 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves

Thursday, April 25, 2019

More Than 300 Years Ago, Jonathan Swift Gave Us The Battle Of The Books And Today, This Blog Offers The Battle Between The Op-Ed Columnists

Upon reading this essay by Robert J. Samuelsom responding directly to Bo-B0 Boy (David Brooks) brought another literary controversy in mind: The Battle of the Books (1704) by Jonathan Swift. This was a satirical look at an intellectual controversy of that time. One one side were those writers who favored the classics from Classical Greece and Rome (aka The Ancients) and on the other side were The Moderns who upheld the superiority of science and reason over the superstitious and limited world of Classical Greece and Rome. And today's essay follows a similar pattern of pessimism (Brooks) v. Optimism (Samuelson). The Samuelson essay has attracted more than 1,000 comments from readers supporting both sides. If this is a (fair & balanced) portrayal of the Gordian Knot of our present day, so be it.

[x WaPo — DC Fishwrap]
David Brooks, Let Me Respectfully Suggest: Lighten Up
By Robert J. Samuelson


TagCrowd Cloud provides a visual summary of the following piece of writing

created at TagCrowd.com



To: David Brooks

Columnist, The New York Times

Dear David,

We have met a few times over the years while covering the same events. I’m a big fan. You write beautifully and, more often than not, have insights about our politics, lifestyles and beliefs that others have missed. But as time passes, you have grown increasingly somber about our national condition. Your most recent column, based on your new book The Second Mountain (2019), is downright depressing.

Here’s a brief summary: “The whole country is going through some sort of spiritual and emotional crisis. . . . We’ve created a culture based on lies.” One is that “career success is fulfilling.” Not so, you say. “Everybody who has actually tasted success can tell you that’s not true.” Another related lie is that “I can make myself happy” through “individual accomplishment. . . . The message of the meritocracy is that you are what you accomplish. . . . You are not a soul to be saved but a set of skills to be maximized.”

As a rule, I rarely respond directly to other columnists. Many columnists do the same. It’s a good rule because, if abandoned, it would make commentary even more personal and shrill. But sometimes rules need to be broken. This is, I think, one of those times.

So, David, let me respectfully suggest: Lighten up.

To be sure, most of your insights are true. But they’re also utopian. You argue that we’ve lost our moral compass and have surrendered to delusional beliefs that rationalize a cultural emptiness. You seem disappointed that we haven’t arrived in some Garden of Eden paradise where almost everyone is happy, fulfilled, responsible and respected. I yearn for this as well, but I have reconciled myself to the inevitability of imperfection.

Our job as journalists is not simply to point out untruths, injustices and societal problems. It is also to illuminate the inconsistencies, contradictions and confusions of our national condition. It is, in short, to be realistic, especially when being realistic is politically and intellectually unpopular — as it is now.

We have a culture of complaint, where nothing works, selfishness is rampant, disillusion is widespread and hatred — practiced across the political spectrum — is common. There is no virtue in feeding this frenzy of pessimism, just because it fits the temper of the times. We need to recognize the limits of our condition. Many legitimate problems can’t be solved, and some problems aren’t worth solving.

It is also worth acknowledging that things could be worse. Most Americans who want jobs have them; we are not engaged in a major war; millions of households are doing the difficult work of balancing the duties of child-rearing with the rigors of their job schedules. The Trump presidency has turned up the heat on public and private discourse without (yet) leading to a breakdown of debate. Crudely, the nation’s institutions seem to be working.

David, here are a few comments on the “lies” that you describe as polluting today’s American dream:

● Ambition is America’s blessing and curse. It is a blessing because it encourages people to try new things, to stretch their abilities and to see how much more they can achieve. It fosters a vibrant economy, even if the most ambitious people are often unattractive as human beings. That’s the curse. Great ambition often causes great character flaws. Obsessed with their projects and themselves, people mistreat co-workers and family. They’re creatures of their ambitions, which can be both frustrating and fulfilling.

● Happiness is not a practical goal of public policy, even if governments sometimes reduce or eliminate some conditions that make people unhappy or miserable. But if some sources disappear, others may arise. There are too many factors (personality, religion, schools, luck, parents — or lack thereof — and much more) that determine outcomes. Pursuing happiness should remain, mostly, a personal responsibility. Making it a public responsibility would ensure failure.

●The meritocracy — frequently criticized — is not nearly so sinister as it’s portrayed. Of course, it creates stress among its members. They’re constantly being measured and prodded to do better, or to lose out to the students, workers and athletes next door. But the meritocracy’s principles, even if sometimes violated, are the right ones to govern our institutions. We want people who know what they’re doing; competition is not a bad way to make the selections. What are the alternatives? Would we be better off if social connections, race or political affiliation assumed a larger role?

Finally, there’s the matter of work. Everyone complains about it, but without it, most of us would die of boredom. Learning new stuff, the essence of journalism, is inherently rewarding, and, David, you and I are paid to do it. The virtues outweigh the vices.

So, let’s keep perspective. We don’t live in an ideal world and never will. But things could be worse, maybe quite a bit worse. Let’s try to avoid that. ###

[Robert J. Samuelson writes a twice-weekly economics column. Both appear online, and one usually runs in The Washington Post in print on Mondays. He began his career in journalism as a reporter on the business desk of The Washington Post in 1969. He left the paper to become a freelancer in 1973. His work has appeared in The Sunday Times, The New Republic and the Columbia Journalism Review. He joined the National Journal in 1976, where he wrote the "Economic Focus" column. He was a contributing editor there from 1981 to 1984, when he left to write for Newsweek. In 2011, Samuelson left Newsweek and rejoined The Washington Post as a columnist. He has written The Great Inflation and Its Aftermath: The Past and Future of American Affluence (2008, 2011). See other books by Samuelson here. He received a BA (government) from Harvard University (MA).]

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Post



Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License..

Copyright © 2019 Sapper's (Fair & Balanced) Rants & Raves