Was having a bit of fun with the notes and thoughts; got a little snarky at times so don't take it too seriously... or take it very seriously.
Not that much clapping and applause... Subdued for sure.
Sitting behind Trump is the right nut and the wing nut, with him at the head.
(Maybe he'll make it short.)
It's scripted so he'll do well and his supporters will say he hit it out of the park.
(You better mention the first lady, buster.)
Is he going to start slurring his words again. That would be priceless.
Platitude and Applause...
Always like salutes to first responders and soldiers, as long as they don't get political.
Trying not to question the president's sincerity, but it's hard not to.
Set aside our differences, unity for the people we were elected to serve.
Nancy Pelosi had a look on her face like, "What a fucking bullshitter."
The state of our union is strong because our people are strong. (But she stood for this statement.)
Rising wages I think are due to how it dominates the social everyday working person conversation.
He's riding the economy that the previous administration cleaned up and got back on track, but Trump would be flunking politics 101 if he didn't take credit for it.
Repealed the core of the disastrous Obamacare. The individual mandate is now gone.
35% to 21% so US companies can compete and win.
This is our new American moment.
(Rah-rah really isn't what we need but so be it.)
How could he bring up the NFL, in not so many words, but standing for the National Anthem... How are we united in one moment when in the next he's reminding us of his dog whistle politics.
Ugh.
Wait what, empowering cabinet members to fire whomever they want?
We ended the war on clean coal! At least that's one war we've ended, right?
The terminally ill can experiment, they should have the right to try... (marijuana for the first time).
The whole prescription drug thing was a Republican policy that didn't allow the government to negotiate the prices. A giveaway in other words.
1.5 trillion for infrastructure, on top of the 1.5 trillion for the tax cut? 3 trill, all in?
(This speech is bizarro...)
Open vocational schools so people can realize their full potential...
Reforming our prisons...in Republican parlance that means further privatizing.
I wonder if the staff calls the president "The Extreme" like Bill Paxton in Twister. Because Trump always goes to the extreme example, extreme rhetoric. Never tempered.
His constant concern is our poor? Have you ever heard of Twitter?
Oh, and everybody matters.
Americans are dreamers too... hmmmm....
Calling for bi-partisanship on immigration, but for cryin' out loud, he had the Graham-Durbin bill in his hand!
Now, he's negotiating from the podium?
Building a great wall... Chinese anyone?
Merit-based immigration system. Statue of Liberty be damned!
Chain migration is the ugly term for family immigration.
Limiting it this immigration reform is good for the future of white America.. Weird dog whistles throughout this speech.
Bring immigration into the 21st century? Didn't you mention a wall? It was just a mention.
(Addiction, not eddiction.)
We have to stop the drug dealers and the pushers to stop the opiod epidemic? The pharma sales reps., the doctors, and the pharmacies better look out.
(He ain't making it short.)
Foreign policy...
Mr. Trump will ask congress to end the defense sequester and fully fund the military.
Who clapped when the president said that sadly we're not "there yet" on agreeing on eliminating nuclear weapons.
I want to know what really happened to Sgt. La David Johnson in Niger? Why were four US soldiers positioned in a place with no support? Among other questions...
This speech is getting like the book version of the "American Carnage" speech on Inauguration Day.
(Thank you General Mattis for keeping the president hand away from the button.)
We're keeping Guantanamo open. We're going after anyone we deem a terrorist anywhere they are? Anywhere? That sounds unconstitutional, don't you think?
UN voted against our right to make that decision. Pass legislation that money only go to friends of America, not enemies... like the Palestinians.
The Iranian nuclear deal - wants congress to look at the terrible deal. That would be dangerous to renege on that.
"Finally..."
(Finally.)
How many 'uplifting' stories can we endure?
In talking about Sung Ho, he's the exact type of person Mr. Trump wants to keep out of the country.
The Capitol is the monument to the American people... important cheer leading moment, I guess.
He actually looked back at the teleprompter in the middle of "God Bless... America."
One of the longest... but not in terms of word count.
Given the recalibrated the scale, and that he didn't kill anyone - jk, and that he didn't focus on himself which was refreshing, I give him a really generous B-, or a C++. Take your pick.
(But I'll be honest, I don't feel in anyway uplifted.)
From Fall River, MA - Rep. Joe Kennedy - Democratic Response
A town built by immigrants.
Fractured fault lines across our country.
A straight up counter-punch speech, putting forth the Democratic vision. Democrats choose both.
Well played; well delivered.
Tuesday, January 30, 2018
Sunday, January 28, 2018
1.28.18: If The President Wanting To Fire Mr. Mueller Didn't Actually Happen, Does It Still Matter?
The irony isn't lost on anyone that what once brought Donald Trump so much success and the presidency, which would be firing people, now puts him in political and legal peril. The firing of then FBI Director, James Comey set off a chain of events, well-documented now, that has put the United States in a very precarious position.
We found out this week via The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html) that the president wanted to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, but White House Counsel Don McGahn ultimately threatened to resign rather than give that order. To be clear, the president initially did give the order to fire Mr. Mueller, but rescinded it due to the circumstances and we can only think cooler heads prevailing.
While certainly newsworthy inasmuch as it raised the questions of whether the president once again obstructed justice and if there should be legislative protections enacted to keep Mr. Mueller's investigation in place. Ultimately, you'd have to agree with Tom Brokaw who said that it's really a nonissue for the country at this point - six months ago the president wanted to fire Mr. Mueller but it ended up not happening. Also, fmr. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the point to question whether such legislative protections could even be done legally as the special counsel is an executive branch decision. How it goes is that the president, heading the executive branch, is going to do what he's going to do, and then Congress will act accordingly. That's where the real doubt comes in.
Chuck Todd posed the question to Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that aren't Republicans going after the investigators instead of really paying attention to the investigation itself? Republicans don't like the way the facts are shaping up so they are going after the investigators' integrity. The House majority leader said that he had confidence in Mr. Mueller, but that there were some things that have been less than transparent, and that is what is most important. He said that he wanted government to be 'fair and open.'
This is laughable. Mr. McCarthy is providing cover to a president who hasn't been transparent since the day he declared his candidacy for office, never having publicly released his tax returns. The president wanted to fire Mr. Mueller and the question, same as it's always been, is why. The president says Russian collusion is a hoax, and maybe there was no collusion on his part. But what's there that the president feels he has to cover up, prompting all these indemnifying actions? Michael Wolff, in his book Fire and Fury, quotes fmr. Senior White House Strategist Steve Bannon as saying it was all about money laundering. The speculative short answer: most probably.
[Show Note: Good to see Mr. McCarthy in studio. Get more of these people in there, live. Literally being under the lights with the interlocutor right there in your face puts people on the spot, in a good way. More of that, please.]
With that said, Mr. McCarthy's comments and actions are tepid compared to the likes of Congressmen Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Darrell Issa (R-CA) and ringmeister Devin Nunes (R-CA) whose comments and actions carry the obstruction buckets of water for the administration. Not to mention Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and his utterly stupid comments about a 'secret society' against the president. Actually Ron, I'm part of the society, what do you want to know?
What a goofball. But in all seriousness, these people are acting unseemly in their efforts to undermine this country's institutions, specifically the FBI in this case. Sadly, we've come to expect it from our president but not from members of Congress, particularly not a senator, who should always yield to facts and law.
Also, Devin Nunes is like a Leatherman, he's a multi-tool. He previously recused himself from the Russia investigation for making ill-conceived statements about the wiretapping Trump Tower, from in front of the White House no less. We come to find out that he's been causing trouble for the House Intelligence Committee by running side meetings putting together a memo that is rumored to discredit Mr. Mueller's investigation. It is also said that the memo in question cherry picks content from the classified documents and is misleading. Either way, Mr. Nunes has been a completely counterproductive individual for both sides of the aisle. In fact, he's a tool so big there isn't a shed to hold him.
Heather McGhee was correct when she said that these people, in twenty years, will find themselves on the wrong side of history for putting party over country.
Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) said that Mr. Nunes had 'neutered' the House Intelligence Committee's integrity and that the Senate's investigation will have to be the one that people should trust more. And though I didn't delve into immigration at all, Mr. Manchin in his response to a question about it and another used phrases like 'New York talk' and 'West Virginia talk' and that he didn't understand the former. Let's just say that this is the kind of rhetorical regionalizing that Senators should avoid because it just reinforces hopeless misunderstanding where there shouldn't be any. Beside, what the hell is he talking about anyway?
I could go on...
Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Heather McGhee, President of Demos; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Tom Brokaw, NBC News
A couple more things...
The least of Steve Wynn's problems is that he lost his gig as RNC Finance Chair. As Kasie Hunt said, Steve Wynn is at 'Harvey-level' type numbers. This story is only going to grow in attention so watch out. For those hoping for Republican political repercussions, stop.
As for the immigration debate, the current deal is not acceptable if you are anywhere from the center-right leftward. It limits legal immigration and prohibits family reunification which is counter intuitive if you want the people that immigrate here to succeed.
Oh, and the State of the Union is in 2 days!
Not sure what I'm doing for this... Definitely watching!... most probably a short column of some sort. Check back.
And it's revving up - @mtpopinion on Twitter.
We found out this week via The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/us/politics/trump-mueller-special-counsel-russia.html) that the president wanted to fire special counsel Robert Mueller, but White House Counsel Don McGahn ultimately threatened to resign rather than give that order. To be clear, the president initially did give the order to fire Mr. Mueller, but rescinded it due to the circumstances and we can only think cooler heads prevailing.
While certainly newsworthy inasmuch as it raised the questions of whether the president once again obstructed justice and if there should be legislative protections enacted to keep Mr. Mueller's investigation in place. Ultimately, you'd have to agree with Tom Brokaw who said that it's really a nonissue for the country at this point - six months ago the president wanted to fire Mr. Mueller but it ended up not happening. Also, fmr. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the point to question whether such legislative protections could even be done legally as the special counsel is an executive branch decision. How it goes is that the president, heading the executive branch, is going to do what he's going to do, and then Congress will act accordingly. That's where the real doubt comes in.
Chuck Todd posed the question to Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) that aren't Republicans going after the investigators instead of really paying attention to the investigation itself? Republicans don't like the way the facts are shaping up so they are going after the investigators' integrity. The House majority leader said that he had confidence in Mr. Mueller, but that there were some things that have been less than transparent, and that is what is most important. He said that he wanted government to be 'fair and open.'
This is laughable. Mr. McCarthy is providing cover to a president who hasn't been transparent since the day he declared his candidacy for office, never having publicly released his tax returns. The president wanted to fire Mr. Mueller and the question, same as it's always been, is why. The president says Russian collusion is a hoax, and maybe there was no collusion on his part. But what's there that the president feels he has to cover up, prompting all these indemnifying actions? Michael Wolff, in his book Fire and Fury, quotes fmr. Senior White House Strategist Steve Bannon as saying it was all about money laundering. The speculative short answer: most probably.
[Show Note: Good to see Mr. McCarthy in studio. Get more of these people in there, live. Literally being under the lights with the interlocutor right there in your face puts people on the spot, in a good way. More of that, please.]
With that said, Mr. McCarthy's comments and actions are tepid compared to the likes of Congressmen Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Darrell Issa (R-CA) and ringmeister Devin Nunes (R-CA) whose comments and actions carry the obstruction buckets of water for the administration. Not to mention Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) and his utterly stupid comments about a 'secret society' against the president. Actually Ron, I'm part of the society, what do you want to know?
What a goofball. But in all seriousness, these people are acting unseemly in their efforts to undermine this country's institutions, specifically the FBI in this case. Sadly, we've come to expect it from our president but not from members of Congress, particularly not a senator, who should always yield to facts and law.
Also, Devin Nunes is like a Leatherman, he's a multi-tool. He previously recused himself from the Russia investigation for making ill-conceived statements about the wiretapping Trump Tower, from in front of the White House no less. We come to find out that he's been causing trouble for the House Intelligence Committee by running side meetings putting together a memo that is rumored to discredit Mr. Mueller's investigation. It is also said that the memo in question cherry picks content from the classified documents and is misleading. Either way, Mr. Nunes has been a completely counterproductive individual for both sides of the aisle. In fact, he's a tool so big there isn't a shed to hold him.
Heather McGhee was correct when she said that these people, in twenty years, will find themselves on the wrong side of history for putting party over country.
Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) said that Mr. Nunes had 'neutered' the House Intelligence Committee's integrity and that the Senate's investigation will have to be the one that people should trust more. And though I didn't delve into immigration at all, Mr. Manchin in his response to a question about it and another used phrases like 'New York talk' and 'West Virginia talk' and that he didn't understand the former. Let's just say that this is the kind of rhetorical regionalizing that Senators should avoid because it just reinforces hopeless misunderstanding where there shouldn't be any. Beside, what the hell is he talking about anyway?
I could go on...
Panel: Kasie Hunt, NBC News; Heather McGhee, President of Demos; Rich Lowry, The National Review; Tom Brokaw, NBC News
A couple more things...
The least of Steve Wynn's problems is that he lost his gig as RNC Finance Chair. As Kasie Hunt said, Steve Wynn is at 'Harvey-level' type numbers. This story is only going to grow in attention so watch out. For those hoping for Republican political repercussions, stop.
As for the immigration debate, the current deal is not acceptable if you are anywhere from the center-right leftward. It limits legal immigration and prohibits family reunification which is counter intuitive if you want the people that immigrate here to succeed.
Oh, and the State of the Union is in 2 days!
Not sure what I'm doing for this... Definitely watching!... most probably a short column of some sort. Check back.
And it's revving up - @mtpopinion on Twitter.
Sunday, January 21, 2018
1.21.18: As For The Parents Of DACA Americans, Just Say 'Thank You'
Shutdown, Day 2...
The entire day leading up to the exact date of one-year anniversary clearly illustrated the impeccably clear leadership of the Trump Administration, and at exactly midnight eastern time in Washington, the United States government shutdown to honor the mark. Lovely.
Now that it's here, the question at the top of the program was whether this is a Schumer Shutdown or a Trump Shutdown. Obviously, it depends who you ask, and thanks to "Meet The Press's" producers, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) both appeared in separate interviews. This gets right to the center of the president's 'shit hole' comment, pardon the phrase.
In this instance not having been in the room, you have to take the word of the people who were. When asked, Senator Durbin said that he 'amplified' it, using Chuck Todd's term, because the president lied about ever having said it. Senator Lindsey Graham 'said his piece' to the president in the very meeting, to which Mr. Cotton said was part of Mr. Graham's overall conversation about policy. But apparently, Trump owned it by bragging about the comment to people close to the president, according to conservative journalist Erick Erickson.
In terms of the shutdown and the deciding factor of what the to do with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) in terms of making a deal to pass a budget, today's panel consensus was that this is a pretty easy deal to make. Chuck Schumer gave the president $18 billion for a border wall in exchange for DACA.
President said 'yes,' then president said 'no.'
Like negotiating with Jell-O...
Which gives a bad name to Jell-O by the way, but I'm sure the company is enjoying the product placement.
The president said on Tuesday that he would sign anything the bipartisan group of Senators put together. Mr. Durbin and Mr. Graham give him that compromise and the president says no. Schumer gives what he wants and the Mr. Trump says no. The Senate Majority leader said publicly that he was waiting to know what the president wanted. And on and on and on.
Mr. Trump, with various networks, is on video record that a shutdown is on the president. Well he's the president. And there's the little fact that Republicans control the House, Senate and White House.
The president rescinded the executive order from the last administration on DACA and threw it to congress with a March 5th deadline, which is soon close in congress's time frame that it's like yesterday. There is no more road.
As stated in this column before, DACA recipients are Americans, productive ones at that so give them a passport.
Mr. Cotton would not agree with something so definitive but would concede a path to citizenship. He's concerned about the parents and giving them legal status, which they should not be granted because they're the ones who broke the law. So he's saying that you twenty-something DACA recipient can stay but we're going to break up your family and mom and dad have to go back.
How about this instead since the onus of border security is on us,we didn't like that you broke the law, but thank you for the great productive American you contributed to our country. Thank you. Here's your legal status.
You can have understanding about the Republican position of limiting family migration, derogatorily referred to as 'chain migration' and not feel too bad about it, but it shouldn't be tied to the DACA recipients. It's called compromise where everyone loses a little. Senator Cotton is hard right on immigration so much so that he's the fringe in his own caucus who according to Senator Lindsey Graham should be blocked as a credible voice on the issue. He give him the 'sit-down-rook' verbal swat, but despite Mr. Cotton not copping to it in the interview, he did 'get' to the president on immigration and changed the president's mind... again.
Lastly, Stephanie Cutter was on the mark for calling out White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short on his duplicity when it comes to immigration at once sounding conciliatory and then endorsing a video that the says Democrats are complicit in the murders of Americans by illegal immigrants, which is something else that should be censured by the Republican-controlled congress but frankly, they're too complicit.
Here's that exchange from the transcript...
CHUCK TODD: Is that ad -- let me ask you this, is that ad helpful to you today?
MARC SHORT: I think it's helpful to continue to raise awareness of what the--
CT: The tone of that ad, you find the tone of that ad helpful?
MS: I think that the data in that ad continues to remind people that there are people coming across--
CT: The data, not tone.
MS: --our border--
CT: Is the tone wrong?
MS: I'm telling you, the data of the ad shows that there are people coming across our border that pose threats to our country. Yes.
Does Mr. Short sound like he works for the Trump Administration, or what?
And if there was any doubt, the president owns the 'shit hole' comment and he owns the shutdown.
Panel: Peggy Noonan, The Wall Street Journal; Stephanie Cutter, fmr. Communications Director for President Obama; Al Cardenas, fmr. Republican Strategist; Peter Alexander, NBC News
Sunday, January 14, 2018
1.14.18: This Is How Far We've Come. This Is How Far We've Come? Executive Time.
This is how far we've come. This is how far we've come?
We have to have the discussion on whether the president is a racist or not. Whether you think so or not, the president does provoke this on himself with irresponsible, bigoted, bastardizing, unpresidential and __________ (fill in the blank for yourself) statements about race, ethnicity, countries of origin and, frankly, most all non-whites. Fmr. advisor to Rand Paul and aide in the Bush White House now MSNBC political analyst, Elise Jordan said it best that there is no reason at all to go out of your way to alienate and antagonize people. As president, that shouldn't be that difficult. But we did get Norway in return. Roughly 54 countries in Africa plus Haiti and El Salvador makes 56 traded away and one in return. Not a good deal, wouldn't you say, and now we learn that Norway is an unwilling draft pick and refuses to report to the president's call.
Here's how Donald Trump should defend his latest example of stupidity in calling Haiti, El Salvador and the entire continent of Africa shit holes...
(Aside: The television analysts and anchors and press writ large are giddy to say the word "shit" on live air. You can see it in the faces, which is pretty hysterical in and of itself. We're glad that "Meet The Press" rightly didn't indulge in this TV candy because it's not necessary, and it got tiring of watching them one by one eat the candy. Like you just want a break from it if you follow these things or live an everyday life. But President Trump has lowered the bar another three rungs yet again, teaching our children by example.)
He should defend this untrue statement like he defended himself on his "Putin and Russia kill people" defense. Include us into the group. Like Mr. Trump said, "You think our country's so innocent?" Instead, "You think our country's not a shit hole too?" The president has said that other countries' airports are much nicer than others. He also said our FBI is in tatters. He declared a state of emergency on our opioid crisis so... Isn't that what's he's saying? What everyone is thinking, as some explain....
But we actually don't want to say what "everyone's thinking." It wasn't acceptable when he used this defense the first time, and it shouldn't be now.
The biggest disappointment isn't how Mr. Trumps disgraces the office of the President of the United States on a daily basis and trivializes the overall awesome responsibility it truly carries where lives are in the balance. Donald Trump has never internalized this concept. No, bigger than that is that we voted for the guy or not enough of people showed up to vote for his opponent. Anyway you look at it, it's on us, really.
But there's an out here, be it a slight one, and that is that Americans were sold a hyped product that ended up not being made of the quality we were promised. We expected sturdy bolts in components of stainless steel construction, but instead we got something plastic and one of the knobs has already broken off.
The Out: Where are the individuals who represent us?
Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI) said what the president said unfortunate and unhelpful. Mr. Ryan is so preoccupied and focused on his personal crusade to fulfill every Ayn Rand wish list item that when he says 'unfortunate,' he means he doesn't care all that much and when he uses the word 'unhelpful,' he means to his agenda. The deal that seems to have really been struck was with Republican leadership and Mr. Trump, which was 'let us carry out our agenda and we'll kiss your shit hole no matter what you say.'
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said in his interview that what the president said wasn't 'constructive.' That was forceful, no psychache in Mr. Paul's back, apparently. He then defended the president, as did David Brody from the Christian Broadcast Network, with making distinctions between what the president says in public versus what he does or what people close to him say. The latter of which is hardly a comforting method of reassurance. Mr. Paul said that we should give the president the benefit of the doubt, but what doubt is he talking about? Ms. Jordan, said this is what happens when you 'hitch your wagons' to Trump, and then without addressing it to her former boss directly, eviscerated every excuse or notion of logic in defending Mr. Trump.
All that said is the reason we have wiser men and women such as fmr. Ambassador Andrew Young and Andrea Mitchell. Mr. Young explained that you shouldn't call an alcoholic a drunk if you want the person to remain sober and cure the disease. Ms. Mitchell reminded us that compassion and a sense of humanity should be qualities that our presidents have, which Mr. Trump does not have. She importantly noted that 20 people have perished in California mudslides and the president has mentioned one time.
The troubling question is why these concepts would have to be explained to the president in the first place. If this is the case then take all the "executive time," without Twitter, that you need Mr. President.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Elise Jordan, MSNBC; David Brody, Christian Broadcasting Network
One more thing...
Hawaii... A ballistic missile warning that turned out to be a false alarm. Not only does Mr. Trump have us thinking about the possibility of nuclear war with North Korea, but he's also got the military paranoid to the point of making these types of mistakes, as well?
We have to have the discussion on whether the president is a racist or not. Whether you think so or not, the president does provoke this on himself with irresponsible, bigoted, bastardizing, unpresidential and __________ (fill in the blank for yourself) statements about race, ethnicity, countries of origin and, frankly, most all non-whites. Fmr. advisor to Rand Paul and aide in the Bush White House now MSNBC political analyst, Elise Jordan said it best that there is no reason at all to go out of your way to alienate and antagonize people. As president, that shouldn't be that difficult. But we did get Norway in return. Roughly 54 countries in Africa plus Haiti and El Salvador makes 56 traded away and one in return. Not a good deal, wouldn't you say, and now we learn that Norway is an unwilling draft pick and refuses to report to the president's call.
Here's how Donald Trump should defend his latest example of stupidity in calling Haiti, El Salvador and the entire continent of Africa shit holes...
(Aside: The television analysts and anchors and press writ large are giddy to say the word "shit" on live air. You can see it in the faces, which is pretty hysterical in and of itself. We're glad that "Meet The Press" rightly didn't indulge in this TV candy because it's not necessary, and it got tiring of watching them one by one eat the candy. Like you just want a break from it if you follow these things or live an everyday life. But President Trump has lowered the bar another three rungs yet again, teaching our children by example.)
He should defend this untrue statement like he defended himself on his "Putin and Russia kill people" defense. Include us into the group. Like Mr. Trump said, "You think our country's so innocent?" Instead, "You think our country's not a shit hole too?" The president has said that other countries' airports are much nicer than others. He also said our FBI is in tatters. He declared a state of emergency on our opioid crisis so... Isn't that what's he's saying? What everyone is thinking, as some explain....
But we actually don't want to say what "everyone's thinking." It wasn't acceptable when he used this defense the first time, and it shouldn't be now.
The biggest disappointment isn't how Mr. Trumps disgraces the office of the President of the United States on a daily basis and trivializes the overall awesome responsibility it truly carries where lives are in the balance. Donald Trump has never internalized this concept. No, bigger than that is that we voted for the guy or not enough of people showed up to vote for his opponent. Anyway you look at it, it's on us, really.
But there's an out here, be it a slight one, and that is that Americans were sold a hyped product that ended up not being made of the quality we were promised. We expected sturdy bolts in components of stainless steel construction, but instead we got something plastic and one of the knobs has already broken off.
The Out: Where are the individuals who represent us?
Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI) said what the president said unfortunate and unhelpful. Mr. Ryan is so preoccupied and focused on his personal crusade to fulfill every Ayn Rand wish list item that when he says 'unfortunate,' he means he doesn't care all that much and when he uses the word 'unhelpful,' he means to his agenda. The deal that seems to have really been struck was with Republican leadership and Mr. Trump, which was 'let us carry out our agenda and we'll kiss your shit hole no matter what you say.'
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said in his interview that what the president said wasn't 'constructive.' That was forceful, no psychache in Mr. Paul's back, apparently. He then defended the president, as did David Brody from the Christian Broadcast Network, with making distinctions between what the president says in public versus what he does or what people close to him say. The latter of which is hardly a comforting method of reassurance. Mr. Paul said that we should give the president the benefit of the doubt, but what doubt is he talking about? Ms. Jordan, said this is what happens when you 'hitch your wagons' to Trump, and then without addressing it to her former boss directly, eviscerated every excuse or notion of logic in defending Mr. Trump.
All that said is the reason we have wiser men and women such as fmr. Ambassador Andrew Young and Andrea Mitchell. Mr. Young explained that you shouldn't call an alcoholic a drunk if you want the person to remain sober and cure the disease. Ms. Mitchell reminded us that compassion and a sense of humanity should be qualities that our presidents have, which Mr. Trump does not have. She importantly noted that 20 people have perished in California mudslides and the president has mentioned one time.
The troubling question is why these concepts would have to be explained to the president in the first place. If this is the case then take all the "executive time," without Twitter, that you need Mr. President.
Panel: Helene Cooper, The New York Times; Andrea Mitchell, NBC News; Elise Jordan, MSNBC; David Brody, Christian Broadcasting Network
One more thing...
Hawaii... A ballistic missile warning that turned out to be a false alarm. Not only does Mr. Trump have us thinking about the possibility of nuclear war with North Korea, but he's also got the military paranoid to the point of making these types of mistakes, as well?
Sunday, January 07, 2018
1.7.18: What To Believe? Political Sense or Common Sense...
To believe or not believe? That is the question. Michael Wolff, author of the new, controversial and sold-out book, Fire and Fury: Inside The Trump White House, appeared as Chuck Todd's first guest today to discuss not only its contents but the more importantly, at least to a journalist, the process in which the information was obtained.
Admittedly, I haven't read Mr. Wolff's book yet. As an ordinary consumer, the bookstore was already sold out by the time I went to pick up a copy so it's on order. However, that aside and focusing on the interview and the panel conversation afterward, Mr. Wolff portending himself to be less than forthcoming on his explanations on how he got staffers in the White House to speak about the president with the noted exception of fmr. senior strategist advisor Steven K. Bannon who is on the record in the book. As New York Times Magazine's Mark Leibovich described asking questions of Republicans about the president, it's sort of a two-for. Journalist asks what someone thinks of the president and in turn that someone asks if it's off the record. Danielle Pletka said of the book that there wasn't anything in there that people familiar with the president, including journalists and politicians, didn't already know. Believably, Mr. Wolff said that the president flattered him, saying "he's great," which stands to reason due to prior reputations in of both in New York City. It's gossipy journalism.
Pretty dismissive, all things considered.
But here's the rub. If the book doesn't tell us things that people already know then one would have to be alarmed at conclusions such as: Staffers desperately trying to contain the president or that the 25th Amendment is part of the everyday conversation around the White House. How bad it must be that Steve Bannon would go on the record earning himself less powerful friends in Washington, a much lighter wallet and the new monitor, Sloppy Steve. It goes to show that in Mr. Trump's world, you're great until the day you're not, until you are again. It's a significant break, as Mr. Leibovich described on the merit that it does make the Breitbart/ Trump base have to choose sides in a way.
Also, if the book is filled with falsehoods, the president's reaction to it is grown-up schoolyard kind of stuff in nature. He threatens a lawsuit and complains about weak libel laws, really? That the president has felt the need to come out and state that he's a "very stable genius" doesn't inspire any confidence. On the other hand, it confirms how thin-skinned the president is, and as a president that's something you simply can not be. One thing that Mr. Wolff explained made perfect sense with regard to the president's chief of staff John Kelly and his not having seen the president's tweets, to which Mr. Wolff said there was no way in hell (paraphrasing) that he didn't see him. A man like John Kelly doesn't go into a day or situation not knowing or having a good idea of what's coming at him.
Refer to Senator Bob Corker (R-TN): It's like adult daycare in the White House.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions hasn't done anything to help calm things down to let all us know that the adults have any control in the Administration with Freedom Caucus Republicans calling for his resignation over his recusing himself in the Russia investigation. However, Mr. Sessions is ideologically stubborn in wanting to play out the pursuit of his obsessions - as Joy Reid described them - the evils of marijuana and immigration in that there are too many immigrants in The United States. So much for Republican dogma of leaving things for the states to decide. Not to mention there was a New York Times report this week that Mr. Sessions instructed staffers to get dirt on fmr. FBI Director James Comey to discredit him.
Finally, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) clarified for us the difference between political sense and common sense.
According to Senator Graham, we need special investigators investigating other special investigators on the motivations of their investigation. This makes perfect political sense, which is the same as saying it makes absolutely no common sense.
What's that old Steven Wright joke? The opposite of progress is congress.
Lindsey Graham admitted that he's cozied up to the president because he's the president, and that with North Korea, Iran and immigration on the table, Mr. Graham wants a seat at it. However, there have to be ways to achieve that other than the sad inexcusable criminal recommendation he's submitted with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) against fmr. British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele and the dossier he wrote on Mr. Trump. Mr. Graham needs to take a step back and have some ant-acid, or start giving out free sample packs to us. The first part of his statement today made sense in that Robert Mueller and his investigative team should be empowered and allowed to finish its work. He should just leave it at that. Period, hard stop.
Panel: Joy Reid, MSNBC; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times Magazine; David Brooks, The New York Times
Admittedly, I haven't read Mr. Wolff's book yet. As an ordinary consumer, the bookstore was already sold out by the time I went to pick up a copy so it's on order. However, that aside and focusing on the interview and the panel conversation afterward, Mr. Wolff portending himself to be less than forthcoming on his explanations on how he got staffers in the White House to speak about the president with the noted exception of fmr. senior strategist advisor Steven K. Bannon who is on the record in the book. As New York Times Magazine's Mark Leibovich described asking questions of Republicans about the president, it's sort of a two-for. Journalist asks what someone thinks of the president and in turn that someone asks if it's off the record. Danielle Pletka said of the book that there wasn't anything in there that people familiar with the president, including journalists and politicians, didn't already know. Believably, Mr. Wolff said that the president flattered him, saying "he's great," which stands to reason due to prior reputations in of both in New York City. It's gossipy journalism.
Pretty dismissive, all things considered.
But here's the rub. If the book doesn't tell us things that people already know then one would have to be alarmed at conclusions such as: Staffers desperately trying to contain the president or that the 25th Amendment is part of the everyday conversation around the White House. How bad it must be that Steve Bannon would go on the record earning himself less powerful friends in Washington, a much lighter wallet and the new monitor, Sloppy Steve. It goes to show that in Mr. Trump's world, you're great until the day you're not, until you are again. It's a significant break, as Mr. Leibovich described on the merit that it does make the Breitbart/ Trump base have to choose sides in a way.
Also, if the book is filled with falsehoods, the president's reaction to it is grown-up schoolyard kind of stuff in nature. He threatens a lawsuit and complains about weak libel laws, really? That the president has felt the need to come out and state that he's a "very stable genius" doesn't inspire any confidence. On the other hand, it confirms how thin-skinned the president is, and as a president that's something you simply can not be. One thing that Mr. Wolff explained made perfect sense with regard to the president's chief of staff John Kelly and his not having seen the president's tweets, to which Mr. Wolff said there was no way in hell (paraphrasing) that he didn't see him. A man like John Kelly doesn't go into a day or situation not knowing or having a good idea of what's coming at him.
Refer to Senator Bob Corker (R-TN): It's like adult daycare in the White House.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions hasn't done anything to help calm things down to let all us know that the adults have any control in the Administration with Freedom Caucus Republicans calling for his resignation over his recusing himself in the Russia investigation. However, Mr. Sessions is ideologically stubborn in wanting to play out the pursuit of his obsessions - as Joy Reid described them - the evils of marijuana and immigration in that there are too many immigrants in The United States. So much for Republican dogma of leaving things for the states to decide. Not to mention there was a New York Times report this week that Mr. Sessions instructed staffers to get dirt on fmr. FBI Director James Comey to discredit him.
Finally, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) clarified for us the difference between political sense and common sense.
According to Senator Graham, we need special investigators investigating other special investigators on the motivations of their investigation. This makes perfect political sense, which is the same as saying it makes absolutely no common sense.
What's that old Steven Wright joke? The opposite of progress is congress.
Lindsey Graham admitted that he's cozied up to the president because he's the president, and that with North Korea, Iran and immigration on the table, Mr. Graham wants a seat at it. However, there have to be ways to achieve that other than the sad inexcusable criminal recommendation he's submitted with Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) against fmr. British intelligence officer, Christopher Steele and the dossier he wrote on Mr. Trump. Mr. Graham needs to take a step back and have some ant-acid, or start giving out free sample packs to us. The first part of his statement today made sense in that Robert Mueller and his investigative team should be empowered and allowed to finish its work. He should just leave it at that. Period, hard stop.
Panel: Joy Reid, MSNBC; Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute; Mark Leibovich, The New York Times Magazine; David Brooks, The New York Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)