Sunday, May 28, 2017

Nostalgie de la boue: Donald Trump, Harry S. Truman, and the curious case of the eight-ulcer music critic

“Nostalgie de la boue” is one of those oddball idioms whose precise definition can distract an otherwise unoccupied mind longer than an aimless wallow through Facebook.

It translates from the French as “nostalgia for the mud,” and usually refers, according to Webster, to an “attraction to what is crude, depraved or degrading.” Or according to  the author Thomas Wolfe as…well, it’s a long story.

Regardless of the lexicographer you choose to swing with, the phrase is clearly applicable to Donald Trump. 

Examples: 

-Donald grabbing the genitalia of strange, or perhaps not-so-strange women. 

-Donald Trump engaging in various forms of pissing contests, whether those take the shape of arguing about the length of his fingers as they relate to another organ, or, as alleged, relating to some depraved behavior with hookers in a Moscow hotel room. 

-Or Donald Trump wallowing in deep swamps of self-pity, as when he declares himself to be the victim of a witch hunt, and further declares himself to be the most “unfairly” hounded president in history.

If you are fed up with the almost daily splatter of mud, flop sweat, and tears from this presidency, you might want to refer back to an incident that, by comparison, seems a bit quaint. However, it was marked by language that was shocking at the time, but richer in vocabulary and imagery than our current President seems competent of ever evoking.

I’m referring to an angry letter to a music critic, written in 1950 by then-President Harry S. Truman.

Truman, with the perspective of more than three generations, was a pretty good president from a family of more or less mediocre amateur musicians, including himself. 

Truman was an unremarkable pianist. His daughter, Margaret, was an unremarkable singer. Given some orchestral backup, the likely assistance of a recording studio engineer, and a good night, she could whip out a soprano rendition that would neither have you standing in the aisles of La Scala crying bravo, nor cringing as if you’d just heard a long piece of chalk screeching across a blackboard. She was no Maria Callas, but neither was she a Florence Foster Jenkins. Here is an example of Margaret Truman giving it her all:




In December of 1950, Margaret Truman had neither a good night nor a recording engineer to repair the damage. A live concert performance had been arranged for her in Constitution Hall, and the Washington Post sent along a music critic, Paul Hume, who evidently didn’t much like what he heard. He wrote:
Miss Truman is a unique American phenomenon with a pleasant voice of little size and fair quality  (she) cannot sing very well  is flat a good deal of the time, more last night than at any time we have heard her in past years  has not improved in the years we have heard her  (and) still cannot sing with anything approaching professional finish.
That, President Truman concluded. was…well, in the language of Donald Trump it would be “really unfair, the most unfair concert review in history.” But we are talking about a president who possessed a far richer talent for expository writing. He was able to craft an elaborately colorful insult from his resentment — an insult employing less whining and a far greater degree of linguistic precision than Donald Trump will ever be capable of producing. 

So Truman penned a letter to Hume that said
Mr. Hume: 
I've just read your lousy review of Margaret's concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an "eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay.” 
It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work. 
Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below! 
Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry. 
H.S.T.
Truman was referring in the last paragraph to Westbrook Pegler, a syndicated newspaper columnist who was the Bill O’Reilly of his day, but that’s another story. The upshot of this story was that Hume published the letter.  Following that, the nation for some time was scandalized — scandalized! — by this presidential indiscretion. 

I am old enough — although I was a child at the time — to remember my own parents, both of them Truman Democrats, discussing the letter in a state of near-shock. How could such terrible language come from the President of the United States?

These days we could acutely wish for such language. The daily barrage of whining befitting a wounded guttersnipe (look up the word, Donald, if you can concentrate on a dictionary long enough) will be one of the enduing trademarks of Donald Trump. He longs for the mud and the gutter. Unfortunately, he is dragging the United States down into it with him. 

Saturday, May 27, 2017

It rhymes

Jacob K. Javits Federal Building, Manhattan. The FBI Field Office is on the 23rd floor. Photo via Zimbio.

On James Comey and the Russian-produced Wasserman Schultz letter—
The Russian intelligence material related to a purported email exchange between then-Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and a Clinton campaign operative who suggested then-Attorney General Loretta Lynch would help quash the FBI’s investigation.
According to CNN, Comey used the purported emails in part to justify his decision to publicly announce that no charges would be brought against Clinton, in a remarkable address [on July 5] that also accused her of being “extremely careless” in how she handled classified information on her private server. Comey did not consult with Lynch beforehand, and the speech broke FBI protocol to never comment on closed cases where no charges are brought.
The Washington Post reported Wednesday that the purported emails originated from a dubiously sourced Russian intelligence document, the veracity of which was never confirmed by the FBI. Officials aware of Comey’s actions told CNN that he knew that the document was bogus, but still factored it into his handling of the case. (Talking Points Memo)
There's a weird little relationship—history not repeating itself but rhyming as they say—between that story and the one from the end of October where Comey sent a remarkable letter to House Oversight Committee chairman Jason Chaffetz to inform him "out of an abundance of caution" that the investigation wasn't in fact closed, and that the FBI was looking at some possibly fresh material, which turned out to be Anthony Weiner's laptop and emails to Hillary Clinton that Huma Abedin had downloaded there (apparently to make print copies for the boss because, sadly, Clinton, like Donald J. Trump, prefers paper)  (that beloved story is actually false; the emails were on Weiner's computer as an automatic backup arrangement with Abedin's phone; h/t Jesse in comments).

In both cases, Comey is said to be making these unusual public disclosures out of fear for his agency's and his own reputation.

(Longish read below the jump.)

Friday, May 26, 2017

BACK ON TUESDAY

I have weekend plans that will take me away from blogging, but there'll be posts here from the relief crew, so stop by. See you Tuesday.

EXPECT INCREASED TRANSMISSION ACTIVITY FROM THE RIGHT'S PARALLEL UNIVERSE

Jonathan Swan of Axios tells us that Steve Bannon has a new mission:
Nine sources in the West Wing and within Trump's close orbit said the Russia situation is Bannon's shot at redemption. He's being described as a "wartime consigliere" relishing a fight against the "deep state," media, Democrats and investigators....

Why some Bannon allies say he's made for this crisis:

* "Steve is super savvy dealing with the media and dealing with crises," says Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy, a friend of Trump's.

* Bannon ... played a key role during the tensest moments of the Trump campaign (see: "Access Hollywood" tape).

* He's skilled at misdirection and deflection. Along with his street fighter ally from the campaign, David Bossie — who is now under serious consideration to join the White House communications team — Bannon deployed scorched-earth tactics against Hillary Clinton like staging the famous press conference with the women who'd accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault.
So Bannon -- who is allegedly "super savvy" -- is responsible for "misdirections" like trying to change the subject to Bill Clinton's decades-old sexual behavior after Trump's Access Hollywood tape broke. Here's my question: How effective was that misdirection effort? Apart from any Fox-addicted wingnuts you know, did you hear anyone talking about it? If so, was anyone talking about it for days and days? Whereas we all talked about the Trump "grab 'em by the pussy" tape for days and days -- longer, in fact. We're still talking about it.

My point is that Bannon might not actually change what most Americans are talking about. What he's skilled at doing is changing what right-wingers are talking about. And maybe that's worth it to Trump, because he seems to believe he can save his presidency as long as 80+ percent of Republicans still support him without question.

So if you have even a glancing exposure to right-wing media, expect to hear a lot of names that make you ask, "Isn't this person completely out of power now?" Susan Rice. Valerie Jarrett. Donna Brazile. (Why, here's a story about Donna Brazile at Joe the Plumber's website right now.) Expect even more on Seth Rich. Expect terror scares and "knockout game" scares and Black-Lives-Matter-is-going-to-kill-all-white-people scares. The Russia investigations might strike more and more pay dirt, but your right-wing relatives won't even know.

GIANFORTE'S DISTINGUISHED PREDECESSOR: JOE McCARTHY

Greg Gianforte won yesterday's Montana special election. Given the large number of early votes, it's not clear how much the candidate's eleventh-hour assault of a reporter affected the race, and if it did, whether it helped him or hurt him. But Democrats certainly narrowed the gap in Montana. Here was 2016 Montana election map in the presidential race:



Now here's the map of yesterday's race (which was statewide, because Montana is a sparsely populated state and therefore has only one House member):



There's a lot more blue on the special election map. In 2012, Mitt Romney won by 13. In 2016, Trump won by 20. Gianforte won by 6. If Democrats can improve on 2016 that much in less red districts, they have a real shot at taking the House in 2018.

****

I'm reminded on Twitter that Gianforte has an illustrious Republican predecessor:



Yes, that happened:
Pearson became a target of McCarthy and his threats after writing repeatedly and critically about the senator’s bullying tactics, his tax troubles, and his thinly documented allegations about subversives in government....

In December 1950, a 27-year-old socialite named Louise Tinsley (“Tinnie”) Steinman invited Pearson and McCarthy to join her guests at dinner at the Sulgrave. She seated the men at the same table and they traded barbs and insults throughout the evening....

At the Sulgrave, McCarthy repeatedly warned Pearson that he planned to attack the columnist in a speech in the Senate. Pearson in turn chided McCarthy on his tax troubles in Wisconsin.

As the evening ended, McCarthy confronted Pearson in the Sulgrave’s coat check room. Accounts differ about what happened.

Pearson said McCarthy pinned his arms to one side and kneed him twice in the groin. McCarthy said he slapped Pearson, hard, with his open hand. A third account, offered by a radio broadcaster friendly to McCarthy, said the senator slugged Pearson, a blow so powerful that it lifted Pearson three feet into the air.

Richard Nixon, who had recently been sworn in as a U.S. Senator and who was guest at Tinnie Steinman’s party, intervened and broke up the encounter. Nixon, in his memoir RN, said Pearson “grabbed his coat and ran from the room. McCarthy said, ‘You shouldn’t have stopped me, Dick.'” ...

In his 1999 book, Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the Life and Legacy of America’s Most Hated Senator, a revisionist treatment of McCarthy, Arthur Herman wrote of the encounter:

“If some were horrified and disgusted with what McCarthy had done, many were not,” given the many enemies that Pearson had made.
A few days later, the senator attacked Pearson on the Senate floor.
From the libel-proof confines of the Senate floor, McCarthy delivered a vicious speech denouncing his nemesis as the “diabolically” clever “voice of international communism,” a “prostitute of journalism,” and a “Moscow-directed character assassin.”
Pearson sued McCarthy for, among other things, libel and assault. McCarthy won that round: He called for a boycott of the company that sponsored Pearson's radio show -- which then dropped its sponsorship.

McCarthy won reelection in 1952. The next year, he became chairman of the Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Assaulting a journalist didn't do much harm to Joe McCarthy. It won't hurt Greg Gianforte.




Thursday, May 25, 2017

THE GOP: VENGEFUL ALPHA WANNABES AND SORE WINNERS

The Republican Party is the party of Greg Gianforte, who body-slammed a reporter for asking a question. It's the party whose voters have embraced Sheriff David Clarke, who summoned five cops and a police dog to detain a man who literally did nothing but glower at him on an airplane. And it's the party of Donald Trump, who thinks it's classy to shove the Montenegrin prime minister out of the way so he can be in the front row in a group photo.



Josh Barro has a take on this:
Republicans are a party that now celebrates the bully who steals lunch money because, hey, at least he's not the nerd who gets his lunch money stolen.

A party for the sort of men who call themselves "alpha males" without irony or accuracy. A party for the sort of women who think it's cool and strong when men get into bar fights.

A party that celebrates not just cruelty, but juvenile cruelty.
Why the admiration for this behavior. Why, particularly, the admiration for Trump?
Well, one reason is that many men in America right now have little to offer women. They do not live up to either to the old, chauvinistic standards for adult men or the new, egalitarian ones. They want what Trump has — the women, the money, the brass-plated apartment — without having to do better or be better to get it.

They think they'd be better off under a return to high-school norms, where men could "be men" but really be boys, and gain status through cruel dominance plays without bearing any real-life responsibilities.
But we know that while Trump may have found found a fan base in the white working class, he did better among wealthier Americans than among poorer ones. Many of his supporters aren't the folks who fell through the cracks -- they're the relatively comfortable neighbors of the downtrodden. And some are just plain old-fashioned suburban Republicans.

I remember high school. It wasn't just that the jocks wanted status and all the good stuff that comes with it -- they were incensed when uncool people were happy at all, or got any attention, even niche attention. Football was important enough that the team was seen as the embodiment of the school, but that wasn't enough glory -- if the drama weirdos put on a play once or twice a year, the jocks would tear the posters down, hating the fact that people who didn't work as hard as they did to avoid uncoolness could possibly have a little enjoyment, even if only our parents showed up to watch the plays.

The GOP is like that now. If you're a suburban white flag-waver, even if you have a nice life, it angers you that people who aren't like you -- non-whites, non-straights, liberals, feminist women, non-Fox journalists, people who enjoy non-meat-and-potatoes culture -- are also thriving. Even if you've had all the pie you want, it's infuriating that such vermin get any pie. And if they start asserting themselves, well, that's just flat-out intolerable.

That's one of our two major political parties right now: a party whose members are furious at having to share any of the good stuff with anyone they find distasteful.


TEAM TRUMP HAS ITS STAFFING PRIORITIES STRAIGHT

At Axios, Mike Allen reports:
West Wing officials are prepping for a years-long war with investigators and the bureaucracy, with plans to beef up legal, surrogate, communications and rapid-response teams as part of a "new normal" for President Trump — besieged.

"The White House is embracing the fight, which is going to last as long as Donald Trump is president," said a Trump ally familiar with the preparations. "We're getting street fighters ready to go." ...

* What's next: Proposed war-room org charts have been prepared, and final decisions on the structure will be made after Trump returns this weekend.

* Jonathan Swan hears that comms/rapid response structures are being considered for both inside the White House and on the outside.
This is where the Trumpers think they need to staff up. Meanwhile, in the parts of government where work is actually supposed to get done...





For example:



Well, the Trump presidency is all about Trump, isn't it? Trump cares only about self-aggrandizement, not about any policy goals. So these staffing priorities make perfect sense.



Wednesday, May 24, 2017

BODY-SLAMMING A REPORTER: I BET IT'S OK IF YOU'RE A REPUBLICAN (updated)

I'd love to believe that this will be a game-changer in Democrat Rob Quist's favor, but I have serious doubts:
The Republican candidate for Montana’s congressional seat slammed a Guardian reporter to the floor on the eve of the state’s special election, breaking his glasses and shouting, “Get the hell out of here.”

Ben Jacobs, a Guardian political reporter, was asking Greg Gianforte, a tech millionaire running for the seat vacated by Ryan Zinke, about the Republican healthcare plan when the candidate allegedly “body-slammed” the reporter.

“He took me to the ground,” Jacobs said by phone from the back of an ambulance. “I think he wailed on me once or twice ... He got on me and I think he hit me ... This is the strangest thing that has ever happened to me in reporting on politics.”

Fox News reporter Alicia Alcuna, field producer Faith Mangan and photographer Keith Railey witnessed the incident, according to an account published by foxnews.com. After Jacobs asked Gianforte his question, Alcuna wrote, “Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him.

“Faith, Keith and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the man, as he moved on top the reporter and began yelling something to the effect of ‘I’m sick and tired of this!’ ...
This should be disqualifying, but ask yourself: If Donald Trump did something like this during his campaign, would it have hurt him? If anything, I think it would it would have impressed the sorts of voters who were Trump supporters or even just open to Trump. The message of the GOP is that forces hostile to the party -- who, by definition, include all non-conservative journalists -- are figures of pure evil who deserve any harm that comes to them. Trump regularly urged the crowds at his rallies to express hatred for the press. And Gianforte is a Trump supporter, running in a district (the entire state of Montana) where Trump won by a sizable margin.

I worry that this will increase Gianforte's vote total. In red America in 2017, I seriously don't believe it will hurt him, regrettably.

****

UPDATE: We've seen a similar situation in recent years, and Republican voters were totally cool with it. It happened in January 2014, Michael Grimm, a congressman from Staten Island, New York City's most Republican borough, was questioned by a local TV reporter. This happened:



Embattled New York Republican Rep. Michael Grimm threatened to "break" a NY1 reporter and throw him off a balcony after President Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night....

"Let me be clear to you, you ever do that to me again I'll throw you off this f-----g balcony,” Grimm said...

“No, no, you're not man enough, you're not man enough. I'll break you in half. Like a boy” ...
Ten months later, Grimm -- already plagued by multiple scandals -- won reelection by double digits. He resigned from Congress a month later, but only after pleading guilty to felony tax evasion charges. The following May, a Republican won the special election to replace Grimm, and he continues to hold the seat.

So, no, thuggish behavior toward reporters doesn't seem to hurt Republicans at the ballot box.

IT'S EASY TO IMAGINE THE POPE'S GIFT BACKFIRING

You probably know about this:
Pope Francis joined an international chorus urging Donald Trump to meet U.S. commitments on climate change in talks at the Vatican Wednesday.

Francis gave the U.S. president a copy of his 2015 encyclical calling for urgent, drastic cuts in fossil-fuel emissions after a half-hour meeting in his private study.

Francis’s choice of gift suggests he is adding his voice to those pressing Trump not to renege on the Paris accord, which is the cornerstone of global efforts to limit climate change.....

“Thank you, thank you,” Trump told Francis as they shook hands after the meeting. “I won’t forget what you said.”
Charlie Pierce called this "some expert trolling" on the pope's part. Dave Weigel called it "trolling of biblical proportions."

I'm not so sure. Apart from the obvious point that Trump is unlikely to read the encyclical because he's no fan of reading, the meeting with the pope reminds me of the week during the transition when Trump met with Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio to discuss climate issues -- after which Trump chose climate change denier Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. I'm also thinking of the staged humiliation of Mitt Romney, which preceded Trump's pick of Rex Tillerson for the secretary of state position.

Trump rarely has the courage to challenge critics face-to-face. He seems to prefer the stab in the back. And while I know he's been put on a cable news starvation diet during this trip, sooner or later he's likely to find out that the pope's has been making his discomfort with Trump obvious:





The pope put in a good word for the planet when talking to Trump -- but I think that might be precisely why Trump will ultimately decide to back out of the Paris accord.

TOMORROW'S WHITE HOUSE KREMLINOLOGY TODAY

If President Trump's overseas trip is less of a sustained pratfall than you expected, a Politico story by Annie Karni offers an explanation:
For four straight days, President Donald Trump did not live-tweet the cable shows. He didn’t mention his unlikely electoral win. And in visits to two countries where he was greeted with great fanfare, he never once complained about being treated unfairly.

Trump’s relatively successful swing through the Middle East was due to the fact that, for the most part, he didn’t get in his own way. It was also the result of months of careful planning. A decision was made early on to visit a part of the world where Trump is venerated and feared, and to pack his schedule so that he mostly stayed on message and, according to one aide, “didn’t have time to tweet.”
As Jason Easley writes:
... what the intentional scheduling of Trump’s time points to is that the President Of The United States can’t be treated like an adult. He has to be managed like a small child. If the President is left alone with time on his hands, he is going to grab his phone and start blasting out insane tweets.
So who are the supernannies who got Trump to behave? Karni has the names:
... a key factor was the role played by Dina Powell, H.R. McMaster and Jared Kushner, who brought a combination of government experience and understanding that Trump wanted to get some negotiated wins on the board.
It makes sense that the national security adviser would be deeply involved -- that would happen in a normal administration. And Kushner's involvement is unsurprising because, well, he's involved in everything (and also because, as Karni notes, he has ties to the Saudis). But let's focus on Dina Powell:
Trump also depended on Powell, the deputy national security adviser for strategy, to help spearhead the visit. An Egyptian-born fluent-Arabic speaker who served in the George W. Bush administration, Powell came with important contacts in the Arab world....

Powell, according to an administration official, was also instrumental in helping to craft the language Trump used in his Sunday speech on Islam, with a particular interest in his use of language about women’s rights.
Yeah, I thought the speech -- which I've seen ascribed to angry young man Stephen Miller -- seemed less snarly than Miller's usual work, such as Trump's convention speech and inaugural address. Now the reasonable tone makes sense.
Powell and McMaster coordinated with the Defense Department to firm up the $110 billion U.S.-Saudi weapons deal in time for Trump to announce it over the weekend....

Powell and McMaster together led the NSC’s interagency process for planning the trip....
Okay, okay -- I got it. A lot of this was Powell's doing. And it's gone -- by Trump standards -- surprisingly smoothly.

So you know what happens next, right?

When Trump gets back to Washington, it's possible that Powell will be given greater responsibility for virtually everything. Recall that Powell, a former Goldman Sachs executive, was originally hired as a White House economic adviser (and as an aide to Ivanka Trump and Kushner). Only later did she also become a foreign policy aide.

If Trump feels that this trip went well, he might conclude that the people who made that success possible should have all the responsibility going forward. (Steve Bannon and Reince Priebus were sent home early from the trip. We're being told that the early departures were always planned, and that Bannon and Priebus are needed back home to deal with Trump's D.C. struggles. But who knows?)

But ultimately, Trump's favorites are always required to do something impossible. Rush a terrible health care bill through Congress by an arbitrary deadline. Defend Mike Flynn when he's about to be fired. That sort of thing. And when they fail -- because Trump himself has created a situation in which only failure is possible -- the president gets angry and the favorite is sent to the doghouse.

If Powell's star is really rising, this could well be her fate. But hey, she signed on for this.

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

BLOCK CALLISTA. BOYCOTT HANNITY. WALK OUT ON INFOWARS.

Margaret Sullivan, The Washington Post's media columnist, is right to upset about these developments:
Infowars, that cesspool of destructive conspiracy theories, on Monday received a temporary credential to attend White House press briefings....

In the past, please recall, what constituted “news” at Infowars included the following: that 9/11 was planned and executed by the U.S. government; that President Obama was not an American citizen; and that the massacre of small children at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School was a hoax carried out by actors.

Infowars’ inclusion (even if only temporarily) in the White House press corps is disgusting.

But no more disgusting than the lies that Fox News continues to spread about Seth Rich, a 27-year-old man who was shot dead last summer in Washington.

To hear Fox’s Sean Hannity tell it, this was an inside job by the Democratic National Committee, where Rich worked: retribution by the Hillary Clinton camp for his sharing insider emails with WikiLeaks.

The theory has been thoroughly debunked by Oliver Darcy at CNN among others, and Rich’s family has demanded that Fox retract and apologize. To the reported embarrassment of its own staff, Fox hasn’t done the right thing.

Quite the opposite, in fact: Former House speaker and Trump insider Newt Gingrich used Fox’s national platform Sunday to spread the lies further....

Decent people should shun both Hannity and Gingrich.
Decent people should do more than that. In the case of InfoWars, the rest of the White House press corps should simply walk out of any press briefing attended by the organization's correspondent -- who, I gather, is this guy:



You remember Jerome Corsi, right? His books include Where's the Birth Certificate? and the John Kerry Swift Boat hit job Unfit for Command -- and he's also told readers of World Net Daily that Barack Obama had a secret gay life in Chicago and wears a wedding ring that bears the inscription "There is no God except Allah" in Arabic. Seriously, White House correspondents: If he's in the briefing room, you should leave -- and if the boycott has to last weeks or months, so be it.

Which probably should have been the reaction to Fox News sometime in the past twenty years, but that ship has sailed. For now, it's time for a Sleeping Giants-style boycott targeting Hannity's advertisers. And if some Bernie-or-Busters don't want to participate, well, this one is open to anyone in the center or right who's disgusted by Hannity's conspiracy-mongering. (Some of you conservatives are disgusted ... aren't you?)

As for Gingrich: His wife is the president's nominee to be ambassador to the Vatican. If (as I assume) no Republican senator is willing to vote against her confirmation, then some Democratic senator should put a hold on her nomination.

I got pushback when I said this on Twitter over the weekend:



I understand the argument. But Newt and Callista are not merely spouses -- they're professional collaborators. From the website of Gingrich Productions:
Together, Newt and Callista host and produce historical and public policy documentaries, write books and newsletters, give speeches, record audio books, produce photographic essays, and make television and radio appearances. Gingrich Productions also offers strategic planning, consulting, and training for organizations seeking to solve public policy concerns. We have unique strengths and experience in health, learning, national security, and politics. We also help develop messaging with an emphasis on earned and social media.
In the dissemination of political messages, they're partners. If they disagree on any issue, they've never said so. So unless Callista specifically denounces her husband's baseless and cynical conspiracy-mongering, she doesn't deserve a full Senate vote, much less an ambassadorship.

OUR LIFE WITH THE THRILL KILL CULT

I'm horrified by the Manchester attack, for which ISIS is now claiming responsibility.

For a while, I thought I understood the logic of this strategy: Use spectacularly successful acts of violence to inspire young, alienated Muslims so they'll sign up to join the fight to sustain the caliphate, and hope that the attacks motivate non-Muslim nations to crack down on Muslim residents, in order to eliminate a "grayzone" of peaceful coexistence and inspire even more recruits.

But ISIS has been losing territory in Iraq and Syria, and we've been hearing that an increase in terrorist attacks is a strategy shift in response to failures on the battlefield. In other words, terrorism isn't helping to staff a successful army -- it's a distraction from that army's failings. And this is happening even as there appear to be limits to the Western backlash against Muslims: white nationalists have fallen short in elections in France, the Netherlands, and elsewhere, while even Donald Trump has tempered his language on Islam.

So I don't see the logic anymore. At this point, it seems as if terrorist attacks attacks in the West aren't part of a grand strategy to advance ISIS's brand of Islam -- they're an end in themselves. The point of the terrorism seems to be ... just to kill people. The aftermath is always the same: Communities come together; there's anger at Muslims, but there are also kind words:





So what's being accomplished? Either ISIS and its acolytes still believe that the strategy is working, despite evidence to the contrary, or ... they're just angry young men who revel in the idea of doing harm to other people, especially when they're being told that what's being done is virtuous. It seems to me that the terrorism is now the point. The perpetrators (and cheering fans, some of whom will be future perpetrators) may talk of the attacks as steps on the path to a grand utopia, but I think they're just getting off on the violence.

Monday, May 22, 2017

WHAT YOUR RIGHT-WING UNCLE BELIEVES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS AND TRUMP IS AS CRAZY AS BIRTHERISM

Every so often I read a transcript of a Rush Limbaugh radio monologue, because Limbaugh is still, to much of heartland of America, a source of truth and a purveyor of wisdom. Today I read one titled "Democrats Walk Back Impeachment Talk Because They’re Scared to Death of What They’ve Created." What I've learned from it is that the Dittoheads, if they accept what Limbaugh's saying at face value, believe in a conspiracy so vast, and so bizarre, that it rivals birtherism, 9/11 trutherism, or the notion that the victims of Sandy Hook were "crisis actors."

Here's the gist of what Limbaugh said:
Last week — late last week, Thursday and Friday — there appears in various media stories about how one, two, and then three prominent Democrats expressed the need for the Democrat Party to start walking back all this talk of impeachment.

... There are people who have, over the course of the last three weeks, on the Democrat side, tiptoed into the water and said, “We haven’t any evidence.” Dianne Feinstein to Wolf Blitzer twice, for example. There was another Democrat on Grassley’s committee that said, “Yeah, no, we don’t have any evidence. We haven’t seen any evidence yet.” Former CIA director for Obama, Michael Morell, about two weeks ago was on MSNBC.

He said there isn’t any evidence of any collusion.

So they’ve been tiptoeing around this. You put that together with the talk by the Democrats that they need to walk back impeachment, and what do you have? You have, I think, a potentially explosive and destructive thing awaiting the Democrats. What have they done? ...

They’ve lied repeatedly over who was going to win the election, and then when the election didn’t go the way they said it was gonna go, they’re now lying about the election being stolen by Trump and the Russians. They have compounded the lie and they have ostensibly supplied evidence when there isn’t any. And they have created a tremendous number of genuinely enraged, seriously unbalanced mentally people that make up the Democrat voter base who are convinced — they’re expecting Trump to be impeached....

They’re expecting Trump to go down this week. They were expecting Trump to go down last week. They’re expecting Trump to go down next week. They’re expecting somebody’s gonna come along here and drop the bomb of evidence because they’ve been told it’s there.
And here's the conspiracy:
But the Democrats know there’s no evidence. They know they’ve been lying to their people. The media knows it. So it’s walk-back time. That’s why all this gotta be careful, gotta walk back this talk of impeachment because there isn’t, there is not a crime that has been committed.

So there is real fear of what these people are gonna do when that fateful day comes that everybody has to say no evidence and no impeachment and no collusion. They just can’t come out and say that, or they’re gonna have nation — you think they were rioting now, we don’t have any idea what’s gonna happen when these people once again realize they’ve been lied to and misled. The election was the first, and now this?

Democrats and the media are genuinely concerned, because they’ve created this insanity.
This is what your right-wing uncle believes: not that some people in the Democratic Party and elsewhere on the left are overselling the inevitability of Trump's downfall; not that Democrats might be assuming a smoking gun will be found when one might not exist, might exist but never be unearthed, or might not seem like one to a sufficient number of voters or Republicans in Congress ... no, your right-wing uncle thinks Democrats know there's nothing to be found and have just invented the entire scandal out of whole cloth, a deception party leaders and the media have all colluded on knowingly, just to bring this president down out of sheer orneriness. The FBI and congressional committees are in on the plot, too. Mike Flynn is refusing a subpoena, even though there's no crime he might be compelled to reveal. An entire generation of Washington insiders, in other words, have staked their careers on a deception based in literally nothing, one that, if exposed, could at minimum destroy every conspirator's reputation for honesty forever and in all likelihood have far worse consequences for the conspirators.

They've set this massive conspiracy in motion ... and now they're getting cold feet and want to do a complete 180. They built this enormous edifice of disinformation, because the Deep State finds the Trump presidency intolerable -- yet now they're saying, "Let's call the whole thing off!"

I'm not sure why they want to call it off -- you'd think people who could construct a web of deceit this vast would be pretty damn powerful -- but I suppose it's because, despite their vast power, they've created a deception so flimsy it can be exposed by, I guess, a few randos on Twitter and Reddit who have Sean Hannity's ear.

Really, this is what your uncle thinks.

A HOLLYWOOD ELITIST SCRIPTED ROGER AILES'S EULOGY

Roger Ailes got quite a sendoff from his only child over the weekend:
Friends and family of former Fox News chairman and founding CEO Roger Ailes gathered together and mourned his death Saturday during an intimate service at the St. Edward Roman Catholic Church in Palm Beach, Florida....

“I loved my father,” Ailes’ 17-year-old son, Zachary, told LifeZette. “He considered how much certain people hated him as a measure of success.”

Zachary pledged to fight to clear his father’s name after a series of sexual harassment allegations led to his ultimate ouster from Fox News.

“I want all the people who betrayed my father to know that I’m coming after them,” Zachary Ailes said during a speech at the ceremony, “and hell is coming with me.”
Wow, that's a tough, take-no-prisoners line. Where did it come from? Did a famous soldier say it? Maybe a fearless member of law enforcement?

Nahh. It comes from evil Left Coast communist metrosexual Hollywood. As the right-wing site BizPac Review acknowledges, it's a line from the 1993 film Tombstone -- a threat made by Wyatt Earp (played by Ken Kurt Russell) to a member of an outlaw gang called the Cowboys:



On the one hand, we now see that the Ailes family regards the women who have accused Ailes of sexual harassment as the moral equivalent of a murdering Wild West gang. On the other hand ... Hollywood? I thought conservatives hated Hollywood. Never mind that their favorite president was a Hollywood actor and their second-favorite president, the current one, was a TV star. Never mind that Roger Ailes's longtime boss runs a Hollywood movie studio. Never mind that Ailes worked in TV and theater before becoming a right-wing hit man. Hollywood is supposed to be anathema to right-wingers -- and yet that's where Zachary Ailes, a rich, private-school-educated scion, gets his idea of courage.

Though I wonder if using the line was really Zachary's idea. We know that Roger Ailes, a lifelong hemophiliac, had long thought about his own death. As his biographer Gabriel Sherman reported, "A couple of weeks before his thirtieth birthday, [Ailes] told a reporter, 'Most people think I'll be dead before I'm 35.'"

We know that having a young son made Ailes focus even more on his own mortality:
Due in part to the large age gap between father and son – 60 years – Ailes had compiled a memory book so that his son could remember his life when he was gone, according to Vanity Fair.

Since Zac was four, Vanity Fair reported in an excerpt from Zac Chafets’ book, Roger Ailes: Off Camera, “Ailes has been putting things away for him in memory boxes; there are now nine, stuffed with mementos, personal notes, photos, and messages from Ailes to his son. They are meant to be opened when Ailes is gone.”

He showed the author one box, a plastic container “stuffed with what appeared to be a random assortment of memorabilia. There was a pocket-size copy of the U.S. Constitution in which Ailes had written, ‘The founders believed it and so should you'” and photos of Zac and Beth Ailes on vacations, according to the magazine.

In one note, Roger Ailes had written his son, “Avoid war if at all possible but never give up your freedom—or your honor. Always stand for what is right. If absolutely forced to fight, then fight with courage and win. Don’t try to win ... win! Love, Dad,” reported Chafets.
Did the elder Ailes ask his son to use that line in his eulogy? That's my guess. I can easily imagine Papa Roger in his last year telling young Zachary that he wanted him to threaten Dad's enemies at his funeral, in those carefully selected words.

Roger Ailes was never really a tough guy. He lived a life of fear. His had bombproof windows installed in his Fox News office, where he also kept two handguns. He maintained a bunker underneath his house with half a year's worth of supplies, in anticipation of a terrorist attack, and, as a neighbor recounted, he "was said to have ordered the removal of all trees around his house so that he … had a 360-degree view of any leftist assault teams preparing to rush the house." He hired private investigators to "discredit anyone perceived as a threat to the channel or Ailes himself," as The Hill noted. He order Fox public relations employees to create dummy accounts so that undetectable Ailes trolls could rebut Fox critics online, even at obscure blogs.

And he was a creature of the elite coastal media, regardless of his self-image. So of course the tough-guy words that saw him off were Hollywood-fake.

Sunday, May 21, 2017

"HE CHOKED!" REDUX

I'm amused by this story on the reaction to the president's Saudi Arabia speech:
... President Donald Trump is ... taking heat from his avid supporters....

His crime?

Calling Islam “one of the world’s great faiths.”

That double hit — ducking [the phrase] “[radical] Islamic terrorism” while praising the religion — was not received very well on Twitter....



....


I'm reminded of Joe Scarborough's reaction to Trump's meeting with Mexico's president back in September:
On "Morning Joe," the host said Trump's refusal to press [President Enrique] Peña Nieto in person about funding a border wall between the US and Mexico demonstrated Trump's lack of confidence as a leader.

"If that's the center of your campaign, how do you not get the job done when you're there?" Scarborough said.

He added: "He had the guy in front of him and he choked. He choked! I can't stand people who choke under pressure."



What happened to the tough guy all these Trump voters thought they were electing? The two-fisted, doesn't-back-down "blue-collar billionaire"?

But it occurs to me that one of the best-known songs about standing up to an adversary -- a classic to many people in Trump Country -- is actually about not having the nerve to stand up.



I'd give the shirt right off of my back
If I had the guts to say

Take this job and shove it
I ain't working here no more....
That's Trump -- he acts as if he's ready to tell his enemies where to get off and his fans don't even realize that as soon as they're face to face, he'll back down.

*****

UPDATE I cut the tweet from Vic Berger IV. I'm informed that he's an anti-Trump mocker.

DON'T BE SO SURE THAT SHERIFF DAVID CLARKE IS GOING DOWN

I can't deny that this looks bad for David Clarke, full-time loudmouth and -- in whatever time he has left between gun-nut speeches and Fox TV appearances -- sheriff of Milwaukee County:
Controversial Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke, who this week announced he will be joining Donald Trump's administration as assistant secretary in the Department of Homeland Security, plagiarized sections of his 2013 master's thesis on US security, a CNN KFile review has found.

Clarke, a visible surrogate for Trump during the campaign known for his incendiary rhetoric, earned a master's degree in security studies at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. In his thesis, "Making U.S. security and privacy rights compatible," Clarke failed to properly attribute his sources at least 47 times.

In all instances reviewed by CNN's KFile, Clarke lifts language from sources and credits them with a footnote, but does not indicate with quotation marks that he is taking the words verbatim.
Last night on Twitter, I questioned whether plagiarism would compel Clarke to withdraw. I was reminded of this:



Yes, but Crowley didn't lash out at her attackers. When she was accused of plagiarizing parts of her Ph.D. dissertations and parts of one of her books, she "declined to comment." She treated the revelations the way you'd treat them if you were the appointee of a normal president. She didn't understand that Donald Trump is not normal. He doesn't expect his underlings to maintain a dignified silence or issue carefully worded responses when facing accusations.

Trump likes people who fight back, however ill-advisedly. Immediately after Trump's inauguration, he put pressure on press secretary Sean Spicer to defend Trump's ridiculous assertion that he'd hard a larger inaugural crowd than Barack Obama in 2009. Later, Trump was angry when Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself in matters pertaining to Russiagate.

So far, Clarke isn't making that mistake:









There's also a lot of higher-profile news happening now -- Trump's overseas trip, the series of wild news stories of the past couple of weeks. The Crowley revelations happened before the inaugural, when the major Trump-related stories were about personnel matters.

But the main reason Clarke might very well survive is that he spends his entire waking life in attack mode. Crowley, even though she's done her share of attacking as a Fox pundit and right-wing hack, isn't a rage generator by nature. Clarke does it as naturally as breathing. I'm betting Trump will have his back.

We already know that presiding over a court system jail where a prisoner died of dehydration after being denied water for a week hasn't prevented Clarke from being appointed. I think he could survive this, too.

Saturday, May 20, 2017

ROGER AILES AND CONSERVATISM'S PERMANENT WAR

Jon Klein, the former head of CNN's U.S. division, argues in The Washington Post that the Internet didn't divide the American media into warring tribal fiefdoms -- it was Roger Ailes:
When the network launched in 1996, few realized that Ailes had hatched the prototype news organization of the 21st century: information with attitude; facts yoked to a point of view, the more provocative the better; a tribal vibe, outsiders unwelcome and openly scorned. The Internet did not, as is so often alleged, usher in the siloed media environment in which we find ourselves today and likely forever. Ailes did that — by proving that there is money, influence and power to be found in serving well-defined interest groups instead of trying to please the widest possible audience.
I don't agree with Klein that the "siloing" is across the board -- Pew found in 2014 that liberals were getting their news from a number of sources, while conservatives loved Fox. What he's describing is happening to some extent on the left, but it's pervasive on the right.

Klein continues:
What’s more, by unreservedly infusing news with a right-of-center agenda, Ailes popularized the notion that all journalists are biased. “At least we’re honest about who is offering opinion, unlike CNN,” Ailes would often say.
I don't think that's correct. The message of Fox is: All journalists except ours are biased. Bret Stephens, in a New York Times op-ed, writes, "In moments of candor, Ailes would admit that his network’s real motto, as he saw it, was to be 'fair and balancing.'" But it's clear that his audience didn't believe that. Other news sources aren't skewed or biased -- they're lying, according to loyal Fox fans. Fox tells the whole truth (except when traitors like Megyn Kelly do the bidding of the Establishment).

Klein writes:
Of course, keeping an audience of millions on a footing of constant alert for many years has the effect of stoking anxiety on a national scale. Solutions are rarely forthcoming; problems are never solved; few officials or institutions can be trusted.
The Fox message is that victories generally aren't even victories, because what really matters is the war against conservatives' enemies, which is never-ending. Recall Fox in George W. Bush's first term -- even when he could be portrayed as a triumphant war president, Fox was still watching the horizon for signs of domestic dissent, and if it wasn't coming from Democrats, then it was time to turn Dan Rather or Barbra Streisand or some college professor into the enemy of the day.

And as Klein notes, that was Roger Ailes expressing his own sense of unrelieved -- and unrelievable -- grievance:
... [We were] at Michael’s, the restaurant of choice for Manhattan’s media elite....

We were at Roger’s table, No. 4 — the best one in the house, a corner with a commanding view of the entire room.... he was trotting out his standard case about the lack of respect he received in New York, despite his immense professional accomplishments. “They think I’m this rube from Ohio,” he said. “They all look down their noses at me.” Roger was having trouble making his point, though, because of the parade of well-wishers who kept interrupting to shake his hand, kibitz and flatter. Eventually, I couldn’t resist stating the obvious: “Kind of undermines your point, doesn’t it? Half this restaurant is kissing your ring.” “Yeah,” he replied without irony. “But they hate doing it.”
Ailes's audience eventually voted for a president who can never be satisfied with the amount of adulation he receives, and who's in a state of permanent war with his enemies. In that way, Trump is just like Ailes.

Bret Stephens, in his column on Ailes, blames Fox for harming conservatism:
What Fox is mainly in the business of doing is hating the left. In the manner of Ailes himself, its convictions stem from its resentments — and shift accordingly. It is sympathetic to military intervention when the left is against it (Iraq) and hostile when the left is for it (Libya); anti-Russia when President Obama was reaching out to Russia, pro-Russia when Obama started getting tough on the Kremlin.

More recently it has discovered the virtues of economic nationalism and the evils of “globalism” in the service of the Trump electorate.

All this makes for a terrific business model — a matter of being attuned to the changing tastes and inclinations of your core audience. But it also means that the network Ailes built was never a vehicle for conservative views.
I'm not going to get into an argument with Stephens about what is and isn't conservative. But I'd say that the attitude at Fox -- and now throughout the right -- is that the primary criterion for judging any political deed is: How much does this piss off liberals? That's true even when the goal seems to be the advancement of conservatism as Stephens would define it. Conservatism doesn't matter as much as winning the battle. (The war, alas, can never be won.)

For all their flag-waving and talk about making America great again, conservatives don't really care about America. They care about fighting with us. Fox helped teach them to think that way. And now they have a president with the same attitude.

Friday, May 19, 2017

JENNIFER RUBIN IS MUCH MORE CERTAIN OF A MASS GOP DIE-OFF THAN I AM

Jennifer Rubin, a right-winger who's always refused the Trump Kool-Aid, thinks the president's scandals are causing "the downfall of a generation of Washington Republicans":
Either during or at the end of his first term, Trump’s presidency will end, voluntarily or not.... When the party — or what remains of it — looks for leadership, where will it turn?

Not to the likes of Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who opportunistically backed Trump after declaring his unfitness. Not to the likes of Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), who became Trump’s palace guard, vouching for Cabinet secretaries and refusing to denounce conflicts of interest and possible violations of the Constitution’s emoluments clause. Come to think of it, any Republican who failed in his or her constitutional duty of oversight, continuing to turn a blind eye toward wrongdoing and to rationalize Trump’s conduct, should be disqualified from high office, if not shunned by conservatives....

If the GOP is to survive at all after Trump, it most likely will need to turn to governors or ex-lawmakers who did not carry Trump’s water or attempt to defend the indefensible. I raise that now because it will reflect on the actions of Republicans on Capitol Hill for the next couple of years. Keep in mind how self-destructive their behavior is as you wince watching Capitol Hill Republicans flack for Trump.... As painful as it is to watch these performances, some satisfaction can be derived from knowing that these Republicans are doing incalculable damage to their ambition for future leadership in the party.
I don't see it that way at all.

As I said in the previous post, I believe Trump could well be brought down without ever becoming tarnished in the eyes of the 38% of Americans who support him now. Doing deals with the Russians? Hey, so what? He's a businessman -- deals are his specialty. Are we at war with Russia? And can't the president fire an FBI director? He's the president, right? And how do we know the evidence of Russian election interference is legit? What about Seth Rich's death? And what about Hillary's emails? And the Deep State? And Donna Brazile giving Hillary those debate questions? And and and and....

Maybe members of Trump's inner circle will be unelectable in the future, but Republicans outside the inner circle who defended Trump will be fine -- Tom Cotton and Paul Ryan will get do-overs. (We'll be told that Ryan, especially, experienced great pangs of guilt while backing Trump.) If anything, the many Trump diehards in the voter base will probably reject the Rubio and Cruz because they weren't supportive enough of Trump.

I'm certain that future GOP leaders will be those who stayed on Trump's good side but who aren't generally identified with him -- the political establishment will demand the latter, but deplorable voters will insist on the former. Ask yourself: Did Nixon's presidency lead to ""the downfall of a generation of Washington Republicans"? Hell, if Gerald Ford had received 50,000 more votes in Ohio and Wisconsin, he'd have won the Electoral College in 1976.

A former RedState editor, now at Glenn Beck's Blaze, tweeted this today on the subject of the conservative movement:



I responded with a point I've been making on this blog for years:



I was seconded:



That's the truth. It's never doomsday for the GOP.



DON'T DISMISS FEARS OF A PRESIDENT PENCE

I don't think we're going to be rid of President Trump anytime soon. The most promising investigation, that of special counsel Robert Mueller, will probably be slow and deliberate. If crimes are discovered, it's quite possible the culprits will be only the usual suspects -- Mike Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Roger Stone. Art of the Deal co-author Tony Schwartz may believe that Trump will resign if impeachment seems to be on the horizon, but we expected Trump to quit the presidential campaign on numerous occasions, and it never happened. And it's very hard to imagine Trump being convicted in a Republican-controlled Senate by a two-thirds majority after an impeachment, or having a 25th Amendment removal sustained by a two-thirds majority in both houses, after Trump inevitably exercises his right under the amendment to challenge removal. A two-thirds majority in the Senate means 19 Republicans have to vote against Trump -- can you think of 19 GOP senators who'd ever do that? Or nearly a hundred GOP House members if the 25th Amendment is invoked?

But okay, let's imagine that we do rid ourselves of Trump. Should we worry about Mike Pence as president?

The New Republic's Jeet Heer, acknowledges that Pence, "a creature of the religious right, would be a terrible president, although in ways different than Trump." But he thinks we shouldn't be afraid of a Pence presidency:
It’s possible Pence would enjoy a honeymoon after taking office, with most Democrats and many Republicans grateful to see Trump gone, but it would be only a honeymoon. President Gerald Ford’s brief period of grace after taking over for Richard Nixon in 1974 ended when he pardoned his predecessor. Once Pence tried to implement his agenda, Democrats would remember Pence’s complicity in helping Trump become president. Indeed, Democrats would have readymade 2020 ads showing Pence praising his now-disgraced former boss.
Yes, but a lot of Democratic/liberal energy, among the public and in Congress, is going to dissipate if Trump is ousted. The political Establishment, across the spectrum, will be desperate for a normalization of politics after Trump. The public, alas, will probably be ready to embrace Pence as a healing figure (he's regarded more favorably than unfavorably in every major poll taken since Election Day). And while Richard Nixon was widely regarded as a blight on America by the time of his resignation -- his approval rating was in the twenties -- it's quite possible that Trump's base will never acknowledge that he's done wrong. His approval rating may always remain at 38% or higher -- that seems to be his floor. So a significant percentage of Americans won't see Pence as the head of a party tainted by a reprehensible disgraced president, because they won't believe Trump was disgraced.

But will the GOP be too divided to govern? Heer thinks so:
Nor would there be widespread support for Pence among Republicans. Though he’s a more conventional Republican, he will inherit a party that is even more fractured than it is now. Trump has had a hard time governing not only because of his own ignorance and blundering, but because there’s nothing holding the Republican Party together other than hatred of the Democrats.
Um, that's like saying there was nothing holding Nazi Germany together other than hatred of non-Aryans. For the GOP, hatred of Democrats counts for a lot.

Heer continues:
There is no unity of purpose between the House Freedom Caucus, the House moderates, and GOP senators. As president, Pence will have much in common with mainstream Republicans but he will find, as Obama and Trump did before him, that a small number of far-right congressmen can sabotage legislation.
Um, Pence is a far-right Republican. And the unbridgeable GOP gap Heer is describing really might be limited to health care, because many non-Freedom Caucus Republicans now see the appeal of Obamacare reforms to their own voters. On tax cuts, budgeting, social issues, and defense, I don't think there's nearly as much disagreement.
Trump’s impeachment would indeed create a new faction in the party: the disaffected Trumpists. Consider the Obama-to-Trump voters who made a difference in the 2016 election: white working class people who normally distrust Republicans like Mitt Romney, but took a chance on Trump because of his populist message. How would they feel about a Republican Party that impeaches Trump and gives them Pence instead? They’d think, quite rightly, that they’ve been betrayed. It’s likely they’d sit out the next election or return to the Democrats.
I fear that Pence would be shrewd enough to signal to the Trump base that he's not abandoning the Trump agenda. He'll say he ran in 2016 to create jobs and make the country safe, and he still believes in those goals. He'll talk about securing the border -- maybe he'll still back the wall! -- and he'll talk about an economy that puts American jobs first. If he dog-whistles to Obama-then-Trump voters that he's carrying the flag of Trumpism, they might stick with him -- even as the rest of the political world expresses relief at his good manners, his ability to put together a functioning administration, and his lack of interest in Twitter.

I think he could be like first-term George W. Bush -- acceptable to swing voters (maybe soccer moms will like his marriage) even as he signals to Trump voters and the GOP base that he's their president specifically.

If you're wondering: No, I don't believe Pence will be brought down by Russiagate. The Establishment will want everything to be okay, so claims that he wasn't aware of inappropriate doings will be accepted at face value.

So, yes, be afraid of a possible Pence presidency -- although don't expect one in the near future.

TODAY IN "DONALD TRUMP IS A SLAVE TO HIS EMOTIONS"

I'm back. Thank you again, Yastreblyansky, Crank, and Tom -- great work again while I was away.

Today, as Donald Trump leaves on his first foreign trip as president, we learn from The New York Times that foreign governments consider him very easy to wrap around their fingers:
After four months of interactions between Mr. Trump and his counterparts, foreign officials and their Washington consultants say certain rules have emerged: Keep it short — no 30-minute monologue for a 30-second attention span. Do not assume he knows the history of the country or its major points of contention. Compliment him on his Electoral College victory. Contrast him favorably with President Barack Obama. Do not get hung up on whatever was said during the campaign. Stay in regular touch. Do not go in with a shopping list but bring some sort of deal he can call a victory.
In other words, assume he's an ignoramus. Assume he's extraordinarily susceptible to insincere flattery, and to anything that enables him to be flattered by others, particularly his electorate. Attack his enemies. Voila: president successfully manipulated.

Notice what's missing here? Any sense that these officials and consultants fear his expert negotiating skills. That's because he doesn't have those skills.

And:



Yeah, I'm wondering that, too.

In addition to that, we're reading this at the Daily Beast about Trump's relationship with ousted national security advisor Michael Flynn:
... Trump doesn’t just hope that Flynn will beat the rap. Several sources close to Flynn and to the administration tell The Daily Beast that Trump has expressed his hopes that a resolution of the FBI’s investigation in Flynn’s favor might allow Flynn to rejoin the White House in some capacity—a scenario some of Trump’s closest advisers in and outside the West Wing have assured him absolutely should not happen....

“Trump feels really, really, really bad about firing him, and he genuinely thinks if the investigation is over Flynn can come back,” said one White House official.

One former FBI official and a second government official said Trump thought he owed Flynn for how things ended up and was determined to clear Flynn’s name and bring him back to the White House.
Is this just because Trump worries that Flynn could bring him down? That's what a lot of people believe, but BuzzFeed's Ben Smith has an alternate explanation:
... an old book and a new movie hint at something else, that Flynn brought from the military and from Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s band of brothers a trait that Trump, a self-described “loyalty freak,” values above others: personal loyalty.

... [Flynn] rose through the [military] ranks on McChrystal’s coattails, and played a central role in another great public crisis: the 2010 downfall of McChrystal and his loyal men after they were quoted in Rolling Stone trashing their civilian masters.

The new movie War Machine, out on May 26 on Netflix, includes a thinly veiled portrait of Flynn as Gen. Greg Pulver, the top aide to Brad Pitt’s arrogant US general in Afghanistan. As played by Anthony Michael Hall, Pulver makes up for being somewhat dense with awe-inspiring, fierce personal devotion to his boss.

... The writer and director of War Machine, David Michôd, confirmed to me that he had McChrystal’s inner circle in mind in while he was writing the film.

“The loyalty felt like a hugely important part of that bunch of guys,” he said in an email. “A bunch of guys collectively propping up a delusion. And they do this with their unwavering loyalty and admiration for the General. And I know this to be true of these guys in the real world."

The most common mistake in American journalism these days is overthinking Donald Trump — imputing a strategy, or even a plan, to a cipher who operates on impulse and gut. He has always surrounded himself with a certain kind of man — die-hard loyalists, whose loyalty he mostly returns, sometimes after he fires them.

A friend of Flynn, Michael Isikoff reported today, described the general and the president as "brothers in a foxhole."

... Even after he'd forced Flynn out — and on the day he would have his fateful dinner with Comey — Trump was grumbling in public that his former aide-de-camp had been treated “very, very unfairly.”
If Smith is correct, it's not really that Flynn is using emotion in a cynical way to manipulate Trump. It's more that Trump can't put his own self-interest ahead of his desperate craving for loyal hangers-on -- just as he can't resist flattery and ego gratification from people outside his inner circle, and is very malleable when he gets those things.

Sad!