Wondering on Wednesday (v154)

Mandel Ngan / AFP- Getty Images

Let's dive right in to the wonderful, shall we?

For starters, here's the picture of the members-elect of the House, none of whom were giving a Nazi salute, and it made me wonder what their photographer said to them that the photographer at Baraboo High School didn't say to the guys attending the prom, who do in fact appear to be giving said salute? 

It was reported the yesterday that the First Lady was unhappy with a particular employee of the West Wing. Actually, what was reported was a statement from the First Lady's office stating that the employee in question "no longer deserves the honor of serving in this White House" and after a mistaken report that the employee, Deputy National Security Advisor Mira Ricardel, had been walked out of the White House, today the official statement came that Ricardel would in fact be leaving to take another position in the administration.

I wondered about a couple of things here -- first of all, whoa! That's a pretty bold thing for the FLOTUS to do. And then, I thought about her interview with Tom Llamas on ABC,the part about having told POTUS that there were people working for him she didn't trust, and they there were still people working there that he shouldn't trust. So I wonder, can we expect more personnel statements from her as we move into the traditional post-midterm period of churn? Shall we we have an office pool on who's going to be next to go? And finally, is this Melania doing her best to #BeBest?

Votes are still being counted around the country, trying to determine who will go to Washington to represent their constituents in January.  We're familiar with the shenanigans going on in Florida and Georgia and even here in the NY-22, but one race I hadn't been paying that much attention to was for the Utah seat currently held by Mia Love. Love is behind her opponent, Ben McAdams, by around 900 votes or so after the latest count.  In addition to her fame as the first female black Republican ever elected to Congress, she's also known for the special recognition she got from the president the day after the midterms.

Speaking about Republicans who failed to properly embrace him, Trump said

On the other hand, yo had some that decided to "let's stay away." "Let's stay away." They did very poorly, I'm not sure that I should be happy  or sad, but I feel just fine about it.

Carlos Curbelo; Mike Coffman -- too bad, Mike: Mia Love. I saw Mia Love. She'd call me all the time to help her with a hostage situation. Being held hostage in Venezuela. But Mia Love gave me no long, and she lost. Too bad. Mia. 

If the ballot counting ends up going in her favor, I wonder what Trump will say then?  Anyone else willing to bet he'll take the credit?

Finally, there's a whole lot of wondering going on about the Amazon 2HQ2 announcement, not the least of which is why a trillion dollar company needs to get a couple of billion bucks in economic development deals and job credits and incentives from NY and Virginia taxpayers for the privilege of having them locate their new digs in Long Island City and Crystal City, respectively.

I think, from the outside looking in, one could be forgiven for wondering if we've lost our ever-loving minds.

Sunday School 11/11/18

Just one classroom this morning, CNN'S State of the Union with Jake Tapper, who declared us to be in a state of 'honoring our veterans.'

On the show today, among other guests, was Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who made it clear he thought the Democrats won the midterms, even though they didn't take the Senate. It was "a great victory for Democrats" he said. And, he added,

For Donald Trump to claim, because he won a Senate race in North Dakota or Indiana or Missouri, states he won by 19, 19 and 36 percent, that shows how weak - I would be very worried if I were Donald Trump and the Republicans about the 2020 elections, if all they can claim is they won in North Dakota.

And, in response to a question about Trump's messaging, and the Kavanaugh hearings, and border security, and Schumer actually said

Well, the bottom line is, the Kavanaugh dispute, I think, helped us more than it hurt us. It's one of the reasons we won the house so decisively. It's one of the reasons we won governorships in so many other states, because suburban voters who are traditionally Republican came to our side. And if the coalition can add suburban voters to it and continue to focus on issues like health care which matter to working-class Americans throughout the country, we're going to win. I think the president lost more votes because of the Kavanaugh issue than he gained throughout the country.

Next, the conversation turned to Florida, and ballot-counting, particularly in Broward County. Schumer's position is that the Rs, including the president, are afraid if all votes are counted the Dems will win.. And while allegations of fraud are flying around, nothing has been proven. He also called for Rick Scott to recuse himself from anything having to do with counting or recounting, since he himself is a party in the events unfolding. Heck, even Brian Kemp recused himself in Georgia.

On protecting Mueller, Schumer said Dems will try get some legislation passed that keeps Whitaker out of it, if he doesn't recuse himself first. Tapper pointed out that Mitch McConnell is on record as saying no legislation is needed, and wondered if the Dems would go so far as to shut down the government.

Look I believe - there will be enough of our Republican colleagues who will join us. There's no reason we shouldn't add this to avoid a constitutional crisis. And so that is our position. If it doesn't happen, we will see what happens down the road. 

They also talked about the legitimacy of the Whitaker appointment; Schumer thinks the lack of advice and consent from the Senate means that he can't serve. Tapper remained skeptical, but Schumer was sure the courts were on his side. He also said protecting Mueller was more important than impeaching Trump.

On healthcare, Schumer says he hasn't signed on with Medicare for All because there are lots of ideas on how to improve healthcare, and that they'll unite on one of them as things move forward. He refused to pick one over another. He also told Tapper the Dems have lots of strong candidates heading into 2020.

My basic philosophy right now is, let 1,000 flowers bloom. Let's get a lot of people out there. The political process, it's a little like sports. It's almost mystical. You never know who's going to emerge on top. And so having candidates out there of various views, all united in the need to change the course of how the presidency is conducted and how we help the middle class, people aspiring to be in the middle class in a much better way the the Republicans have, I think Democrats at the end of the day will be united, will be united on a candidate who can best defeat Trump.

Tapper also talked to Jerry Nadler, who is poised to become the next chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Tapper asked him to describe the first three things he'd do. We didn't get to all three because there was lots of talk about impeachment.

Nadler did say that the first thing they'd do was protect Mueller. He also said that the first person Judiciary Committee would talk to, either by summon or subpoena if necessary, was Mark Whitaker to question him about whether or not he'd interfere in the Mueller investigation.

On impeachment of the president, Nadler's main point was "not yet" but that didn't mean never, and that the report from the Wall Street Journal about Trump's involvement in the payouts to the porn star and the Playboy bunny could rise to the level of an impeachable offense, but that doesn't mean that impeachment would be the outcome. He also said that he was not planning on impeaching Justice Kavanaugh, no matter what that conservative reported said she overheard him say in a private conversation.

On impeachment and Nadler's statements that it couldn't be a partisan thing, Tapper pointed out that recent polling shows 77% of Dems favor impeachment but only 5% of Republicans do, which is clearly a partisan divide. He wondered if that as a concern to Nadler.

Not really, because, as I said, we're far from that. If we get to the question of impeachment, then one of the tests should be - and I have said this repeatedly - is the evidence so strong of misdeeds so terrible that you really believe at the beginning of the process that, by the end of the process, when all this is laid out publicly, a very large fraction of the people who voted for the president will grudgingly acknowledge to themselves and to others that you had no choice but to impeach the president?

That's the test, Nadler said, and he admitted

we're far from it. Well, I see lots of potentials, but we don't know. That's why we're waiting to see what the Special Counsel finds...  I certainly hope that we will not find the necessity for an impeachment. But you can't rule that out. 

On that note we'll wrap this up.

See you around campus.

TGIF 11/9/18

Most of the midterm elections have been decided, but there are a few key races still unsettled, including some US Senate seats, governors and some House races.

The fact that votes are still being counted is a good thing, compared to the alternative: legitimately cast ballots being cast aside for some self-serving process. That appears to be the hope of some in the GOP, but it's hardly the American way.

They all need to keep counting - the world isn't going to come to an end if we don't know who's going to be the senator from Florida or Arizona, and it's not going to come to an end if we don't know who's going to be the Governor of Georgia.

The best thing, I think everyone agrees, is that the political ads are now a thing of the past. We've been waiting for these days since August. Now, the signs? Yeah, that'll take a little longer. I'm thinking there should be a timeframe for getting those out of the way and recycled, what do you think? By the time the last vote is counted?

The president has left the country, off to France to join others in Armistice Day celebrations, commenting that

It should be a very beautiful period of time, the 100th anniversary of the ending of World War I. We have many countries - the leadership of many countries will be there, especially since they heard the United States will be there. And we look forward to that.

Sigh.

You may recall the alternative was that he'd be here, having a tens-of-millions-of-dollars parade, ostensibly to celebrate our veterans, but perhaps more to get a sense of what it would be like if "his people" gave him the same level of respect that Kim Jong Un gets from his people. Sure, it was a sarcastic remark... right?

Trump also said he didn't know Matt Whitaker, the man he just appointed as acting Attorney General (Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III was ordered to resign, of course) which appears to be a lie, and that the video of CNN's James Acosta allegedly placing his hands on an intern was not doctored, which also appears to be a lie.

It also seems that he may have been more involved in the payoffs to the porn star and the Playboy bunny than he has maintained, which could mean he has committed at least a tiny bit of campaign finance shenanigans. And that's the Wall Street Journal bringing us this news, not CNN or MSNBC.

For his part, Whitaker comes off like a hot mess: comments about the courts, about the Mueller investigation including that there was no collusion; his involvement with a shady company... all great qualifications, right?

 There are bipartisan calls for protecting the investigation, but Mitch "I'm only here to pack the courts" McConnell is not interested in that. It will be interesting to see if that ew spirit of bipartisanship we've had for the past two or three days will still be noticeable by this time next week. My hope is yes, my fear is no.

TGIF.

OrangeVerse XXXVI: Midterms (1)

The president had himself a little press conference Wednesday. It was 90 minutes or so o pure joy, or pure hell, or something purely in between. It's going to take a while to get through it, so bear with me. 

Here's an example; seems like an easy question: What's your message to suburban women voters? 

Well, Ex-cuse Me!

Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me.

A fantastic man who was down

on the polls And everybody was

talking about this person that

was so great. 

And I went up there and

I did a rally and

 they have now a 

great governor - you're

going to have a great governor 

in Ohio for hopefully

a long period of time. 

But for four years. And

Mike DeWine is a fantastic person.

Um, the question was, "What's your message to suburban women voters?"  

Why Did I Do It?

And I went up there for two reasons:

because I felt that his

opposition was not a good person - 

and we know a lot about him - 

and I felt that Mike

was a fantastic person.

And he won.

And not only 

did he win

he won easily.

What. Is. Your. Message. To. Suburban. Women. Voters?

I'm Not Opposed to Addition

So add that

to Florida, and add that

to Georgia and add that

to all of the other races

we won - outside even of the

Senate races which were the

biggest of all. Because

these were races

that - and Mike Pence

can tell you, and 

some folks over here can tell you - 

there were races that 

were going to be unopposed.

We were not going to oppose

certain of the people running - 

certain Senators. 

They said they couldn't 

be beaten. They said Heidi

couldn't be beaten. 

"Please don't do it."

Please don't do it. 

Wondering on Wednesday (v153)

I wondering, right off the bat, how anyone could have been unmoved by the president's press conference today, in which he mocked Republicans who didn't win their races, took credit for 'resigning' Jeff Flake, attacked the press, refused to answer questions he was asked, answered questions he wasn't asked, pretended that he was concerned about the environment, suggested that he would work in a bipartisan fashion with Nancy Pelosi, threatened to retaliate against any investigations initiated by the House, lied about why he still is not releasing his tax returns, and more. Transcript is here; video is here.

And I'm wondering how many people watched Nancy Pelosi's presser? For her part, she suggested they'd not investigate the president unless there was a reason, offered to work with the Rs, and so on - - what you would expect her to say. She also said she was the best person to be House Speaker.  And it seems she'll keep her leadership role. In addition to Pelosi, who's 78, Steny Hoyer, who's 79, and Jim Clyburn, also 78, want to remain in the top leadership roles. To which I can only sigh.

Pelosi can probably only sigh as well, as there's no question she was kicked out of the news cycle by the forced resignation of Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III. That saddens me, the Sessions ouster. He managed to hold on for so long. At least he wasn't dragged out of town to be fired, a la Reince Priebus. I wonder if the first thing he's going to do is go to Disneyland?

I'm also wondering about Chris Collins out in Western NY (or, as Brian Williams allegedly said, the northern tier of upstate NY).  You remember Collins, right? Multiple ethics investigations: a federal indictment for insider trading: tried to get off the ballot, couldn't, and yes - he won.  Well, I should say, he's projected to be the winner. He's up by around 2800 votes, so we'll have to see if there'll be a fight from his opponent. If he wins, does he show up to work with his former colleagues? Or does he fake a pulled muscle or something, I wonder?

And then there's the dead brothel owner who was elected to the State Assembly in Nevada. Dennis Hof, who was a Trump-ish candidate, won with around 68% of the vote. You can wonder away on this one all you want.

Here in New York, our Sonofa Gov won re-election handily; polls in the final days of the campaign showed Andrew Cuomo had only a 13% lead over Marc Molinaro, but in the end he won by over 20%. Three other candidates were also in the race, and in total got under 240K votes - but each had enough to keep their party on the ballot for the next four years.  I wonder what it will take for NYers to boldly go towards a different party, the Libertarians or Greens, or even the new one that just popped up on our radar this year, the Serve America Movement?

Not surprisingly, folks have looked at the electoral map for NY, which shows Cuomo won the cities - Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and NYC - plus Tompkins County (home of Ithaca, one of the most liberal cities in the country), Ulster County, and Long Island. Some are calling for  a new system, so that Cuomo wouldn't be the winner because he didn't win a majority of the counties...  For some, the fact that Cuomo has more than 1.3 million votes than Molinaro apparently is not enough - he has to win the geographical victory as well? I have to wonder about that logic.

How to wrap this all up?  Well, let's go with this: it's expected that by the time is all said and done, over 113 million people will have voted in the midterms. That's 49% of all eligibles. The obvious thing we can wonder is, will these folks stay engaged for the duration?  Will we continue to see women including women veterans and women of color, elected, or is this a one-and-done?  Will Dems leverage their victories from Tuesday into something that's sustainable?

We'll be wondering that at least through the 2020 election cycle, which starts now.

Election Day 2018

The Election Eve Post - 2018 Edition

It's that time again - the night before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. That means it's Election Eve, and time for me to do my darnedest to encourage you to vote.

This year has been the longest mid-term campaign season I can remember. The political ads started in August for my Congressional district, as well as the surrounding ones, which means during a half-hour of local news, we've been getting probably six minutes of lies and misstatements and misdirection from both sides of the political spectrum. And that doesn't count the Terrorism Update Desk and other right-leaning content from our Sinclair stations. I've let John Katko, my Congressman, know my thoughts on this; he won't listen, I'm sure, bit I feel better.

In my opinion, ads for the Republican incumbents have been much worse than for their Democratic challengers, which is a sad statement on their records, if you ask me. The president, vice president, White House press secretary, first daughter, first son and girlfriend, second son, and even NRA president Ollie North have been in our parts since the summer campaigning for the Congresswoman in the neighboring district. And she's a peach, Claudia Tenney is,having suggested more than once that her opponent would bring the Mafia around if he lost. 

The president, for his part, has dragged out every conceivable fear-inducing trope he can think of. Brown-skinned gangs? Check. Job-stealing brown people? Check. Drug-dealing brown people? Check. Free-loading brown people? Check. He did manage to talk about the economy and jobs, but mostly in relation to mobs - that is, #JobsnotMobs - and violence, because if the Dems get elected, mind you, there will be violence. A vote for a Republican - any Republican - is a vote for him he tells us. Good to know. 

Here in New York, we're facing a potentially horrible year for a once-popular governor; robocalls for people who lost major party primaries but still have lesser ballot lines, and one of our local districts may mean we end up with a unified government - Dems controlling the Assembly, Governor's Office and the State Senate - assuming the stars align and all. There's some scary stuff in there. 

What's it all mean? I'm voting, as I always do. And as I say every year, this is the most important thing any of us can do as citizens -- to have our say in choosing the people who are supposed to represent us. 

All elections are important; this one feels more so. Please, do your part. 

As I do every year, I offer the following motivation, in case you need it, with one addition, which you see in the picture of President Obama.

After some thought, “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”(1) Actually “The idea of an election is much more interesting to me than the election itself…the act of voting is in itself the defining moment.”(2) And why is it that “When the political columnists say ‘every thinking man’ they mean themselves, and when candidates appeal to ‘every intelligent voter’ they mean everyone who is going to vote for them”?(3) 

We know it’s true that “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who didn’t vote”(4), and that “A citizen of American will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won’t cross the street to vote in a national election.”(5) Do we still not realize, after all these years, that “lower voter participation is a silent threat to our democracy… it under-represents young people, the poor, the disabled, those with little education, minorities and you and me”? 6) 

After all, “the vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men” 7) and “to make democracy work, we must be a nation of participants, not just observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”(8) And complain we do, after every election, when the wrong guy wins. If only people who actually voted complained, it’d likely be a lot less noisy. 

Some folks may not vote because they don’t know how to pick the right person. There are a couple different schools of thought on that. On the one hand, some might think that “politics is the art of the possible” 9) while others may subscribe to the thinking that “politics is not the art of the possible, it consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable. And it is true that, the great thing about democracy is that it gives every voter the chance to do something stupid.”(10) 

Said another way, a “Vote (is) the instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.” 11) But that’s OK – “personally, I believe that our American system works as long as you participate in it. You must vote and make your voice heard; otherwise you will be left out.” 12) 

It’s generally true that if you “ask a man which way he’s going to vote and he’ll  probably tell you. Ask him, however, why – and vagueness is all.”(13) But voting’s really easy; and “all voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong.”(14) And just about everyone likes to play a game every now and then, right? 

The bottom line is, “voting is simply a way of determining which side is the stronger without putting it to the test of fighting;”(15) “voting is a civic sacrament;”(16) and “the future of this republic is in the hands of the American voter.”(17) If all of that seems like too much pressure, you have an out: “Vote for the man who promises least. He’ll be the least disappointing.”(18) 

Please, vote. It really does matter, this year and every year. If you need information on where to vote, or other assistance, visit Vote411.org or contact your local Board of Elections. 

(Thanks to these folks for their words of wisdom: 1 - Charles DeGaulle; 2 – Jeff Melvoin; 3 – Franklin P Adams; 4 and 13 – Andrew Lack; 5 - Bill Vaughan; 6 - Nancy Neuman; 7 - Lyndon B Johnson; 8 - Louis L’Amour; 9 – Otto Von Bismarck; 10 – Art Spander; 11 – Ambrose Bierce; 12 - Mari-Luci Jaramillo; 14 – Henry David Thoreau; 15 – H.L. Mencken; 16—Theodore Hesburgh; 17 – Dwight D. Eisenhower; 18 – Bernard Baruch)

Sunday School 11/4/18

One classroom and only one, I told myself this morning. It was totally random that I picked MTP with Chuck Todd; I honestly scribbled show names on scraps of paper, wadded them up and picked one.

After all, since this is the Sunday before Election Day, the shows were going to pretty much the same anyway - heck, they're pretty  much the same every Sunday, truth be told.

First up was Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who's the chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee; he was followed by Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam, chair of the Republican Governors Association.

Van Hollen was in charge of the DCCC in 2008, when the Dems picked up 21 seats in the House and 8 in the Senate, and in 2010 when they lost 63 seats in the House and another six in the Senate. He was asked to compare the atmosphere between 2010 and today.

There are big differences between the House and Senate seats in this cycle, Chuck because on the one hand you have kind of a wave, a blue wave, although how big it will be, we don't know. But then in the Senate races, we've got a lot of senators who are running in states that Donald Trump won. And for them, they've been very clear from the beginning that their number one job is to stand up for the people of their states. And if that means working with Donald Trump on something that helps their states, they will. If it means opposing him and Republicans, they will also do that, for example, on protecting people with pre-existing health conditions. So it's a very different, sort of, political battlefield in Senate races than House races. 

Interesting answer, there -- not because he didn't answer the question he was asked, really, but more because he actually came out and said that Democrats who are running in purple states are going to do what they're supposed to do, instead of doing what the party leadership says they're supposed to do.

Van Hollen spoke about the narrow path to a Senate majority (holding on to most of their current seats and picking up a few more), but the real issue is voter turnout, he said. Todd then described what he thought would be a good night would be winning one of the races in Missouri, Tennessee, Texas and North Dakota; they'd need two, he said, to even think about a majority. Both of them agreed that going 0-4 would be bad, with Van Hollen saying it wasn't going to happen.

Todd then turned to the Dem's approach, and asked whether it was better to do a Beto O'Rourke in Texas and go so far as to mention impeaching Trump, or to take the Phil Bredesen approach in Tennessee, who's running almost as a label-free centrist. 

Well, Chuck it tells you that the quality of the candidate is really important and their ability to communicate on issues that people in their states care about. And we have candidates in both Texas and Tennessee who are doing exactly that...

It was at this point that Todd asked the question I thought he would have earlier, about Dems running on the promise to be their own person, not a party person,and whether the Dems need new leadership.

Well, those members running, I'm sure, will fulfill their commitments but that doesn't mean that we don't have a strong leadership team in the United States Senate. Look, this is an example of what I as talking about earlier, that what voters want are senators whose number on job is to stick up for their states. And sometimes that means working with their party leadership, sometimes that means working in the opposite direction. But that's very different than, you know, Republican candidates who are simply rubber-stamp Trump supporters...

Haslam was next, asked to define what a good night would be for the Republicans, given there are 36 gubernatorial races up for grabs this year, which is a lot compared to other presidential mid-term years. 10 are shown as toss-ups.

...we feel good about the position we're in but we're not blind to the fact that a president's first midterm when we have this many seats up... that's why at RGA we've worked hard, we've raised a record amount of money this cycle. And we're making certain we're putting all that money to good use here in the last three weeks of the campaign.

Todd honed in on the Midwest as an area where the Rs could be in trouble, that it was possible all of the states touching a Great Lake could have a Democratic governor.  He wondered what it would take to prevent that. Haslam thought that Scott Walker will hang on in Wisconsin, but that Michigan was an uphill battle.

Wisconsin and Michigan are important, you remember, because those are two of the states that Trump won by next to nothing when, honestly, Hillary Clinton thought they were in the bag.

I'm going to give the last word to Tom Brokaw, who was on the panel today.

Well, one of the things that troubles me a lot is when I think of the projected results of this election, we'll end up again with a pudding without a theme. We're going to have Democrats, probably, in the House on the upside. I think the Senate will probably stay the same. And we're just going to have to muddle through for the next two years. 

The country is still going to be deeply, deeply divided.  

But remember - we can fix that. 

See you around campus. 

TGIF 11/2/18

Regular readers may have noticed a dearth of posts lately. For that -  and my hopeless writer's block - I apologize. Actually, I hope I still have some regular readers, to be honest, but I digress.

What's been causing my block, you ask?  This - or maybe 'these' is the better word: the election, the ads, the money, the voter suppression; the president and his rallies and his tweets;the shootings, the pipe bombs, the racism, the hatred; false equivalence without challenge over and over and over; tribalism and labels

There's probably more -- there's always more, right? But those bullets there on the page have tormented me. Not because I don't have thoughts on all of that - I have thoughts in spades. No, the torment is tied to articulating those thoughts. How does one talk about  these things, these divisive and sometimes horrible things, without adding to the divisiveness?

And to what point does one talk about it, anyway?

We're told, over and over, that putting thoughts into words into keystrokes into posts is a somewhat futile effort; if I had a nickel for every time someone said (a) "no one is going to change their minds because of a blog post" or (b) "I'm totally ignoring anything having to do with politics" or (c) "I'm so sick of this I'm not even going to vote!" I could retire much more comfortably in two months and I wouldn't worry so much about that articulation thing.

And truth be told, if I had even a penny for every time I've sat down to write and instead looked at pretty pictures, kitten videos, or moody black and white images on Instagram, I'd be a one-percenter by now, I'm sure. I'd be hauling in my fair share of everything just like the rest of them do.

But those comments, that abc stuff up there, is monumentally frustrating, and my own delaying and distracting tactics infuriate me.

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore.

I'm going to post until I'm blue in the face, and I don't care. I'm going to rant and rave, and I don't care.

I'm going to rail against things I think are wrong, even if that means complaining about the president and what he's doing to America, and I don't care.

I'm going to cheer things that I think are right, and celebrate things that make me happy, and applaud things that bring joy, and I don't care whether anyone changes their mind or not.

It's a new month.  This writer's block nonsense is for the birds.

TGIF -- and I'll be back tomorrow. 

Ranting and Raving (v2): The 2018 Midterm Election

I've pretty much had it with the 2018 elections, on every imaginable front. I'm sick and tired of mud-slinging politicians who say nothing about their own positions but instead spend their entire time lying or purposefully obfuscating the record, story, purpose and positions of their opponent or, as happens here almost daily, asking bizarre questions on social media calling out their opponent for something about which the questioner reveals nothing about his own position. "Look at her! Look at her! Don't look at me!" I'm sick and tired of out-of-district money interfering in what happens in my district and directing who gets elected to represent me. Washington insiders are not NY-24 constituents, and they don't have a clue what's important to me. Neither does my current congressman, because he won't have a town hall meeting if his life depended on it - and it doesn't (see above reference to outside money screwing up my representation). Yeah, this guy? He's brave, oh boy is he brave. We find out about his 'biker town hall' when he posts the pictures. We find out about his 'diner town hall' when he posts the pictures. His breakfast-eating far-western-part of the district constituents found out about it when they saw the handwritten notes taped on their diner door: "Joe Blow here Sat. 8AM." We find out about his visits to carefully chosen companies when he posts the pictures. We see he's in town when he posts the pictures of endorsements he receives. Other than that? Yeah, no. He's not interested in hearing from us unless we're on record as being interested in him. He's from the other party, and I've voted for him twice - but never again. I'm sick and tired of the face, name and policies of Donald Trump being the most important thing in every race in the country. For example, in the race for Attorney General... You want to be NY AG? Tell me what you're going to do for me not what you're going to do to him. You want to take on Trump? Fine - run for Senate or Congress. Maybe I'll vote for you then. (Likely not, but whatever). I'm sick and tired and tired and sick of the ads, which around here have been running since August, I kid you not. Since August. And I'm in a media overlap are, so we have NY-24, and we have NY-23 and we have NY-22 And you know what else I'm sick and tired of? People who refuse to identify themselves, their district, their party in their advertising. What are they afraid of?  "I'm Jane Doe and I'm running as the Democrat in the NY-22 - vote for me!"  Remember when that used to be par for the course?  Not any more. They're too afraid to even say what party they're in. SAD! SICK!! to quote a certain someone. And the lies. Outright, blatant, ridiculously unbelievable lies - I mean, there is no way anyone can believe three quarters of the stuff that appears in the ads, and yet... And yet -- there's no lack of interviews with people here, there and everywhere who completely and totally parrot the lies they see and hear, and you can tell they believe with all their heart what they're saying, a COMPLETE AND TOTAL ENDORSEMENT of the lies in the ads, the lies that come from the candidates directly, the lies that come from incumbents and challengers of both parties - on both sides - and of course from the current resident of the Oval Office, because he lies like the proverbial rug, in spades. I'm tired. I'm low energy. And we still have two weeks to go.

Wondering on Wednesday (v142)

Let's dive right in, shall we?

Kris Kobach, the Trump-loving election fraud conspiracy theorist and Kansas Secretary of State is in a primary with Republican incumbent governor Jeff Colyer for the right to face a challenger in November. Currently, Kobach has about a 190 vote lead over his opponent.  There are still absentee and provisional ballots to be counted but if it remains close and Colyer asks for a recount he'd have to make the request of, and pay a bond to, his opponent, because the Secretary of State is the chief election official. 

When the topic arose about Kobach recusing himself from the recount process, his answer should surprise no one. Check it out:

The recount thing is done on a county level, so the secretary of state does not actually participate in the recount. The secretary of  state's office merely serves as a coordinating entity overseeing it all but not actually counting the votes.

Now, a logical or ethical or reasonable person might wonder why on earth Kobach wouldn't recuse himself, but then one can simply remember that, as noted above, he's a Trump-loving election fraud conspiracy theorist and the best way to prevent any kind of election fraud and to ensure an accurate count is to serve as the coordinating entity overseeing a recount IN YOUR OWN RACE, right? And I wonder if anyone else sees a warning in the statement below?

If the margin it less than 10 votes or something extraordinarily close, I would expect any person to call for a recount. (it) would take a significant amount of time to do a recount statewide. 

As in, don't bother asking for a recount unless it's really close, because you'll make a mess of things for the whole state.  And 10 votes? Is that really what Kobach considers a reasonable recount threshold?

Another noteworthy outcome from yesterday's primaries was the strong showing by "conventional" Democrats in primaries. For example, in Michigan, Gretchen Whitmer (governor) and Elissa Slotkin (House) both defeated more progressive candidates. In the gubernatorial primary, for example, progressive New Yorker Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders both campaigned for one of Whitmer's opponents, without success. There was a similar outcome in Missouri.

It makes me wonder whether we'll see another Ocasio-Cortez this election cycle, or if the progressives still have a lot of work to do to find common ground with others in the party.

And finally, a opportunity to comment on the media - who would have thunk that would happen?

Tonight I happened to capture the first few minutes of Access Hollywood (yes, that Access Hollywood) where one of the hot topics was the ugly and getting uglier legal battles between Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt. Details of the ugliness were given, but I'm not going to repeat them here.

After talking about how people who are going through a breakup or divorce "must love their kids more than they hate their former partner" and focus on keeping things as civil as possible, the hosts lamented that this whole sorry death of a relationship was being played out in the media, on purpose it seems, by both camps, and how that was the completely wrong way to do it.

And then, they continued to discuss it, including the possibility that the Jolie camp was trying to slow things down, but that, according to one of the hosts who "had done some reporting on this" and talked to people close to Pitt, she learned that he was supposedly wanting to go straight to divorce without wasting any more time -- and then stated that he has to have a girlfriend and that was what was driving his haste.

I wonder, when they watch the tape of the show, if they'll see how silly their hand-wringing about media coverage sounds, and if they'll learn their own lesson and in the future commit to not mentioning this or similarly sensitive stories. Or whether they'll consider how it would feel if they were to find themselves on the wrong side of such a report. One can only hope.

The Real Thing We Have To Fear

I was reading a Cal Thomas column from back in May this morning; it's been sitting in my noodling file, the one that holds articles, cartoons, random scraps of paper and the like from which a post may arise.

In the column, tagged as The GOP's never-ending fear factor in my local paper, Thomas laments the Republicans' inability to function as Republicans when it comes to dealing with deficit spending and our debt. He uses Rand Paul's ill-fated balanced budget bill and the House barely holding together  to pass a plan by the Trump administration to cut a few bucks - $15B  of them -  from a variety of programs (to make up for the mess caused by the tax cuts and the massive spending plan that was Trump's budget after legislators got their hands on it).

Noting that some Congressional Republicans seemed more concerned with how it would look in the opposition's campaign ads during this election year, Thomas included a quote from Pennsylvania Rep. Ryan Costello:

I worry about the messaging the Democrats will be able to do off it. Those ads write themselves.

Thomas was scathing in response to that line of thinking.

Are Republicans so stupid they can't see it coming? Are they so inept that they can't devise a strategy to overcome the left's predictable tactics and put them on the defensive for their failed, expensive and unnecessary programs, along with their refusal to reform entitlements, the real driver of debt?

Now, I may disagree to some extent with Thomas on that part -- while we do need reform and we do need to work on our deficit and debt problems, we don't necessarily see eye to eye on how to do it. But the point he's making about the R's not having the courage of their convictions is something I've complained about before (here, here, here, and here, for example).

It's not something that's exclusive to Republicans, either. Much as I liked Barack Obama, he's a perfect example of not having courage to defend his positions, first and foremost with the Affordable Care Act. And there are many other examples, most of them less egregious than this one.

The other point Thomas makes, and makes quite well, is the whole question of whether our elected officials are in it for the principles, or for their own longevity.

If the only motivation for Republicans is the next election, and the one after that, ad infinitum, why have any Republicans in Congress at all?

Again, the same thing could be said about the other party:

If the only motivation for Democrats is the next election, and the one after that, ad infinitum, why have any Democrats in Congress at all? 

It's long past time we stopped allowing our elected officials of any stripe to stay in office forever, and long past time we let them get away with worrying more about their own futures instead of worrying about ours.

• Whenever a politician talks about not doing something because of how it would look, run.

• Whenever a politician tells you that re-electing them is important because you need them, run.

• Whenever a politician tells you that they need to get elected because only they can do XYZ, run.

• Whenever a politician talks about the what the other side is doing more than they talk about their own intentions, run.

Run as fast as you can, because the real thing we have to fear is not fear itself, it's politicians who don't have the courage of their convictions, and who are more interested in self-preservation than they are in us.

Poll Watch: A Dead Heat for Republicans

The last time we looked at a poll, we reviewed a CNN survey from late March, when it seemed that the president was doing a little better in the polls on the question of his job approval, but he was still viewed negatively on just about every question by every demographic other than Republicans and white men.

This time, let's look at some of the data from the Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll which was published earlier this month.  Here's the small print from the survey: 900 people were interviewed April 8- 11 405 who have only cell phones, 8 of whom were interviewed by cell but who also have a landline. What else do we need to know? Some demographics: most respondents were white (74%), most were non-Hispanic (88%), and most were registered voters (80%).  Got it? Oh - we may circle back around on this one, there are some embargoed questions that might be interesting.

The president's job approval on this poll is 39%, with 22% strongly approving and 17% somewhat approving. On the flip side, 13% somewhat disapprove, and 44% strongly disapprove. The numbers are the same as in the January survey, but the approval is down 4 points and the disapproval is up by the same number.

What else did we learn from this one?

• 45% of respondents are very interested in voting in the November election
• 47% of the registered voters prefer that we end up with a Democratic Congress, while 40% hope the Reps remain in control; 13% are unsure, an increase of 3 points since March, matched by the decrease in those hoping the Dems take control
• 40% want their vote to be a message that more Dems are needed to provide checks and balances on the president; 28% want the message to be we need more Reps to help Trump get his agenda through, and 29% want to send some other message

These numbers are not stacking up all that great for the Dems, but I do sort of understand them, particular the increase in the 'unsures' about whether a Democratically controlled Congress would be better, and the 6% decrease in sending a "we need more Dems" message. Many people, pundits and comics and ordinary folks like me, have wondered what the plan is for the Democratic party going forward.

So far, it seems to be 'flooding districts with money to not have a seat go to the Rs, or stay with the Rs' but that's not really a strategy. And, of course, the Democratic party is still saddled with the fox in sheep's clothing, the gentleman from Vermont, and his rabid followers who still insist that he would have beaten Trump in 2016. That wasn't helpful two years ago, and is not helpful now, either.

Another question related to Trump's indicted or guilty associates, and whether this is about these four people behaving badly, or if, since these people are in trouble, Trump must also be in trouble.

• 25% say this is just about the bad actors, down 3 points from December
• 37% say this is about Trump's potential wrongdoing, up 1 point 
• 36% say the are unsure, up 2 points from the December poll

Does this slight fluctuation really mean anything? Maybe, but what?  That people are growing tired of the investigations? That people can't tell, still, whether they think Trump has anything to worry about, or that he just surrounds himself with the wrong people? Or, does it have more to do with the success of Fox  News?

Of the people who say they voted in the 2015 Presidential election, 

• 21% voted for Trump because they liked him or his policies
• 16% voted for him because they didn't like Clinton or her policies
• 16% voted for Clinton because they didn't like Trump or his policies
• 20% voted for Clinton because they liked her or her policies
• 10% didn't vote

I think it would be hard to find a more evenly matched outcome, and I also think I really wish the 10% had voted.

And finally, the Republicans were asked whether they were supporters of the Republican party, or of Trump himself.  This one was a dead heat -- 46% support the party, 46% support the president.  And that is something the Rs will either deal with, or run from. 

I think I know which way that's going to end up, but we'll see.

OrangeVerse XXIX: Marking Time in Ohio

As you know, the president was on a campaign stop in Ohio at a small manufacturing firm. He was talking tax cuts, and bonuses and everything coming back.

And how do we know it was a campaign stop, not an official visit? It's all here, chapter and verse.

18-20-18-18

We've got to do

well in '18 and

I know we're going to

do great in '20. 

But I think we're going to

do well in '18. 

I think we're going to

do well in '18. 

I think we're going to

do very well. 

They have gone left.

They want to raise your taxes.

You know, 

I figure we're safe.

I'm a (stable) Genius
Historically when you win
the presidency --

you know the story. Just,

for whatever reason  it is --

and I think

I figured it out.

Nobody, really

has been able to 

explain it

properly.

I think

I figured it out -- 

the party wins the presidency.

And now the people are happy

and you see tax cuts,

in this case or whatever

that party is - 

but you see the big tax cuts, 

you see what we're doing

jobsarecomingback.

And the people that

voted for us become

complacent a little bit.

They're happy.

No Movies for You
And it's only two years - 

between '16 and '20

and so it's two years.

So it's a short time.

So the people are happy.

And they don't get out,

and they don't vote

like they should.

Maybe they go

to a move in '18. 

None of you

are going to a movie,

I hope.

Right?

Feel Like '18 Again
So what happens is

they sort of take it

for granted. They

sit back and then they

get clobbered because

the other people

are desperate and

they get out and

have more energy. 

But I think

because of what we've done

because of the tremendous 

success we've had,

I have a feeling

that we're going to do

incredibly well in '18.

And I have to say this:
History is not on our side. 

They Call The Wind the Midterms
But it's not because of that word complacency.

You win the presidency

and you take it easy and then they

come and surprise you

in the midterms.

They call them the midterms...

So that's what happened.

And that's what happens in midterms.

But we're not going to 

let it happen to us I mean it's -

traditionally, that's what goes on.
But we're going to be in there

fighting because we don't

want that tradition to go.

We want to have

 tremendous success... 

But we have to have, to have

tremendous - we have to have 

tremendous success.

And if we don't we're just foolish.

Don't Stop Believin'
We can't - I know we're going

to do great in '20 because by that time

see what happens is, 

if you did badly in '18

now you're all angry again

 and you're going - and now, '20 comes along.

But we want to do great

in '18 and we're going to do really well

in '20. That's when we go again

and we keep this 

great

journey

going.

Poll Watch: Good and Bad News for Democrats

I saw a couple of poll results cross my news feeds and thought I'd share. One seems to provide a bit of good news for the Democrats, but the second one is less promising.

Let's start with the bad news side of the ledger: according to a new NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll, the government shutdown was the fault of Democrats and president Trump, with the Dems having a slight lead in the blame category.

First, the small print: the poll was conducted online January 20 - 22, 2018 from a national sample of 3450 adults, who were selected from the 3,000,000 or so people who take SurveyMonkey surveys daily. The error rate is plus or minus 2.2%.

OK, so that's out of the way - who is more to  blame for the government shutdown?

• 4% don't know
• 18% said Republicans in Congress
• 38% of respondents said president Trump, and
• 39% said Democrats in Congress

That's not a good thing for the Democrats; I've already stated my distaste for it. A huge majority - 81% - said that threatening a shutdown to achieve policy goals is unacceptable, whether it's the president or members of Congress behind the ploy.

Other insights from this poll?

• 60% of respondents think the country is headed in the wrong direction; the same percentage think that Trump did not show strong leadership during the shutdown.
• 79% think it's more important to compromise to find solutions
• 47% strongly disapprove and another 11% somewhat disapprove of the way the president handles his job

In an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken via land line and cell phones January 15 - 18, 2018 (in English and Spanish) of 1005 adults and 846 registered voters (31% Democrats, 23% Republicans and 40% independents), things seem pretty positive for the Dems when it comes to the upcoming mid-term election.

• 51% of registered voters would support the Democrat over the Republican in their district
• 54% of registered voters who are certain to vote support the Democrat 
• 54% of registered voters who are certain to vote who were old enough to vote in the last midterm - and did so - support the Democrat

That's a 6% swing from the Rs to the Ds among likely voters since November.

What else did we learn here?

• Non-whites overwhelming favor the Democrat (74% - 15%); up 27% since November
• Women support the Democrat (64% to 29%); in November, it was 55% - 40%.
• Men still favor the Republican, 51% to 42%, consistent with November
• Independents continue to favor the Democrat (51% to 37%), unchanged from the prior poll

Finally, and unsurprisingly, Trump supporters back the Republican in their district 90% - 6%, where Trump detractors favor the Democrat 88% - 6%. 

What does this all mean? I have no idea, really, and I'm not sure the pollsters do either - but there are a couple of milestones on the horizon, and it would be interesting to see how things look then. 

The first is when the promised raises from the tax reform bill go into effect. That's likely to hit everyone by mid-February, we're told.  The second? What happens in the next sixteen days before the short-term continuing resolution to fund the government is set to expire.