Category: Uncategorized

Hey, I bet Cyrus the Great had lots of really hot mistresses, too!  It just proved he was a winner!

I don’t pretend to know what Mueller is thinking and what he has.  However, it certainly appears from the widening of the scope of the investigation that the complete exoneration to which Trump thinks he is entitled is an unlikely outcome.  At best, Mueller may find that there is plenty of smoke, but not enough proof of a fire; at worst, he may determine that Trump committed an indictable offense.

In my view, it is more likely than not that Trump will take the necessary steps to fire him in the fairly near future.  Sure, there will be an uproar, and comparisons to the Saturday Night Massacre.  That said, he knows that the base supports him and considers the investigation a witch hunt, and that the GOP Congress is far too afraid of the base to impeach him.  Furthermore, the public can easily be distracted by North Korea, or Iran, or the latest outrage in the culture wars.   From his perspective, therefore, the benefits of putting an end to the investigation probably outweigh the risks.

I opposed the Iraq War from the beginning on pragmatic grounds.  It was my opinion that any attempt to impose democratic values on Iraq was bound to be a bloody failure, and that the ultimate beneficiary of the war would be Iran, which would no longer be checked by Saddam.  I was right on both counts.

Today, a few people view the war as a noble experiment executed poorly, while some call it a crime.  My questions for today are:

1.  Is Iraq better off as a result of the war?
2.  Is the US better off as a result of the war?
3.  Is the whole world better off as a result of the war?

My responses are as follows:

1.  If you’re an Iraqi, it depends on who you are.  If you’re a Shiite, and you didn’t lose any friends or family members, you are probably better off today than you were under Saddam.  Otherwise, you aren’t.  How this adds up numerically, I have no idea.
2.  The US is unquestionably worse off as a result of the war.  We lost thousands of troops, a huge sum of money, and a lot of credibility making the world a better place for Iran.
3.  The Middle East is more unstable as a result of the war.  IS would not have come into being without the war.  Democratic values were discredited.  The world is worse off as a result.

In short, the war was a dreadful blunder, and we will be living with its consequences for decades to come.

#16 seeds have a chance in the US, but not in Russia.  Oh, well;  the voters may be poor, but they can eat Ukraine.

The relationship between Trump and Fox News appears to be getting stronger with each passing day.  Trump has just hired a Fox talking head with a history of making extraordinary poor predictioons to be his leading economic voice.  John Bolton may follow as the head of the NSC if his mustache doesn’t get in the way. Independent commentators have found a direct correlation between the matters discussed on “Fox and Friends” and Trump’s tweets. “Executive time” appears to be increasing.  And so on.

Such a close relationship between a TV network and a president is unprecedented, to my knowledge.  What does it mean for the country?

Nothing good.  People who appear frequently on TV are usually experts on TV–nothing more.  They are typically put on the air because they attract ratings, not because they have any great expertise in anything.  For Fox News, the more the commentators trigger liberals, the more they please the base, and the better ratings the network gets. For Trump, that may be emotionally satisfying, but it is not a governing philosophy, and it certainly doesn’t do anything to bring the country together.

Imagine that you are Donald Trump.  You are desperate for something you can arguably call a “win” with North Korea.  However, it has become completely clear that nothing short of an all-out war will stop the North Korean nuclear program, and you have decided that the costs and risks of such a war outweigh the benefits.  What do you do?

Make a virtue out of necessity.  Meet with Kim, agree to a deal that accepts the North Korean nuclear program with only cosmetic concessions from Kim, and call it a “victory.”

The world will rejoice.  You may even win a Nobel Peace Prize.  A few disgruntled right-wingers will complain, but the rest of your followers will fall in line, as they always do.  Hey, it worked with Putin–why not with Kim?

In spite of Trump’s “fire and fury” rhetoric, don’t be shocked if this really happens, since he loves to be dramatic and unpredictable and doesn’t appear to have a strong emotional investment in the issue.  It would strengthen his hand domestically and clear the decks for the war he really wants:  the one with Iran.

It seems silly to say that Trump is remaking his cabinet in his own image; after all, he appointed the original one.  That said, it is obvious that he didn’t really expect to win the election, and had no plan for what would happen next, so his original cast of advisers to some extent reflected the recommendations of others. Now, after a year in office, he thinks he knows how to do the job, and he wants to get rid of his minders.

The new cast of characters will have the following characteristics:  good on TV; fun to be around; and completely loyal.  Intelligence and competence will be unnecessary; after all, we have his infinite wisdom to rely on.

The Senate obviously has a role to play in this.  Will GOP senators insist that Trump appoint qualified people?  Don’t bet on it.

After the Salisbury attack, Sanders expressed the administration’s support for the UK, but pointedly refused to name the Russians as the culprits even after Theresa May had done so in public.  What did that mean?

Sanders, like other members of the administration, has learned that Trump can change positions on a dime.  She also knows that Trump, for reasons best known to him, is always reluctant to blame the Russians for anything.  As a result, she didn’t want to embarrass herself by saying something completely obvious that Trump might contradict ten minutes later.  She left his options open.

That’s probably what we will see from this point forward.  No one is going to say anything unequivocal about anything, because they know if you wait long enough, Trump will change his mind.  And so, the rest of us will have to watch and wonder, which undoubtedly is just the way the man on golf cart wants it, because it makes him the center of attention.

The factions are deeply split on the individualism/communitarianism issue:

CLs:  There is no such thing as society.

PBPs:  I built this!

CDs:  Society is a pact of the dead, the living, and the unborn.

Reactionaries:  The whole point of government is to impose traditional values by force.

This generally results in the communitarians getting their way on social issues, and the CLs and PBPs on economic issues.  With the Democrats, it goes the other way.

Donald Trump claims to love working men, and a lot of them seem to love him back.  His swagger and his protectionism are big selling points with Reactionary white workers.  On the other hand, he and his party have done their best since time immemorial to dismantle unions, and union membership is a big part of the culture in parts of the Rust Belt that propelled him to the presidency.

Trump’s ostentatious embrace of plutocrats, and their union-busting agenda, is a big point of vulnerability in 2020.  It would be political malpractice not to take advantage of it.

Oh, and by the way, it shouldn’t have escaped your attention that the only national figure from whom Conor Lamb requested assistance was Joe Biden.

On the one hand, Gina Haspel is unquestionably tough, smart, and experienced. Her paper credentials to run the CIA are unassailable.  On the other hand, it is undisputed that she personally participated in egregious acts of torture during the Bush years.  That’s a big problem.

When she is asked about this during her confirmation hearings, how will she respond?  I don’t see any good answers:

1.  If she defends the program, she’s automatically disqualified;
2.  If she says she was following orders, why would we believe she wouldn’t do it again, since her boss openly supports torture?
3.  If she gives herself a pass by saying the times were exceptionally difficult, how do we know we won’t see more difficult times during her tenure as CIA head?
4.  If she says she, and the CIA, have learned from the experience and won’t do it again, why should we believe that, and how will Trump react?

Appointing a torturer sends exactly the wrong message to the rest of the world. There has to be someone equally qualified who doesn’t have that stain on his resume.

She should not be confirmed.

Only Trump would hire an economist who has been wrong about everything over the last decade, and who disagrees with him on tariffs, because he’s good on TV.

By virtually any standard, Rex Tillerson was a terrible Secretary of State.  That said, he isn’t stupid or crazy, and he probably exercised some small degree of restraint on a president who needs all the restraint he can get.  Now, that will be gone, and Trump will have yet another hawkish enabler at his side when he makes decisions on war and peace.

I satirically promoted Ivanka for Secretary of State in 2016 on the ground that she could understand and spin her father better than anyone alive.  That wouldn’t look too bad right now, would it?

 

 

You could (and I did) write off Alabama as a result driven by a uniquely bad candidate.  In Pennsylvania, however, the GOP threw everything it had, including steel tariffs, to support a decent (if uninspiring) candidate, and seems to have lost, anyway.

It would appear that, barring a successful military adventure or culture war crisis, we are looking at a wave election, particularly when you consider that the economy could only be worse in November than it is today. Individual GOP candidates will consequently be faced with a choice:  run towards or away from Trump.  Some will choose one, some the other, but I think most will reach the conclusion that Trump’s shadow is inescapable, and double down on him.

For their part, the Democrats seem to have found success by refusing to sweat the ideological details and talking up labor issues.  I will have more to say on that point tomorrow.

On the ex-diplomat they call Rex.

He’s glad to be gone, one suspects.

Trump fired him today

In the usual way.

Now a CIA guy is up next.