Legitimate Political Discourse

 

Stop shouting. I can barely hear myself think

People died, were injured, and/or were terrorized by all that “talking” that Republicans are now calling legitimate political discourse. Yelling “fire” in a movie theater is still wrong and not protected by the first amendment, but something that can get you killed is legitimate political discourse.

Can we now use the word deplorable to describe those who defecated on the floors and walls of the Capitol? For those who don’t like reading about sh*t in their morning newspaper, how would you feel about walking into your office tomorrow and finding sh*t on your desk next to your nameplate?

How does “Hang Mike Pence” even begin to equate with legitimate political discourse like “I don’t think I can vote for that?” Don’t even try to write it off by declaring “Democrats say nasty things, too.” Trump blew that defense out of the water by declaring there were good and bad people on both sides in Charlottesville. Nazis? White supremacists? Good people?

How does “We have to fight like hell” not be a call for violence when the resulting action becomes a violent, no-holds-barred, inflict-as-much-pain-as-possible insurrection?

Republican leaders continue to defend the big lie. They think the only good Americans are Republicans in good standing. What should we expect from a party always demanding loyalty oaths?

Trump, who speaks for all Republicans—at least the good ones (sorry Pence), call Democrats un-American traitors? No Republican said this was wrong. Even “Some Democrats are un-American traitors, and some are not,” would have been a step in the right direction.

Republicans continue to defend the “big lie” because they are, and have been for some time, big liars, tying themselves up in knots trying to explain their behavior. They stand by a man who says, “…if we don’t stand up and fight, we will lose our country,” when this same man is literally destroying our country.

How deplorable must a Republican leader be to cower to this immature coward? How deplorable must voters be to support these leaders?  

Ask someone who says, “I’d rather die than get vaccinated.”

...I will support and defend the Constitution...

I am watching the Trump Impeachment hearings with interest. I watched the events unveil on January 6, and concluded that day, because I had been paying attention for the last four years, that President Trump was obviously responsible for inciting the insurrection. He has spent his entire personal life courting conflict, and devoted his one-year campaign and four-year presidency to provoking, condoning and relishing in violence. Trump is not a difficult man to understand.

At the same time, the big question surrounding his impeachment seems to revolve around what Republicans will do. Actually, this isn’t the big question. The big question is why won’t Republicans do the right thing—and again, the answer appears obvious.

No attempt has been made to hide this fact that Republicans are expected to vote for acquittal because they fear political retaliation from Trump supporters, should they do the right thing and stand up to Trump by condemning the January 6 insurrection. This apparently outweighs the fear the rest of us have of the damage their dereliction to duty will do to our democracy should they give Trump a pass.

I think House managers are doing an excellent job—an effort, we are told, which is being missed by many Republican senators who are behaving childishly, as Trump has often been accused himself, by refusing to pay attention.

Overall, I think most senators are paying attention. As with Trump’s election in 2016, setting a low bar is oftentimes what we do best in this country.

One thing does bother me about the hearings, and I don’t know if changes will be made down the road. I hope so, but fearful they won’t.

Despite the fact that most Republicans appear to have made up their minds to acquit, House managers are proceeding as if they are dealing with impartial jurors, who will ultimately do the right thing.

The nation can count on fifty Democratic senators voting to convict, not because they are biased, un-American traitors as the ex-president suggests, but because they were at the Capitol on January 6, witnessed the violence, and don’t need to be told what an insurrection looks like, or who provoked it.

This impeachment is all about convincing 50 Republicans that what they saw really happened, and that they must do the right thing so that it never happens again. Republicans would have us believe that now is the time to come together and respect President Biden’s call for unity, and question whether Congress can work as a unified branch if Democrats insist on going forward with, not one, but now the second impeachment of Donald Trump.

Democrats, despite their desire to work with Republicans, know they are taking this unprecedented action because Donald Trump has not once, but twice, committed impeachable offences. Democrats are not the villains. Donald Trump is the villain.

Neither are Democrats the jurors everyone is questioning whether they will do their duty.  

House managers should stop addressing the Senate as a whole and start aiming their case directly at the Republicans. This cannot be another, “there were good people on both sides,” or “no harm, no foul.” When the argument is between right and wrong, justice can only be on one side.

There was real harm done on January 6, physical harm and psychological harm, and our democracy was threatened, and continues to be threatened.

Whether this crime is punished rests not with the Senate, but with Republican senators, and House managers need to stop ignoring the elephant—pun intended— in the room, and forcefully and unequivocally address their case to the only people in the room that matter.

It is not a question of, can we allow the president’s actions to go unpunished, but can you, Republican senators, allow the president’s actions to go unpunished.

It is not a question of, can we honor the oath we took and stand up for democracy, but rather, can you, Republican senators, stand up and protect democracy.

It is not a question of, can we muster the courage to stand up to Donald Trump and say no, no more, enough, but rather can you, Republican senators, stand up, finally, and say no, no more, enough.

No effort has been spared to point out that impeachment is not a trial. That is not to say a trial isn’t taking place. Make no mistake; the Republican Party is being put on trial—the trial of public opinion, which I would remind them is where election are won and lost.

There can be no doubt how history will look upon this impeachment effort, and at the behavior of Senate Republicans. History is full of accounts of heroic individuals standing up for what they believed to be right, as well as cowards who for political expediency did what they knew to be wrong.

The senators should be aware of this, but for those that aren’t, House managers should make the case, so that there can be no doubt, that this impeachment will not be decided by the Senate. The decision to convict will be determined by Republican senators, and history will hold them accountable, and the accountability in question might very well be, who was responsible for the fall of democracy in America.

  

ThemVersUs

Historically, the roles of the Republican and Democratic parties seem to hinge on blaming the other party for everything that goes wrong and taking credit for everything that goes right—and staying as far away as possible from working together to find real solutions to real problems.

This is harsh, but justified criticism for two groups that somehow manage to bilk American citizens out of millions, billions, and soon to be trillions of dollars every election cycle. For what? Balloons, yard signs and annoying and harmful 30-second divisive, fear-mongering ads.

The one thing both parties can ever seem to agree on is American Exceptionalism, not because they have done exceptional things, but rather because they believe the American people have done exceptional things, and the parties aren’t above taking credit for what the people have done.

In reality, the only exceptional thing we have done was when 56 men assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 to create a government, which had probably been imagined but never before seen. Everything after that—the Civil War, the land grabs, racism, labor struggles, self-interest infighting and deceit has been more or less standard fare.

As human beings, Americans haven’t behaved much differently than the ancient Persians or Egyptians, the feudal societies of the Middle Ages, the Conquistadors of imperial Spain, or the European opportunists who divided Africa up in the late 19^th century. A basic flaw in humanity has defined our behavior from the earliest days of the Stone Age right through to the Space Age we now live in. Again, instances of exceptionalism such as what occurred in Philadelphia in 1887 have been rare.

This flaw in the human condition, which keeps both individuals and, by extension nations, not only in constant conflict, but prevents them from being truly exceptional, is the Us/Them factor, which after watching a lot of TV and being subjected to too many pharmaceutical ads,  I’ve reduced to one word, ThemVersUs because it is so basic to understanding humanity.

We (us) have always been suspicious, fearful, or threatened by them—anyone who isn’t us. This isn’t an American problem. Just as we are not exceptional, neither are we the only culprits in the world. Neither is ThemVersUs a political problem, which government can fix—no matter how many balloons and yard signs political parties buy, to convince us they are the solution.

The ThemVersUs problem, as basic as it is, manifests itself in many different ways, both between nations and within nations. Obvious in this country is racism, but it also surfaces in class struggle, labor relations, economics, health care, housing, education, and anything else where there are two positions creating us versus them situations—even mask wearing during a pandemic. Rural communities and large cities distrust each other, as do sparsely populated states and heavily populated states, and people owning guns thinking people without guns are going to take their guns away—by, I dunno, twisting their arms.

Taken to the extreme, Middle America fears the inhabitants of the two coasts are conspiring against them and vice-versa. Our forefathers couldn’t have foreseen this because Middle America back then were the coastal states of Maryland, Virginia and the Carolinas.

There’s an old Woody Guthrie where he takes on one job after another in order to convince his girlfriend what a hard worker he is, to the point where he just about wears himself out. If we truly want to lay claim to being exceptional, we don’t have to do a whole lot of things, but each individual acting in concert with other individuals will actually have to do something exceptional—something that historically has rarely been done. Namely, deal with the ThemVersUs by learning to get along with them, which ironically, will actually entail less effort than attacking them, and be easier on everyone in the long run.

As I’ve said, this is not a political issue so much as a humanity issue, but the divisions created do prevent the exceptional government designed by our forefathers from working, and even threatens to bring about its collapse as in 1861, and again more recently on January 6 when us/them went after them/us.

If Americans truly want to lay claim to the title of exceptionalism, we will have to do something truly extraordinary, learn to live with and not fear them who surround us, or we will suffer the same fate that has plagued every other society and cursed humanity from its earliest days—a never ending struggle that has no winners.

It won’t be easy. Being exceptional has never been easy, certainly not as easy as being predictable, which requires no special talent or effort. It wasn’t easy for those 56 men in Philadelphia, but despite their differences, they understood that ordinary people can do exceptional things, once they stop doing the senseless things they think they’re expected to do.

The conflict between us and them cannot be won in the courtrooms, or in Congress, or on the battlefield where the war has been waging continuously ever since Cain first determined Abel represented a threat and needed to be killed. It can only be won when we stop fearing them, and learn to live with them—or even better, when we learn that there is no us and them, but only us. 

How to Win a Propaganda War

We are in the midst of a propaganda war in this country where misinformation abounds and credibility is being put to the test. We are all combatants in this war and our brains are both the weapons we fight with and the targets we must defend from attack.

Common sense, back when it existed in meaningful quantities, gave us the simple axiom, “Garbage in, garbage out.” This suggests that good things in, will result in good outcomes.

Superior education, research and technique result in superior products. Putting a man on the moon began with an inspiring goal that was followed by gathering accurate data, understanding it, analyzing it and building on it. Many would call this the American way.

Conspiracy theories are called conspiracy theories because they are based on—well they are not based on anything. They are baseless. In the past, conspiracy theories existed only in the world of cranks. Intelligent people looked down on both the theories and the cranks, but fortunately, there were no enough of either to threaten the rest of us.

Today, we are living at a time where more and more people, especially people in powerful positions—men and women in the Senate and Congress, governors, state and local leaders are looking at nonsense and concluding that if it works for them, it’s okay. The biggest piece of nonsense being floated is that the recent election was corrupted by election officials, fixed to favor Democrats, and must be overturned. Mind you, they don’t necessarily believe the nonsense. In many cases, they don’t. They are simply evaluating nonsense in terms of how it works for them. They are even willing to look like cranks themselves, if there is something to be gained for them personally.

These leaders are playing into the hands of people who would like to see our government fall because if government falls, democracy falls. Thus far, too many Republicans have refused to stand up to these conspiracist.

Our country has always been able to deal with a small minority of cranks who were out of touch with reality. It cannot deal with a sizable number of leaders unwilling to stand up to them.

Republicans don’t have to do much. They have to simply admit, publicly and en masse that the last election was fair, that Trump lost, and that trying to overturn a free election is the most un-American thing any individual, especially a president can do.

They have to use their brains to fight, not surrender their brains to fear—especially the fear that Trump will somehow punish them for doing the right thing.

Again, our brains are the only weapon we have against ridiculous propaganda, and they are the only things we must protect when they are being attacked. Propaganda is the enemy of democracy. Accepting and promoting propaganda is no different than working with the enemy in a hot or cold war. It is treasonous.

Democracy is about building

No one believes for a minute that Trump understands how Constitutional Democracy works. This is evident in his questioning of elections and his obvious suggestions that he might not vacate the office should he lose the election, or worse that he might not allow the election to take place.

The constant hope is that if push comes to shove, Republicans will push back. Unfortunately, Republicans have been silent in the wake of so many Trump atrocities that one has to question their own understanding of Constitutional Democracy, including the role of Congress.

I’ve been reading John Bolton’s book, The Room Where It Happened. My takeaway so far has been there was enough ego in that room to embarrass and de-feather the most self-respecting peacock.

Just as the peaceful succession of the presidency is key to our democracy, so too is the idea that one administration builds on the work of the previous one, and in the process, the country will move forward—always toward a more perfect union.

Making things better is what good governments do.

A perfect example of this, coming in a crisis no less, was the efforts of Bush, Obama and McCain, along with Republicans and Democrats in the closing days of the 2008 election when the country was falling into a recession. That may have been the last time our nation worked as one.

On the night that Obama won that election, Republicans in Congress essentially declared, “We’re out of here. Anything you do, you’ll have to do without us. Furthermore, we’re going to make doing anything as difficult as possible.

So Obama moved ahead on his own—not because he was a dictator as Republicans claimed, but because they had relinquished their responsibility to do anything except obstruct. They claimed he was an illegitimate president, not quietly in back rooms but as loudly as they could, not because the election was rigged, but because they didn’t think he was a naturalized citizen.

First was the Affordable Health Care Act, which made health care available to millions of Americans.

Then came the Paris Accords, which enabled the world to speak with one voice against a global problem of climate change that will spare no one.

This was followed by the nuclear pact with Iran, signed by every industrial country in the world, but never approved by the Republican Congress.

DACA was an attempt to ease the pain of millions of young immigrants, who everyone agreed, at least publicly, deserved a break because they had done no wrong. Again Republicans passed.

President Obama was continually forced to go it alone, and then roundly condemned for going it alone.

The thing is, none of these actions resulted in perfect fixes. They were initial steps toward solving big problems. As our forefathers noted, we only strive for perfection, nothing more, and nothing less.

Republicans however, who tend to treat the founding fathers as if they founded the Republican Party, see things differently. More and more, they seem to strive for something less.

Trump, with the support of Republicans has killed one Obama initiative after another rather than try to build on them. Treaties, regulations, programs, even his strategy for dealing with a pandemic have been abandoned.

The only time they even pretended to make something better was their “repeal and replace” approach to Obamacare, which failed miserably because Republicans at their core, and Trump despite his boorish bragging, are not builders.

Democracy is dependent on builders if it is to succeed.

Anarchy—something Trump seems obsessed with—centers on destruction.

If there is one thing we can expect from anarchists, it’s that they will deny they are anarchist.

Four years of Trump and the last ten years of Republican control have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what America stands for.

To think Republicans will protect us from a destructive Trump is foolish thinking. We have repeatedly seen that they are not up to the task. Why would they be? He is only walking along the path of destruction they have laid out.

Party of Lincoln Derailed

Republicans are fond of claiming to be the party of Lincoln. It gives them a sense of respectability that Nixon and Joseph McCarthy never could provide. The last time they were the party of Lincoln was seven score, ten years ago if it was a day. So, the obvious question is what has the party of Lincoln done for us lately.

For a good part of the 20^th century, Democrats struggled to remove racism from within their own party. When they finally exorcised their demons, those who couldn’t stomach reform, who thought giving blacks actual citizenship rights, just one century after giving them full citizenship was moving too fast, sought refuge in the GOP.

Republicans were only too happy to welcome them, just as they would grudgingly welcome other hate groups when there were political gains to be had. Clearly “big tent” means something different for Republicans. Today’s Republican Party is not the party of Lincoln. It is the party of Strom Thurmond.

For the last fifty years, the nation has tried to move toward tolerance and acceptance and away from racism and bigotry, not just for blacks, but for all minorities.

During this same period, the Republican Party has relocated to a place where its main constituency is now old white men with money and/or attitude and young, less educated white men with mostly attitude. Oh, and Evangelicals, who used to be all about GOD have also found a home in the GOP.

When Civil Rights legislation was still in its incubator stage, Nixon was putting together, his “law and order southern strategy.” The once solid Democratic south has morphed into the new solid Republican south. Racism and bigotry are the glue holding it together.

The 1976 election wasn’t so much about enforcing law and order or advancing civil rights. Gerald Ford was burdened by blow-back to the Nixon-pardon-baggage. It allowed a southern Democrat who was neither racist nor law-and-order to win the election that even Republican Lincoln would have had difficulty winning.

By 1980, bigotry was back on track. Reagan gave his first post-convention speech near Philadelphia, Mississippi, sight of the 1964 murder of civil rights workers. Republicans claim the location was insignificant and only coincidental, as was his references to states’ rights. No one, in either party, was fooled.

The Republican Party has spent the last 30 years since Reagan was its figurehead working behinds the scenes, sometimes shrouded by smokescreens, to dismantle anti-discrimination legislation and actual civil rights achievements. Knowing they have a problem with minorities, they’ve continually vowed to improve their relationships with them—just as soon as they’ve stopped Blacks from voting, slowed down immigration, and stop catering to people with disabilities.

Republicans would have us believe they are the party of small government, low taxes and individual freedom, but their biggest concerns always seem to be enacting discriminating policies against minorities, protecting gun rights and shifting tax burdens away from the wealthy.

Republicans repeatedly oppose anti-discrimination laws benefiting gays, transgender, blacks, Hispanics, woman and just about any other group looking for not much more than acceptance and equal treatment under the law.

At the same time, their discriminatory practices in the 30 or so states where they control government have led to countless voter ID laws under the pretense of preventing voter fraud. I’m not sure what fewer voting locations and shorter voting periods have to do with stopping voter fraud, but it sure makes it more difficult to vote.

How bad is this fraud? Very bad say predominantly Republican state legislatures.

What do the actual numbers tell us? Out of 197 million votes cast in federal elections between 2002 and 2005, only 40 voters were indicted of voter fraud and 26 convicted. That’s a conviction rate of 0.00000013. Probably more cases went undetected. I will admit that. Certainly not enough to justify all the money and time that has been spent making voting harder for legitimate voters.

The only national election decided by a single vote in the history of our nation was the five-four vote by a Conservative Supreme Court to elect a Republican president in 2000.

The only fraud being committed, is by Republicans who under the pretense of making it fairer, make it more difficult.

Today, few Republican leaders are willing to speak out against the obvious bigotry of their presidential nominee. I’m not saying they are bigots. Perhaps, gutless hypocrites is a better word. Trump is able to succeed, not despite his racist comments, but because his racist comments seem to find such a welcoming audience among his supporters. They’ll be the first to say he speaks to them, that he says what they are thinking, what they want to hear.

Obviously not all Republicans feel this way, but enough of them do to cause Lincoln to turn over in his grave and demand they stop using his name in vain.

Grass-roots Republicans—upset that their leaders have failed to fulfill promises, either ignore or don’t understand how hard the Republican establishment has worked for the last 50 years to turn back anti-discrimination movements. The fact that it hasn’t totally succeeded in spite of their efforts isn’t their fault. They tried. They are still trying. It is a tribute to those Americans, who not only say they aren’t racist, but actually aren’t racist, that the struggle for equal rights continues.

Electing a black president did not signal the end of racism in America. It only gave racists more stuff to complain about. Racism is alive and well, and has found a home in the Republican Party. The party of Lincoln continues to deny this, even as white supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazi groups, and most militias continue to pledge their support to the Republican Party.

The party of Lincoln is now the party of Donald Trump because Republicans have handed it over to him on a silver platter.

Postscript: Trump challenged Blacks with the words, “What have you got to lose?” He has spent the last two years answering his own question. He’s belittled black athletes, business leaders, staff people, and Congresswomen. He’s called them dogs, questioned their intelligence, their patriotism. He’s lied about how well they have done under his presidency.

He’s treated Hispanics with outright scorn, to the point where some families separated at the southern border may never be reunited.

He jumps on every opportunity to divide the nation, pitting one class against another, one state against another, one party against the other.

He’s denigrated the Justice Department and Intelligence community—once the darlings of the “law and order” party to the point where the whole country—well, most of it—are shaking their heads in disbelief.

The party that thrived on the Cold War in the fifties and ended it in the eighties, now finds its leader standing on the same stage with Putin and Jung-un and talking about what great guys they are—even as Putin attacks our elections and Jung-un threatens to attack our west coast.

Republicans haven’t opened the door for Trump so much as they paved the way for him.

Simply put, the GOP has fallen victim to the MAGA scam. As Yogi Berra might have said, it’s SNAFU all over again.

They aren't hypocrites. They're stooges.

In 1998, Lindsay Graham spoke out against President Clinton stonewalling Congress by repeating the words used against Nixon during his Impeachment stonewalling. “....‘You’re taking impeachment away from us. You’re becoming the judge and jury. It is not your job to tell us what we need. It is your job to comply with the things we need to provide oversight over you. The day Richard Nixon failed to answer that subpoena is the day that he was subject to impeachment because he took the power of Congress away from Congress and became the judge and jury.’” 

He made a strong argument even if the words were not his own. His 2012, another country boy, Trey Gowdy made the same argument during one of the—there were many—Benghazi hearings.

“The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles.”

Today both men are taking drastically different approaches as they attempt to defend Trump’s refusal to provide information to Congressional oversight committees. Naturally, their previous words are being held against them and they are being portrayed as hypocrites. This is too easy and overlooks a more serious problem.

My understanding of hypocrisy is when you stand for something and then, in a moment of weakness or convenience, or whatever, you turn on yourself and your own values. This seems to be what’s going on with Graham and Gowdy, but I think we are missing the bigger picture.

In the initial examples, when Graham and Gowdy appeared to be standing up for something, what they really were doing was grandstanding. Today, they are merely grandstanding for something different. They haven’t flipped on their values, but rather boarded another showboat.

This makes them habitual stooges, not hypocrites.

By 1998, Republicans had been trying to get Clinton on something for six years and weren’t having much luck. When they finally got something on him, rather than represent a high crime or misdemeanor, it looked more like petty crime and misbehavior. Still, he lied about it and Republicans felt they had the goods on him. Clinton fought back, which eventually led Graham to pretend to be a patriot.

In 2012, when Gowdy was going through his “I could have been a founding father, but I was born too late” period, Republicans had been going after the Obama administration since the day he took office. Turns out he was born in America and wasn’t a secret Muslim and giving more people health insurance wasn’t his attempt to destroy America.

Nevertheless, when Benghazi happened, Republicans breathed a sigh of relief. Finally, something was working in their favor. Again, after it was proven numerous times that there was nothing there, the Obama administration and Clinton (this time Hillary) fought back, giving Gowdy an opportunity to do his best imitation of Graham doing his imitation of the Watergate impeachment panel.

One can believe both men are lying now or that they were lying then. I chose to believe that just like the president, they lie every time they open their mouths.

Grandstanding is grandstanding. Graham and Gowdy may be spouting hypocritical drivel, but the bottom line is they never stood for anything except: Republicans good, Democrats bad. They haven’t lost their way. They’ve simply lost their minds.    

Republicans Hoping for a Flag

 Republicans running out of way to defend Trump - NBC  News

Congressional committees continue to expose bad, corrupt, and often illegal behavior by the president and his cronies. Just to be clear, illegal means criminal.

President Trump’s effort to withhold military aid from Ukraine until they provided him with dirt on his potential political opponent, Joe Biden amounted to no less than inviting a foreign entity to interfere in an American election. This is a crime.

This crime was committed in part during a phone call between Trump and the newly elected Ukrainian president. It was made worse because the Mueller Investigation, just a few months earlier and Robert Mueller, himself, just a day earlier speaking before Congress had condemned Russia’s involvement in the 2016 election.

No one in Trump’s circle, no Republican in Congress has made any effort to refute the accusations. The case appears to be very open and shut.

While not condoning his behavior, they are questioning the Democratic Congress’s method of investigating him—essentially attack the process. Questioning the motives of the whistle-blower, the closed hearings, and anything else.

This is not new. Crooks have been crying foul for as long as crooks have been committing crimes.

So what are they hoping to accomplish?

Muddy the waters is a common defense maneuver on par with comparing apples and oranges. It is not, however, a legal term although it is often a legal strategy. Attacking the process is the Republicans strategy to muddy the waters so to speak.

In a court of law, no judge would allow this, but impeachment is not a legal procedure. It is government’s answer to government misconduct. In fact, muddying the waters, comparing apples to oranges is practically the definition of how government works. In government, it is always about this with that in the background versus that with this attached. Politics is nothing if it is not muddy waters.

This still doesn’t tell us what Republicans hope to accomplish by arguing process in their defense against substance. To better understand what is going on in Washington, it would be helpful to look at what goes on in a football game.

Trump and McConnell—two ‘fraidy-cats

Trump got a doctor, one of his dad’s tenants, to say he suffered from bone spurs to keep him out of the military during the Vietnam War.

This doesn’t make him a coward because a lot of people didn’t want to fight in Vietnam for a lot of different reasons. And the fact that he used his father’s wealth and privilege only makes him a scoundrel.

What makes him a coward is his inability to stand for anything, his lack of fortitude, his willingness to blame others and make excuses. Cowards are a dime a dozen. What makes Trump’s cowardice regrettable is that he is also president. His weakness and cowardice puts the nation at risk.

Weak presidents are nothing new. In the past, strong Congresses have made up for weak presidents. Unfortunately, Congress is also weak because it is hamstrung by a weak Senate being led by a man every bit as weak as Trump, and every bit a coward.

Nothing brings McConnell and Trump’s shared cowardice to light more than their failure to address the gun issue.

The vast majority of the country wants something done, but Trump is waiting for McConnell to make a move while McConnell waits to hear from Trump what that move should be. Of course, all Republicans are afraid of the NRA.

McConnell stonewalled a Supreme Court nomination because he controlled a Republican Senate also composed of cowards. He refuses to put issues on the floor for a vote because he can’t risk the vote going the wrong way and incurring the president’s wrath. Republicans in the Senate are okay with this because they fear losing the little status they have. They aren’t strong enough to be bullies themselves, so must concede to the two bullies in leadership roles.

The meanest party in history are a bunch of cowards being led by two cowards.

Any middle school student will tell you that being a coward goes hand-in-hand with being a bully.

Bullies aren’t cowards in the same sense that fair-skinned men are often blue-eyed. Their shared qualities aren’t coincidences. One actually derives from the other. A bullies is a coward first and after somehow arriving at a point where he has some authority, either physical size or position, and be it real or imagined, the coward becomes a bully.

Being a bully is a defense mechanism for those weighted down by fear. Because they fear a fair fight, and usually cannot win one, bullies use other means to tip the scales in their favor.

We have seen Trump throw his weight around against those he perceives as weaker than him to cover for his cowardice. Gold-star mothers, immigrants, Congresswomen, allies, movie stars, journalist, athletes, and everyone else who he perceives as having crossed him have all been attacked by the little man with the big mouth. His weapon is always words because talk is cheap, even more so for a man who only lies, and he doesn’t venture far from where those lies are accepted as truths. He admires dictators, the real strong men he wishes he were. His fear of them prevent him from ever crossing them.

The two most powerful men in Washington, in terms of the positions they hold, happen to be the biggest bullies and cowards, and they have surrounded themselves with cowards who fear them.

Being fearless is the only defense against a bully, even as bullying a heroic man is the only way a bully will fight. Because they are not fighting on common ground, the fight is often drawn-out and ugly. The winner is rarely determined through surrender, but rather by observers who must themselves choose between cowardice and fortitude, right and wrong, good and evil.

Trump and McConnell will never see the light and become honorable men because they are blinded by their own egos. Bullies must be knocked down—and remembered by history for what they were, not what they pretended to be.

Trust Us - Con jobs big and small

Con jobs come in all sizes and with varying degrees of intent to deceive.

A small, well-meaning con job was once directed at me when I was a letter carrier walking my route in Virginia Beach. An older man walking his dog approached me.

The dog wasn’t that big, but it was dragging its owner along like a lion pulling a dead wildebeest across the arid African savanna.

“Don’t worry. I’ve got him under control,” the outmatched man said with a straight face.

He wasn’t intentionally trying to con me and certainly meant me no harm. He may have even thought he was in charge, but he had to have known the dog was running the show.

This was the most innocent of con jobs, but I wasn’t fooled and never took my eyes off the dog as it dragged its owner past me.

Then there was a con of a different sort—intentional, but not meant to harm—much—but certainly meant to deceive.

Sack of Potatoes startin' to look good—again



Potatoes doing what they do—nothing. Ya gotta love them.

I wrote a novel a while back entitled, Postal Service, which detailed the daily working of the USPS. Much of the novel centered on the relationship between management and the work force.

At one point, I suggested to a fellow carrier that we would be better off with a sack of potatoes as a supervisor. Naturally, when this got back to my supervisor—as these things always do—she jumped to the conclusion that I had accused her of being as dumb as a sack of potatoes.

I explained to her that anyone smarter than a sack of potatoes would know that wasn’t my intention. I told her she was an instigator, a trouble maker, someone constantly looking for a fight. I added that a sack of potatoes sitting at her desk, while unable to accomplish anything good, would nevertheless be incapable of creating so much havoc as she did on a daily basis.

Because of climate change, we are not even beginning to look a lot like Christmas, but it’s beginning to look like a sack of potatoes in the Oval Office wouldn’t be such a bad idea.

What if on November 8, 2016, Republicans who couldn’t bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton, instead wrote in the name, Sacko Potato? What if American voters put a sack of potatoes in the Oval Office instead of Donald Trump?

To be sure, nothing would have been accomplished in the last year, meaning we would still have a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Also, we wouldn’t have had...well, actually that’s the only thing we wouldn’t have. Nothing else has been done.

So what else might a sack of potatoes not done?

For starters, it wouldn’t have named a foreign agent as head of the National Security Agency.

It wouldn’t have named Cabinet Secretaries to departments they want to destroy.

It wouldn’t have pulled out of the Paris Accords, which now essentially include everyone except us.

It wouldn’t have insulted virtually every leader in the world who isn’t a dictator.

It wouldn’t have waged a year-long war-of-words with a thin-skinned, arrogant, ego-driven boy-man—in short, his mirror-image.

It wouldn’t have gotten into spats with every significant member of Congress—Democrat or Republican.

It wouldn’t have gotten into public feuds with the NFL or the NBA or athletes in general.

It’s safe to say it probably wouldn’t have received the support of white supremacists, who are very particular who they hang around with.

It wouldn’t have turned on the free press while, at the same time, embrace conspiracy theorists.

It wouldn’t have insulted American Indians, Americans living in Puerto Rico, Americans who didn’t vote for him, Americans it happens to disagree with, or any American with a basic understanding of history or a working knowledge of the English language.

It wouldn’t have put its self-interest ahead of the country’s best interest.

It wouldn’t have turned the White House into a pre-school playground.

On almost any day, you can hear the news coming out of this administration or read a tweet coming off the president’s phone and say, “No sir. A sack of potatoes wouldn’t have done that.”

In the end, there is a lot that a sack of potatoes cannot do and will never be able to do, but thank God, for all the things that a sack of potatoes cannot do and will never do. That’s the sack half full/sack half empty look at potatoes.

It’s why sometimes I wish there were a sack of potatoes sitting in the Oval Office right now, stinking up the place instead of the stinker we have.  

Who's in Wall Street's pockets—and does it really matter?

There is a lot of debate going on as to which political party will do more for Wall Street and big business. Trump says Hillary is in bed with the big Wall Street firms. On the other hand, whenever Trump goes to bed, it’s always big money turning off the lights.

I think it is fair to say that both parties do Wall Street’s bidding. They always have and they always will. Politicians bow to the will of Wall Street and big business for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks—because that is where the money is.

And it isn’t just campaign financing—although that is always appreciated. I think it simply comes down to the rich—wealth-with-power-thrown-in and powerful—political-power-with-wealth-thrown-in, taking care of the rich and powerful.

Both parties should stop running away from the obvious. The truth is, while not in every way but certainly in many ways, America is great not solely because of democracy and not solely because of capitalism but rather because in America, democracy and capitalism have become uneasy bedfellows.

Our government has consistently, and unabashedly, allowed itself to be corrupted by money while our economic system has unenthusiastically allowed itself to be governed by regulations—with a clear understanding that they don’t go too far.

So do elections not make a difference? Is neither party different from the other?

Of course, elections make a difference. And yes, the parties are different. Just not to the rich.

Look at elections the way you would look at a boxing match or a concert. You’ve got the main event and the undercard.

Both parties take care of the headliner—the rich, but it’s the undercard where the most interesting fights occur—and Democrats tend to favor the undercards.

Republican trickle-down theory, at its best, was a policy of taking care of the wealthy, first and foremost, on the outside chance that with so much money floating around, some of it was bound to wind up in the pockets of the middle class—if they lived long enough and the poorer class—when hell froze over.

At its worse, it was a cruel joke.

Republicans believe in their souls that taking care of the wealthy is the only way to take care of the masses. Make a man rich, they believe, and he will take care of the rest. That’s what the wealthy do—except that history tells us they don’t. Never have and never will.

But Democrats have and will continue to.

Their history of protecting workers and defending unions, have resulted in shorter work weeks, higher hourly wages, pensions, healthcare, and safer working conditions. They have defended minorities—racial, religious, and otherwise—the majority of whom have always resided on the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.

On the other hand, Republicans gave us the Gilded Age plagued by the recessions of 1873, 1893, 1907; the roaring twenties followed by the Great Depression; and the Bush tax cuts and deregulations that led to the Great Recession of 2008.

Workers will receive minor tax cuts from Republicans but the nation will go broke from the massive tax cuts given billionaires and millionaires.

Republicans are convinced that raising the minimum wage will kill jobs by destroying companies. They believe allowing CEOs to become billionaires is the way to grow companies. The problem is that even companies that do badly have well-paid CEOs and even companies that do great have low paid workers. Why don’t Republicans and CEOs just admit that they don’t really care for workers and would be happier employing robots? Sure, they would have maintenance expenses but gone would be health insurance, pensions, and break rooms.

Health insurance won’t expand under Republicans who’ve taken 60 votes to kill Obamacare and not released one plan to replace it. It’s not because they’ve been busy doing other things.

Republicans at the state level have shown us what they think of voting rights.

All those Republican recessions and depressions mentioned earlier cost millions of jobs—over 15-million in the Great Depression and another nine million in the 2008 recession. Democrats receive no credit for recouping those jobs. Halting the skid and turning the corner should count for something.

People might not like hearing these facts but people have to get over liking only what they want to hear.

The rich will always win. There is virtually no way for them to lose. It reminds me of an old joke, so old it was politically correct to tell it back then.

Put a fat lady, a bulldog, and a can of dog food in one room.  In another room, put a fat lady and a bulldog.  In the room with the fat lady, bulldog, and dog food, the lady ate the dog food.  In the room with just the fat lady and the bulldog, the fat lady ate the bulldog.

CONCLUSION: Fat ladies will always make the best of a situation. 

Rich people are the fat lady.

Today’s poor and middle class don’t have the luxury of winning no matter who is in office. They have to look for small wins anywhere they can find them. They can’t be sucked into thinking things are going to be great. They should be happy with things being good because when you already live in the greatest nation, good ain’t that bad.