Entries Tagged 'Politics Blogs' ↓

Dear Dianne Feinstein

Dear Dianne,
The next time young people approach you about policy making, don’t lecture them about how great you are. You sound like an orange-colored Republican.

Furthermore, before arguing for the need to compromise, tell us how much money you take from oil companies.


Payback

Trump discovered that Andrew McCabe was not loyal to him, so he fired McCabe two days before his fiftieth birthday. According to various news accounts, McCabe lost early-retirement benefits that he would have been eligible for at age 50. But that is not the point, here.

The point is that you gotta love McCabe’s payback. The Threat is a tell-all book based on contemporaneous notes of conversations with the first orange-colored president. It is the perfect payback to the man who failed to see the obvious–you don’t fire a federal employee two days before he is eligible for benefits earned during more than twenty years of service. Nobody does that, except someone who cares only about himself and who is a threat to all that is good in our country.

Time to model civilization

I was watching Anna Cabrera’s show on CNN last night (2/17/2019). A Republican panelist presented his talking points, and then interrupted the next speaker. I told my wife to change the channel because Cabrera did not shut down the interrupter.

As children we all learned it is impolite to interrupt. It is time for media personalities to model and teach what it means to be civil, civilized, part of civilization. The next time somebody interrupts on television, everybody should change the channel.

Here it is in print

Trump: You want to put that on me? I’ll take it. You know what I will say? Yes – if we don’t get what we want one way or the other whether it is through you, through a military, through anything you want to call, I will shut down the government. And I am proud to shut down the government for border security because the people of this country don’t want criminals and people that have lots of problems and drugs pouring into our country. So – I will take the mantle. I will be the one to shut it down. I will not blame you for it. The last time you shut it down it did not work. I will take the mantle of shutting it down. And I am going to shut it down for border security.

Presidents change course

Dear Donald,

We were wrong. It’s the economy, Stupid. Now declare shutdown victory and go back to tweeting. We will tell listeners you created the best economy our country has ever seen, and then you can repeat that in all your appearances.

Sincerely,

Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh

To report or not to report. That is the question.

What is wrong with the liberal, main stream media? Why do they report what Donald Trump says? He lies all the time, he changes his positions to get what he wants in the moment, and he is powerless to act on his claims. The swamp is not drained, tax returns have not been shared, sexual assault accusers have not been sued, our infrastructure and health care have not been improved. Why do media outlets report the utterances of a person who does nothing but forward American Enterprise Institute approved nominees to the federal courts?

See what happens with the military at the border, with the caravan coming for asylum, with the citizenship right of babies born in the U. S. There will be no change in policy, but the liberal media report Trump utterances and claim he is trying to motivate his supporters before an election.

Thanks to their reporting, his supporters are motivated–not because of what they report, but because Trump supporters are riveted to Fox News, which reports how liberals resist the president. The main stream media believe they are protesting the president’s violation of political norms, but their reports legitimize the violations they are protesting. I love irony.

Do media outlets have a responsibility to recognize when they are being manipulated? Oh–I forgot–their primary responsibility is to get ratings that bring in advertisers. Reporting Trump utterances attracts viewers, so they report Trump utterances.

So, let’s understand that liberal media reports are not a form of resistance to the president. They are a form of profiting. The exact same point was made at the end of Bill Maher’s interview with Barbra Streisand on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, which aired on 11/2/2018.

I wrote these last three paragraphs on November 1, and then added the part about the Streisand interview. I also wrote them before I read George Orwell’s essay, The Lion and the Unicorn, where he wrote this about the English media in 1941:

Is the English press honest or dishonest? At normal times it is deeply dishonest. All the papers that matter live off their advertisements, and the advertisers exercise an indirect censorship over news.

So, to answer the question in the first sentence—What is wrong with the liberal, main stream media?—they are tarnished by the profit motive. I love irony.

Not a Jim Brown fan

I was born in Wisconsin in 1952, so I was never a fan of Jim Brown. In fact I was happy when he retired early from the Cleveland Browns. (The Browns still have not recovered.)

Whose idea was it to bring him out of retirement to the White House? I am waiting to hear from him about his experiences, today. What does he have to say after listening to the fawning president and the irate Kanye? Brown used to be a vocal opponent of oppression in our society. What does he say, now?

Or did they drag him into the White House because, like the president, he is unable to speak coherently in his old age? We will have an answer in the coming days and weeks.

Thanks Joe, Heidi and Susan

Thanks to Joe Manchin, Heidi Heitkamp, and Susan Collins we have three more examples of the principle that has corrupted both political parties–above all else, get re-elected.

West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin was the only democrat on the Judiciary Committee to vote “yes” on Brett “Bart” Kavanaugh’s confirmation. Why is that? The reason behind Manchin’s vote is the same as the reason behind all Senators’ votes. They vote the way they do to get re-elected, including Heidi Heitkamp. She could vote “No” on confirmation because she was already losing by 12 points in the polls. Way to go, Heidi and Joe.

When Susan Collins went to the floor of the Senate to explain her vote, she should have saved her breath. No explanation was necessary. She voted the way she did so she would be re-elected in 2020.

But I was troubled by some of the points she made in her speech. After describing the partisanship of the Democrats’ opposition to Kavanaugh, she said,

One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom.

Evidently, Senator Collins is blinded by her own partisanship. (I love irony.) The process “hit rock bottom” with the nomination of Merrick Garland.

Collins went on to say that she values the Senate’s advice and consent role:

Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual senator to decide what the Constitution’s advice and consent duty means.

Informed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the president has broad discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy, whereas my duty as a senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought.

I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them. I have never considered the President’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations. (italics added)

Really? I don’t recall Senator Collins lobbying Mitch McConnell for hearings and a vote on Merrick Garland. In that case, consideration of the president’s party was the only factor in evaluating a Supreme Court nominee. Just look at those three paragraphs. They are beautifully constructed to mask the lie that is the last sentence. Way to go Susan.

Senator Collins’  speech went on to describe her private discussions with Kavanaugh and her assessment of his judicial record. Her speech is primarily noteworthy, however, for what she did not say. She did not say she believes Kavanaugh’s under-oath testimony in front of the committee. If she had, it would mean she believes what nobody believes–(1) “the devil’s triangle” is a drinking game, (2) students in all-boy high schools express their respect for girls in their yearbook, and (3) Brett never referred to himself as Bart.

So, Senator Collins’ speech taught us about the difference between how Republicans and Democrats try to hide the reason for their votes. There was no “hiding” for Joe Manchin or Heidi Heitkamp. He had to vote “Yes” in West Virginia, and she had nothing to lose for her “No” vote, for which the left-wing press called her courageous. Republican Susan Collins gave a long speech of platitudes to hide the reason she voted “Yes.”

Cut the Crap

Heitkamp is just as courageous as Kavanaugh and Collins are honest. How is that term limit thing going, Senator Collins? Or did you say you were in favor of term limits just so you could get elected? Never mind. No more speeches. We know the answer.

What kind of person is DT?

“The Donald Trump I know would never over state his wealth to get loans, or under state it to reduce his taxes,” said no one ever.

I cannot prove a negative, so I am left to just “believe” nobody ever said that. If anyone can point to a person who said that, and meant it to represent the truth, I will stop believing nobody ever said that. Maybe there is one person out there.

 

FBI investigations and politics

Instead of re-opening the FBI investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, conservative columnist Cal Thomas wrote this:

If the FBI wants to investigate things that need investigation there is much behavior from the Bill and Hillary Clinton era that would keep agents busy and produce results of interest to the public and law enforcement, including alleged Chinese hacking of Hillary’s emails while she was secretary of state, Uranium One scandal, foreign gifts to the Clinton Foundation and so much more.

Accordingly, when Trump is out of office, I am sure Cal will call on the FBI to investigate the Trump company’s alleged associations with money laundering, foreign election contributions, overseas tax havens, and Melania’s immigration status.

Cut the Crap

Cal was not writing about FBI investigations. He was arguing against re-opening the Kavanaugh background file. Why do Republicans refuse to hear under-oath testimony from anybody other than Kavanaugh and the accuser? Why isn’t Kavanaugh calling for testimony from others? Why isn’t he offering to take a lie-detector test?

We don’t need to know anything else to know who is telling the truth. It is common sense.

But we are governed by the rule of law, not by common sense. The rule of law is a fancy term for enabling powerful people to hide the truth. Thanks to Brett Kavanaugh we have a clear example of how this works.