Pages

Saturday, July 28, 2018

Editorial: Lying Don Gets Buggy

So Donald Trump’s annual performance review with Russian President Vladimir Putin, closing out his Chaos Tour of Europe, didn’t go as planned. Things appeared to go OK during their two-hour closed-door meeting in Helsinki. The two autocrats emerged smiling for a press conference in which Trump refused to condemn the Kremlin for meddling in the 2016 presidential election, as determined by US intelligence agencies. Instead, he said,“I think the United States has been foolish. I think we’ve all been foolish. I think we’re all to blame.”

Trump repeated a phrase he often uses — that there has been no collusion — and he said accusations of collusion continue to hurt relations between the two countries. Putin, who admitted that he wanted Trump to win the election, gave him a soccer ball from the 2018 World Cup finals, which Russia hosted.

The following day, after Trump returned to the White House, controversy mounted over his assertion that he believed Putin’s word over the findings of the US intelligence community. Trump tried to walk back his remarks, in part, by claiming that “other people” could have also meddled in the 2016 presidential election. Trump also claimed he had simply misspoken by one word during his press conference in Finland. The president explained that he had intended to say he did not see any reason why it “wouldn’t” be Russia.

“I thought that I made myself very clear, but having just reviewed the transcript, I realized that there is a need for some clarification,” Trump said. “The sentence should have been, ‘I don’t see any reason why I wouldn’t, or why it wouldn’t be Russia.’”

Trump also asserted on July 17 that he had “full faith” in US intelligence agencies and also supported their conclusion that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election.

Two days later, Putin apparently put Trump on probation and gave him 90 days to restore his pro-Russia attitude, as the White House announced the Russian tyrant was invited to visit the D.C. branch in the fall, possibly to clarify some of the secret agreements they reached in Helsinki, as some of Trump’s Cabinet members had no idea what was up and Trump wasn’t telling.

[After this was written, the White House backtracked and pushed the potential second meeting until next year, possibly at the urging of Republican congressional leaders who weren't looking forward to the visuals of Putin visiting Washington and advertising Russian ties with the Grand Oligarch Party shortly before the mid-term elections. However, Putin on July 27 said he has invited Trump to visit Moscow.]

Trump might get back in Putin’s good graces, but this is no time to despair about the prospects of restoring democracy in America. It should be enough to note that Trump is an habitual liar, as the Washington Post has recorded more than 3,300 false or misleading claims since Trump took office in January 2017, including 74 in one speech at July 5 campaign rally in Montana, which must be a record. Voters can direct a change of course back towards truth and democracy in the mid-term election coming up in November. Since it is clear Republicans won’t check Trump’s excesses it will be up to Americans to put Democrats back in control of Congress.

Keep hope alive in the face of Trump devotees who boast that he will win re-election. As of July 22, the Lying Don had an average of 43.8% approval vs. 52.7% disapproval, among 10 public opinion surveys monitored by Pollster.com. A 43.8% approval rate is not a strong base upon which to mount a re-election campaign. An Ipsos/Reuters poll of 2,357 registered voters on July 13-17 showed 85% of Republican approve of the president, while 86% of registered Democrats disapprove of the president, so the election likely will be decided by independent voters, who disapprove of the president by a more than a two-to-one margin — 63% to 27%. The only way Trump can win re-election is if Republicans prevent many of the 52.7% who oppose Trump from voting. And that is their plan, since it worked in 2016 with suspicious victories in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

The more immediate challenge is the mid-term election on Nov. 6, in which control of Congress will be at stake. The Ipsos/Reuters poll showed 44% would vote Democratic while 35% would vote Republican, while 5% would vote for another candidate.

The most important chamber to target is the Senate, where Democrats need a net gain of two seats to regain the majority. Trump won’t be able to offer much help for Republicans, as his popularity has fallen across the board. When he took office in January 2017, Trump had a net positive rating in 38 states, but that was down to 23 states July 11, according to the Morning Consult’s daily tracking poll.

Democrats have a good chance to pick up open seats from Republicans in Arizona and Tennessee, and Republican Sen. Dean Heller looks vulnerable in Nevada. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, also faces a well-funded challenger in US Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-El Paso, but Democrats’ biggest problem is that only nine Republican seats are up for election this year, while 26 Democratic seats are up for grabs.

Republicans see the most vulnerable Democrats as Bill Nelson in Florida, Joe Donnelly in Indiana, Claire McKaskill in Missouri, Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota and Joe Manchin in West Virginia — all states Trump carried. Republilcans will have plenty of campaign funds to take on those and other Democrats, from the billionaires who got the bulk of $1.5 trillion in tax breaks.

Don’t bet on the elections to set up impeachment. It’s hard to tell what Robert Mueller will produce, of course, but it would need to be grim indeed to put the fear of voters in Republicans who, until now, have acted as Trump apologists and enablers.

Realistically, a Democratic House next year could start hearings, and vote out a bill of impeachment with a simple majority vote, but it takes a two-thirds majority in the Senate to remove the president from office. Even if Democrats won four of the nine Senate seats up for grabs in November, that would give them a 53-47 majority — enough to run the chamber, but where would Democrats gain 14 Republican votes to remove the president? And failing to remove the impeached president would result in Lying Don and his cult proclaiming that he had been acquitted of the “witch hunt.”

However, if Democrats regain control of the Senate, they can stop the approval of partisan Republican judges to federal courts, particularly on appeals courts, and they could reject other bad appointees. It would be sweet to see the Democrats impose the “McConnell rule” on Trump’s right-wing judicial nominees — which is why the Republicans will try to confirm as many judges as possible before the end of the year.

As Mueller closes in on Trump and his family, Lying Don likely will get more desperate. In the past week he finally took flak from Republicans and even from Fox News over his disastrous performance in Helsinki and his flip-flop the next day. So Trump tried to change the subject on July 22 with an all-caps message on Twitter, addressed to President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, warning that Iran would face “CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED” if Rouhani continued to threaten the United States.

Trump’s unhinged message was apparently in response to a speech by Rouhani, who warned the US that any conflict with Iran would be the “mother of all wars.”

Rouhani, who has long been considered a more pragmatic leader who was seen as tolerable to moderates, had earlier threatened the possible disruption of regional oil shipments if its own exports were blocked by US sanctions.

Of course, Trump has been spoiling for a fight with Iran, unilaterally withdrawing from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal in May, and announcing that the US would re-impose sanctions on Iran, in violation of the UN-sponsored deal. US trade partners in Europe will have to decide whether to abide with their deal with Iran or submit to Trump’s demands that they also violate the deal.

If “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel,” as Samuel Johnson said, Trump will become the Scoundrel in Chief in pursuit of “better ratings.” Don’t let him fool you, America. — JMC

From The Progressive Populist, August 15, 2018

Blog | Current Issue | Back Issues | Essays | Links
About the Progressive Populist | How to Subscribe | How to Contact Us

Copyright © 2018 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652

Selections from the August 15, 2018 issue

COVER/Vijay Prashad
Trump will send oil and gas prices soaring even higher


EDITORIAL
Lying Don gets buggy


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

DON ROLLINS
Business as usual between Pentagon and big sport. 


RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
What is wrong with that man?


DISPATCHES
Consercative Dems seek to move agenda right;
Trump White House considers stripping security clearances of Trump critics. Just one problem;
What if Trump threatened a war and nobody cared?
Fossil fuel lobbyist spend $2B to kill US climate action;
From Supreme Court to ballot, Trump Obamacare sabotage is toxic;
Trump solidifies base, but GOP sheds indy support;
Va. GOP candidate laughed at for claiming Trump is 'standing up' to Russia;
Coal miners contract black lung disease at record rate;
FBI's top cybersecurity officials are jumping ship;
Trump fumes over North Korea failing to honor handshake;
Native Ameican pipeline protesters enter plea ageements to avoid long prison terms ...


ART CULLEN
Climate change is real


JILL RICHARDSON
Soon you can’t use food stamps at farmers markets — but that’s not half of it


JOHN YOUNG
So much like Watergate, and so much worse


BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel
Give people money


JOSH HOXIE
Our missing $10 trillion


JOHN L. MICEK
Congress too weak to stop trade war


GRASSROOTS/Hank Kalet
Beat bad grammar at the ballot box


SAM PIZZIGATI
A sweet new century for America’s most privileged


BOB LORD
How to level the playing field for workers, even with unions hurting


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas
Dribbling out profits: Of catsup and eye drops


SAM URETSKY
Has it happened here? Can we stop it from happening again? 


BOB BURNETT
Remind me, what do liberals believe?


WAYNE O’LEARY
The not-so-grand old party


JOHN BUELL
Who are the real extremists?


JOEL D. JOSEPH
Kavanaugh is a political, partisan jurist


SATIRE/Barry Friedman
From the archives: This week mit Marte Bruger


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson
Borderline foolishness


ROB PATTERSON
Facebook is so 2016


MOVIE REVIEW/Ed Rampell
Dystopian racial apocalypse tomorrow: May the purge be with you


SETH SANDRONSKY
Treating immigrants like people


Monday, July 23, 2018

New York Times news staff makes up false narrative that there are extreme differences between left & mainstream Democrats, but never tell us what those differences are


By Marc Jampole


An unstated but obvious unofficial policy of the New York Times is to undercut the Democratic Party in news stories, even as it pretends to support virtually all of the positions that Democrats hold in its editorials.
 

The game this year consists of using the heavily-charged word “socialist” as much as possible to describe the more left-leaning Democrats while playing up a supposed generational divide between more progressive millennials and their centrist-leaning elders. As we will see, it’s a completely false narrative meant to suppress the Democratic vote and drive independents to hold their nose and vote for Trump’s-boot-licking Republicans. (Begging the question: Is that “boot” or “bootie” to which servile GOP candidates have placed their puckered lips.)
 

This Sunday’s Times followed this false narrative to a tee. Both the front page lead story and the lead story of the national news page focused exclusively on the divide between mainstream Democrats and the charismatic Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other progressives who have won primaries. Both articles stress that Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders and others call themselves democratic socialists; sometimes the articles sometimes drop the “democratic.”
 

The problem is the Times never defines what a democratic socialist is and what democratic socialism stands for.
 

“Socialism,” of course has long been a dirty word in the United States invoking totalitarianism and complete social control to the right-wing and to the many centrists brainwashed by decades of fear of the Soviet Union’s corrupt and autocratic version of socialism. Right-wingers have long labeled such government programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps as “socialist” in hopes of convincing the public that because socialism was bad, so were these programs. They’ve labelled regulatory efforts as socialist. Their arguments would fail miserably unless the public accepted the premise that socialism was evil. 

Which of course, it’s not. Historically, socialism referred to the government collectively owning and administering the means of production and distribution of goods. But in the real world, there’s a vast continuum of government intervention and control.  Europe provides a number of models of democratic socialism: governments addressing social challenges such as health care, retirement and education; unions having a greater say in the management of companies or in the development of national industrial policy; greater regulation of businesses to protect the environment or consumers or set standards of employment and wages. The European democracies, Japan, Canada, and—let’s face it—even the United States all have mixed economies that graft various socialist solutions onto private enterprise and the free market.
 

By not getting into any of what constitutes democratic socialism, the Times let’s stand the decades of fear-mongering rightwing demonization of the word “socialism.”   
 

Moreover, the Times attempts to exaggerate the differences between more centrist and more leftist Democrats by never talking about what those differences are. The headline of one of the articles says “Democrats Are Bracing for a Progressive Storm Brewing Far to the Left.” The articles quote a number of Democrats suggesting that extreme differences exist between mainstream Democrats and the candidates subscribing to “hard-left ideology.”
 

Yet in the two articles, which stretch across more than two pages of text and photographs, only three times does the Times mention what position any Democrat has on any issue. A phrase of text and a photo caption point out that Ben Jealous, running for governor in Maryland, is in favor of single payer health care. The other reference is this weird sentence referring to voters in Republican districts: “Across most of the approximately 60 Republican-held districts that Democrats are contesting, primary voters have chosen candidates who seem to embody change — many of them women and minorities — but who have not necessarily endorsed positions like single-payer health care and abolishing the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. The only way to understand that sentence in the context of the article is to assume that single-payer and a desire to dismantle ICE are extremist positions with which mainstream Dems disagree.
 

The Times never mentions what the differences between the “far left” and the rest of the party are, never does an issue-by-issue comparison. And there’s a good reason for it. There are few real differences, and those that exist are quibbles, at best.  While I’m quite confident that large numbers of Democrats do not want to see ICE abolished, virtually all want to see it reformed. Surveys suggest that most Dems like the single-payer concept when presented to them as “Medicare for all.”
 

Now let’s look at the large number of issues that the Times doesn’t mention. Surveys tell us that that virtually all Democrats:

·         Want to raise the minimum wage. The quibble in the past election cycle was that Bernie wanted to raise it to $15 right away, whereas Hillary wanted to do so over a period of time.

·         Want more government support of public education, especially higher education.

·         Think the tax package passed late last year was a giveaway to the rich and want to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations.

·         Want to give the Dreamers a path to citizenship and help refugees seeking asylum in the United States.

·         Are against the dismantling of regulations that protect the environment and consumers.

·         Support a woman’s right to an abortion and fear that Roe v. Wade may be overturned.

·         Support the Mueller investigation and want to prosecute any American who collaborated with the Russians to fix the election in favor of any candidate.
 

Most of all, virtually every Democrat wants to rein in Donald Trump by electing a Congress that is not afraid to overrule his actions with legislation and make certain that his appointees are competent and not irrational ideologues or thieving cronies.
 
As we have seen, all Democrats pretty much share the same basic views, especially when contrasted with the Trumpublicans. The only way to conceal this underlying unity, however, is not to mention or talk about issues, something that the Times news staff has proven itself quite capable of doing.