Saturday, April 27, 2019

Me and Joe on the Line

When the vice president came to Tulsa

By BARRY FRIEDMAN 



(Author’s Note: Below is a piece I wrote in late 2015, when then-Vice President Joe Biden came to Tulsa for a fundraiser. I am bringing it up here, primarily, because of the photo, because of the hug. The Vice President hugged a lot that day, hugged a lot of people who didn’t know they were going to be hugged (I, for one, initiated it as much as I received it), touched a lot of shoulders while being photographed. This is a difficult topic for a white male to talk about, as we’re not usually the ones whose space is invaded, not usually the ones harassed, not usually the ones overwhelmed be the choreography of powerful men; so I will tell you what I saw: Nobody in Tulsa that afternoon, male or female, was groped, visibly shaken, or disturbed by Biden. There were hugs, shoulder and arm grasps, a physical closeness. Period. Biden, if he runs for president, should probably dial back his physicality, for it’s a new world and his are old ways. If he runs, there are many reasons not to support Biden in 2020. This issue isn’t one of them.)

The Monday before Vice President Joe Biden came to Tulsa, Michael Whelan, who is now with the DNC Finance Committee, sent me an Instant Message, asking if I wanted to attend as his guest.
A large white awning, placed by the Secret Service, covers the entrance on 6th, between Main and Boulder. Inside, on the check-in table, different colored wrist bands: multicolor and purple, maybe one more—white, I think — for VIPs, people admitted on the rope line.

I get no wrist band.

The Penthouse at the Summit Club is as it should be. Mahogany table tops, servers with perfect hair, windows with perfect views, rooms with perfect bars and perfect food.

I see Michael.

“I can’t thank you enough for this.”

“Some day, and that day may never come, I’ll call upon you to do a service for me.”

Be my friend, Godfather.

Behind the podium and lectern, where the vice president will speak, three American flags.

The event is to start at 2; it is 1:45.

“Barry,” Michael asks a little after 2, “can Carol borrow your phone so she can record my introduction?”

“Sure.”

“Better still, you do it.”

“Okay.”

“Let Barry in,” Michael tells the security guy by the rope line. I am let in.

Moments later, Michael bounds to the stage.

He talks of the vice president, not just as a great man, but a good man — Uncle Joe, he reminds us. “This is a big … deal,” Michael says, gently mocking the time Biden told President Obama (after ACA was approved): “This is a big f***ing deal.”

The vice president, we’re told, will be here soon.

I decide not to move. I am on the rope line, a place I shouldn’t be. I am behind two women, in front of two others.

At 3 p.m., I get a text from my girlfriend. “His plane just landed.”

“I have to get back to work,” I hear one of the women behind me say.

Another half hour passes. I need a Diet Coke, a bathroom, Tylenol.

“Would you hold …?”

“Yes,” the woman behind me says.

I return minutes later. More people now. I maneuver my way back behind the same two women.

I think about loosening my tie. I don’t.

People, who have paid big money to see the vice president, come out from behind the curtain to the left of the podium, take seats. He is in the building.

Former Mayor Taylor comes to the podium, talks about Democrats, the party, the energy in the room.

He appears.

Thinner than you think, but the smile is all Biden — broad, white, perfect teeth — almost too many of them. He speaks from notes he doesn’t need, makes jokes he’s made a million times, gently criticizes Bernie Sanders for demonizing billionaires, and talks of his family, including Beau, his latest dead child. He sees an infant in the audience, says to her, pointing at her, “I promise you”—and here his voice is softer; he is now talking about cancer, “in five years, we’ll have something. If not a cure, then manageable.” Beau died of cancer back in June. Biden’s first wife, Neilia, and their child, Naomi, were killed in a car crash in 1972, a month after winning his first senate victory. Naomi was 13 months old. Biden said at the time, he knew by the ring of his phone something was wrong. “You just know.”

A cellphone goes off.

The vice president takes the mic out of the stand, leaves the lectern, hops down. He addresses those to his left, veterans in wheelchairs. “These people,” he says, pointing to everyone else, “will see more technological advancement in the next five years than we’ve seen our whole lives.” He loses his place once or twice, but it doesn’t matter, for he knows more than he’s forgotten. He is comfortable being Joe Biden. His gray hair combed back, the bald spot pronounced. The suit looks like it came off the rack. He comes back to his father, uncle, mother. He impersonates them; the accent is the same, regardless of gender. It’s Western Pennsylvania. He’s proud of it, proud of them. For reasons not entirely clear, I start thinking about Mario Cuomo, but not the 1984 speech at the Democratic Convention, pushing back against Ronald Reagan’s Shining City Upon a Hill, but the one in 1982, at his first gubernatorial inauguration, when he talked about the nation and his father, an Italian immigrant from Queens with calloused hands, and a fallen tree in the Cuomo front yard.

“Dad, he said, “the tree’s dead, forget it. ‘Shut up,’ the father said, ‘We plant, she’s gonna grow.’”

It grew.

And in Albany that day, legislators cried.

“The Chinese premier asked me once,” says Biden, “to describe America in one word. I told him: ‘Possibilities.’”

And then he looks again at all the babies in the room.

He apologizes for going long.

“Thank you. God bless you.”

Applause.

He then jumps down off the podium, again, and moves to his right. The Secret Service swarms.

“Hands out of your pockets, please,” one agent says to me, tapping me on the shoulder.

“If he comes this way,” I say to the women in front of me, “I’m reaching between you.”

They laugh.

He poses for more pictures. His smile lights up on cue, a smile that’s rehearsed, but not disingenuous. He holds some of those babies.

He is now five people from me.

I need to say something, ask something. Don’t be a fanboy, don’t mumble.

Three people … two.

He is in front of me. Inexplicably, the women move aside. I hand someone in his detail my phone.
“You know,” I say, shaking his hand, “you’re better than Mario Cuomo at this, at what America meant to that generation, to that promise.”

“Cuomo was very good,” he says, smiling.

“Yeah, but you hit another chord.”

“Thanks.”

“I have to ask you,” I say—because I, too, know about the sound of that phone call—“about fathers and sons.”

Yes, this is what I want to know.

“Go ‘head.”

“I lost a son, too, and I saw you on Colbert, talking about loss and being president and it killed me, so would you give it up — give it all back, the vice presidency, all of it — to see your children again?”
The smile is gone. He stops pumping my hand, but doesn’t let go of it. He closes it in his and pulls them both to his chest. His eyes well up.

“In a heartbeat. Just to see them one more time. Yes.” And he says it again. “Yes. How’d your son die?”

“Drugs.”

He shakes his head, closes his eyes.

I don’t know how to characterize this next moment without exploiting it, ruining it, but the vice president of the United States, this 72-year-old man—this great, good man—blindsided by memory and life and a stupid question and too many untimely funerals, is crying. His hands are now grabbing my forearms. Joe Biden, in this moment, is not a man with 10 Oklahoma Highway Patrol motorcycles, three Tulsa Police Department cruisers, seven black sport utility vehicles, two vans, two ambulances and a Jeep waiting for him downstairs on a closed 6th Street. He is a father of dead children and holding on.

I can see people watching him, watching us, waiting for him. He needs to keep moving.

I hug him; he hugs me.

A look. A nod.

“Take care.”

“You, too.”

And he is gone.

The vice president of the United States, Joseph R. Biden, has a rope line to work. The smile slowly comes back.

Barry Friedman is a comedian in Tulsa, Okla., and blogs at . A version of this appeared at the Tulsa Voice in December 2015. 

From The Progressive Populist, May 15, 2019

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

Copyright © 2019 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652

Editorial: Let the Chips Fall

Robert Mueller finally produced his book, detailing in 448 pages the at-best skeevy behavior of Donald Trump and his apparatchiks during the 2016 campaign, followed by the outrageous conduct as Trump apparently tried to cover up the misbehavior after the election. But the findings of the special counsel won’t have maximum impact on the electorate until Democrats produce the movie, which will require public hearings in the House that lay out how Mueller reached his conclusions.

Despite warnings, mainly from conservative pundits, that impeachment hearings could blow back on the Democrats, we don’t see a downside to holding Trump to account for his misbehavior, and the bad actions of his entourage. Indeed, it is the House’s duty.

We certainly can’t count on Attorney General Bill Barr doing his duty, after his April 18 press conference before the report was released, in which Barr spouted talking points that could have been drawn up by Trump. He gave Trump a half hour to proclaim “total exoneration” before the Mueller report came out with the damning details of a 22-month investigation that produced 199 criminal charges, 37 indictments or guilty pleas and five prison sentences, as of this writing. Mueller also referred cases to US attorneys’ offices in New York, Virginia and Washington, D.C., as well as state investigators in New York and Maryland, but Mueller stopped just short of criminal indictments of the Great Misleader.

Among other things, Barr stressed that Mueller did not find evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. Trump seized that point to tweet “Game Over,” despite the fact that Mueller, as Barr knew, had not considered “collusion,” since he was looking for evidence of “conspiracy,” which is the applicable criminal offense.

Barr excused Trump’s actions that might look like obstruction of justice, saying, “There is substantial evidence to show that the President was frustrated and angered by a sincere belief that the investigation was undermining his presidency, propelled by his political opponents, and fueled by illegal leaks. Nonetheless, the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation.”

Barr also said Mueller was “not saying that, but for the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, he would have found a crime. He made it clear that he had not made the determination that there was a crime.”

The redacted report itself, however, provides an entirely different explanation of why Mueller didn’t make a prosecution decision.

Mueller concluded that he could not seek indictments in 10 cases that looked like obstruction of justice, because he was, technically, an attorney of the Justice Department, which has a policy, drawn up during the Watergate era, that a sitting president couldn’t be indicted. But Mueller also concluded he couldn’t clear Trump of obstructing justice, based on the evidence they uncovered.

“If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state,” Mueller wrote. “Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.”
That’s hardly a vote of confidence in Trump’s character.

Mueller also concluded that Congress’s proper function in this situation was to exercise its powers under our constitutional system of checks and balances to make sure that no person is above the law. “We concluded that Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice,” Mueller wrote.

Mueller also explained why this is constitutionally proper. “Congress can permissibly criminalize certain obstructive conduct by the President, such as suborning perjury, intimidating witnesses, or fabricating evidence, because those prohibitions raise no separation-of-powers questions.”
That is where congressional hearings are warranted. Republicans have a considerable capacity for denial, but televised hearings on the details of Trump’s obstructive conduct should make Trump’s high crimes and misdemeanors increasingly obvious.

For example, Congress should take its own look at the meeting Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Trump’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, held with Russians who were said to be linked to Vladimir Putin’s government — even if they weren’t technically on the payroll — after Don Jr. was promised “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, in addition to a discussion on “Russian adoptions.”

Amanda Marcotte of Salon believes “Russian adoptions,” which the Trump camp claims was the reason for the meeting, was a code phrase for sanctions relief for Russian oligarchs. Marcotte noted that Trump literally went out in public in the summer of 2016 and asked Russian hackers to attack Hillary Clinton’s email servers, which they immediately did. “We also know that Trump has routinely lied about what he knew about the extent of Russian interference, since he was briefed on it in August 2016 and has repeatedly pretended he was not,” Marcotte noted.

Another reason to hold hearings is to give Republicans a chance to defend their vote to impeach Bill Clinton in 1998 on a charge that he lied about a legal, consensual act with an adult, when they now insist that Trump shouldn’t face any repercussions for trying to stop the FBI from investigating his links to Russia and his then-national security adviser Michael Flynn’s lies to the FBI about activities during the transition period. Then, after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey, he tried to prevent Mueller’s appointment as special counsel. After that, he tried to get then-attorney general Jeff Sessions to fire Mueller, despite Sessions’ recusal. Trump continued to try to curtail the investigation; he tried to prevent public disclosure of evidence; he tried to cover up his attempts to fire Mueller; he tried to limit the cooperation of witnesses, including Flynn, Manafort and others; and he turned from praise of his former attorney, Michael Cohen, to castigation after Cohen started cooperating with prosecutors.

Some Democrats think they’d be better off running against Trump in 2020 instead of removing him from office and running against Mike Pence. Democrats probably will still get to run against the Great Misleader, because Republicans are scared witless by Trump’s base who are ready to “primary” any Republican who strays from the self-righteous path. The odds against Democrats finding 20 Republican senators who will rediscover patriotism in the next year and a half to remove Trump are pretty remote.

But Democrats should do what they can to expose the rot in the Trump Administration, which has taken over the Grand Oligarch Party. Democrats shouldn’t fear the roars from Trump, who “won” the election in the Electoral College with a minority of the popular vote and has never tried to win over those who voted against him. He’s also never had a national approval rating average higher than 47.8%, in the week after his inauguration, in polls compiled by FiveThirtyEight.com. As of April 23, his approval rating was 41.4% while 53.5% disapproved. That’s during a healthy economy and it’s not a position of strength for the GOP.

Let Republicans defend Trump’s perfidy — and thank goodness he wasn’t an effective obstructer. Democrats can promote expanding health coverage, enacting a Green New Deal to save the climate while increasing jobs in renewable energy and protecting small farms, and replacing Trump’s budget-busting tax breaks for billionaires and corporations with a return to the progressive income tax code, which carried the US through its greatest economic boom in the 1950s and ’60s, when millionaires and corporations paid their fair share of the expenses of providing for defense, promoting general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty. — JMC



From The Progressive Populist, May 15, 2019

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

Copyright © 2019 The Progressive PopulistPO Box 819, Manchaca TX 78652

Selections from the May 15, 2019 issue

COVER/Daniel Marans and Jonathan Cohn
Bernie Sanders welcomes war with insurance industry over Medicare for All


EDITORIAL
Let the chips fall


LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

DON ROLLINS
Coal towns, their past and present


RURAL ROUTES/Margot McMillen
Kick a bully if it’s Monsanto


DISPATCHES
Trump lawsuit to block congressional oversight reads like his tweets;
Modest projections about NAFTA 2.0 economic gains makes passage unlikely;
Social Security trust fund will reach zero in 2035, trustees say;
Earth Day founder thinks we're close to political breakthrough on climate;
Warren student debt cancellation plan helps most vulnerable;
Trump unpopularity spreads to battleground states;
Trump and Pence tweeted about Notre Dame fire but ignord 3 black churches burned in Louisiana;
Global economy could save $160 trillion by shifting to renewables;
Sen. Richard Burr leaked Trump-linked targets of FBI probe to White House


JIM GOODMAN
Don’t fall for the hype of free trade agreements


JOHN YOUNG
‘Stick it to them’ policies that have stuck

JILL RICHARDSON
Why is going green so hard? Because our system isn’t


SETH SANDRONSKY
Extinction rebellion


ART CULLEN
Beto has some beef, plus star power


BARRY FRIEDMAN
Me and Joe on the line


HEALTH CARE/Joan Retsinas 
A president hog-wild about pork


SAM URETSKY
House call program brings dentistry to seniors who don’t have their own foundation


MIKE KUHLENBECK
Nothing to smile about: The inequality gap in dental care


WAYNE O’LEARY
Single-payer and its enemies


JOHN BUELL
Democracy vs the bipartisan consensus


GENE NICHOL
N.C.’s continuing crusade against democracy


BOOK REVIEW/Heather Seggel 
Pleasure principles


ROB PATTERSON
Bingeing blue


SATIRE/Rosie Sorenson 
Orange you glad he’s our president?


FILM REVIEW/Ed Rampell 
Much ado about little


KELLY MARTIN
How the White House spent Earth Day


TODD LARSEN
The planetary cost of Amazon’s convenience

Monday, April 22, 2019

One big reason for Dems to overcome their fears & pursue impeachment of Trump: it’s their constitutional responsibility & the right thing to do

By Marc Jampole

The Democrats who don’t want to impeach Donald Trump at this point are afraid of their own shadows. Or maybe the shadows of their big funders.

They say they fear that the move would backfire—as it seems to have done when the House impeached Bill Clinton in 1999 and Slick Willie’s popularity soared.

But the Clinton case is much different from the current situation. Most of the country didn’t really care one way or another about what Clinton had done in his private life. People at the time understood that Clinton was not a corrupt individual, nor was he running a corrupt enterprise. Many people thought it was nobody’s business what two people did with each other behind closed doors. It had no bearing on U.S. security or the ability of Clinton to serve as president. Many people even forgave Clinton his one instance of law-breaking: lying under oath about having had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. They thought as I did at the time—and still do—that lying was inherent in adultery. It’s virtually as impossible to have an affair without lying as it is to get a homerun and not touch first base. Besides, a consensual relationship with an adult is a far cry from Trump’s history of illegality and unethical behavior. Lying about an affair is definitely not the same as breaking campaign finance laws; trying to impede an investigation; manipulating the value of assets up to get a bigger loan  and down to avoid taxes; or not reporting it to the FBI when a foreign adversary offers you help to get elected.

Instead of the Clinton case, Democrats should look at the impeachment of Andrew Johnson and the almost-impeachment of Richard Nixon for historical precedents. Like Trump, they were both truly guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Johnson endangered American law by impeding reconstruction of the south as a bastion of democracy for all. While there were no political polls in the 1860s, everything we read of the period suggests highly that Johnson’s popularity went down after his impeachment and near-conviction by the Senate. Besides the Watergate burglary and cover-up, Nixon had bombed Cambodia illegally and gone way too far in investigating his perceived domestic enemies. We know Nixon lost the country, because that’s why the GOP finally ended its resistance to impeachment and conviction, and ultimately why Tricky Dick short-circuited the constitutional process for removing a president and resigned. Thus the two times presidents deserved impeachment, the impeachment process did not help their popularity.

Let’s also keep in mind—only a little facetiously—that no president who has faced impeachment was ever elected to the office again. Facetiously because in both Nixon and Clinton’s case, the impeachment proceedings began during his second term, a fact that goes to the heart of the Democrat’s cravenness in not immediately initiating impeachment proceedings. They figure that the people will vote Trump out of office in 2020, and if they don’t then they’ll think about taking care of business.

Others suggest that until the Republicans are on board with convicting in the Senate, impeachment is a waste of time. That argument assumes falsely that impeachment is in of itself a little less than a hand slap.

But as the always perceptive Charles Blow points out in the New York Times, “an impeachment vote in the House has to this point been the strongest rebuke America is willing to give a president.” Blow and others argue—and I agree—that impeachment without conviction is nonetheless a severe punishment.

Blow also reminds us that Trump’s approval rating has never vacillated widely the way other modern presidents have. He has stayed in a narrow channel of around 40% no matter what he says or does or others say or do about him. There is therefore not much of a chance that his popularity will soar after an impeachment and non-conviction.

It is true that the several investigations of Trump recently opened by the House will likely reveal more and remind us of many Trump’s wrong doings—illegal or merely despicable. The idea of waiting until the evidence builds up seems prudent until you peruse the Mueller Report and realize that there is already enough to impeach Trump multiple times. The impeachment hearings will allow the House, and maybe the entire country, to see most of the documents being requested in these various committee hearings. One way or another, Trump’s taxes are coming out! So why wait? No need for them to appear before impeachment hearings begin, since they can emerge as part of those hearings.

There is one overarching reason for the House to pursue impeachment. It’s their job and the right thing to do.

As usual, Elizabeth Warren expressed it best, in her tweet advocating the House begin impeachment proceedings: The Mueller Report lays out facts showing that a hostile foreign government attacked our 2016 election to help Donald Trump and Donald Trump welcomed that help. Once elected, Donald Trump obstructed the investigation into that attack. Mueller put the next step in the hands of Congress: “Congress has authority to prohibit a President's corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.” The correct process for exercising that authority is impeachment.

The Democrats seem to risk little by starting the ball rolling on impeachment. And the reward will be that they did their jobs under the Constitution of the United States.