2016 April 30^th

As I wrote yesterday, the “stop Trump movement” has been stopped and now it’s on to California with a howdy do to Indiana on route. Trump will be the Republican nominee, Clinton will carry the Democratic standard… and Trump will lose in a landslide. As the nursery doggerel goes, “All the King’s horses and all the King’s men can’t put the Republican party together again.”

Trump very successfully appeals to certain voters; their demographics are well known. They are a broad section of a very narrow group. There are few “minorities,” fewer women than men and very few well-educated people. Trump has said, “I love the poorly educated;” they love him right back too, and nothing he says will pry them lose from their Donald. He is their savior and his followers view him exactly as religious people view a savior. If it comes to that, they will viciously attack anyone who denigrates their Donald. We have seen that happen at Trump’s rallies. Trump encourages these physical attacks against challengers because he has a “thing” about rejection. Any criticism of him produces a disproportionate response, which he assumes will stifle the critic. This belligerence plays into the mind-set of his fan base whose first response to frustration is usually rage. (What else do they have?) In this way, they can identify with Donald Trump even though their differing financial circumstances seem to make any identification impossible. They can see their attitudes as just like billionaire Donald Trump’s attitudes. Naturally, they adore him.

While Trump gets large crowds at his rallies and wins primary elections, he is not doing all that well if you look closely at his appeal. Trump has managed to get 10.5 million votes total in all of the primary contests he’s entered so far. At this stage, George Bush had about 20 percent more votes than that. Then there is the inescapable fact that Trump’s opponents in these primaries won 15 million votes, or about 50 percent more than Trump. Many more Republicans voted against Trump in the primaries than voted for him. While the stop Trump movement fizzled there was a stop Trump movement; was there a stop Bush (43) movement; was there a stop Barak Obama movement; a stop John McCain movement? What has Trump done to deserve this honor except to convince his party’s leaders that he cannot possibly win the general election?

Now we have a candidate who is destined to win the nomination but lose the general. Who would like to be his running mate, the Vice Presidential candidate associated with the crushing defeat of the head of the ticket? Chris Christie seems to have little future in New Jersey and he’s already endorsed Trump so he has very little to lose that he hasn’t already lost. He’ll be Trump’s guy.

2016 April 29^th

The “stop Trump movement” has all but collapsed. We know that because a few noteworthy Republican Senators are now praising some of Trump’s antics. Foremost among the panderers is that esteemed Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, Bob Corker. Senator Corker claims that Trump’s speech “challenges the foreign policy establishment.” Of course, the challenge here might be to understand what Trump was talking about. Eventually, though, Senator Corker climbs aboard the Trump train by saying that “the speech was a great step in the right direction.” This leader of the Foreign Relations Committee will perhaps not be happy to know that his enthusiasm for Trump’s pronouncements are echoed by none other than Russian President Vladimir Putin who also thought Trump’s foreign policy speech was just dandy. Hey, talk about kumbaya! Maybe Corker and Putin can get together and start a Trump fan club!

For a change, Trump delivered the speech using a teleprompter, a device he has roundly condemned others for using. Perhaps with this speech, he wanted to be certain to say exactly what his handlers thought he should say, to do that he had to stick to the script, hence the teleprompter.

The speech was not universally well received.  In spite of President Putin and Senator Corker’s praise, Senator Lindsey Graham described it as nonsensical, unnerving and pathetic, so not everyone was happy with Trump’s effort.

I doubt that the content of Trump’s remarks, his proclamations or position papers will have much effect; what does have an effect is the almost certainty that Trump will be the Republican nominee. If he becomes the Republican Party’s standard-bearer, who will want to cross him? All aboard; if you’re a pol for heaven’s sake don’t get left behind. Just watch everyone scramble to get on the Trump train and dismiss Senator Cruz.

Governor Pence of Indiana a very right leaning Governor, who recently had to retreat from an anti-gay law, just gave a tepid endorsement to Senator Cruz. He said that all three candidates were splendid, then went on to single out Donald Trump twice for extra-special remarks, but said that he would vote for Senator Cruz. It’s easy to see why this guy became a politician. He covered every base.

Most of the prognosticators are predicting that Trump will lose massively to Clinton, but some are cautious because too often Trump has been counted out when he blundered and his fans didn’t care. This is different; he’s not going to lose his fans no matter what but those fans aren’t enough for him to win the general election. He does not do well with women; he does not do well with Hispanics and he does not do well with African Americans.  He cannot win a general election with his present fan base; there are just not enough of them. If the Republicans can manage to restrict the ability to vote of enough minorities maybe Trump would have a chance but disenfranchising minorities could have other very unpleasant consequences.

2016 April 28^th

Today Cal Thomas is accusing Governor Terry McAuliffe of Virginia of “courting the felon vote.” That is actually the title of Thomas’ column in this morning’s Record-Eagle. Each state determines its own voting regulations, consistent with the Constitution of course. Virginia’s governor has determined that while Virginia had formerly denied felons’ voting rights, even after they had served their prison terms, completed any parole or other obligation to the state, he would now permit them to vote. For Cal Thomas this is a pure case of pandering to very bad people just to get their vote.

He has company: Virginia House of Delegates Speaker William J. Howell has said, speaking of Governor McAuliffe, “This office has always been a stepping stone to a job in Hillary Clinton’s cabinet.” Say what? Always a stepping stone to a job in Hillary Clinton’s cabinet…really? She hasn’t been elected yet and so she obviously has no cabinet, so what on earth is this man talking about? Does he know? Does Cal Thomas know?

Thomas goes on to site the National Conference of State Legislatures, “In 38 states and the District of Columbia, most ex-felons automatically get the right to vote upon completion of their sentence.” So Thomas sites this source that tells us most states already allow felons to recover their right to vote, but apparently Thomas believes the fact that Governor McAuliffe has allowed this in Virginia was done for purely political purposes.

Then Thomas, in his ignorance, tries to besmirch a Democratic state but instead takes to task a Republican one; he writes, “In liberal Maine and Vermont convicted felons may cast their ballots while in prison and are never disenfranchised.” Cal Thomas’ premise is half-right: Vermont is liberal with a Democratic Governor and a Democratic Speaker of the House. But Maine is anything but liberal; Maine has a very unpredictable Republican Governor Paul LePage who is known to simply walk out of meetings if he doesn’t like the tone of the discussion. Then there is Republican Senator Susan Collins and Independent Senator Angus King. There are just two congress people a Democrat and a Republican. The majority leader of the Maine Legislature, Garrett Mason, is a Republican.

It would appear that Cal Thomas classifies Maine as liberal because he doesn’t like the fact that they let convicted felons vote. Michigan also lets convicted felons vote once they have completed their obligations to the state. Michigan has (temporarily at least) a Republican Governor, Republican controlled Legislature and a Republican dominated Supreme Court. Cal needs to do some more research.

2016 April 27^th

The big surprise in yesterday’s primary vote was the margin of victory gained by Donald Trump. He demolished his opposition. Not many Republicans in those northeast states were drawn to Cruz or Kasich. Trump received anywhere from 54 percent of the Pennsylvania vote to 64 percent of the Rhode Island vote.

Fox News was trying desperately to diffuse the notion that Trump was not getting the votes of women. One of their older white business suited commentators, very agitated by the very idea, pointed out that Trump had more than 52 percent of the women’s vote in Rhode Island. Now given that Trump got 64 percent of the total vote in that state, but only 52 percent of the women’s vote, and if men and women turned out in equal numbers, it must follow that Trump got 76 percent of the men’s vote. The average of the men’s and women’s vote must give Trumps total percentage. This does make his 52 percent of women’s vote look pretty bleak….Of course maybe far fewer than half of Trump’s voters were women, and if that were the case what does that do to his appeal to women?

Basking in the warm glow of his victory, Trump has already given a foreign policy speech that was not universally well received: retired General Barry McCaffrey, a perennial commentator on things military, thought it was very statesmanlike; Senator Lindsey Graham, a late blooming Trump supporter, called it pathetic and incoherent. His Twitter comment was, “Trump speech is pathetic in terms of understanding the role America plays in the world, how to win War on Terror, and threats we face,” Graham also wrote.“Trump’s FP speech not conservative. It’s isolationism surrounded by disconnected thought, demonstrates lack of understanding threats we face.” Graham also mocked Trump for using a TelePrompTer to deliver the speech.

There was one change: Trump had earlier claimed that to be an “honest broker” in the Israel-Palestinian conflict he had to be neutral.  Any hint of neutrality by an American official in this dust-up will arouse enormous unhappiness in AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a very powerful lobby that Trump is not ready to irritate for all his rejection of political correctness. In this foreign policy speech Trump is no longer talking about being an “honest broker,” he is now a full throated supporter of all things Israeli; I’m sure his newly hired handlers are happy with the change.

In what might be an attempt to steal some of Trump’s thunder from his monumental northeast win, Senator Cruz has just announced that his running mate will be …Carly Fiorina! Short of selecting Sarah Palin Cruz could not have given a more appetizing gift to his opponents. Some say that Fiorina was picked because she is known in California. Indeed she is; she is known for having been demolished by Senator Barbara Boxer when Fiorina challenged Boxer for her Senate seat. Boxer pointed out the job cuts Fiorina engineered at Hewlett Packard and her Fiorina’s own purchase of an extravagant yacht. Then there is the matter of Fiorina neglecting to fully pay her staff in that failed election try for the Senate until she decided on a run for the Presidential nomination. Great choice Senator Cruz.

2016 April 26^th

Senator Cruz and Governor Kasich might not have truly colluded, depending of course on your usage of that term, but they do seem to be conducting a cabal. Either way, whatever you call what they’re doing, it is provoking much hilarity and very little reduction in Donald Trump’s appeal.

The unacknowledged plan seems to be for Cruz to campaign unimpeded in Indiana while the favor is returned to Kasich in Oregon and New Mexico. Kasich has cancelled his campaign events in Indiana so that fits. This morning on Matt Lauer’s program Kasich was interviewed and Lauer asked him how he would advise Indiana voters to vote. His response was that he would not presume to tell anyone how to vote. In most cases, candidates for public office explain why they believe you should vote for them and then ask you for your vote. Now we have Kasich in Indiana who is running for his party’s nomination but claims that he doesn’t care for whom Indianans vote. That is very generous of him.

This is simply ridiculous; if these two Republicans really want to keep Trump from the nomination then why don’t they agree that Kasich will simply drop out of the contest and give Cruz a clear field? But what does Kasich get out of that scenario? Zilch! Loyalty for politicians is first to their own egos, then to their party and finally, if any is left, loyalty to their country. Regardless of the disaster they believe Trump would be as President they will be happy to vote for him rather than for Clinton…as I said, party comes before country. This is why George Washington was so opposed to the rise of political parties in this country. At this point the Stop Trump Movement has spent 2 million dollars on its efforts; Trump, during the same period, has spent less than a million. When tonight’s results are in, Donald Trump is expected to win the primaries in all the states; the only question is by how much?

Then there is the Hillary-- Bernie contest: It is getting more and more testy. Bernie prides himself on appealing to small donors who keep him very well-funded while he accuses Hillary of getting huge sums for speeches to groups to which she must certainly have promised something venal to get all that money. So far we don’t have an official copy of the Goldman-Sachs talks so we can’t know how incriminating they are. The fact that Clinton is keeping them from public view is not a comforting sign for her supporters.

Speeches aside, Clinton has to be concerned about two things: The crowds Bernie is getting are enormous and so is the funding coming into his campaign; then there are his unremitting attacks against her, which will surely be taken up by whomever her opponent is in the general election. Again, Bernie doesn’t seem to care if he reduces her chances in the general election, all he seems to care about are his very unlikely chances to win the Democratic nomination. Political egos are no respecters of party….and I voted for this guy!

2016 April 24^th

Donald Trump is not happy with the way the primary election is conducted by the various sub-cultures within the Republican Party. He claims the process is “crooked” and makes other equally uncomplimentary remarks about the Party. There is no one size fits all with the procedure. The voter does not get a guarantee that a ballot cast for the candidate will surely result in a vote for the candidate. Often a vote for the candidate results in a vote for a delegate who might, or might not, be pledged to remain committed to the candidate at the convention. Many of the delegates in Georgia, Louisiana and other states were selected on the basis of their commitment to Ted Cruz after the first ballot.

Is the process as crooked as Trump claims? If you are a Trump supporter it certainly is; if you don’t like Trump the method isn’t crooked at all. Those who claim the process is just fine include George Will who has had many harsh, but not inaccurate, things to say about Donald Trump. Will, as do other supporters of the RNC’s methods, claim that these rules were announced well in advance of the primaries and Trump’s supporters had as much notice of the procedures as did Cruz’ supporters. Will also points out that the founding fathers were not fans of direct elections. Until 1828 only land owning white men could vote and their vote was for electors in whose hands the Presidential decision ultimately fell. Will finds this procedure quite satisfactory and can’t understand why Trump and his supporters should object to it.

Trump, on the other hand is not at all sanguine about such methods. Simply because these procedures had been announced in advance doesn’t make them right. In local elections when you vote for a particular ballot issue if there are more favorable votes than opposition votes the ayes have it; there is no debate. Most Americans believe that same principle should also apply to something as important as selecting presidential candidates. When it doesn’t it means that skullduggery of some sort must surely be afoot. Trump now spends considerable effort reinforcing exactly this point of view. Even Dr. Ben Carson, a recent convert to Trump’s position joins in. Carson points out that everyone understood the rules of Jim Crow too, but that didn’t make those rules legitimate.

At this point it seems that either Trump wins on the first ballot or he probably doesn’t win. If either Trump or Cruz wins it is highly unlikely that the Republican Party can avoid self–destructing.

2016 April 23^rd

Today Mona Charen comes out in favor of North Carolina’s bathroom edict in which one can only use the restroom appropriate to one’s gender at birth. Her column takes some time to get around to that opinion. First, she has to bemoan the long restroom lines women must endure at various public events. Men, because of gender differences and accommodating restroom facilities, rarely have such long waits. Ah, but the DAR’s constitution hall gets around this nicely by providing women with twice the number of restrooms provided to men…. Surprisingly the DAR has not been sued for blatant sexual discrimination.

Most single occupant restrooms are gender neutral, but again poor Mona has complaints. She claims “men are messy and leave the seat up most of the time.” Mona has dug into the literature on restroom sanitation and found that 62 percent of men but only 40 percent of women failed to wash their hands after using the toilet. If you are a member of the right wing commentariate I understand that it is important to have a litany of complaints but this does seem to be excessively picky.

Charen finally arrives at her primary difficulty and that is the presence of males in females’ restrooms. She claims, and I’m sure it is true, that women change their clothes and do other things that require privacy in public restrooms. She is unhappy that these activities might be observed by a trans-gendered person. She then moves to the psychiatric literature, or at least to a retired psychiatrist who asserts that he opposes “gender reassignment surgery.” She mentions gender dysphoria, which, simply stated, is unhappiness with one’s gender. She then goes on to conflate that with body dysmorphic disorder, which is ones unhappiness with the image of one’s body. These are often women who misperceive themselves as overweight and struggle to eat even less as a result becoming dangerously anorexic. It should be obvious that these are very different problems.

DSM V, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, does not, repeat not, classify gender dysmorphia as a mental disorder. Many on the right desperately wish it were otherwise; it isn’t. The Republican Governor of North Carolina will now have to deal with the loss of jobs and state revenue produced by his ill-conceived foray into bigotry. Consider a law that requires anyone to use the restroom corresponding to his or her gender at birth: How will Governor McCrory enforce that law?  Will there be North Carolina State Troopers stationed outside every public restroom in the state checking birth certificates? Mona Charen would vote for that I’m sure but probably not for the increase in taxes required to hire the extra police. If you don’t require birth certificates on entrance how could anyone possibly know who was disobeying the law?

2015 April 22^nd

Thomas Sowell’s column a few days ago was aimed at Donald Trump’s unhappiness with the RNCs rules. In passing Sowell feels obligated to take some gratuitous swings at Hillary Clinton and her record as Secretary of State. He claims that, “The foreign policies under Secretary Clinton have led to one disaster after another, whether in the Middle East, the Ukraine, or in North Korea.” Sowell’s naiveté is astonishing; the Secretary of State carries out the policies of the administration, and surely helps determine them. The Secretary most certainly does not set the country’s foreign policy de novo.

Additionally, world events do not always yield to diplomacy: What diplomatic action, short of agreeing to slavery, would have led to the Southern States resolving to remain in the Union? In the case of Libya, the removal of Khadafy was accomplished by the combined efforts of many countries. Does Sowell truly believe all of their foreign ministers were negligent because Libya became chaotic when Khadafy was removed? The notion is preposterous!

Sowell has forgotten, or prefers to forget, that Khadafy admitted to arranging for a bomb to be planted in the La Belle café in Berlin in 1986. Two American service men were killed and seventy some others were wounded, many losing limbs. A telex from Khadafy to the Libyan embassy in East Berlin was intercepted congratulating them on a job well done. President Reagan retaliated against Libya with airstrikes. Sowell perhaps would not have approved.

Two years after the La Belle bombing Pan Am flight 103 was blown out of the air over Lockerbie Scotland by a bomb planted by a Khadafy accomplice.  Counting all casualties, 270 people were killed by that Khadafy agent. The man was convicted and sentenced to life in a Scottish prison. Eventually, suffering from terminal cancer, he was released to return to Libya where he received a hero’s welcome from Khadafy when he stepped from his plane.

Sowell believes that because this tribal country was reduced to chaos when this butcher was removed, diplomacy failed. He should share his views with the relatives of the Pan Am 103 victims.

Sowell then regales us with examples in which a democratic governance is not appropriate. There are many of these: army platoons do not vote on whether or not to move here or there; families rarely vote on whether or not sister Jennie should continue seeing her boyfriend. Government is different, or at least most Americans believe it should be different. Sowell claims that political parties can do just as they please even to ignoring the voters.

In the same paper that carried Sowell’s comments, we have a column by Pat Buchanan, another right winger, but one with a slightly different take on this situation. He says, “The rules are the rules says Republican National Chairman Reince Priebus… Priebus is correct the rules are the rules. But what is also true is that the rules have been and are being manipulated by party elites to frustrate the expressed will of the party electorate and impose a nominee other than the clear winner of the primaries.” Now why don’t you two gentlemen get together and see if you can come to some agreement on this issue.

2016 April 21^st

We’re baaaack! Now is anybody there? Lots have happened, particularly on Tuesday in New York. As everybody knows by now Donald Trump won the Republican primary getting 60 percent of the vote and completely shutting out Lyin’ Ted Cruz. But Lyin’ Ted is very temporarily to be called Senator Cruz because Trump’s new handlers want him to be more Presidential, even if only sporadically. I doubt that Trump’s self-control can last beyond the next heckler’s interruption.

For Democrats, Hillary Clinton did much better than expected; she beat Bernie Sanders by a 58 to 42 percent margin. Bernie has flown home to Vermont to think it over.

Percentages conceal the raw data very nicely. Although Trump managed to get 60 percent of the Republican vote and Clinton only 58 percent of the Democratic vote, the raw numbers tell a very different story. Trump got just 518,601 Republican votes to over a million Democratic votes for Senator Clinton.  There are about 2.75 million registered Republican voters in all of New York State. Trump got about 518 thousand of those votes; that comes to about 19 percent of registered Republicans. Since when is getting 19 percent of registered Republican voters a resounding victory? It is by comparison with the popularity of the other Republican candidates. All of the Republican candidates put together were able to get just 32 percent of the vote of registered Republicans; the other 68 percent of Republicans really didn’t care enough to come out to vote…or maybe they were not happy about the choices they had.

But before we on the other political side start to crow about these data consider: The combined vote for Clinton and Sanders is about 1.8 million and that is also just 31 percent of New York State’s registered Democrats. Perhaps neither party is pulled to the polls by their eagerness to vote for the available candidates.

In the White House Rose Garden, in 1971, Miss Tricia Nixon married a Harvard Law student named Edward Cox. Miss Tricia’s sister, Julie Nixon, had one-upped Tricia by marrying David Eisenhower, the grandson of former President Dwight Eisenhower. Tricia’s chance to get even came when she had a date with George W. Bush the son of the former Vice President, but that didn’t go well at all. George spilled his wine and then, to compound this gaucherie he lit a cigarette; that ended the evening. Now that Harvard Law student, husband of Tricia, has risen(?) to become the chairperson of the New York Republican party.

Mr. Cox tells us that the Republican Party is surging as evidence by the fact that it controls many state Governorships and many state legislatures. Of course they do. Generally speaking, small rural states will lean Republican and there are more small rural states than large urban states. Party membership tells quite a different story; there are about two million more registered Democrats in this country than registered Republicans. As the urbanization of the country continues the Republican Party will become still less relevant until their only hope is to block Democrat’s access to the polls. And that they are working on.

2016 April 14^th

Henry’s Daily Detritus is taking a Sabbatical until April 21^st. Indigestion caused by the antics of the political principals needs a week to calm down. Thank you for your kind attention.

2016 April 13^th

A man named Randy Evans may well determine who the Republican standard-bearer will be in this election. Randy is one of those Republican biggies who will determine who gets the Republican crown at the Cleveland convention; he is a member of the rules committee. This morning Mr. Evans appeared on “Morning Joe” and he was a trifle unkind toward poor, complaining, Donald Trump of whom he said, “he should have learned the rules.” Rather like a cop who tells you that you should have known the speed limit was 35 miles an hour on this road. But then Randy was asked about the presumably sacred 1237 votes needed for a first ballet victory. He declared that if a candidate got 1100 or more votes that would assure victory; if they got less than 1000 that would guarantee defeat and if they fell in the grey area between these two the results would have to be adjudicated. I believe that Trump must be mightily encouraged by those comments. After all this Rules Committee honcho just knocked 137 votes off the number Donald Trump needs to win the nomination.

It does look like Trump will take New York and take it all; if he gets more than half the votes, he gets all of the delegates. They might be fickle and leave him after the first ballet but if he wins on the first ballet who cares? Then it also appears that the convention in Cleveland will be wide open to buying the votes of the uncommitted, of which there will be many. Mr. Evans was asked about this and confirmed that it happened and so what? He claimed that the academy awards were also rife with vote buying attempts with “gift baskets” for all the voters. Why bribery in one venue excuses it in another Evans didn’t say …and of course he wasn’t asked. These TV show folks want to get their guests back so unanswerable questions are rarely asked.

If it comes to competitive bribery I can’t Imagine Donald Trump losing; perhaps he could offer a weekend—or more-- at Mar-a-Lago, the old Marjorie Merriweather Post estate on Palm Beach. Just think, all meals, spa treatments, golf and probably much else for a gaggle of uncommitted voters. Who could compete with that? Besides the current Paddy Power odds are for Trump, even up to take the Republican nomination, and a six to one favorite to lose the general election once he is nominated. It is easy to see why the Republican Party is pushing a stop Trump movement. Of course, if they stop Trump their party still heads right down the tubes because all of those really, really, angry Trump voters will not likely steal quietly away. Windows will fly open and voices will shout, “I’m mad as hell and I won’t take it anymore.”

And then goodbye Republican Party.

2016 April 12^th

This column was censored yesterday, and again today, by a persistent circulating virus to which so far only the dog and 22- year-old cat have been immune. We are thankful for the smallest of favors!

Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House, announced at a press conference this afternoon that he could not possibly (no way--no how) run for the Presidency. No one gathered in that room to hear him believed a word of it. The reason was that Speaker Ryan had said the very same thing when he claimed the he did not want to be Speaker of the House. Some of his listeners when he made his announcement today rather unkindly pointed this out to him (The press being the press after all; bless their souls.) Speaker Ryan immediately went on a defensive riff pointing out the differences between the two positions. He pointed out that he became Speaker of the House when he was already in the House. Of course he did, and so what? He can become President of the United States because he’s already a citizen of the United States, born right there in Wisconsin.

The current leading candidate for the Presidency believes the current occupant of the White House was born in Kenya. Then a majority of Republicans believe the President is a Muslim. Just imagine the handicaps the Speaker of the House will avoid by opting to run for the Presidency this year. Everyone will acknowledge that he is a red blooded American Christian born in the USA…everyone will forget how he helped shut down the American government in 2013...but we haven’t forgotten..

2016 April 11th

Once again Patrick J. Buchanan has put himself firmly on the side of the exclusionists. The Pope has managed to include a variety of people who had not heretofore been well regarded by the Catholic hierarchy; of homosexuals he said, “Who am I to judge?” This attitude was not at all well received by Buchanan. Now, in a somewhat different vein, Buchanan is ranting against the attempts to provide for the enormous influx of Near Eastern refugees.

Buchanan claims that, “Behind this rising resistance to illegal and mass migration is human nature—the innate desire of peoples of one tribe or nation who share a common language , history, faith, culture and identity—to live together and apart from all the rest.” Buchanan is certainly right; it is also the innate desire of people to want what their neighbor has and to take it by force if they can. This was tribalism, a primitive form of civilization that all but a very few people, and perhaps Pat Buchanan, have now outgrown. When people become civilized they control these “innate impulses” for the common good; lacking that ability a people will relapse into bigotry. It has happened in this country when we sent citizens of Japanese ancestry to concentration camps at the outbreak of WW 2; it is happening now when we demonize Muslims.

Buchanan tells us that, “In the real world, nationalism not globalism is ascendant.” It was nationalism hat precipitated both world wars. Of course Buchanan would like to blame them both on Winston Churchill as he does in his curious history about “the unnecessary war.” The collapse of empires into nationalism produced a nationalistic Serbia that rebelled against the Austro-Hungarian Empire and finally assassinated the Austro-Hungarian Arch Duke, an event that began the First World War. Then there were the Poles, the Czechs and other nationalist splinters from empires that provided the tinder for WW 2.

It is surprising that Buchanan does not remember the signs, “No Irish need apply” that greeted his ancestors in this country when they first came here and looked for work. Those signs were the result of the tribalism that Buchanan now seems to be favoring.

The Pope has it right; the whole progress of civilization consists of overcoming a genetic inheritance that hundreds of centuries ago may have served us well but unless we overcome it now, it may destroy us.

2016 April 9^th

Senator Marco Rubio has joined the administration’s call for 1.9 billion in increased money to fight the new scourge, the Zika virus.  With summer coming (eventually), Florida, the Senator’s home state will be in the crosshairs of this deadly mosquito borne virus. Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, claims that the government has all the money it needs. There is money, so far unspent, that has been allocated to the Ebola virus and Speaker Ryan believes diverting some of that to fighting Zika would handle the problem.

Senator Rubio, no longer a Republican candidate for the Presidency, is back to representing the people of Florida instead of being bound to the Republican Party’s “never spend money” talking point. Speaker Ryan, true to form, continues his 2013 financial attitude when he was Chairman of the House Budget committee and he and his buddies, Senator Cruz and other Tea Party types shut down the government rather than commit to financing the Affordable Care Act. This year, having learned his lesson, and, in spite of Tea Party protests, there was no shutdown.

We were told, over-and-over, that the Republicans had a deep field of Presidential candidates this year; a wide field it maybe but hardly a deep field. Exactly a year ago today Senator Rand Paul announced his candidacy and became grist for some detritus; it makes this entry a trifle long but here it is:

April 9^th

I watched Rand Paul announce his Presidential bid a day or so ago. He certainly had something for everyone. He railed at considerable length about the enormous debt the country has, which happens when you have unfunded wars, but then he came to his tax plan, or rather his no tax plan. He is pushing an income tax plan, which he calls the EZ Tax. This is a flat tax of 17 percent on all wages. There would be exemptions and deductions so far unspecified; but then you’ll pay 17 percent on the balance. That’ll be 17 percent whether your salary is 50 thousand dollars or 50 million dollars. The Senator clearly believes that everyone should be treated the same.

On second thought, not entirely the same because there will be no federal income tax whatever on dividends, capital gains or estates. This means that if you have a five million dollar nest egg and you invest that at just five percent the 250 thousand dollar yearly income will be entirely free of federal tax and when you’re dead your kids can continue the tax free income. This will encourage more stock market “investment” because the profits from it will be untaxed, indeed profits probably will not even need to be reported. I’ll bet many rich folks will know a good thing when they see it and start shoving money into Rand’s campaign.

Most tax gurus claim that Paul’s EZ Tax plan will cost the treasury about 700 billion dollars a year compared with the current tax system. Not to worry though because Paul plans to cut spending. What spending does he plan to cut? He hasn’t said but his mantra is small government. When he starts cutting defense spending and crosses those Senators and Representatives with big defense plants in their districts he’ll hit a buzz saw! Still, it’s nice to contemplate such low taxes even if it’s just another politician offering pie in the sky.

Pushing his agenda on the tube has caused Paul some trouble. On CNBC, the business channel, he told Kelly Evans who was interviewing him to “calm down.” Later on he managed to contest the stage with Savannah Guthrie of NBC, telling her, “No, no, no…” eight times so as to get his very subtle points across; points he was sure she failed to understand. I wonder if he would try that arrogance on Joe Scarborough if he is interviewed on “Morning Joe?” The Senator does have an understandable problem with arrogance: He is the son of a Congressman; he got early admission to an elite medical school; he was elected to the Senate as his first elective office; he is a candidate for President and he is also a bit short. All of these can be avenues to arrogance. Maybe his arrogance will disappear if he faces a strong male interviewer. When that happens it should be fun to watch!

Is it any wonder that Senator Paul is no longer a candidate?

2016 April 8^th

This morning the R-E carried a letter to the editor written by a badly misinformed writer, Fred Stoye. Mr. Stoye wants us to consider the “Biden Rule” which he suggests keeps any SCOTUS appointment from being advanced in the final year of a President’s term. After maligning the left for “having a hard time with history,” Stoye writes, “The left/Democrats used the same tactic in 1992 with the “Biden Rule” not agreeing to discuss or confirm a Supreme Court nominee until after a new President was in office.” Mr. Stoye apparently has his own “hard time with history.” The “left” could not possibly have used the same tactic in 1992 to avoid discussing a SCOTUS nominee because there was no SCOTUS nominee in 1992. The resignation of Thurgood Marshall in 1991 gave President G.H.W. Bush the opportunity to nominate Clarence Thomas to the court and that was the last opening on the court during Bush’s Presidency. Clarence Thomas was confirmed but by a narrow margin. No one lobbied against giving Thomas a hearing as has been the case with Merrick Garland.

Then Stoye writes, “I would like to know where you get your facts that the “majority” of Americans want the hearings to be held.” There are polls, Mr. Stoye, which provides just this information, but the properly applied conservatively correct blinders will keep you and the folks who don’t like the poll’s results quite safe! A CNN/ORC poll a week or so ago sampled about a thousand voters.  Of those who classified themselves as Republican 55% believed that the Senate should hold hearings. Two thirds of all those polled believed there should be hearings and 52% believed that Merrick Garland should be confirmed.

Now let’s look at the broader picture: While there were no nominations to SCOTUS by G.H.W. Bush that were condemned to limbo by a Democratic Senate, there were about 50 federal judgeships that had to sit there because the Democrats wouldn’t do their jobs. What we have is a politicized judiciary including SCOTUS that was not supposed to be politicized according to the founding fathers. What this means is obvious;if a President wants to nominate and get approval for federal judges, including a SCOTUS appointment, then he can expect to do so only if his party has control of the Senate. If the President’s party doesn’t have control of the Senate no SCOTUS appointments will be made. It seems that if SCOTUS must function with six, or seven, or eight members then our politicians seem quite willing to allow that to happen. They manage to conflate the benefit to their party with the welfare of the country. I have no idea how that can be stopped.

2016 April 7^th

Senator Bernie Sanders is “mad as hell and he isn’t going to take it anymore.” No, he did not say that, but not saying it doesn’t matter. He believes that Senator Clinton said he wasn’t qualified to be President. Let’s face it, Senator Clinton never said that either, but as far as Sanders is concerned she might as well have said it. He believes that she has been hinting at it for months. The result is that now he claims she isn’t qualified to be President, so there! That’s nonsense because Clinton is obviously well qualified to be President based on her background. Sanders is also better qualified, at least by government experience, than many previously successful candidates for the Presidency. Clinton and Sanders should grow up and stop behaving like Republicans.

Don Blankenship is in the news again. Some years back Massey Energy, a coal company Blankenship headed had one of its coal mines, the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia, suffer an explosion which killed 29 miners. Coal mining is very dangerous work; odorless, explosive gasses and coal dust can collect in a mine and, if undetected, cause massive explosions. This is just what happened at the Upper Big Branch Mine.

The federal government has many safety regulations for the protection of miners but these were not strictly observed in the Upper Big Branch Mine; that would be expensive and reduce the mine’s profitability and as Don Blankenship has said, this is a capitalist society and every enterprise aims for maximum profits. Indeed Don Blankenship was a pillar of the Republican community in West Virginia and well beyond that state’s borders. He adhered closely to the party’s gospel; he denied global warming; he despised government mine safety regulations and he was not a union sympathizer.

A government investigation of this disaster found that the Upper Branch Mine had ignored the safety regulations despised by Blankenship but required by the government. There were over 350 safety violations at that mine. Of course the mine was profitable, as was Blankenship’s company, Massey Energy. As CEO Blankenship was handsomely rewarded. In 2009, just a year before the 29 miners were killed, Massey energy paid him 17.8 million dollars for his services. After the explosion and the investigation began to expose the possible criminal conduct involved, Blankenship retired. Continuing their generosity, Massey Energy provided Blankenship with a 27.2 million dollar severance package.

The federal prosecutors were also generous with Don Blankenship. He was prosecuted for his violations of safety standards at the Upper Big Bend mine; and he will serve one year in prison and pay a fine of 250 thousand dollars. That comes to about 13 days in prison and an $8,600 fine for each death his relaxation of safety standards caused. I guess it pays to be a wealthy Republican.

2016 April 6^th

The bad news for Donald Trump and for Hillary Clinton has arrived; they lost in the Wisconsin primary and they lost by double digits! The similarity between them ends there. Clinton Tweeted congratulation on his win to Bernie Sanders, and Trump complained at length about the “Washington Establishment” and their effort to stop his path to the nomination. At least Trump had the sense to stay away from the TV cameras and stick to posting reasonably brief prepared remarks. Thus he has reduced the chance to make a fool of himself yet again. Maybe he’s learning to pay some attention to his handlers. His Wisconsin defeat and his disastrous preceding week should have been a wake-up call, provided that Trump is wakeable! And now it’s on to New York and New England where, no doubt, there will be more surprises.

Senator Sanders has just done an interview with the New York Daily News editorial staff and he didn’t distinguish himself. They asked him very specific questions about everything from protecting Israel to riding the New York City subway system. His answers were weighed in their editorial balance and found wanting. For the most part Sanders admitted that he didn’t know the answers. One Media source proclaimed that “it was more or less an hour-long exercise in the editors asking serious and well thought-out questions about policy, and Sanders revealing that he was in way, way over his head.” On the other hand one of these “serious and well thought-out questions” was how do you ride the subway? Sanders answered that you get tokens and use them to get through the entrance gates. Oh my goodness me no! You haven’t had to use tokens in NYC subways for years and years…Bad Bernie! How often do any of the major candidates ride the NYC subway system? Remember when G.H.W. Bush didn’t know the cost of a gallon of supermarket milk? Much was made over that, but who cared?

This morning on a talk show program the host lamented at great length about the inconvenience it was to wait all of fifteen minutes on the phone to get service from some government agency. He’s right of course. Then he claimed that if this had been a business the owners would soon be out of business. Of course they would, but they would simply hire more clerks to take care of the increased traffic. A government agency can’t do that. Congress controls the purse strings and it works like this: The object of the right wing and particularly of the tea party is to strangle as much of the government as they can. To do this they limit or reduce the funding for government agencies. These agencies then are unable to properly service the public and the public complains. It follows that the agency isn’t doing its job and therefore should be completely abolished to save money. Isn’t that neat?

Not all agencies are caught in this trap: So far I have had 324 monthly social security checks deposited to my account. Not one has ever been late. Oh Yes, and the mailman comes by every day as well. Much of government works just the way it should…and that’s miraculous!

2016 April 5^th

Last night I watched a few minutes of “The O’Reilly Factor.”  Bill O’Reilly, co-writer of several semi-fictional histories, provides a platform for discussion of issues favorable to the political right. During the few minutes I watched, O’Reilly and his grinning guest, were both chortling over the pathetic failures of socialist countries in their attempts to govern. They mentioned Cuba and Venezuela specifically. This was, of course, directed at Senator Bernie Sanders, a self-described Democratic Socialist.

Neither O’Reilly nor his guest seems to know the difference between socialism and communism. There is no doubt that Castro’s Cuba choked off dissent, murdering its opponents, and was one of the least democratic governments on earth, but was that because it was an ironfisted dictator ship, because it was communistic, or maybe some of each? The question arises: Was the failure of Cuba’s economy caused entirely by communism’s failure or was it pushed by the unremitting hostility of the United States and its 50 year embargo? That is far too subtle for O’Reilly to consider.

Venezuela is always included in communism’s list of failures. But was it communism or the collapse in the price of oil that has savaged the economy there. Gasoline in Venezuela in 2012 was .18 a gallon, now it’s the same price as gasoline here. Has the country done anything to find a substitute? They are sitting on one of the largest oil reserves in the world but that isn’t helping their economy if no one wants it. This is the fault of communism?

O’Reilly’s guest delightedly tells the audience that gasoline is $8.70 a gallon in socialist Sweden. That’s terrible; and it is false! It was that price four years ago but, as in Venezuela, that was then and this is now, and now Swedish gasoline is $6.20  a gallon.  A few other facts about socialist Sweden that weren’t mentioned by O’Reilly because they wouldn’t have been conservatively correct: college and university education is free in Sweden; all medical care is free in Sweden; paid parental leave for new parents is free in Sweden. Keep in mind that Sweden is not communistic; there is still private property there, and you can participate in their economy by buying stock in Volvo, the car and truck company. (Free college is also available in other countries as well, Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Germany and many others, but not here because we can’t afford it.)

This country also has many socialist enterprises. One of the foremost was instituted by that Republican icon, President Dwight D. Eisenhower. This President began the construction of our massive interstate highway system. This highway system is owned by the State and is available for use by anyone who wishes to use it. There is not a shred of capitalist free enterprise about it. The highway system crisscrosses the country and is available to all. This is pure socialism, as is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security; there are other great socialist programs here much to the absolute despair of Bill O’Reilly and his buddies.

2016 April 4^th

Donald Trump is preparing his fans for a loss in Wisconsin. He is expected to lose there and his excuse will be that Governor Kasich has “stolen” some of his votes. How did Kasich accomplish this feat you may ask? Kasich did it by staying in the race and not dropping out. That’s silly of course, but Cruz also wants Kasich gone and that’s because he wants a Mano-a-Mano with Trump.

Trump is now cozying up to the Republican establishment by listing his choices for SCOTUS appointments should he be elected and current Justices need to be replaced. Some time back Trump claimed “The Heritage Foundation” would vet his SCOTUS appointments but some recent problems with that institution’s record has perhaps given him pause. Jason Richwine, a Heritage scholar has done a dissertation declaring a eugenically based assertion that whites are intellectually superior to Latinos and hence the “wall” is a great idea. There have been other gaffes.

All of this attention to primary elections might be just a waste of time anyway. A member of the Republican National Committee's Rules Committee said Wednesday that the party will decide who the GOP nominee will be, not the voters. "The media has created the perception that the voters will decide the nomination," Curly Haugland said in an interview with CNBC. "That's the conflict here. The political parties choose their nominees, not the general public, contrary to popular belief," he added.  Haugland is the RNC member from North Dakota. Keep in mind that these are the same people who claim that the Democratic Party cannot be called the Democratic Party because it is not really democratic. Can we say hypocrisy? This is pathetic! The RNC doesn’t want to nominate Donald Trump because he will surely lose the election unless Hillary Clinton is arrested and no one should count on that. So the RNC’s preferred savior is Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House and Tea Party favorite (Or he was until he reached a budget agreement.) who has coyly proclaimed his disinterest in the whole thing. This is also what he said before he was not unwillingly brought from obscurity into the light as Speaker of the House and second in line for the Presidency.

Ryan is certainly the anti-Trump; he is pro-immigration and he campaigned with Romney on a platform of cutting Medicaid, the program to provide medical care for the poor. Maybe he would be easier than Donald Trump for a progressive to beat. He is still a very longshot to win the Republican nomination; actually a 10 to 1 shot.  

2016 April 3^rd

Pat Buchanan makes every excuse he can think of to overlook Donald Trump’s recent gaffes. Then, in passing, he also takes the occasion to lie about Democrats and the media. He says of Corey Lewandowski’s assault on a Breitbart reporter, “…as being likened by the media to the burning of Joan of Arc.” Oh, come now! OK, we hear some of the expected political hyperbole, but Buchanan goes on…and on! Regarding Trump’s suggested punishment of women who choose abortions Buchanan claims that Trump may be “less familiar with the ideological issues terrain than those who live there. But the outrage of the elites is all fakery.” No, it’s not only the “elites” who are outraged at the thought of poor women being punished for getting an abortion. A poor woman considering an abortion rather than adding an eighth child to a family of seven children would also be concerned. How many poor women considering an abortion do you suppose Pat Buchanan has ever talked to? Then he produces this lie, “Democrats do not give a hoot about the right to life of the unborn babies even to the ninth month of pregnancy.” Buchanan apparently believes a 30 month pregnant woman can simply walk into a hospital and get an abortion. She can’t. Most hospitals now have a medical ethics committee that decides whether or not such surgery is appropriate. Buchanan apparently doesn’t know or care to find out about such matters. It’s much easier for him to go on a rant much as he has done here.

So what’s his point? He is really targeting the RNC, the Republican establishment. Buchanan writes, “As for Trump’s call for an “America First” foreign policy, it threatens the rice bowls of those for whom imperial interventions are the reasons for their existence.” So now it’s obvious, Buchanan wants us all to just stay right here at home. The isolationist is again pushing his agenda. What else is new? Every column he writes says the same thing.

And now to the principle players; Trump is predicted to lose Wisconsin on Tuesday’s Republican primary and Bernie Sanders is predicted to win for the Democrats. Trump’s loss and Bernie’s win may have little effect because New York, the big Kahuna, is just around the corner. It does seem to be already decided (and that comment I may come to regret!). The Republican establishment will surely try to push the nomination toward someone other than Donald Trump. If they are unsuccessful and Trump wins the primary, Trump will lose the general election to whichever Democrat runs and if they deny Trump the nomination the Republicans will have to deal with an enraged Trump and his equally enraged followers who will not be happy Republican voters; heads I win, tails you lose!

Paddy Power, the British betting outfit still makes Hillary the odds on favorite to win the whole shebang. A five dollar bet on Hillary will pay you just two bucks if you’re right (and your fiver back of course). If you bet on Trump a dollar bet will win you five if you’re right; other Republican candidates offer even longer odds. I wonder what the Republican Senators think of sitting on the President’s SCOTUS nomination now. Maybe Hillary will nominate Senator Warren. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?

2016 April 2^nd

George Will laments the “slaughter” of poor Muammar Ghadafi which he manages to tie to Hillary Clinton. What a surprise! He then gleefully tells us that although this was a NATO operation “only eight of NATO’s 23 nations participated.” He fails to mention that several non-NATO nations also participated, e.g. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, among others.  He also doesn’t mention that many of these 23 NATO members didn’t have the military assets that would have been helpful in this action against Libya anyway. How would NATO have been helped by the participation of Iceland, Croatia, Albania, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, to name just some of the NATO countries that did not participate in the airstrikes against Libya? George Will does not tell lies in his column but the “truth” he presents is often badly strangled.

Will claims that “this military adventure was after all, the worlds most protracted and least surreptitious assassination.” One can assume that George Will was not at all in favor of Muammar Ghadafi’s removal…or perhaps he simply objected to the means by which it was accomplished…or perhaps he needed a column with which to smack down Hillary Clinton…or perhaps all of the above!

Let’s look at some of this Libyan leader’s accomplishments: Consider the La Belle nightclub in West Germany. This was a watering hole frequented by foreigners and in particular by United States troops. In 1986 Gadhafi arranged to have a bomb placed by the music area and about 2 AM it went off. Two of the dead and 79 of the 230 injured were American service men. Many of the wounded required amputation of limbs. President Reagan struck back with air attacks against Libya. George Will makes no mention of this event in his column, perhaps just an oversight.

Then there is the Pan Am 103 bombing; yes that was also Gadhafi. A bomb was planted on this transatlantic flight and the plane blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing altogether about 270 people. At the trial, a Libyan, Abdelbesset Al Megrahi. was convicted of planting the bomb that murdered those people. He was sentenced to life in a Scottish prison and then, after serving 8.5 years, he was released because of terminal prostate cancer. He was welcomed back to Libya by a jubilant Gadhafi. Although Gadhafi continued to deny responsibility for these murders he agreed to pay 10 million dollars to each of the victim’s families as well as compensation to the families of the La Belle bombing; this made a total of over 1.5 billion dollars committed to pay off victims of actions of which Ghadafi claimed he was innocent. What an amazingly generous fellow. Keep in mind here that George Will’s column has written not one word about any of Gadhafi’s brutal activities; he seems only concerned about NATO’s attacks on Libya and Hillary Clinton’s involvement in them. Political blinders?

2016 April 1^st

Kathleen Parker’s column yesterday produced some disturbing comments. She claims we know what is wrong but we have no action plan. Under these circumstances she leans on “her personal wizard, Van Wishard, for advice.” I am not acquainted with Mr. Van Wishard but Parker tells me that he “is a retired trend analyst who can’t stop his fertile mind from examining the problems of our age. Nothing can be fixed or stopped, he says, until we come to terms with globalization as a profound psychological issue, not just a matter of economics or immigration patterns.”  Then she says, “In one of his highly distilled observations he wonders whether this will be our last election for a while.” That notion will get your attention.

We have Parker claiming that, “Americans have begun to feel resigned to a country no longer their own and a world that is out of control.” Her guru, Van Wishard claims that the only institutions left capable of governing are the military and Silicon Valley. Ah Yes, when in doubt call on the military. (How Silicon Valley would be involved in governing the country isn’t clear.) In most countries without a strong democratic tradition, a little turmoil can lead to a turn away from whatever vestigial democracy they have. Sometimes, even when things are going well, the strong man and the concentrated power that goes with it have appeal. It did when Mussolini and fascism found fertile ground and a sympathetic hearing in surprising quarters in the late ‘20s right here in America.

Mussolini used strong-arm tactics to come to power and then continued to use them to hold power in Italy. He did, however, bring order to a chaotic country and that endeared him to a number of observant Americans including our ambassador to Italy, Richard W. Childs, who was appointed by President Harding in 1924. Childs wrote of Mussolini, “No one will exhibit equal to Mussolini…he has changed hearts and minds and spirits.” In 1928 Childs became a paid propagandist for Mussolini. He even ghost wrote most of Mussolini’s “autobiography.”

The ambassador was not a one-off. No less a capitalist’s capitalist than J.P. Morgan was in the same camp. Indeed the “Fascist League of North America,” the FLNA, was now doing well and impressing sympathizers, intellectuals and business people all over the country. The President of Columbia University, Nicholas Murray Butler, was a Mussolini fan.  Butler named a building on his campus the “Casa Italiano” and it became a home for fascist students and faculty. Mussolini himself contributed to the furnishing of the building. The fascist group which took over Casa Italiano tolerated no dissent, no doubt copying from their hero, Mussolini. Indeed, Columbia’s President Butler allowed no dissent either. There was dissent because neither the entire Columbia faculty nor all students there of Italian descent were fans of Il Duce (the leader). President Butler, who was Columbia’s President for an astonishing 43 years, simply dismissed any faculty member who objected to his actions… then he dismissed any faculty member who objected to those dismissals. This was before tenure and a splendid argument in its favor.

The point of this excursion into American fascism is that there is a strong undercurrent of sympathy in this country for the “strong leader,” someone who will “get things done” and never mind how he does it! I don’t believe any of the current candidates qualify as nascent fascists, but when a columnist quotes her hero saying that only the military (and Silicon Valley) is capable of governing we are getting close to the old days of the FLNA.