THE DEAFENING SILENCE

              Way back in the 0's, when George W Bush was president, there was serious talk of working out some kind of immigration reform deal in congress, until congressional Republicans, faced with anger from their voters, backed down.  After Barack Obama won reelection in 2012, for a brief time the Republican party started once again to consider passing some kind of immigration reform, with Sean Hannity of all people, saying it needed to be done.  Sadly, it was once again shot down by anger from conservative voters. who saw any kind of reform as amnesty for "illegals", forgetting, of course, that conservative icon Ronald Reagan did that exact thing for over a million undocumented immigrants when he was president.  The general consensus from the party at the time was that if they had nothing to offer the growing Hispanic population of the country, they would never win  the White House again. 
        Sadly, we all know how this turned out, with Donald Trump openly courting the anti-immigrant vote in 2016 and, with a combination of luck and  Russian interference, somehow winning the presidency.  Not only did he win, he single handedly changed the Republican party from a party that appealed to mostly white voters through dog whistled racial statements (supporting states rights and opposing Welfare queens), to one that openly defended the brazenly racist statements of their party leader.  The change in members of the party has been depressing:  during the campaign, House Speaker Paul Ryan called Donald Trump's vile comments about a Mexican American judge not being able to fairly rule on a case involving Trump as "the textbook definition of racism."  Once Trump was president, Ryan would describe his leadership as "elegant"(!).  Meanwhile, Senator Lindsey Graham tweeted in 2016 that “If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed … and we will deserve it”, even going so far as to say in one interview that Trump is "... a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot."   He is now one of the president's biggest defenders in congress.
         Which leads us to the president's recent tweets in which he specifically called out four new Democratic members of the House of Representatives, all women of color, saying, among other things, "Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came?" .  Not only is this factually wrong (of the four women, three were born in the US), it's also openly bigoted and offensive.  The terrible trope of telling non white people to go back where they came from is one that racists have wielded for years; the fact that it is now coming from the president makes it so much more offensive.  In the face of these horrible tweets, the Democrats in the House voted to officially (if only symbolically) condemn his tweets, the Republican party reacted with....silence.  While four Republicans in the house voted with the Democrats, one hundred and eighty seven did not.  And, somewhat inevitably, Senator Graham defended the president on Fox News by attacking the four congresswomen again, calling them Communists (yes, Communists!).
           As for the president, he is predictably refusing to back down while somehow stating that he doesn't have a racist bone in his body.  Trump has now so completely taken over his party (according to Vice magazine, his approval ratings in the Republican party went up after the tweets!)  that he could host a cross burning on the White House lawn without losing their support.  But, even if he somehow manages to win reelection in 2020, Trump won't be president forever, and the stench of hateful bigotry that he has attached to his chosen party may not wear off quickly.  Remember that back in the 90's Republican Governor of California Pete Wilson  ran a reelection campaign that demonized undocumented immigrants much like Trump's, and while he won that election, the Republican party was so  linked to him that they now have almost completely faded as a political force in that state.  While national elections are obviously different, the demographic changes the country is going through can't be avoided or gerrymandered by the Republican party forever.  Someday they will have to pay for having attached themselves to Trump's hateful ways.  I just hope it happens soon.

A BREAK OUT MOMENT

In nearly every presidential primary campaign, there's a moment when a candidate stands out from the others, when they step forward and make a lasting impression on the voters that can really help push them into the nomination.  Sometimes, it happens even before they're a candidate, as when a young Senator Barack Obama gave a memorable and moving speech at the 2004 Democratic convention.  Other times it happens right at the moment when a candidate announces an interest in running, as when Trump openly made bigoted statements about Mexican immigrants almost immediately after announcing his candidacy, letting the world know that his candidacy would be like no other in modern history,  propelling him to the top in 2016.  Last night, during the second Democratic debate, Senator Kamala Harris may have had such a moment.
She already had started off strong before the moment came, shushing people talking over each other with a clearly prepared but effective line: “America does not want a food fight, they want to know how we’re going to put food on their table!”.  It silenced the talking and won applause from the crowd.  But her real breakout moment came when she leaned in against front runner in the polls, Joe Biden. “I do not believe you are a racist,” she began,“ but it was hurtful to hear you talk about the reputations of two United States senators who built their reputations and career on the segregation of race in this country. And it was not only that, but you also worked with them to oppose busing. And, you know, there was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools, and she was bused to school every day. And that little girl was me.”  The way that she turned a complement into a criticism, went after both a controversial statement and a past position by Biden, and then personalized it at the end, with just the right amount of emotion (no tears, but a slight quaver in her voice at the end) really hit her point home.  Like the earlier line, it was clearly rehearsed in advance, but so what?  It had a mixture of anger and sadness that cuts through the usual political rhetoric.  And, without stating it outright, it made a generational argument about the 76 year old Biden and his pining for the good ol' days of politics when senators got along, while forgetting that some of those senators literally ran pro segregationist campaigns. 
And Biden's befuddled response to Harris's attack did not look good, as he lamely sputtered about busing being a state's rights issue.  Clearly she took the  moment.  And it really shows how unprepared Biden is for the race; it's now common knowledge that Biden's own advisors have told him to stop telling the story about getting along with those pro segregationist senators, and he just ignored them.  Now that story has come back to bite him, illustrating why Biden had no luck in his previous attempts at the presidency in 1988 and 2008.
Of course, I could be wrong about all of this, and Biden could still sail into the nomination with the support of older Democrats who just want to beat Trump.  But after last night, most of the talk is about Harris.  And from the night before, Elizabeth Warren, with her striking intellect and ability to spell out specific plans for the country's problems, was also seen as the big winner.  This raises the possibility  that the Democratic ticket could have two women on it (just who's name would come first is the big question!).  While I love this idea at first, it does make me wonder if this country is still not ready to elect a woman president.  Remember that 2016 Hillary Clinton ran as a highly experienced, clear headed candidate, and she still lost to the rampaging Trump.  Having another woman lose to Trump in 2020 could be utterly demoralizing to the country, maybe even more upsetting than his win in 2016.  Still and all, I think Harris, as a former prosecutor, has the wherewithal to stand up to Trump in the debates and eviscerate his lies and boasts, making her my favorite candidate out of the 23 Democrats running for the nomination.

2020 TIME

Donald Trump just started his reelection campaign officially, kicking it off with a speech in Florida last Tuesday, and like a toddler banging on a piano, he hit same the chords that he always has over and over again.  He lied about his job as president ("Perhaps the greatest economy we've had in the history of our country."), bashed Hillary Clinton as if she were still his opponent, railed against undocumented immigrants, and boasted constantly (he called his 2016 win "probably the greatest election in the history of our country.”)  The only real takeaway from this speech was how much the media coverage has been changed by his crazed behavior since he took office: once upon a time a president that described the opposing party with the words  “Our political opponents look down with hatred on our values and with utter disdain for the people whose lives they want to run.”  and that the Democrats stand on immigration was “the greatest betrayal of the American middle class and, frankly, American life”,  would be seen as a big deal, acts of overreaching aggression.  But the news media mostly yawned at his hate mongering; same old Trump.
His speech certainly seemed to fire up the president's base, as the crowd cheered his every move as he puffed himself up with self importance.  But is his base large enough  for him to win reelection?  He is, after all, the first president in modern history to never have an approval rating over 50%.  And recent polls show him losing badly to Joe Biden, and several other Democratic candidates (in typical fashion, when his own pollsters showed him those numbers, he fired them!).
But none of this certainly means that the Dems have the election in the bag.  First of all, the election is well over a year away, and various unexpected news stories could affect the outcome in  ways we can't foresee.  Plus, Trump has already raised a huge war chest to spend, meaning that this campaign will be far less chaotic and freewheeling as the last one, especially now that the entire party has fallen behind him, come what may.
Also, there is a different X factor in facing Trump that must have the Democrats worried: never before has a celebrity candidate  swooped in and won the biggest office in the land without ever running any kind of campaign before.  How do you run against someone who has only had one unlikely but successful campaign?  Since Trump's kickoff speech shows that he intends to run for reelection the same way he ran in 2016, there is no doubt that this will be yet another ugly campaign, with him creating a childish nickname for whomever his opponent is (he's already using "Sleepy Joe" for front runner Joe Biden) and then lying about his or her record repeatedly and shamelessly (remember when he called Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton "the co-founders of ISIS?").   The tricky thing is just how to counter such a barrage of lies and insults?  During the 2016 primary contest, Republican Marco Rubio tried out descending to Trump's level, (making crude remarks about Trump's hand size) and looked foolish, gaining no traction in the race.  But then when Clinton tried to mostly ignore Trump's mud slinging, she still lost too.
So what will work against a president that's never lost an election?   Personally, I think the Clinton route was the right one, even though she lost.  Remember that Trump's victory was a matter of luck in the Electoral College, aided by Russian interference and that infamous letter to congress from James Comey.  The Democratic candidate should mostly ignore whatever crazed thing Trump is tweeting or saying and stick to issues like health care, education and student loan debt.  It's important to remember that Trump's novelty factor has worn off, and that he can no longer call himself an outsider. Add to that the fact that 2016 polls showed that many voters were personally repulsed by Trump but still voted for him under the expectation that the office would somehow change him, which obviously hasn't happened.  Overall, I think the Democrats stand a good chance to retaking the White House, but it's certainly no certainty, and we're in for another ugly, cringe inducing campaign either way.

THE TIPPING POINT

“The F.B.I. director is wrong.”

Donald Trump in his years as president has avoided interviews outside of the Fox News bubble, because anything other than fawning, adoring questions often make him angry or blurt out terrible things.  For example, shortly after winning the White House, he gave an interview with Lester Holt in which he freely admitted that he fired FBI head James Comey because of "this whole Russia thing", contradicting his own advisors that had given other reasons, and bringing on more scrutiny of his behavior regarding Russia aiding his campaign.
Now Trump has given another interview that's seen him put his foot in it again: last Wednesday, while talking with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, he cheerfully admitted that if a foreign country were to offer him information on a political rival, he would take it, and that he would tell the FBI only “if I thought there was something wrong.”  The American public has heard Trump say so many offensive, stupid, and dishonest things in the past few years (the sound from windmills causes cancer?),  that the full measure of what he just admitted to there may not sink in.  But it should.  There are laws in place that make it illegal for American candidates to accept foreign aid in a campaign.  Therefore, this is the President of the United States openly admitting that he would break those laws to gain an advantage in his reelection.  When Stephanopoulos pointed out that Trump's own FBI leader disagreed with him, he snapped back “The F.B.I. director is wrong.”  This gets even worse when one considers that the whole world is watching this interview, and foreign countries hoping to influence the election are seeing a president essentially asking them to help him with no consequence.  He's not just saying that he would take illegal information, he's encouraging it!
Of course, why should Trump care that he breaks the law, as long as he wins?  This is a man who has lived his whole life in a cushion of wealth and privilege that has prevented him from ever having to pay for any of his bad behavior.  He's grown from a spoiled brat six year old that once punched his music teacher because she didn't know enough about music, to a man who can shrug off multiple bankruptcies as good business and multiple sexaul assualt charges as lies.  After all, Russian hacking during the 2016 campaign, which he once openly asked for in a speech, may have helped push him over the victory line, and he has never had to pay for getting that help as president.  (The Mueller report said that he was aware of that Russian aid, but did not openly conspire with Russia).Why not ask for help in his reelection, since it worked last time.
Can't we, for once, hold this man in check?  Can't we just once say to him, after all the lies, boasts, bigoted and misogynistic statements, that he should be held responsible? I think, in light of this interview, it really is time for the House of Representatives to start impeachment proceedings.  This is about more than Trump, this is about congress saying that the office of the presidency is not above the law, and that we as a nation cannot and should not tolerate a president who blithely states that laws do not apply to him.  It doesn't matter that the Senate will not vote to remove him even if the House does vote to impeach, it is still imperative to the future of this country that congress at least register its disapproval.  If we can't hold the most powerful person in the country to any legal standard, then what is the point of having laws?   How can people tell their children to follow the rules and support a leader who sees himself as above any rules at all?   It's time to stand up to this man for once, or the damage he could do to this country is irreparable.

RAW POWER

According to a 2017 Gallup poll, only 24% of Americans identified as Republicans, compared to 31% for the Democrats (the rest are independents).   That number for the Republican party has dropped five points since Donald Trump was elected in 2016.  If the Democrats have a pretty strong advantage in numbers, and with demographic polls showing that younger voters and America's growth in diversity favoring them over Republicans in the future, why then do the Republicans currently own the White House, the Senate and a majority of Governorships in the country?  Because, quite simply, the Republican party only cares about gaining power for themselves and has no qualms about how they get it.  Their macho swagger, with an  entitled sense that they should always run things, has lead to them find ways to game the system in their favor.  Consider that in this century there have been five presidential elections, and a Republican candidate has only won the popular vote once (in 2004), and yet by 2020 a Republican will have held the White House for 12 out of the past twenty years.
Recently, Kentucky Senator Mitch McConnell showed just how deeply he doesn't care about being a hypocrite: when asked what the Senate would do if a Supreme Court vacancy came up within ten months of the 2020 election, he quite simply answered "We'd fill it."  This is the same man who refused to allow a confirmation vote (or even to meet with) President Barack Obama's supreme court choice Merrick Garland ten months before the 2016 election, an unprecedented power grab that he vaguely justified as "letting the voters decide", a view point that he now completely refutes when the tables are turned.


And just look at the picture  of him smiling as he said "We'd fill it"; it's the look of a man who realizes how dishonest he was in the past and just doesn't care as long as he wins.  This is, after all, the same Senate leader who led his party to filibuster everything that then president Barack Obama did when his party was in the minority in the Senate, and said that his number one priority was preventing Obama from winning a second term.
And McConnell is certainly no outlier in the party: in 2009 the Republicans targeted state elections, realizing how important it was to control states that would be redistricting after the 2010 census.  Once power was gained, they used computerized voting lists to gerrymander state districts to their advantage, with strong results.  In 2012, more voters voted for Democratic candidates in the House of Representatives, but Republicans still held control because their manipulations had rendered many votes useless.
Along with gerrymandering, the party has also pushed the  notion of wide spread voter fraud, which has never been proven despite many accusations.  Not that that matters, it's just a convenient way for the party to pass laws that will lead to lower voter turnout in Democratic districts; from voter ID laws to restricting early voting, the Republican party has shamelessly exploited this false narrative to gain an advantage.  After all, what else can you expect from a party led by a man who claimed, without an ounce of proof, that he lost the popular vote in the presidential election because millions of people voted illegally?
Finally, this brings us the issue of the 2020 census.  The Trump administration has decided, for the first time in decades, to add the question "Are you a citizen of the US?" to the census form.  Although this may seem like an innocuous question, many political analysts have stated that it will greatly harm the political influence of more diverse, urban areas because many immigrants will fearfully refuse to fill out the form, fearing government deportation (and can you blame them?).  The administration has been saying that the citizenship question should be added to help aid the Civil Rights Voting Law, but this is a lie, as we now know for a fact.  Why?  Because recently Thomas B. Hofeller, a Republican party member who was famous for gerrymandering, passed away and his daughter released to the press computer files he had discussing the citizenship question issue in which  he blatantly admitted that this was a pure and simple power grab that would benefit the Republican party.  This is just two weeks before the Supreme Court is due to rule on whether the question is constitutional.  Given the brazen partisanship nature of adding the question to the census, it would seem to be common sense for the court to disallow it, but the court has become more and more partisan in recent years, and it sadly appears that the question will be allowed.
So what can Democrats do to prevent such naked lust for power on the part of the Republicans?  In the short run, not a lot; even if Trump is a one term president, the number of life time court appointees he has made will insure his insidious influence for years to come.  While I'm optimistic on the idea the country is slowly turning to the left politically, the fact that the Republicans have so openly worked to cement their advantage even with a lesser percentage of the vote shows that they will not go down slowly, and that the Republican party will have power despite its dwindling numbers for years to come.

TO IMPEACH OR NOT IMPEACH

"Mueller’s report reveals that President Trump engaged in specific actions and a pattern of behavior that meet the threshold for impeachment."  -Michigan Rep. Justin Amash

Recently, Michigan Representative (and diehard libertarian gadfly) Justin Amash became the first Republican member of congress to express an opinion that has become increasingly popular on the left; that the obstruction of justice that President Trump committed, according to the Mueller report, rose to the level of an  impeachable offense.  Add to that the fact that around 800 former federal prosecutors recently signed a petition stating that Trump would have been prosecuted for obstruction if he were not president, and the drumbeat for some kind of impeachment proceedings is getting louder.
And it's not just his obvious obstruction of justice that could be impeachable, don't forget that the president may be in violation of the emoluments clause of the constitution, and appears to have made illegal payments to silence porn starlet Stormy Daniels and playboy centerfold  Karen McDougal.  Plus there's the numerous shady dealings and tax dodges that he and his family have made over the years before he tantrumed his way into the White House.  And he's certainly not doing himself any favors by ignoring every subpoena from the House of Representatives, blocking every attempt to release his tax returns or business dealings, and persuading former and current members of his administration from testifying before congress, all of which certainly appears suspicious.
But are impeachment proceedings a good idea?   Democrats are divided on the issue, understandably.  On the one hand: for the president to be removed from office, two thirds of the Senate will have vote for it, now matter what the House does.  And there's really no way that the spineless, excuse making Republicans in that body will ever turn on Trump no matter what he says or does.  Even worse, after such a vote is defeated in the Senate, Trump will inevitably strut around braying to the press that he was vindicated. Plus polls show that most Americans don't support impeachment, and it could wind up helping him in his reelection bid in 2020. And his popularity within his own party is unshakeable; (as TV pundit Mark Shields so aptly put it, "There is no Republican party anymore, there's just the cult of Trump.") and an impeachment attempt by the House could just fire up his base even more.  Those are all solid reasons.
On the other hand, just how much corruption should we allow the president to get away with without some kind of check being put on him?  It's obvious that by claiming executive privilege and ignoring subpoenas, Trump is flat out saying that there are no limits on the president's powers, denying the checks and balances of different government branches that the constitution spells out.   And impeachment investigations would give the House more  power of investigation, which would make it harder for the president to hide all of the various corrupt things he has done before and after he became president.  Impeachment hearings may reveal things so terrible in Trump's past that even Republicans won't be able to support him anymore (although, given how they still supported him after that Access Hollywood tape, I sure wouldn't count on that!).
So this is the impasse that American politics are now stuck in, with an obviously corrupt and unfit president remaining in power because of his ability to channel the frustrations of his constituency, with whom he remains popular.  Personally, I lean towards the inclinations of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who isn't for impeachment but is heavily pushing for as many investigations   into the president as possible. According to the New York Times, there are currently a whopping twenty nine of them on both the federal and state level, which means that there's an enormous amount of corrupt and or criminal behavior that may be revealed.   Pelosi's position  makes sense, in that the more investigations that are done, the madder and more childish the president gets.  Hopefully, with each toy throwing tantrum and pouting tweet shown on the news, more and more undecided voters will wake up to the fact that our country is being run by a pathetic spoiled man child who, if he hadn't been lucky enough to be born into a family of enormous wealth and privilege, wouldn't be qualified to run an Arby's.

THE "I'M NOT HIM" CANDIDATE

Joe Biden has just announced his candidacy for president, and he has immediately moved to the front of the pack of the twenty Democrats running.  Alike Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren, the former vice president has not proposed any big policy ideas, and he has not publicly embraced recent progressive policy ideas like The Green New Deal or Medicare for all.
So why has he moved to the front?  Part of it is just simple name recognition: as a former vice president,  he's obviously been in the media a lot more than his opponents (with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders, who's running second), and there's also a nostalgia factor, with Biden reminding Democrats of the good ol' days of Barack Obama's reign.
Another reason may be simple pragmatism: Biden looks like he has the best chance of winning.  While most registered Democrats may support Medicare for all and The Green New Deal, they also realize that these progressive issues may alienate moderate voters who dislike Trump's personal behavior  but don't want the big changes those issues could bring.  Biden, who has made no sweeping policy proposals,  is a moderate old white man who can perhaps bring back those voters who voted for Obama in 2012 and then turned to Trump in 2016.  And Donald Trump seems to know it, as he has already started attacking Biden (calling him, in typically immature fashion, "Sleepy Joe") and bizarrely bragging about how young he feels, even though he is only four years younger than Biden, and currently the oldest president ever.  Biden seems to playing up to the idea that a vote for him will be a return to dignity in the White House, openly criticizing Trump's muted reaction to the white supremacy rally in Charlottesville, wisely reminding voters of what was probably the low point of his presidency.  Biden candidacy seems to be less about big ideas and more about not saying and doing things that hurt the image of the country, which is a fair point, even if it's not exactly inspiring.
So, is this is the choice that the Democrats face?  Ignore the younger, more diverse and policy oriented candidates in favor of the old white guy just because he has the best chance?  As someone who voted for Ralph Nader back in 2000 and has regretted it ever since, I'm sympathetic to the simple desire to win. And while I don't completely buy into the notion that age and race are so important to beating Trump, (remember Obama won handily twice, and he was not only the first African American president, he was also the second youngest) and even though my personal favorite candidates are Harris, Warren and Mayor Pete, I'll still gladly pull the lever for uncle Joe.  But then, I would literally vote for every political figure in America (other than David Duke) before I'd vote for Trump.  He has set the bar so low, and seems to get more immature, dishonest and egotistical with every passing day. So if saying Joe Biden is better than one of the worst people to ever be involved in American politics is not much of a ringing endorsement, I'll still make it.