COVID-19 and my thoughts to date.

My Coronavirus (COVID-19) update, 

Full disclosure. I've been pretty quiet with my opinions and thoughts regarding all things COVID-19, mainly because 1) there's ample "medical" opinions out there, good and less good, and 2) in this time of widespread fear and anxiety, most 'mericans, and in particular those I don't have a personal relationship with, will basically revert to their baser instincts, and listen to what they want to hear. This blog isn't meant for them, so if that's you, please go away. Thanks. For the rest of you who are used to me, here you go.

With the situation in New York City becoming increasingly dire (no consistent reports of patients needing ventilators not getting them as of this Sunday morning, but that’s fully expected to change), this morning brings essentially no good news regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Okay, maybe one potential positive. The “doubling rate” in NYC for the disease has increased (good), and it might be an early sign that disease control measures have been working. A continued trend here would be welcome.

Medical Stuff. Factually, the progression of disease has been predictable, painfully so. Those predictions on spread, AND the underlying medical presumptions have thus far appeared pretty accurate. Some of those are: 1) respiratory (droplet) spread. That’s the primary cause of spread, not infected surfaces or carry-out containers. It’s the overwhelming cause, which is why you’re likely to see a shift in recommendations regarding mask usage in public (the government will say “yes” to the mask). Entirely reasonable to continue employing the other recommendations for hand washing and disinfectants as well, and most of all the social distancing recommendations (see my Social part) are all prudent guidance. 2) treatment. For sick people, the treatment remains what’s called in medicine “supportive care”. That means there isn’t a cure, so ill people get treated for their symptoms, like fever, respiratory failure, pneumonia, and NOT (‘cause there isn’t) a vaccine or and antiviral that has “proven” efficacy against COVID-19. So Tylenol (ok, maybe Advil, but I personally would advocate Tylenol) for fever, for those who get hospitalized and have respiratory failure (can’t breathe adequately to get enough oxygen), mechanical ventilation (a “vent”), a machine that essentially helps deliver oxygen to the body, the machines everyone anticipates there will be a shortage of in a few weeks. Pneumonia is not frequently mentioned specifically, but it’s the infection of the lungs associated with COVID-19 that is likely the most common ultimate cause of death. If you can overcome the pneumonia, you live. If you can’t, you don’t live. Kinda that simple. Treatment for the “less ill”, i.e., people not sick enough to get hospitalized, I think it’s reasonable to think of it as either “super bad flu” or “walking pneumonia”. Bad, but for healthier people, who are correspondingly usually younger, they’re likely to survive because their bodies and immune system are better able to deal with the infection. 3) A few random personal (i.e., not proven) geek theories. I think a medical concept of “viral load” is going to come out as significant. It means the longer the exposure to a greater amount of virus is associated with more severe disease. I think it’s why you see younger healthcare workers get really sick; they’re exposed to a far greater viral load. I also think the current “experimental” treatments (hydroxychloroquine, etc…) are ultimately not going to be game-changers, if effective at all. I think it’ll be a year before an effective vaccine/treatment comes along, meaning next spring. I’ll add more when I think of them. I’m using my blog to express a very personal opinion, of which I guess I have some platform of experience to speak from. History (and God, if you believe that stuff. I do) will decide upon “heroes”. I don’t personally think self-promotion is an enduring strategy. So those newly-christened “TV doctors” and experts? No comment.

Social part. This plays into a theme of mine, “everyday heroes”. The social distancing and other infringements on the normal lives of Americans I think are not only effective, they’re also the reason why America now leads the world in infections. WE’RE NOT LISTENING! As a society we ARE a selfish people (or, as the Bible calls them (us) “stiff-necked”), and on a non-religious observation we seem to be at a “day of reckoning”. While we (Americans) don’t have a monopoly on stupidity, the images of spring breakers and some of the comments by “leaders” both political and otherwise, I think have contributed greatly to the predicament we find ourselves in now. On a broader level, the emergence of an “America first” mentality seems to have really curses us here. From our initial willful ignorance that COVID-19 was a China/Italy/other country’s problem has come to bite us in the ass. Specifically, not pivoting to the World Health Organization’s COVID-19 test when our own test (the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the “CDC”) didn’t work was a preventable mistake and that delay has proven consequential. Further refusal, on our part, to accept the validity of the Chinese data (they’re not innocent, they (the Chinese) tried to bury the data initially, but then switched gears) has also hindered the American response. But back to the social component. We’re generationally so accustomed to having everything the way we Americans want it, that the ask, even in the smallest ways, to voluntarily relinquish, even temporarily, our “civil liberties” on behalf of a greater societal good has been met roundly by either refusal, derision, or conspiracy theories. I don’t have to venture far from the comfort of my own bed to see this firsthand. There’s no consistent credible American authority that the majority of Americans can rally around, and we’re paying the price for that. It’s really our collective fault. We as ‘mericans have kinda sucked at this virus stuff.

Political part. Typing as I’m watching President Trump’s daily presser on Sunday. Breathtaking in its total disregard for both facts and reality, but something we’ve come to expect. Simply not the source for any credible or actionable information, EXCEPT with the exclusive and notable exception of Dr. Anthony Fauci. Not his first rodeo, and for medical information regarding COVID-19, he’s simply been the only consistently credible source. If you listen to only one person, let it be him. Now back to politics. The federal response has been simply poor or non-existent, and it does indeed stop at the President’s foot. He by the very nature of his position sets the tone for the administration, which has, objectively, on multiple fronts, failed. Is Trump solely responsible for the CDC bungling the initial COVID-19 test? Absolutely not. But he is responsible for not taking the advice of Alex Azar (head of HHS; I’m not a fan) who tried to bring the pandemic issue to Trump as early as January, only to be rebuffed by Trump’s inner circle, those more concerned with reelection and the economy. So yes, he is ultimately responsible. And of course he is responsible for the continued delays in widespread testing. That’s actually more emblematic of how an “America first” bias has really come to bite America in the ass. Instead, when the CDC test was found to not work, the reluctance and refusal to ask the World Health Organization for their working test simply added unnecessary delay (this test is used basically throughout the rest of the world, and seems good enough for them. Further, the waffling between exchanging information with the Chinese regarding disease progression is counterproductive, although simultaneously Trump had no problem trumpeting as of yet unproven therapies initiated in China. Obviously inconsistent, but the end result is confusion and delay. Oh, and death.

But really the worst parts of the federal response have been twofold. Pragmatically the things a federal government needs to do are things that can’t be accomplished effectively on a state level. Things like a standardized testing program, a nationwide plan for civic response (school closures, social distancing, travel restrictions). These don’t all have to be the same nationwide, but a functional federal executive branch should coordinate things, like with other natural disasters. Next is critical shortages of supplies like ventilators and personal protective equipment. Employing the Defense Production Act to produce and distribute those needed supplies should have already been started, as essentially all the models predict shortages in those materials. Trump and the administration have consistently spoken about “public private partnerships”, and for the life of me I’m unclear who in the public that comment is intended for. I also don’t necessarily think this is the time to “let’s invent a new ventilator”. I think it’s time to “let’s get the capable companies to vastly increase the production capability of existing (and working) ventilator designs”. Current estimates on the low side are for a shortage of 30-50k of ventilators. Same with PPE like face masks and gowns. It’d be much better to start production now, versus the seeming plan of waiting a few weeks until those shortages are realized, and we’re forced to play catch up, which seems to have been the theme of the whole federal response.

This has not been the case with many state-level governments. New York, Ohio, Maryland, and Michigan stand out as states where a governor (both Dem and GOP) have stepped up and led in the vacuum of federal guidance. They’ve looked good in this pandemic. I think Andrew Cuomo in particular has been strong, particularly in contrast to NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio and Trump. But memories are short, and perceptions may change over time. Nothing lasts forever, particularly goodwill.

I initially started this blog for my random thoughts regarding the 2015 Presidential campaign, and once upon a time I “warned” that Trump could win, as there was a level of societal unrest that he very successfully tapped into, furthered by a visceral dislike for the candidate on the other side of the ballot. Despite the destruction and carnage brought forth by COVID-19, at this time I’m still not sure he can’t get re-elected. All bets are pretty much off, but on the upside for Dems, if there’s anyone that can in in November, it’s long been my opinion that’s Joe Biden. Time will tell.

Thoughts are my own, and not representative of any other persons or employers. (disclaimer)

Can't Resist, and March Madness political bracketology

Full disclosure. I hadn't intended to renew the blog, but I've been pretty good about not spouting off on politics on Facebook, and the blog seemed a adequate way for casual Facebook friends to avoid my opining altogether. So be warned. Lots of unsupported political opinions await. Intrepid readers carry on!

Warning - I'm telling you one last time, this is a political blog, and the opinions, however correct, are those of your blogger and not any candidate's campaign or super-PAC. ;-)

__________________________

So who can resist the daily drama regarding the upcoming 2020 Presidential election? Not this guy!

Intriguing. Beto-mania has led your political blogger to wonder, "is charisma enough?" for a President, or does he/she have to put forth a concrete statement of policy to be considered a worthy candidate? It's a rhetorical question. NO ONE EVER pays attention to policy (unless it pertains precisely to them). It's been a popularity and vote-rigging, vote-buying, process for ages. But with that in mind, read on.

Further intrigue, stemming from a NYT article regarding Joe Biden. Who burnishes this old man's credentials as he makes a valiant last grasp for the brass ring? While for some time I was thinking Beto, knowing full well that the "Irish x 2" doesn't add up to 4, much less a multiple of same. No, as of today (I reserve the right to wholesale change my mind) the near-ideal VP for the nascent (and recurring) presidential campaign is likely Kamala Harris. For a Trump-weary but more centrist electorate, this combo checks almost all of the boxes without stepping too far into a.. heaven forbid, Socialist candidacy. Here Harris' background as a prosecutor comes in as a strength, not a weakness. She's young enough to offset his age, and demographically she easily reaches the necessary voters that would otherwise be lukewarm to Biden individually (and would remain lukewarm with O'Rourke as a running mate).

If I'm wrong, then Harris as the AG is an easy call. CAN she be President? Of course. Can she win? Sorry, but I doubt it.

Downsides of Harris as a Biden running mate? Losing the racist vote. Perhaps (but unlikely) losing the far left progressives (what, they're going to vote for Trump? Besides, I think there are fewer than people give them credit for).

Beto O'Rourke in Madison this past weekend, standing conveniently in front of a HUGE painting of Russia. #PoorOptics

More about Beto. It occurred to me that a frequent criticism leveled at him is his "thin" Congressional resume. But seeing him in person, and hearing him talk (albeit in generalities) about his positions (mostly mainstream Democratic) and the bills he co-sponsored whilst in Congress, it's no wonder his record is thin. HE'S A LIBERAL! Most of the legislation he was behind in Congress (actually, in the Texas State House his record is quite different) was not in favor with the lobbyist crowd, so there was little chance of success there. But overall, offsetting the obvious charisma is the great unknown associated with youth. In this unique time in our Nation, buyers (voters) may be willing to take that chance. Oh, and BTW, I'm very, very confident that the Russians wouldn't touch Mr. O'Rourke with a communally-owned 10 foot pole.

Other candidates, there are oh so many. I find Pete Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, IN, intriguing (there's that word again), but do I think he can win the primary? Nope. But he's seems more than smart, which is a double-edged sword as IMO that's greatly overrated as a trait of a winning candidate. But without a doubt his candidacy has raised his profile exponentially, and I think that's been the goal all along. Elizabeth Warren? I love her, and am probably more aligned with her policy positions pre-candidacy than anyone else. But frankly, my dear, she's kinda a shit politician and the stoopid Native American fiasco is a nothing burger she's not been able to digest or throw up and move on. Move On, hahaha, pun not intended. Somewhat similar sentiments towards Amy Kloubuchar. It seems that behind the scenes she's really not "midwestern nice", and it seems unlikely to me that people would want to vote for someone they probably wouldn't like (and wouldn't like them). Next. Kirsten Gillibrand. Desperately trying to find an open lane to swim in, I think the ghosts of Hillary and Bill would, more than for anyone else, do anything and everything in their diminished power to cause her pain and suffering. They're just that vindictive. So no. Cory Booker. No, for no other reason that the racial politics that unfortunately define much of the Democratic party are saying, "wait, we had a charismatic black guy the last time, it's someone else's turn". Stoopid but true.

Bernie deserves a whole paragraph. As my single-digit following of faithful readers may recall, I was all on board the Bernie train last time around, and although I'm probably not on it this go round, in my mind Bernard Sanders has already won in the ways that have meaning. Essentially single-handedly he's slapped the Democratic Party upside its head and brought them back from the ranks of "Republican-lite". Think of it. In four short years he's not even the most left-leaning candidate in his (adopted) party! The face of the current party is the face he helped to create, and IMO it will serve the party well in the long run. In many ways (did I mention this blog has no intention of being politically correct?) he's Elijah to the chosen people who call themselves Democrats, "make straight in the wilderness a path for our... candidate". Or at least until the Dems have a taste of power again, then (almost non-sarcastically), it'll be back to business as usual, this time the checks for graft and corruption will simply be written by different special interests.

There you go, my picks on this first weekend of the "real" March Madness. I'll update as the spirit move me, or if there's an intervening indictment. Whichever comes first. Thanks for reading!

Back-ish

Full disclosure. I started this blog simply because I wanted to refrain from posting political comme

ntary on Facebook (and some friends thought it'd be fun - it has been). So I chronicled my extemporaneous (thanks Jim Comey) thoughts on the 2016 Presidential election from April, 2016, and wrapped things up shortly after the Inauguration, on February, 2017. Since then, I've continued to follow American politics like a Mexican telenovela, but have left the opinionating to others. Today I somewhat accidentally broke my self-imposed ban on Facebook political punditry, and while I got a lot of comments I still am leery about Fb serving as a forum for anything resembling nuanced rhetoric (face to face in a bar/pub still wins on that count). So to continue the Facebook discussion I started, I'm jumping off and bringing the topic over to the blogosphere. I'm still not running for office, so I'll continue to be unfiltered. Just not on Facebook. Thanks for reading.

So here's my Facebook post that started this second coming of the blog:

Posting this so I can look back a year from now and see if I'm right. He'll resign before he gets impeached (and only after he pardons himself and his family in perpetuity).

And here's the question that prompted me to answer here in the blog:

Please clarify if you indeed mean "before impeachment" or "between impeachment and likely conviction." Also curious if you're assuming Ds take the Senate.

So many variables! I feel like Dr. Strange at the end of Avengers: Infinity War, there are so many possible outcomes, yet reality will ultimately divine one answer. Here's my guess.

President Trump is President not only because of the Russians (haha, that's supposed to be a joke), but perhaps even more due to his almost savant-like ability to read public sentiment. He was popular (enough) to get himself elected. End of story. Yes, of course you can hate him. But JUST enough people liked/loved him that not only was he elected, but if impeachment isn't in the cards he'll win reelection. But if he wins round 2 it'll be mostly on the basis of a strong economy, not because he's up for a Nobel Prize (he's not, don't worry).

Some truisms. Donald Trump cares (only) about Donald Trump. Politicians care about being re-elected. Currently those two trains are running on the same track, in the same direction, but there's no laws of physics that say that this steady state will last forever, and in fact many a pundit has fallen face-first claiming that "----" scandal/controversy will finally spell the end to the Trump Presidency, only to be proven wrong by poling that shows the President's support stronger than ever.

So what's different this time, or is it simply my turn to cry "wolf"? I think the recent guilty plea by the President's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen, might ultimately prove to be a watershed event. Yes, he pleaded guilty to some campaign finance violation regarding payment to Stormy Daniels and/or Karen McDougal, and perhaps some taxi cab nonsense, but seriously, who cares? Playboy magazine is either bankrupt or extinct, and the same goes for taxis in the age of Uber. That's just fluff. But.... Mr. Cohen has been suggested as having served as a go-between between then real estate mogul Donald Trump and nefarious figures who may have extended financing when Mr. Trump was overextended in Atlantic City, and before his second act via "The Apprentice". There were some salad days back then, and I'm reasonably sure there weren't enough Trump Steaks sold to make up the difference. I don't think it's rocket science to suspect that wealthy and influential Russians made up that difference.

I'm pretty confident that Special Counsel Robert Mueller will ultimately unravel the tangled web of paper trails and electronic fund transfers, and in exchange for sentencing leniency Mr. Cohen may light the way like Indiana Jone in Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Answering a rhetorical question, "why didn't Manafort flip?", it's the simple calculus between "I've got enough co-mingled dirt with you (President Trump) that you better pardon my ass" versus "there's no amount of cooperation I can offer to keep me out of prison for my misdeeds". He's shutting up expecting a pardon, or he'll take Trump down with him. He's just waiting.

So yes, I'm expecting that Mr. Mueller will indeed find evidence of misdeeds, most likely this one:

The Federal Election Campaign Act states in unambiguous terms that any contribution by a foreign national to the campaign of an American candidate for any election, state or national, is illegal.

The likely path is that the Special Counsel's office refers the matter to the House of Representatives, who can, if they choose, AND if the Democrats are in charge, draft articles of impeachment.

***Here's my answer to the Facebook question*** (damn, that took a while)

Mr. Trump does NOT care about "the rule of law". He does NOT care about the Republican Party, and believe it or not, he doesn't (directly) even care about being reelected.

He cares about money. His money.

Money he got fair and square from his Russian friends, funneled unfairly and unsquarely into the various nooks and crannies of the Trump Organization. If Mr. Cohen helps the Special Counsel see the workings behind that scheme, then I think it's very likely Mr. Trump starts looking for the exit door. If he isn't looking already. As the saying goes, it's all about the Benjamins.

Answer to the Facebook question: BEFORE impeachment.

As the well-paid advisors would say, "control the narrative", i.e. "it's a witch hunt by the Democrats, blah blah blah".

Answer to part two of the question, "do the D's take the Senate?". Doubtful.

I'm not even confident that Wisconsin keeps a Democratic Senator. Sorry, but Dane County is not representative of the State at large. Baldwin/Vukmir is the contest to watch this November in Wisconsin, and if I were to prognosticate I think it's very, very possible that Ms. Vukmir rides Governor Walker's coattails to victory. Fact: if Tony Evers were such a good candidate, he wouldn't have had eleven (ELEVEN!) candidates running against him in the Democratic primary. Sorry folks, that's just reality talking. I definitely could be wrong on this one, and we just has historic flooding in Dane County, so I guess anything's possible.

Some liner notes as I wrap up this special edition blog post. "Can a President pardon himself?" I've not heard definitively anywhere that it CAN'T be done, so I guess that the answer is "maybe". I also think we may find out. But consider this. IF this scenario occurs, who would have the stomach and political intestinal fortitude to litigate this in the courts? Republicans? Do invertebrates have spines? Neither does the GOP, who would prefer this ugly and disastrous chapter in the now-laughable "Party of Lincoln" to go into salvage mode. The Democrats? If ever a party knew how to salvage defeat from the jaws of victory, it's the former (I hope) party of Hillary. They'd rather (and correctly) use a Trump resignation as a bully pulpit upon which to heap scorn upon the GOP like Shimei upon King David (2 Samuel 16; 6-8). Biblical it truly is.

The practical relevance of all this is that, ultimately, it'll be President Trump who leave the Trump faithful, not the other way around. The professional politicians who until then who had been riding the Trump coat tails will then be left scrambling for voters like kids chasing after gumballs from a broken gumball machine.

Long-winded as usual, but there was some catching up to do. Maybe we can chat over beers, that'd be fun.

Trump and Russia - Much Ado About Nothing?

I'm back.

Full disclosure. It really wasn't my plan. Then again, neither was Trump becoming President. And since then, damn if reality TV hasn't become the norm in Washington. Crazy is a woefully inadequate term to describe the daily goings-on, but it's accurate. But you don't need to read this or any other blog to tell you that. But what seems to be missing from the 24/7 conversation in this new world of real vs. fake news is a perspective that's neither #MAGA nor #NotMyPresident. So I figured, "Hey, that's me, the former Bernie supporter!" I don't hate Trump personally, nor do I think he's the answer to all that ails America. What I hope to provide you, gentle reader, is an independent perspective on the new Administration that I hope is honest, novel, and occasionally amusing in nature, based entirely (well, mostly) on my own observations and obtuse inferences. So if that's of interest, welcome. Again.

This week: All Things Russia.

Things have been happening so quickly in politics it seems a waste to dwell on past events, ie like last week, so this newly-resurgent blog will pick up with events of the day, today. And that means Russia, the resignation/firing of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, and what might mean to the fledgling Presidency. I'll cut to the last page; I don't think it's going to mean much. Sorry haters.

Why not? Because Russia has long since lost it's membership in the superpower cool-kids club, and on almost any measurable level, is flirting with irrelevance on the global stage. Hell, no one even buys Russian vodka anymore, unless they're looking for a cheap mixer. Yes, there are a few people in D.C. seem to hate Russia, most notably John McCain, but Sen. McCain came to age in the cold war, and he probably still has a flip phone too. But do average 'mericans care? Let me propose to you a hypothetical scenario. Say in the battle vs. ISIS there's the opportunity to score a major victory, but in order to do so it means collaborating with Russia to insure success. Do you do it? I'm betting the majority of Americans, Trump-supporter and otherwise, say "yes" without reservation. So the idea of Trump, or one of his lackeys, talking with Russia is pretty much "meh". This seems to be important only within the beltway, and it's my prediction it has a shelf life of less than two weeks. It's just not that interesting. But I digress. Who's important nowadays? China.

Workin' the 'lyin Press

Far more intriguing to me is how the relationship between Trump and the press will evolve over time. Currently, I think Trump is winning. He lies and distorts the truth with impunity, and despite being fact-checked EVERY DAY, somehow it ends up that Trump appears the persecuted one. What gives? First, I think that, by and large (full disclosure #2, I don't watch Fox so can't comment on their coverage. maybe later. A lot later), the mainstream media is largely playing a game of "inside baseball" that most Americans, except for yours truly, simply don't care about. Americans not currently in political office frankly have other things they care about. Like their jobs, what's for dinner, and who's getting the rose on The Bachelor. Fake news and the lying press? Tell it to someone who cares. The weird thing is, for everyone from CNN to Saturday Night Live, Trump is like catnip. TV and the press cannot resist him. He's a ratings dream, driving up SNL viewership to record levels, along with the ratings for the major news networks. So while they complain, they can't stop covering him. Hey, sorry, but it's business. It's ratings.

What to really be worried about.

It's my strong hunch that, among some of the folks driving the Trump foreign policy bus, the "real" enemy of America is Islam (not even "radical Islam", that's just verbiage intended to temper the overt charges of racism), which has replaced Communism as the bogeyman of American foreign policy. The architect of this worldview is Steve Bannon, the President's Chief Strategist, but the perspective seems to be shared by others in the Bannon camp, namely Stephen Miller, the White House adviser, and the recently-departed Gen. Flynn. It's my opinion (and why I'm presuming you're visiting the blog in the first place) that the overtures to the Russian government on the part of the Trump administration are an attempt to lay a groundwork for a unified attack against Islam, personified today as ISIS, but ultimately, a comprehensive and institutional attack against the religion itself. That's heavy, but I think that's Bannon's ultimate goal, waging a war, existential AND physical, between Judeo-Christian ideology and Islam. Warriors need wars. What's the danger? Simply, that this perspective may find traction with a large number of otherwise rational Americans. Remember, the infamous "Muslim ban" that Trump campaigned on was in fact the single most supported policy position among his supporters. Want more proof? He won, remember? Not that it hasn't happened before, look at the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War 2. Yup, our country. America. Land of the free, yada yada yada. Until it isn't. Fear does stuff like that. Why shouldn't it be different now? Isn't 9/11 the Pearl Harbor for this generation? For the Bannon wing of the Trump administration, and for many "regular" Americans who feel they've gotten the short end of the stick in the growing disparity between "haves" and "have nots", the "new" world war is the war against Islam. It's concerning, mostly because it's turned out poorly before.

Strangely enough, the saving grace from this worrisome worldview may ironically be found in the members of the administration who bring a lengthy record of military service, and by association institutional memory. Secy. of Defense Mattis, and Secy. of Homeland Security Kelly are both Cabinet members and decorated veterans, and likewise both have a record of NOT being extreme in their idea of a "new world order". I get the impression that they both continue to engender strong support in Washington, and hopefully are in a position to exert a moderating influence on the activities of the Oval Office. That remains to be seen.

But back to Trump. What does he think? Does he think? I find is puzzling that the many that hated Trump because they thought he was/is a shallow reality TV buffoon now view him as some sinister master strategist. I don't think you can have it both ways. I think a clear, yet somewhat jaundiced (or orange-ish, if you prefer), look at Trump's history consistently shows a non-ideologue, certainly nothing on the scale of a Bannon or even, politically speaking, a Paul Ryan, a "real" conservative. Trump's history consistently points to a very pragmatic flavor of Capitalism, clothed in a large orange narcissistic wrapper of self-promotion. He can be pro-life, pro-choice, Democrat, or Republican, whatever in the end nets him more money. But an ideologue? There's little if any evidence. So do I think he "directed" Flynn to contact the Ruskies? Doubt it. Bannon? That's another story. You betcha.

I think the fledgling administration is starting as Reince Prebus handling domestic policy issues, and Bannon and Co. steering foreign policy, including immigration. For Reince, that will mean inheriting the mess that is the Affordable Care Act, ie Obamacare, which is shaping up to be a domestic version of Viet Nam, a never-ending war. My advice would be to dump it on the GOP Congress, they asked for it, let them "fix" it.

That's enough for this newly un-retired blogger, there's always more news lately. But, in this strange new world, I will add some gentle advice at the end of this new edition of the blog. Dislike Trump's policies? Get in line. But hate is a pretty limiting strategy, both in politics and in life in general. Yoda said it best:



Thanks for reading, welcome back. N.B. I don't really have an idea how much longer the blog will last, but as long as there's material (political) I'll be here to provide an alternative commentary. For better or worse.

Winning the popular vote is a participation medal

Full disclosure. For all the wasted angst I've had in the aftermath of this election you'd think I'm a registered Democrat. I am most assuredly not. But because I lean that way on most social issues (actually, I probably mostly lean Libertarian socially), I've paid a bit of attention to how the Dems manage defeat. And as I imply in the blog title, it is a defeat in the only score that matters, the Electoral College. If you came here for rhetorical fireworks, may I direct you to coverage of the recent event at the Kennedy School of Government event at Harvard where folks from the Trump and Clinton campaigns went toe to toe after the election. Must see TV. But for an engaged but somewhat dispassionate look-see, read on.

I was pretty ambivalent about writing this, my planned "last" post for the blog. Still too many smoldering embers, ready to ignite again. In that mindset I was initially leery of pouring salt on what is still for some a fresh wound. So I figured I wouldn't write a post at all. But then, I remembered why I started the blog in the first place; as a space where I could entertain (hopefully) a more select (dare I say nuanced) audience than I would get if I just threw generic literary grenades on Facebook. So in summary, hell yes, I'm going to blog. Besides, this really is my planned last post. Folks who've been along for the ride, thanks! But, in the true spirit of full disclosure, for my (mostly) left-leaning Democrat friends, you may choose to stop reading now. You've been warned.

Well, Donald Trump won. IMO, you're either surprised or you're a liar, because even HE didn't think he was going to win. As Colin Powell once famously said, in reference to Iraq and the American invasion, "if you break that thing you've bought it". How very true, America.

This was an election between two historically flawed candidates. The only difference being, one had a message, and the other one lost. It was really that simple. Despite how they want to parse the details, "Make American Great Again" was a much stronger tagline than "I'm With Her". It still is.

I think only time will tell how successful Mr. Trump will be once he takes office, but after all the crazy of the campaign I'm not going to be the one who bets against him. But as I've adopted as a generic consolation line for my liberal friends, "look, the upside is that Trump was easily the most moderate Republican in the field". Think about it, would you rather have had President Cruz?

But in the aftermath I continue to be more intrigued by what happens with the Democrats, as I'm confident the GOP can self-destruct without my assistance. What happened in November was that the party of Clinton, powered by Wall Street, Hollywood, and liberal elites, failed to appreciate just how much their standard bearer was despised by a largely hidden swath of America, so much so that they were willing to roll the dice on a modern day version of Archie Bunker. IMO that accounts for the wild inaccuracy of the pre-election polling. The disgruntled were simply not part of the traditional voting electorate prior to now.

But losing is one thing. Not learning from it is simply galling. The Clinton campaign playing the blame game is entirely a human response; no one wants to stand up and admit they sucked. It's easier to blame James Comey, the media, the alt-right. It's harder to say, "we ran a poor campaign", but look at it from this perspective, "YOU LOST TO DONALD J. TRUMP!". If any line deserves all caps, it this one. Not using the election loss as an opportunity to learn and get stronger would simply be a shame.

I'd be a lot less disappointed by the outcome if I think it'll ultimately result in a new and revitalized Democratic Party, but the re-election of Nancy Pelosi as House Minority Leader doesn't say "new" like a Tesla. More like Yzma from Disney's "The Emperor's New Groove", minus the charm. Really folks, what the hell are you thinking? Her great fundraising ability? Where did that get you?

“Trying to please everybody is impossible - if you did that, you'd end up in the middle with nobody liking you. You've just got to make the decision about what you think is your best, and do it.”  - John Lennon

Gee, and I only thought he wrote great songs. Beyond the Party clinging to the leaders of the past, my greater concern is the inability (or unwillingness) of the Democrats to adopt an clear and singular identity, instead choosing to try an be "all things to all people", which seems to not have been successful the last hundred times they tried it. And while I probably agree more with "traditional" Democrat policy positions than those of the GOP, what I view as an utter lack of conviction on the part of the Clinton Democratic party has long kept me rather loosely affiliated as a Republican-leaning independent, at least until Bernie came along. Then I was a Bernie-leaning Independent. Now my recipe for a new-Democratic Party isn't for it to become the "party of Bernie", but hell, at least try and be something more than "Chamber of Commerce, GOP-lite". Puleeze. But unfortunately, what I'm hear from the Democratic leadership post-Trumpageddon is a doubling-down on the same stupid identity politics that got them shellacked in the first place. This crap about listening to "their" constituencies and trying to create some sort of consensus policy platform is the same playbook that has now resulted in soon-to-be 0-for-3 in branches of the Federal government. What would I do? Hah, sorry you asked.

Care about working class Americans? Well, lets start with reforming unions, the historic backbone of the Democratic Party. Either reform or let folks like Scott Walker do it for you. And if you don't think it's necessary, please look at the election results, as painful as rewinding that may be. Donald Trump WON Michigan. WON Pennsylvania. Won Wisconsin. Won blue collar workers everywhere. Why, because all those blue collar workers are racists? If you believe that I'm surprised you've been reading this blog at all, what, with your head buried up your... let's just say in the sand. No, Democrats in general, and Hillary in particular this election, didn't speak to working- and middle-class Americans. Now this as an observation, not presented as some sort of fact. Actually, akin to the idea of the "first woman President", I think the decline of union participation is in many cases an perverse byproduct of success, not an intrinsic flaw. Union achievements in promoting worker rights and protections are historically important, but I think many take those gains for granted. Today society is ever more focused on the "here and now" versus the hard fought battles that got Americans the rights and privileges they enjoy today. Same goes with women's rights. The idea of a woman President is, thankfully, something that many/most Americans simply take for granted, thus Hillary running on gender identity as some sort of birthright didn't appeal to voters, particularly young women, who would rather shatter their own glass ceiling rather than that of a multimillionaire septuagenarian.

So Dems, stand up for workers (not their union bosses). Stand up for immigrants (and not just so they can vote for you). Stand up for non-descrimination (because it's right, not because it's poll-tested). But anti-business? Where will that get you? Demonizing Trump voters? Some of them are (or used to be) Democrats. Don't be the party of hate, let the GOP own it. So how to put that into practice, in a new year with the GOP essentially controlling all branches of government? Here's what I'd suggest. Give the GOP the rope, if they choose to make a noose out of it, let 'em. Don't be the party of obstruction, it will only cast Democrats as the villain to "progress". Agree and cooperate where there are gains to be made, in jobs, in the economy, in peace. Disagree EARLY when policies are divergent to Democratic ideals, not only after they go bad. State objections clearly and concisely, but don't sweat over the messy details of governance; the GOP owns that now. The clearest best upcoming example is healthcare, soon to be formerly known as Obamacare. Can the GOP, with an orthopedic surgeon/politician at the helm of HHS, do better? Let's see, but in the meantime I'll be putting some new money into medical device stocks (wink emoji). Call me back with the cost curve in three years, we'll have a drink. You'll pay. Actually, we'll all pay.

Folks, I'm closing the blog on a upbeat note. Fans of American politics have, in the last 16 years, lived through the pendulum swinging from talk of a "permanent Democratic/Republican majority" in Congress, because if there's anything close to a truism in politics, it's the irresistibility of overreach on the part of the party in power. And that invariably leads to, you guessed it, a transfer of power back to the minority party. It may take eight years, but Democrats, please don't sit on the status-quo, waiting for 2020. Start rebuilding today. And thanks for reading!

Election Post-script. Notes for Dejected Americans

Full disclosure. In a statement intended to surprise no one, I'm a political junkie. And have been for quite a while. Long enough to watch the pendulum swing both ways. Long enough to know this isn't the end of the Republic. So was last night a surprise? Duh, yeah, but honestly, not on the same scale as the Cubs winning the World Series (#GoCubsGo). But very much not outside the realm of probability (Nate Silver, of fivethirtyeight.com fame, wins again). Analysis can wait for a subsequent post, mostly because there's too much smoke in the air, and the wounds are still too fresh. This post has a different intent. While not a identified Democrat, or for that matter an identified liberal, today's post is addressed to those who are disheartened at the outcome of last night's election. Believe me (sorry, had to throw that in there), there are silver linings. Here are a few.

1. This was NOT a repudiation of the ideals of the Democratic Party. The Dems have long been viewed as the standard bearers of the American working class, until recently personified by union workers, teachers, public servants, police and fire, manufacturing. College educated or not. There's at least half the population that thinks that there are significant headwinds facing working class Americans, and one of the many takeaways from last night is that the desperation is real. Real enough for people to roll the dice on something, anything that might offer a chance. The Democratic Party has, in my lifetime, has always been closer to the hearts of the public, if not necessarily the wallets. But having a compassionate heart can be challenging when hope, in the form of economic stability and opportunity, is waning or lost. Americans have ALWAYS been, as a people, off-the-scale charitable, compared to other countries. I don't think that's gone anywhere.

2. The late Mario Cuomo said it best. "You campaign in rhetoric, you govern in prose". I very strongly suspect that any references to walls, repealing Obamacare, and indictments, will be coming only from members of the losing party and the paid talking media heads, and they're entitled to protest with vigor. But IMO most Americans, of both parties, won't be listening. The campaign is OVER, now the process shifts to expectations and actions. And I suspect that the incoming government will be quickly looking at how they can get some quick wins, but no one said winning was easy. Now get to work. We're watching. An acquaintance said some year's ago, "the losing party earns the right to bitch". True.

3. It's still a divided government, and it's a good thing. Despite claims to the contrary, this was absolutely NOT a victory for the "right". Yeah, Mike Pence is the VP-elect. When someone can give me a list of accomplishments credited to a VP in the last 40 years I'll reconsider. And yes, I'll grant you Al Gore invented the internet. But a new right wing victory? Nah, if that were the case we'd be talking President-elect Cruz (ugh.). Let's call it what it is, a center-right President-elect. Pro-choice? He was always your guy, so Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere. Supreme Court? The second amendment won't go the way of 13th floors. Obamacare? Well, no one anywhere didn't think it needed to be fixed, so let the new guy deal with it. But we're not going to turn into a police state in January. Unlike the other potential GOP candidates, this Pres-elect arrives nearly chit-free (well, if you don't include Russia [that's a joke people]). He owes about no one in D.C., and that's liberating in an unheard-of fashion. BUT...unlike the lesson President Obama learned the hard way, there is a "way of getting things done" in Washington, that that way will go through one guy. Paul Ryan. It will be an interesting evolution of a relationship. Could be "Lethal Weapon", could be "The Odd Couple". We'll see. But it absolutely won't be a blank slate for the Tea Party. They'll continue talking to themselves, like they're not taking their meds.

4. The Democratic Party 2.0. I'll be very upfront here, I think the successes of the prior Clinton years have, not unexpectedly, led to a slow, steady, and stealthy shift from the "party of the people" to the "party of the status quo", funded by the interests of those who'd greatly benefitted from the economy of the 80's and 90's. Wall Street, big business, union leaders (NOT rank and file workers). Democrats in power turned into Chamber of Commerce Republicans. But power does that to people, it's human nature. Why be optimistic? Look who's in the on deck circle. My man Bernie. My almost fave Warren. My real fave Tulsi. My other fave and new badass Senator from Illinois, Tammy Duckworth. The bench, IMO, finally has the chance to emerge from a heavy yoke. Sorry, but I'm optimistic. Theo Epstein would be proud of these new Cubs.

My fellow Americans, this isn't like The Empire Strikes Back, when Luke disregards Yoda's pleas to stay and complete his training (Dagobah, it's no Cancun). Hope isn't lost. The purview of this democracy is, now more than ever, the ability to air and debate diverse and often conflicting ideas, with the short term judges the voting public, and the long term judge history.

Closing with yet another over religious reference, a Portuguese proverb. "God writes straight with crooked lines". I hope it applies here too.

A few more posts, then I'll probably shut this down and get on with life. Thanks as always for reading!

The Briefest Voting Guide You'll Read

Full disclosure. For long time readers (hah, seriously), thanks for following along this self-indulgent journey, I hope at times it was entertaining. If you were/are a serious partisan and felt somehow that I didn't afford the political process the gravitas our fine country deserved, yea, you came to the wrong blog. But if you're a fan of the process, the democracy that allows the rich diversity of opinion to shape our country, well...this has been for you.

A lot of posts ago I paraphrased Yoda by saying "vote, or don't vote. there is no try". Or something like that. And I still mean it. Here's my bottom line. I would suggest you do something, vote Hillary, vote Trump, don't vote, whatever. But perhaps do something that you can look back on in the future and say, "yea, I did that". Of course, being unable to predict the future (yes, I'm talking to you. ALL of you), this recommendation has it's caveats. So this brief election guide will try and distill some of the perspectives (NB. it's not a pro/con of the issues, 'cause that's crap. they're all lying at this point)

In the broadest possible brushstrokes, here's my gestalt:

Status quo (which is/isn't a bad thing, you decide). Hillary. I think for the most part things stay the same. An evolution of the Affordable Care Act. Largely the same level of regulation (Wall St., etc...) as we currently have. Minimal/no change in foreign policy, same of domestic policy/entitlements. Like I said, status quo.

Unhappy with status quo? Trump. Yea, it's a crap shoot of sorts, but it's not the end of the Republic as we know it. Actually, probably not even as much as some/many wish for, the whole "drain the swamp" rhetoric. Why? Because, like I believe is true with the economy in general, the President actually has a lot LESS power and influence over broad issues like the economy than he/she thinks they do, and even if they wield a modicum of influence, often times (changes in monetary policy, trade policy, etc...) the effects of those changes don't necessarily coincide with the 4/8 years of a Presidential term, ie the effect may not be linked to the cause. Confusing? Sorry. I think the "finger on the nuclear button" was a weak campaign attack, akin to the "3 am phone call" Hillary tried on Obama, the guy who ultimately got Osama Bin Laden. But I'm leaving the 10th inning postgame show for next week after the election.

Dislike both candidates? I'm completely comfortable with active non-voting. If you stand up publicly and defend your choice/candidate, I understand. Remember, I'm a Bernie guy (sorry to rub that in there). I would have also been a Biden guy. A Bush guy. An O'Malley guy. Probably a Kasich guy. Probably NOT a Cruz guy. So there. No, I wasn't looking for perfection. I think that's always unrealistic. But my last (almost) Bernie plug. Someone I actually believed gave a damn. I don't think that's true with either of the current choices, hence my comfort with non-voting. Ultimately they're both a bad cocktail of self interest mixed with special interests. Typical Washington.

Issues? No. Please be assured that both sides would sell you the Brooklyn Bridge (a promissory note) if they thought it would get your vote. But will either do what they say, good or bad? Doubt it. And remember, the POTUS doesn't make laws, that's Congress. (someone please let Donald know)

That's it, brief. Ish. If you already read the blog you're engaged enough for me, so congrats! Make a choice and be cool with it. Here's a true anecdote for the close. I spend a good deal of time with a large group of people I'm pretty confident don't vote. Not because they're not affected, because they very obviously are, as they get government assistance. No, they don't vote because they long ago lost hope. Hope that, regardless of who's in power, there's really someone in high office that gives two s*&ts about the poor, the homeless, veterans, the mentally ill, the down and outs. And I agree with them. This election is about who holds the keys to the kingdom, not who cares for the least among us (hah, spend the whole post trying to work in an obtuse Biblical reference. Score! Sorry/not sorry if you've offended, here's another one). Rejoice, and be glad. This will all be over next week.

Unless Egg McMuffin wins Utah, and Hills and the Don are tied in the Electoral College. Damn, now that would be something.

As always, thanks for reading!