Did those political windbags think no one would notice? -- Pug Mahoney
Politicians often say one thing to satisfy their base voters but do another to repay their donors.
Media watchdogs, meanwhile, track what the politicians say and compare it to what they do. And every time it happens, the politicians seem surprised, if not astonished, when confronted with their contradictions.
When will they learn that this is what journalists do? They watch, listen and remember, then pounce when the politician wanders from the straight and narrow and stumbles into a trap of his own making, surrounded by his own mistakes, misbehaviors and lies.
And rather than acknowledge, admit and apologize for their misdeeds, they get defensive, deny, double down and attack those who expose them, as if the reporters are the liars.
Sound familiar? There's nothing new here, except that the New Guy in Washington is more flagrant in his denials and accusations, accompanied by his devoted acolytes.
One major consequence of the example the New Guy sets is that he drags his herd of followers down to his level and into the same corner of shameless lying that brought him to where he is.
How did this happen? Largely because the watchdogs in the media noticed what was going on and spread the news. Hearing this (or sniffing the stench of a good story), others joined the pack and gleefully joined in, happily howling, growling and snapping at the cornered target.
However much criticism there is of the practice of wolfpack journalism, the result is that the public learns of the attitudes and misdeeds of the political partisans who misuse and abuse the system for their own profit, at the expense of the citizenry at large.
The metaphorical bottom line remains that the public as well as conscientious prosecutors finally learn of the political, legal and moral malpractice of the politicians and act accordingly.
The argument can readily be made that politicians should not behave that way to begin with, which is true. Nevertheless, they persist in doing what they do, regardless of law, morality or conscience. And it's the responsibility of a free press to document and report what politicians say and do. When they say and do well, that is reported. But when errant politicians say and do things harmful to national values, journalists raise a howl of alarm, and others join the pack, tracking down and cornering them.
This is how the system works, and the freedom of the journalistic pack to expose those who endanger the system is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
While the U.S. may have been the first country to put that guarantee in writing, the reality is that other nations also have that tradition, and it's spreading.
Demagogues and would-be dictators beware: The journalistic pack is watching.
Politics, like Nature, abhors a vacuum.
"I belong to no organized political party. I'm a Democrat." -- Will Rogers
Donald Trump saw a power vacuum in American politics, then combined that with the prejudices and fears of a vocal minority to fill the vacuum with his own brand of leadership.
Previously a registered Democrat, he saw opportunity in the Republican Party, sensing that it had lost contact with the feelings of a disaffected base. Result: He sold the fearful, disaffected voters a bill of goods, claiming, "Only I can fix it."
But can he? Judging from his performance of the past nine months, he can't. Moreover, it's likely that he doesn't care, because like the pitchman he has always been, he made the sale.
It doesn't matter that the Republican Party, like many of his other ventures, is now bankrupt.
So the question for the remaining members of the GOP is, what do we do now?
There are three options: Fight, flight, and start fresh.
Some will stay and fight, trying to regain control of the Republican establishment in the face of increasing dominance by the president.
Others will drop out, realizing that the odds of their re-election are somewhere between slim and none.
The third option is to reorganize and form a new political party to continue the fight.
A danger, however, is that third parties in American politics have often been spoilers, splitting the opposition to the party in power, thus reducing their chances of turning them out.
Nevertheless, they persist.
The decision then becomes whether to join the Democrats in opposition to the Party of Trump, forming a united front against them, or to organize a third party.
Joining with the predominantly liberal Democrats is not likely, since many of the GOP dropouts are long-time conservatives themselves.
So if they form a new party, what shall this be called?
Option one: Conservative Party. This would uphold traditional fiscal values of the Republican Party and would invoke the spirit of Barry Goldwater, the founder of modern Republican conservatism, not only the fiscal sense but also reminiscent of conservationists who, like Goldwater, were concerned with preserving Nature, rather than using all of the earth's resources for capitalist profits.
A problem here, however, would be knee-jerk opposition from liberals.
Option two: Progressive Party. This points to traditional values of Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican who was instrumental in establishing national parks in the name of conservation.
The danger of a third party is that it would split the vote of opponents as well as traditionalists. In 1912, this meant that the Republican incumbent, William Howard Taft, lost his bid for re-election to Woodrow Wilson, the only Democrat to serve as president between the terms of Grover Cleveland and Franklin Roosevelt.
An advantage of this name, however, is that it could base its appeal on concern for workers and conservationists, and emphasize its devotion to "progress" rather than opportunism for the wealthy, which they could stress as the main strategy of the Trumpians. Or, put another way, concern for the working class over the greed of the super-rich.
Another strategy could be to say the Republican Party has become the "Capitalist Party" controlled by real estate mogul Donald Trump and his corporate allies.
Other possible labels for the new movement could be Populist Party, but that has negative connotations similar to those used by Trumpians. Socialist Party or Labor Party would be too closely connected to extreme leftist movement, whether the accusations were true or not.
A reality is that social welfare programs -- read "socialism" -- have been steadily growing in America since the Great Depression of the 1930s, and are not likely to be surrendered easily.
In addition, the label "Populist Party" is at first vague, and then is used to mask the isolationist "America First" chatter that dates to the 1930s and only led to economic disaster.
So what, then, is the most likely name for a new political movement to challenge the Party of Trump?
The vote from here goes to the Progressive Party, since it evokes the spirit of Republicans Theodore Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater, as well as concern for the middle class, workers, preservation of natural resources and the general idea of progress for everyone.
The economy is doing well, with a growth rate of 3 percent in the third quarter, according the Bureau of Economic Analysis, continuing its steady recovery that goes back seven years.
However, that's no barrier to blaming the Obama Administration for what Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross called the "dismal economy" that the new administration inherited. Or, as the new president said, "I inherited a mess." In his statement, Ross added that once proposed tax cuts are in place, the U.S. economy will come "roaring back."
Fact check: The economy has been steadily recovering since soon after Barack Obama took office. However, that hasn't stopped the new guy from discrediting the past seven years of economic health and claiming credit for just the past nine months.
So, since the economy is now doing well, the White House seems to think now is the time to remove all monitoring, guidance and regulation from government agencies and the independent the Federal Reserve so the economy can take off "like a rocket," as the president put it.
That, and make more money available to the top one percent of business managers, investors and stockholders so they can pass the extra cash down the social and economic strata to consumers and workers and everybody benefits.
It's called "trickle down" economics, and the theory is that everybody wins. Eventually. In the long run. Over time.
Reality check: That's been tried before, and it doesn't work.
The Federal Reserve Board is responsible for trying to keep inflation at a reasonable level and to encourage economic growth, also at a reasonable level. And that means a growth rate of about 2 percent, according to Fed policy.
More than that means a risk to over-heated growth and potential sudden, sharp drops in the economy. So the Fed is holding back, trying to prevent any soaring growth rate.
In addition, there is the issue of rising prices even as income levels rise more slowly. It doesn't take much thought to realize that if prices rise faster than income, there's a problem.
For most people, that is. Except for those at the top 1 percent income level, who will benefit most from the proposed tax plan.
Which may be why the president is considering changing the makeup of the Fed Board of Governors so the super-rich will become even more super, at the expense of lower-income folk who will pay higher taxes, and higher health care premiums under the proposed fiscal and budget policies of the current administration.
"Our country. May she always be in the right. But right or wrong, our country." -- Stephen Decatur
Trumpistas are celebrating the coming departure of two establishment Republican senators, as well as what appears to be a cleansing of mainstream GOP politicians from legislative bodies nationwide.
But how long with the party last?
A fight or flight decision is always difficult. This time, however, the future of the celebration -- and the organization -- depends on how many will stay to fight the expansion of extremist populism or will choose to leave and continue to fight from outside the increasingly radicalized organization.
"America First" is a useful and patriotic slogan, but when it leads to an attitude of "America Only," it becomes a rallying cry for victory over anyone and everything, no matter the issue.
And as Stephen Decatur pointed out in the early 19th Century, it's possible that the country may not always be in the right. Nevertheless, patriotism and loyalty to its principles remain. Note also his use of the plural pronoun "our," acknowledging that the principles of the republic apply to everyone, not any single favored group.
Americans now face a decision as to whether the current administration is leading the country down the right path to peace and prosperity or toward economic destruction (with some few exempt from the disaster), intergroup animosity and perhaps even war.
Meanwhile, here's a news item to consider. Donald Trump has congratulated Xi Jinping on his elevation by the Chinese government to the status equal to Mao Zedong, founder of the communist nation, thus sanctifying the current leader and making any disagreement with President Xi heresy.
In a TV interview on Fox News, Trump also said Xi is "a powerful man," and that "some people might call him the King of China -- but he's called president."
The current U.S. president has in the past praised Vladimir Putin for his "strongman" tactics as ruler of Russia.
What does that tell you about the attitudes and ambitions of Donald Trump?
"Send not to know for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee." -- John Donne
"Enough." -- Sen. Jeff Flake
The Republican Party as we have long known it is dying. Whether it survives with the same name it has had since the days of Abraham Lincoln is the question. Realistically, the GOP is no longer the party of Lincoln. It is now the party of Trump.
With the announcements by two senior Republican senators, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Jeff Flake of Arizona, that they will not seek re-election next year, along with the clear independence of John McCain, also of Arizona, and their strong opposition to Donald Trump, the party has lost its dominance in the U.S. Senate.
In announcing his decision to retire, made in a speech on the Senate floor, Flake said he has had "enough," and that he cannot follow with "complete and unquestioning loyalty" the demands and instructions of President Donald Trump.
Increasingly, the sentiments spoken by these senators are being discussed privately by others, illustrating the erosion of support for the radical positions pushed by the president.
The danger to democracy is growing, they point out, and they can no longer in good conscience follow the lead of the current president.
In his speech, Flake said, "The impulse to scapegoat and belittle threatens to turn us into a fearful, backward-looking people," and also threatens to transform the GOP into "a fearful, backward-looking minority party."
The president often belittles opponents with references to their height. And he regularly disparages others with similar comments on other aspects of their personhood. As if the size of his own -- whatever -- is an essential qualification for political office.
The latest target of this tiresome tirade is Sen. Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, and that's only since Corker spoke in opposition to presidential policies that the guy in the Oval Office dubbed him "Liddle" Bob.
Earlier, the president belittled Sen. Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, with a similar epithet.
Reality check: Sens. Corker and Rubio stand about the same height as the average adult man in America today, which is the same as the average cavalry trooper who rode with Gen. George Armstrong Custer at the Battle of the Little Big Horn.
Moreover, that measurement has nothing to do with skills, ability, intellectual capacity, intelligence or empathy. Several of which are lacking in the Overweight Big Mouth who currently occupies the Oval Office.
And, yes, he is taller than average, at six feet, three inches. (At least, that's what he claims. Other sources put him at six feet, one inch.)
But he is not the tallest person to be elected president. That label goes to Abraham Lincoln, who stretched to a full six feet, four inches, followed by Lyndon Johnson at six feet, three inches, Thomas Jefferson at six feet, two and half inches, and four other presidents at six feet, two inches.
The shortest American president was James Madison, at five feet, four inches. Most of the others stood in the range of five feet, six inches to five feet, eight inches. For the record, Sens. Corker and Rubio are of average height among all American men, at five feet, seven inches.
That figure is for white males. Other ethnic groups post different height figures.
However, Donald Trump does rank among the fattest of American presidents, ranking sixth, at 245 pounds and a body mass index of 30, according to data gathered by the web site www.presidentstory.com.
That, however, is not likely to be a claim to fame he will brag about.
Who ya gonna believe, me or reams of scientific data?
The U.S. had the lowest number of jobless claims since 1973, and the unemployment rate is at 4 percent.
Nevertheless, the president persists in lamenting the severe draining of American jobs and the dire need to rebuild the manufacturing sector.
Which is it?
Either the U.S. economy is suffering badly and needs tax breaks to enable it to recover, or it has been steadily recovering for the past seven years.
Who, then, is more credible, a president who voices conflicting statements within minutes of each other, during the same speech, or a series of data points published over months by independent government agencies like the Labor Department, the Commerce Department and the Federal Reserve Board?
In the week ended Oct. 14, initial claims for unemployment benefits totalled 222,000, a drop of 22,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said. This was an advance estimate, and could well be revised. The agency revised the previous week's level upward by 1,000 claims, to a total of 244,000.
It's also true that the ability of local agencies to process claims was severely disrupted by the two hurricanes that struck Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Therefore, once power is restored and people can make their way to unemployment offices, the number of claims in these two American territories will likely rise substantially.
So while the president's comment that initial claims for jobless benefits are the lowest since 1973 is true as far as it goes, it's important to remember that the comment doesn't go very far, since it leaves out the disruption caused by two hurricanes. Moreover, the comment contradicts the president's regular warnings about job losses.
Evidence of that contradiction is the report that total employment nationally is likely to grow by 11.5 million jobs over the next ten years, to a total of 167.6 million, according to a projection by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This job growth will be led by the health care sector. Note: These are jobs that cannot be exported. Hospitals and doctors serve their local communities, and cannot care for sick people via long distance telecommunications.
In addition, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the total value of goods and services produced in America, will grow by an estimated 2.0 percent through 2026, the BLS said. That's about the level of the Federal Reserve Board's preferred rate.
As for the Trump family's devotion to jobs in America, TV commentator Ali Velshi of NBC compiled a list of countries where garments for Ivanka Trump's clothing line are made. The list was: Other countries, six, the U.S. zero.
