Don't Trust Republicans Just Because They Oppose Trump... They're Still Republicans, Including Bill Weld

Not a hero, not then, not now, not ever-- just a right-wing kook

Tucker Carlson, Max Boot and Bill Kristol... what comes to mind? Conservative Republicans, right? Stop there. Don't over-think it. That's the answer. No, "buts" about how Boot and Kristol are anti-Trump. Glad they are, but it doesn't matter about who they are and what their advice on anything other than-- very precisely-- Trump's odiousness, means. In yesterday's American Conservative, oddly enough, it was Carlson-- a much bigger face of odiousness than the other two of late-- who pointed out why we should never get sucked into any sympathy for what they all are (as we agreed, conservative Republicans). "Why," he asked, "are these professional war peddlers still around?, pointing out that "pundits like Max Boot and Bill Kristol got everything after 9/11 wrong but are still considered "experts." Not in our world but in the conservative Republican world these 3 live in.

There's plenty in Carlson's-- and remember, we're talking about Trump Machine Fox propagandist Tucker Carlson-- little essay to agree with. Like, right off the bat: "One thing that every late-stage ruling class has in common is a high tolerance for mediocrity. Standards decline, the edges fray, but nobody in charge seems to notice. They’re happy in their sinecures and getting richer. In a culture like this, there’s no penalty for being wrong. The talentless prosper, rising inexorably toward positions of greater power, and breaking things along the way. It happened to the Ottomans. Max Boot is living proof that it’s happening in America." Boot's foreign policy recipes have all tasted like raw sewage... basically because they are. Back in the day, Boot wrote that "Once we have deposed Saddam, we can impose an American-led, international regency in Baghdad, to go along with the one in Kabul,” Boot wrote. “To turn Iraq into a beacon of hope for the oppressed peoples of the Middle East: Now that would be a historic war aim. Is this an ambitious agenda? Without a doubt. Does America have the resources to carry it out? Also without a doubt." Yes, he hates Trump now-- and Carlson's head resides up Trump's ass-- but that doesn't make Boot's opinions on anything, other than Trump's unsuitability, worth listening to. Same for Kristol. As for Tucker, nothing he says is ever worth listening to, except how terrible Max Boot and Bill Kristol are. (I'd be happy to hear him go off on the MSNBC Republicans as well. No doubt he feels as strongly about them as we feel about the Fox Democrats.)



Bill Weld isn't usually referred to as a "conservative Republican." Bozos in the media call him a "moderate Republican." Others refer to him as a "libertarian Republican." This might be as good a time as any that many Libertarians really do not like their 2016 vice presidential nominee at all. He screwed them when he ran fro governor of New York in 2006, when he endorsed Obama in 2008, when he virtually endorsed Hillary in 2016 and just recently when the man who announced at the 2016 Libertarian Party convention that he was a Libertarian member for life switched his party registration to the GOP again. "Weld lacks loyalty," wrote Grant Deltz for the Libertarian Republic this week. "He embodies the meaning of the stereotypical career politician... Weld is simply an opportunist... He’ll probably be endorsing Kamala Harris before it’s all said and done."

Weld was the Republican governor of Massachusetts from 1991 through 1997, when he resigned to concentrate on an unsuccessful battle with Jesse Helms over his nomination by Bill Clinton to be ambassador to Mexico. Yesterday he announced an exploratory committee to run for president as a Republican. (He had endorsed Kasich for president in 2016.)

Reporting for the Boston Herald, Joe Battenfeld, wrote that, "in prepared remarks at the Politics & Eggs breakfast in Bedford, N. H., Weld delivered a blistering critique of Trump, saying 'we have a president whose priorities are skewed toward promotion of himself rather than toward the good of the country. To compound matters, our President is simply too unstable to carry out the duties of the highest executive office-- which include the specific duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed-- in a competent and professional matter. He is simply in the wrong place.'"

In his speech, the former federal prosecutor called out his own party for supporting Trump, saying “many Republicans exhibit all the symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome, identifying with their captor.”

“The truth is that we have wasted an enormous amount of time by humoring this President, indulging him in his narcissism and his compulsive, irrational behaviors,” Weld said.

The former governor, who served in Massachusetts from 1990 to 1997, did not mention the “impeachment” word but hinted he would like to see Trump removed even before the 2020 election.

“The situation is not yet hopeless but we do need a mid-course correction,” he said. “We don’t need six more years of the antics we have seen. We need to make a change, and install leaders who know that character counts.”

...Weld’s announcement is likely to trigger anger among President Trump and his supporters, who see the former governor as a flip-flopper who deserted the Republican Party. The New Hampshire GOP chairman told the Herald he doesn’t expect Weld to get a welcome reception from voters there, and polls show a vast majority of GOP voters back Trump.

But sources close to Weld say he is determined to make life difficult for Trump, even if his candidacy is a long shot.

While Weld was harshest in his criticism of Trump, he also singled out Democrats for drifting too far left toward socialism.

“We need the opposite of socialism,” he said. “In the federal budget, the two most important tasks are to cut spending and to cut taxes-- and spending comes first.”

Weld laid out his positions on other issues, calling for less government intervention in health care and for more intervention to prevent climate change.

Yesterday, writing at the neoCon website, The Bulwark, for Jeb Bush operative Tim Miller explained why he thinks Trump has lost it (mentally) and is now running our country based on his hallucinations about marauding Hispanic invaders.

[M]aybe Trump is really a 243-pound (lol) septuagenarian Haley Joel Osment, and he’s seeing the corpses of contractors he and his father have screwed over in decades past? Or maybe he’s gone deep down a YouTube suggested video rabbit hole and he’s watching clips from a Middle Eastern war zone that have been mislabeled as present-day Mexico and Trump is convinced its real because the people are brown-skinned and it looks kinda like what he imagines the border to be. I don’t know. As I said, I’m not a doctor.

We should also consider the possibility that a member of the Deep State has been dosing his Diet Coke with acid. After all, they never found out who wrote that anonymous New York Times op-ed.

What I know for certain is that here on the physical plane of existence there is no security emergency at the U.S.-Mexico border. The incursion the president describes is not the lived reality of any actual Americans. Border crossings are down, crime is down, employment is up. Yet the president’s hallucinations persist, and in the past week they seem to be growing more severe.

At a speech in El Paso, rather than just talking about the imaginary caravan of people invading the country, Trump actually claimed that he had invented the word “caravan” altogether. (In fact, the word is sourced from medieval Latin, caravana, picked up during the Crusades from Persian karwan “group of desert travelers.” Donald Trump is very old but this is slightly before his time.)

He has also begun touting the construction of an imaginary wall. “The wall is being built. It’ll continue. It’s going at a rapid pace,” he said. “Now you really mean ‘finish the wall’ because we’ve built a lot of it,” he continued. None of these statements are remotely true. And rather than be alarmed that the president is having a wall-themed seance, everyone is going along with it. After all, the wall is in our hearts.

So then I start to wonder-- maybe I’m the crazy one. Maybe this is all just equal parts Trumpian hyperbole and good old fashioned gaslighting.

But if so, what explains the other delusions, like the blubbering tough guys crying whenever they meet Trump. And it’s not just this one time. Trump seems to keep meeting “monster” sized buff men who are brought to tears by their gratitude to him. For a wall that doesn’t exist. That’s designed to stop an infiltration that isn’t happening.

The layers of unreality build upon itself.

After-all, whatever happened to the president’s friend “Jim” who used to go to Paris every year but now doesn’t? He was scared of the imaginary brown-skinned “infiltration” of the City of Lights. We haven’t heard from him in a while. Are you in there Jim?

Now the dots are being connected . . . Pepe Silva . . . Time replaced by a fever dream . . . Paris under siege. The apparitions in Trump’s delusions are having menacing delusions of their own.

So now the Orange King is set to act. Haunted by these threats he is poised to declare an extralegal national emergency to prevent a U.S.-Carcosan nightmare. This, you would hope, would be the moment for those close to the president recognize this illness and shake him back to reality. To stand with him by the window and with kind eyes let him know that, no there is no ominous car out there. There are no barbarians at the gates.

But no, the delusions persist. The fantasy is fed. And at times even those who can see the light can feel our definitions fading.

Miller may be right about Trump, and he's funny to read, but do you care what he has to say about Jeb Bush? Or AOC? Or Ilhan Omar? Or democracy? Why would you?

The Real State Of The Union-- Most Americans Hope Trump Dies Tonight

State of the Union Poster by Chip Proser

None of those new polls that came out yesterday looked good for Trump-- nor for his congressional enablers. In fact, the CNN poll found that nearly 7 in 10 voters say the federal government is doing a bad job of governing, including 43% who say it’s the worst job of governing in their lifetimes. 19% of Americans think Trump's government is doing a good job. That appeared to clash drastically with Trump's interview with Margaret Brennan on Face The Nation Sunday when he bragged-- lying-- that he's created the best economy in history and that he's headed to a 2020 reelection victory. "The only thing I've done," he stated, falsely, "is created, maybe, the best economy we've had in the history of our country." Tell it to the voters who responded to the new Monmouth poll. Among them, just 37% think Trump should be re-elected-- as opposed to 57% who want to vote for someone else.



He also spent a lot of time talking about his vanity wall, which the new Gallup poll shows is opposed by 60% of voters, up from 57% opposing it 6 months ago. Despite the efforts of the Republican Party 61% of voters oppose deporting all illegal immigrants back to their home country. In fact "the vast majority of Americans (81%) favor allowing immigrants living illegally in the U.S. "the chance to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements over a period of time."

Preparing for a night of lies (his State of the Union address this evening), Trump is freaking out over the massive White House leak that shows he's a lazy sack of crap who does nothing all day but sit around watching TV, eating junk food and gossiping with his friends on the phone. Mike Allen wrote that "White House insiders said the leak sowed chaos. Cliff Sims, the former White House official who wrote the dishy Team of Vipers, told me: 'There are leaks, and then there are leaks. If most are involuntary manslaughter, this was premeditated murder. People inside are genuinely scared.'" One of the NY Times' Trump specialists, Maggie Haberman took to Twitter:

Trump's instinct for self-preservation, though, isn't just to go on the attack against Democrats-- he went full-on against Pelosi, who is now more popular than he is among the American public-- but to have his political team squelch any attempts within the GOP to mount a primary against him. Yesterday's Monmouth poll shows that 43% of Republican primary voters want a primary next year. Zeke Miller and Stephen Peoples reported for the Associated Press that Trump is worried and "has launched a state-by-state effort to prevent an intraparty fight that could spill over into the general-election campaign... including taking steps to change state party rules, crowd out potential rivals and quell any early signs of opposition that could embarrass the" disgusting, hated slob that virtually anyone who isn't an anti-democracy fascist wishes would die tonight as he speaks.

It is an acknowledgment that Trump, who effectively hijacked the Republican Party in 2016, hasn’t completely cemented his grip on the GOP and, in any event, is not likely to coast to the 2020 GOP nomination without some form of opposition. While any primary challenge would almost certainly be unsuccessful, Trump aides are looking to prevent a repeat of the convention discord that highlighted the electoral weaknesses of Presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter in their failed re-election campaigns.

To defend against that prospect, Trump’s campaign has deployed what it calls an unprecedented effort to monitor and influence local party operations. It has used endorsements, lobbying and rule changes to increase the likelihood that only loyal Trump activists make it to the Republican nominating convention in August 2020.

Bill Stepien, a senior adviser to the Trump campaign, calls it all a “process of ensuring that the national convention is a television commercial for the president for an audience of 300 million and not an internal fight.”

One early success for Trump’s campaign was in Massachusetts, where Trump backer and former state Rep. Jim Lyons last month defeated the candidate backed by Massachusetts Republican Gov. Charlie Baker, a Trump critic, to serve as the state party chairman.

“We have a constant focus on tracking everything regarding this process,” Stepien said. “Who’s running, what their level of support for the president is and what their vote counts are.”

The campaign’s work extends beyond state party leadership races, which are taking place in many key states in the coming weeks. Trump’s team plans to organize at county and state caucuses and conventions over the next 18 months to elevate pro-Trump leaders and potential delegates. Ahead of the convention, it aims to have complete control of the convention agenda, rules and platform-- and to identify any potential trouble-makers well in advance.

...[T]he efforts to protect Trump simply highlight his vulnerability, said an adviser to one potential Republican opponent.

“They’re not talented, but they’re not idiotic. They rightfully understand that he could be badly damaged or lose in a nomination battle. They’re doing too much. It looks weak,” said John Weaver, a senior adviser to former Ohio Gov. John Kasich, one of the few high-profile Republicans seriously contemplating a primary challenge.

Trump’s campaign is closely monitoring the intentions of Kasich and other potential primary challengers, and aides said they expect someone to mount a campaign for the nomination. But they insist their efforts are not borne out of fear that Trump is vulnerable.

Primary challenges against incumbent presidents have never been successful in the modern era. And Trump’s poll numbers among Republican voters have proven to be resilient. Still, his aides said they are taking lessons from one-term leaders who lost their re-elections after embarrassing nominating fights.

Those in the past who challenged a president both distracted the incumbent from the November campaign and offered a voice to intraparty discontent, seeding weaknesses that were exploited by a general-election rival.

Another poster by Chip Proser

Will Republicans Hold a Presidential Primary in 2020?

Donald Trump and John Kasich face off at a 2016 presidential primary debate (Joe Raedle/Getty Images; source)

by Gaius Publius

I normally don't follow the predictable machinations of Republicans, partly because there's a national industry these days to do that for me, and partly because that's not where the actual action is. (The actual action will be here in 2020.)

But the bits of information that follow are too good not to pass on. First, it seems that South Carolina Republicans are considering not holding a primary contest for president in 2020. This has all the look of a trial balloon, but it may take off. So far, only John Kasich is complaining.

Second, it looks like the committee to re-elect Trump and the Republican National Committee may merge, if not completely, then in some very significant ways, including blending their funds. As the writer I'm about to quote would say, the line between Trump and the whole rest of the Party is fast disappearing.

Both of these pieces of information come via this article by Jack Holmes in Esquire, which quotes, first, the Washington Examiner on the South Carolina primary, and second, Politico on the blending of funds.

Read through the snark to the ideas themselves. Holmes clearly has a larger point to make, which, while true, isn't my point. He starts:

Republicans May Cancel a 2020 Primary Out of Fealty to Dear Leader

Just as Donald Trump is a natural outgrowth of decades of escalating Republican ideology, the Republican Party is now inseparable from Donald Trump. For all the talk of Brave, Independent Voices of Dissent in the Senate, Jeff Flake votes with the president 81 percent of the time. Susan Collins is with him 77 percent. Bob Corker, who's lamented that Republicans are in a "cult-like situation" with Trump, votes with him 84 percent of the time. Among the rank-and-file, his approval rating is currently 86 percent—compared to 38 percent of the general public. Perhaps more importantly, whatever the president says seems to become the truth for a third of the American public....

On the flip side, though, there seems to be genuine anxiety among some in the party apparatus about the 2020 campaign. First of all, the guy is in some legal trouble. Trump University and the Trump Foundation have already been shut down for illegal activity. The Trump campaign, transition, inaugural committee, and the Trump Organization are all under investigation for...more illegal activity. The New York Times accused him outright of a decades-long scheme to commit tax fraud. Second of all, there are constant, swirling rumors that he will face a primary challenge from someone like John Kasich, who agrees with him on the vast majority of Republican policy but finds him kind of boorish.

That second fear seems to have taken hold in the South Carolina Republican Party, who imparted to the Washington Examiner Wednesday that they may cancel their 2020 presidential primary for Trump's benefit[.]

From the Examiner piece:

South Carolina GOP could scrap 2020 primary to protect Trump

The South Carolina Republican Party could cancel its marquee presidential nominating contest in 2020 in a move to protect President Trump from any primary challengers.

Drew McKissick, chairman of the South Carolina GOP, said he doesn’t anticipate Trump would face a primary challenge and emphasized that the state party executive committee hasn’t held any formal discussions about the contest, dubbed “first in the South” and usually third on the presidential nominating calendar. But McKissick would pointedly not rule out canceling the primary, indicating that that would be his preference.

“We have complete autonomy and flexibility in either direction,” McKissick told the Washington Examiner on Tuesday. “Considering the fact that the entire party supports the president, we’ll end up doing what’s in the president’s best interest.”

The Esquire article goes on to explore the matter, including citing precedent in the cases of George H.W. Bush, he of the recent, glowing, undeserved praise, and also his son George W.: "In 1992, the Iowa GOP didn’t issue a presidential ballot during its caucus, to save President George H.W. Bush from being embarrassed by Pat Buchanan... In 2004, when President George W. Bush was running for re-election, the South Carolina GOP skipped its presidential primary."

What are the odds this will happen? “Pigs will fly before the South Carolina GOP allows Trump to have opposition,” according to Matt Moore, a former SC Republican Party chair.

The Esquire article also quotes Politico on the matter of the merging, to a greater or less degree, of the re-election committee and the RNC:

Under the plan, which has been in the works for several weeks, the Trump reelection campaign and the RNC will merge their field and fundraising programs into a joint outfit dubbed Trump Victory...The goal is to create a single, seamless organization that moves quickly, saves resources, and — perhaps most crucially — minimizes staff overlap and the kind of infighting that marked the 2016 relationship between the Trump campaign and the party.

Both of these moves will make it quite difficult for a primary challenger to emerge. After all, if other states follow South Carolina's lead, an increasing number of convention delegates will simply be impossible for a challenger to win. And if the RNC becomes an arm of the Trump campaign (in the same sense that the DNC became an arm of the Clinton campaign in 2016), the deck will be well and truly stacked.

An interesting development in a country that supposedly stands for democracy. Note that the deck-stacking has and is occurring in both parties. Trump, however, has a special gift: To quote Jack Holmes, Trump "says the quiet parts out loud" and gets away with it.

That, saying the quiet parts out loud, is indeed a change.

GP
 

A Primary Against Trump In 2020? I Have A Better Idea

Even some of the elite Republicans who actually liked Trump have started to rethink themselves... some, not lots. But Republican voters? Brain-dead or brainwashed or both. And they love him. So Bill Kristof is wasting his time and his donors' money to build an anti-Trump war-machine-- Defending Democracy Together-- to take him on in the 2020 primaries. Kristof says he's in discussions with 2 conservative senators, Ben Sasse (NE) and Jeff Flake (AZ) and with Ohio Governor John Kasich and if none of them bite he'll go to governors Charlie Baker (MA) or Larry Hogan (MD).

"We are thinking of and doing preliminary work to prepare for a primary run against Trump," Kristol said in an interview on Thursday. "People aren't going to say they will run against Trump unless they have the infrastructure but I've been trying to persuade people that it may not be that difficult."

If DDT is serious about ousting Trump, they should run someone in the general where they could possibly peel off some votes in enough states to throw the election to Bernie. Who would vote for Sasse, Flake or Kasich. Republicans who don't like Trump and a small number of bitter Hillary dead-enders who hate Bernie. The DDT candidate wouldn't win any states but could do Trump some harm around the edges in a few states if Trump continues getting worse as he's done since his first day in the White House.

Sasse, Flake and Kasich have shown interest, according to Kristol, but they've also echoed what they've said publicly which is that they are focused on serving their constituency and helping Republicans maintain their majorities in Congress throughout the congressional midterm elections.

Kristol is also readying a super PAC for 2020 GOP candidates which would allow his team to raise unlimited amounts of cash and push out campaign advertisements backing a particular nominee.

A spokesman for Sasse did not deny the two have spoken about a prospective 2020 run.

"I'm not going to comment on what other people decide to bring up in their personal conversations with the senator, but-- like we've said for a long time-- Ben doesn't pay any attention to the 2020 Washington rumor mill," James Wegman, a spokesman for Sasse, said.

...Kristol and his allies, including former New Hampshire GOP chairwoman Jennifer Horn, have been gauging voters on their receptiveness to a primary challenge against Trump.

"I think it's likely that Donald Trump will have a primary and that it is entirely his own doing," Horn said in an interview. "His behavior as president is damaging and demeaning to the presidency. I believe it has damaged our nation."

While their internal polls continue to reflect Trump's growing popularity within the Republican Party, there are many, particularly in New Hampshire, who say it's time for someone to step up to battle Trump. Kristol pointed to the latest public poll as an example of what they're seeing in the Granite State.

The poll by the New Hampshire Journal found that 4 in 10 Republicans surveyed believe a GOP challenger to Trump "would be a good thing," while 56 percent of overall respondents supported the idea. Trump lost the state by under a point to Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election.

New Hampshire. I remember that state in 2016. Hillary barely scraped by-- 348,521 (47.6%) to 345,789 (47.2%). But go back to the primaries. Bernie didn't just beat Hillary overwhelmingly 151,584 (60.4%) to 95,252 (38.0%). He also drew far more votes than Trump that day. Trump, though he won the primary, took just 100,406 votes-- 51,000 fewer than Bernie. Kasich (44,909 votes) was the only other Republican who did semi-decently in the state-- and Bernie alone beat Trump and Kasich combined. Just sayin'.

Sasse v Señor Trumpanzee In Nebraska?

How horrible would this be-- for the country?

Ben Sasse (R-NE) is a lot of hot air when it comes to his criticism of Señor Trumpanzee. He's like a barking toy poodle from Midland Lutheran College in Fremont, Nebraska. For all the heartfelt late night Facebook posts yipping and yapping about Trump's disgustingness, Sasse's Trump adhesion score is 87.7%, quite a bit Trumpier than Rand Paul's, Bob Corker's, Mike Lee's, Lisa Murkowski's, John McCain's, Jeff Flake's or Susan Collin's. Not that that stopped publication of a melodramatic puff piece by Alex Isenstadt in Politico yesterday. He's trying to create a stir for the sales of a book coming out in October but already on sale at Amazon now, Them: Why We Hate Each Other--and How to Heal. Isenstadt note that Sasse has refused to "bow down" to the illegitimate "president" that Putin installed in the White House and that Trump still hasn't "publicly flogged" the Nebraska senator. They should make a TV about it. "As the 'never Trump' faction of the Republican Party dwindles to a lonely few," wrote Isenstadt in his sleep Saturday night, "the Nebraska senator has shown little interest in backing down-- leaving him vulnerable to a Trump-fueled primary challenge in 2020, when he’s up for reelection." Oh my God! Oh my God! "[H]e might launch a Hail Mary bid for president rather than seek another term in the Senate-- promises to be the next intra-GOP drama." Not even worthy of an LOL... unless Sasse votes NO on the Trump SCOTUS nominee-- which not one single person in the universe thinks he will even consider doing-- not ONE.

Isenstadt's big scoop: Trump once referred to Sasse as "that guy." Let me get some smelling salts; I'll be right back.

[A]t a time when Trump has moved aggressively to consolidate the Republican Party behind him-- and get rid of his enemies-- some of the president’s staunchest backers are eager for him to take a hard line against the first-term senator.

"I just don't think Sasse has been a Trump supporter and I don't think he's been a good representative of the state because of that," said Debby Brehm, a Lincoln real estate executive who was a delegate at the 2016 Republican National Convention and served as a “Nebraskans for Trump” co-chair.

Brehm, who supported Sasse during his 2014 general election bid, said she was interested in recruiting a primary opponent to unseat the senator.

"Trump won our state handily and I think Sasse should get on board with that," she added. Trump carried Nebraska in 2016 by 25 points.

Sasse, a 46-year-old Harvard and Yale-educated former university president, has established himself as a fiery anti-Trump figure. During a Dec. 2015 speech on the Senate floor, he derided then-candidate Trump as a “megalomaniac strongman.” Later in the campaign, he called Trump “creepy” and said he was running to become a “king”; said he doesn’t think Trump has “any core principles”; and skipped Trump’s nominating convention to “instead take his kids to watch some dumpster fires.”

More recently, Sasse has called the president’s tariffs on steel and aluminum imports “dumb,” and has described Trump’s escalating trade war with China “nuts.” His opposition to the tariffs is shared by other farm-state Republicans, though they’ve used far less pointed language.

...In a move that’s sure to further stoke speculation about a presidential campaign, Sasse has started a new tax-exempt political group, America 101, whose mission states: “We believe that in order to prepare ourselves for the challenges of decades to come, fundamental changes are needed. It’s time to get back to basics.”

Sure to stoke speculation? That description could just as easily be on Trump's website-- or on the website of any political in America, from Ro Khanna and Bernie Sanders to Tom Cotton and Mitch McConnell. Sasse refused to be interviewed for the Politico puff piece. If Sasse, or any other congressional Republicans hope to use Trump's growing toxicity against him, the way Democrats are doing, they better start with some high-profile votes now that show their foresight and courageousness.



Better news in Nebraska: Kara Eastman, the Omaha progressive who won the primary against the DCCC-backed Blue Dog, Brad Ashford, is in a statistical tie with Republican incumbent Don Bacon. Today she was endorsed by People for the American Way, adding to a long list of respected organizations inside and outside the district-- from Panned Parenthood, NOW, the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Justice Democrats to Move On, Climate Hawks Vote, NARAL, DFA, the Working Families Party and, of course, Blue America, despite continued sabotage from the DCCC, which should be supporting all Democratic Party primary winners, not grousing about and undermining progressives beating their Blue Dogs and New Dems.

Who's Afraid Of The Big Bad Trump?

That Ryan-Trump tax cut for the wealthy was meant to save the GOP's ass in the midterms. It isn't working out as planned. The latest-- tax week-- Gallup poll finds just 39% of people approving, while 52% disapprove. When I predict that the Democrats-- despite the most venal, bungling and incompetent DCCC in history-- are going to win over 50, perhaps over 80, seats in the midterms DC types always-- and I mean always-- say, but there's a lot of time between now and election day and things can change. I agree... things will change.And all evidence point to the same thing-- that the change will be worse, even much worse, for the GOP. Have you met Señor Trumpanzee? He's a one-man disaster-making machine. Yesterday, for example, Natasha Geiling reported that a fifth Republican and a Fox News host have called on Pruitt to resign or be fired. The fifth Republican is New Jersey congressman Frank LoBiondo, following Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) Elise Stefanik (R-NY) and Susan Collins (R-ME). And "on Sunday, former adviser to British Prime Minister David Cameron and L.A.-based Fox News host Steve Hilton called for Trump to fire Pruitt, arguing that the EPA administrator has become a walking example of the kind of 'swampy' mentality that Trump promised to end. 'What we need is for President Trump to take the lead, fire Scott Pruitt, and throw out the lobbyists from his administration,' Hilton said." Although he is the quintessential Trump appointee, the Pruit p.r. war is going badly for Señor T. This kind of blatant boobery begs the question of the infallibility of Trump's connection with the carefully crafted morons known as the Republican base. Limbaugh, Fox, Mark Levin, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Neal Boortz, Dr, Laura, Dennis Miller, Laura Ingraham, Michael Medved and anti-Christ Christianity created this Frankenstein's monster. Does Trump own it lock, stock and barrel? Right-wing pundit Matt Lewis doesn't think so and wonders why Republican grandees are so scared to take him on.

Lewis wrote Monday, in the Daily Beast that conventional wisdom suggests that Trumpanzee’s standing remains incredibly strong among Republicans and that this notion is used to dismiss the possibility that someone (say, a newly disgruntled U.S. ambassador to the United Nations) could muster a serious primary challenge to the president in 2020. It’s also used to absolve congressional Republican enablers of their obsequiousness.  

Take, for example, Sen. Bob Corker’s (R-TN) recent comments about Republicans’ reluctance to push back on Trump’s attacks on Robert Mueller. “The president is, as you know-- you’ve seen his numbers among the Republican base-- it’s very strong. It’s more than strong, it’s tribal in nature,” Corker said. “People who tell me, who are out on trail, say, look, people don’t ask about issues anymore. They don’t care about issues. They want to know if you’re with Trump or not.”

Corker seems to be right about how GOP lawmakers generally perceive the president’s strength within the party. But do the numbers actually affirm this perception?

According to Gallup, Trump’s approval rating among Republicans is currently at 85 percent. This is certainly respectable, but hardly unique. In April 2002, George W. Bush boasted a 98 percent approval rating among Republicans, according to Gallup. This was seven months after the 9/11 attacks but his approval rating among Republicans had been at 87 percent the day of the attacks.

As someone who lived through the Bush era, I can attest that Bush was able to impose pretty strict party loyalty on the right. But by April 2006, his approval rating among Republicans was hovering around 80 percent-- not too far from where Trump is now. Those midterm elections were a disaster for the GOP. And it went downhill fast from there.

We tend to remember things like Hurricane Katrina and Abu Ghraib—huge scandals that deservedly hurt Bush with the American public. But, on the right, it was the Harriet Miers debacle that created a permission structure for conservatives to finally begin criticizing a Wilsonian foreign policy, the controversy over the transfer of U.S. ports to a Dubai firm, and, ultimately, to derail Bush’s 2007 attempt at a comprehensive immigration reform proposal that included a pathway to citizenship; or amnesty, for its critics.

The point here is that the danger to Trump isn’t merely that he could be “primaried.” A more likely scenario is that Republican politicians will eventually discover that they can stand up to a Republican president without fear of reprisal. Since fealty to Trump has always been premised on a transactional calculation (as opposed to personal affection, shared goals, or mutual respect), the only thing binding them to Trump is the perception that their political base demands it. When that changes-- and history suggests that this happens to even the most popular presidents-- the levee breaks.

...History suggests it is incredibly difficult to wrest the nomination from a sitting president. Trump is significantly more popular within his party than either Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford-- two presidents who were able to survive primary challenges only to go on to lose the general. The question is not whether Trump could survive a primary if he had to, but how costly it would be. What is more, it is worth examining whether Trump’s popularity with the GOP base justifies the amount of deference some Republican politicians and elites are paying him.

...Trump’s popularity with Republicans is really just pretty average. There is little doubt that the intensity among his strongest supporters is high, but this asterisk is overwhelmed by another important caveat. As Gallup notes: “Fewer Americans identify as Republicans or say they are Republican-leaning independents than did so in November 2016, the month Donald Trump was elected president.”

It may be that Trump is popular among people who identify as Republicans, simply because the Republicans who don’t like him are… no longer Republicans. In others words: Trump’s approval rating in his party climbs because his party is shrinking. Maybe Bob Corker shouldn’t be quite so afraid.

Usually whenever someone decides to retire, many factors go into it. And Corker isn't the only congressional Republican sick enough of Trump to retire early. Trump-- and the albatross corollary known as impending defeat-- was a major factor for Jeff Flake (AZ), Paul Ryan (WI), Rodney Frelinghuysen (NJ), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL), Dave Reichert (WA), Charlie Dent (PA), Darrell Issa (CA), Lamar Smith (TX), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Dave Trott (MI), Ed Royce (CA), Pat Meehan (PA), Ryan Costello (PA), Tom Rooney (FL), Dennis Ross (FL)... that's a lot of careers ending prematurely.

Trump On Kasich: "Digusting"

According to Harry Enten Trump is adored by the Republican base and their adoration is increasing. His job approval rating among Republicans is 85%. Trump, in fact, has a higher approval rating among Republicans than Obama did among Democrats just before the 2012 New Hampshire primary. "That's probably "why there aren't any potential challengers being named who really have too much of a future in the Republican Party. The biggest name is Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Kasich could potentially make some hay in New Hampshire, though there's no reason right now to think he could actually threaten Trump's chance at the nomination. He only won his home state in 2016 primary season and struggled to win many votes outside of college-educated moderate voters in the northern part of the country."

That said, CNBC reported yesterday that Kasich is reaching out the big GOP donors to see if they'd be open to funding a primary against Trump. CNBC reported that "Republican megadonors have indicated to his top political lieutenants that they are willing to back him over Trump under certain circumstances... In private discussions with Kasich's top political lieutenants, GOP megadonors have said they would support a Kasich presidential campaign depending on whether Republicans can hold congressional majorities this fall and how close federal investigations get to Trump."

[T]he same Kasich allies who have met with some of the most influential donors in the country have suggested to the governor that there are two scenarios in which he should challenge Trump in a primary.

First, would come after a potential 2018 congressional midterm wave that gives Democrats majorities in the House and the Senate. With that, Republican voters could potentially move toward a candidate like Kasich, who is considered more of a centrist in the GOP. Such a loss in the midterms could also signal to GOP donors that there's a need for drastic change at the top.

Trump's approval rating stands at just lower than 42 percent, according to a polling average calculated by nonpartisan website Real Clear Politics.

The other scenario pitched to Kasich would ride on the political implications of the ongoing investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. The probe is looking into whether the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives during the 2016 presidential election and whether the president obstructed justice in the investigation.

If the investigation makes its way into the Oval Office, Kasich's friends have said, it may be an opportunity for the governor to run as either a Republican or an independent.

This latest development comes as buzz continues to build around another potential Kasich run for the White House. In March, he said "all of my options are on the table" for 2020, according to Politico.

The Ohio governor is also hitting states that are critical to winning presidential primaries. During his visit to New Hampshire earlier this month, he said in an interview with the New York Times that he considers himself a "hybrid" Republican and more people are approaching him since his loss in 2016.

"I have people of all shapes, sizes, philosophies and party preferences that approach me. But what does that mean? I don't know. I'm on television, so all the sudden they want to talk to me. Television moves everybody up, right?" he told the Times.

Charlie Black, a former advisor to Kasich's 2016 presidential campaign, told CNBC that he thinks the scenarios are part of an ongoing discussion and warned that his old boss would not stand a chance against Trump in a primary within the current political climate.

"Trump presently has about an 85 percent job approval among primary voters. Unless that dropped dramatically, no one can compete with him for the nomination," Black said. "He would have to be under 50 before I would advise anyone to run."

For donors, a blue wave in the upcoming elections could be a sign that the leadership of the GOP has to change starting at the top-- particularly after investing millions of dollars in an electoral effort that many political strategists say could be a wash for Republicans.

The House is where the GOP is running into the biggest hurdles, with incumbents struggling to raise money and their districts turning in the favor of Democrats.

...If Kasich, who won only his home state during the 2016 GOP primaries, chooses to run in 2020, he's going to need the cash that he struggled to cobble together the last time he ran for president.

While he had a formidable fundraising operation, Kasich's 2016 presidential campaign committee ended up with $176,000 on hand, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. At the same time, his campaign raised $18 million, while the pro-Kasich super PAC, New Day for America, brought in $15 million.

The PAC is still active and has $281,000 on hand, according to financial disclosure reports. Even though the group hasn't received many contributions this year, it raked in donations that went up to $100,000 in 2017.

No love lost between these two guys:

People Who Tell You Trump Can Win Reelection In 2020 Are Using Some Very Powerful Drugs-- Get Some

The Tiki Torch Leader by Hugh Brown

In his Wall Street Journal column yesterday, Steve Bannon’s Motley Crew of Challengers-- One is fresh out of prison. Another held a town hall to discuss ‘chemtrail’ theories, Karl Rove basically said the Republican establishment is fine fighting a war against Bannon's brand of fascism: Bring It On, Asshole! "Steve Bannon, the failed presidential adviser and alt-right sympathizer," he wrote pointedly," has declared war on incumbent Republicans, particularly Sen. Mitch McConnell. From his perch at Breitbart, Mr. Bannon is vowing to defeat officeholders who back Mr. McConnell as majority leader or who won’t sign onto Mr. Bannon’s populist agenda. So what kind of challengers is Mr. Bannon marshaling for the midterms?" Staten Island Mafioso Mikey Suits made great target for Rove's outrage and went on to suggest "Bannon has picked a team... of misfits and ne’er-do-wells."

I would bet Rove didn't read Charles Blow's NY Times column before he wrote it... but he should have. Señor Trumpanzee is certainly laying to rest myriad conventional norms and one is Godwin's Law, which Godwin himself has said is suspended while Trump is in politics. And Blow went there-- pr almost did. I think he isn't aware Godwin has said his Law is more... flexible for Trump than it was for, say, Bush or Cheney. "It is a commonly accepted rule among those who are in the business of argument," wrote Blow, "especially online, that he or she who invokes Adolf Hitler, either in oratory or essays, automatically forfeits the argument. The reference is deemed far too extreme, too explosive, too far beyond rational correlation. No matter how bad a present-day politician, not one of them has charted or is charting a course to exterminate millions of innocent people as an act of ethnic cleansing. Hitler stands alone in this regard, without rival, a warning to the world about how evil and lethal human beings can be, a warning that what he did can never be allowed again."

That said, there are strategies that Hitler used to secure power and rise-- things that allowed his murderous reign-- that can teach us about political theory and practice. And very reasonable and sage comparisons can be drawn between Hitler’s strategies and those of others.

One of those lessons is about how purposeful lying can be effectively used as propaganda. The forthcoming comparison isn’t to Hitler the murderer, but to Hitler the liar.

According to James Murphy’s translation of Hitler’s Mein Kampf:

“In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.”

...“It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”

This demonstrates a precise understanding of human psychology, but also the dangerously manipulative nature that operates in the mind of a demon.

And yet, as many have noted, no person of sound reason or even cursory political awareness can read this and not be immediately struck by how similar this strategy of lying is to Donald Trump’s seeming strategy of lying: Tell a lie bigger than people think a lie can be, thereby forcing their brains to seek truth in it, or vest some faith in it, even after no proof can be found.

Trump is no Hitler, but the way he has manipulated the American people with outrageous lies, stacked one on top of the other, has an eerie historical resonance. Demagogy has a fixed design.

It should be mentioned that Vanity Fair reported in 1990 that Trump’s first wife, Ivana, “told her lawyer Michael Kennedy that from time to time her husband reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order, which he keeps in a cabinet by his bed.” The magazine pointed out that “Hitler’s speeches, from his earliest days up through the Phony War of 1939, reveal his extraordinary ability as a master propagandist.”

...Trump has found a way to couch the lies so that people believe they don’t emanate from him but pass through him. He is not a producer but a projector.

One way he does this is by using caveats-- “I was told,” “Lots of people are saying” -- as shields. Jenna Johnson of the Washington Post addressed this in June 2016, writing about Trump’s use of the phrase “a lot of people are saying”:

“Trump frequently couches his most controversial comments this way, which allows him to share a controversial idea, piece of tabloid gossip or conspiracy theory without technically embracing it. If the comment turns out to be popular, Trump will often drop the distancing qualifier-- ‘people think’ or ‘some say.’ If the opposite happens, Trump can claim that he never said the thing he is accused of saying, equating it to retweeting someone else’s thoughts on Twitter.”

...He even projects his own ignorance onto others with his lies. As Steve Benen pointed out in July on MSNBC.com, Trump’s “awkward process of discovery has, however, produced a phrase of underappreciated beauty: ‘A lot of people don’t know that.’ These seven words are Trump’s way of saying, ‘I just learned something new, and I’m going to assume others are as ignorant as I am.’”

This is not a simple fear of the truth; it is a weaponizing of untruth. It is the use of the lie to assault and subdue. It is Trump doing to political ends what Hitler did to more brutal ends: using mass deception as masterful propaganda.

Maybe I have crossed the ink-stained line of the essay writer, where Hitler is always beyond it. But I don’t think so. Ignoring what one of history’s greatest examples of lying has to teach us about current examples of lying, particularly lying by the “president” of the most powerful country in the world, seems to me an act of timidity in a time of terror. It is an intentional self-blinding to avoid offending frail sensibilities.

I have neither time nor patience for such tiptoeing. I prefer the boot of truth to slam down to earth like thunder, no matter the shock of hearing its clap.

The world has seen powerful leaders use lying as a form of mass manipulation before. It is seeing it now, and it will no doubt see it again. History recycles. But the result doesn’t have to be-- and hopefully never will be again-- a holocaust. It can manifest as a multitude of other, lesser horrors, in both protocol and policy, including the corrosion and regression of country and culture.

That is the very real threat we are facing. Trump isn’t necessarily a direct threat to your life-- unless of course you are being kept alive by health care that he keeps threatening, or if you’re in Puerto Rico reeling in the wake of two hurricanes-- but he is very much a threat to your quality of life.

The only question is: Are enough Americans sufficiently discerning to understand that this time they are the ones being manipulated?

Now consider the latest Granite State Poll, released this week. A tad early for 2020 primary polling? Yes, absolutely. BUT... one gets a good look at what New Hampshire Republicans are thinking about their party's leader right now. And it's pretty shocking. Trump almost won New Hampshire last year. The state was certainly not Hillary country. Bernie won the primary 151,584 (60.4%) to 95,252 (38.0%). Although Trump came in first on primary day with 100,406, Bernie bested him and runner up, John Kasich combined (145,315). On election day Hillary pulled 348,521 votes (47.6%) to Trumpanzee's 345,789 (47.2%), the closest state in the country.

Inasmuch as I've seen this poll discussed, it's because of the Democratic presidential primary results, for which-- much to the chagrin of the corrupt Democratic establishment-- has Bernie way out ahead, leading Joe "Mr credit card bankruptcy bill" Biden 31% to 24%. The only declared candidate, self funding multimillionaire New Dem shithead John Delaney (D-MD) is polling at exactly what he deserves to be polling at: ZERO. But today I want to look at the polling of New Hampshire Republicans.

Only 18% of Republican primary voters say they have definitely decided whom they will support for the 2020 Republican Presidential Primary. Five percent say they are leaning toward someone while 77% say they are still trying to decide. Just under half (47%) of likely Republican primary voters say they plan on voting for Donald Trump.

How Badly Will Trump's Stroll Through The Garden Of Racism Hurt GOP Candidates In 2018?

Yesterday we noted that Randy Bryce is calling on Paul Ryan to lead the House in censuring Trump for his pro-Nazi, pro-KKK remarks. Up top is the video and yesterday 3 of Congress' most serious progressives, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) and Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) announced a resolution of censure in the House against Señor Trumpanzee for his remarks at Trumpanzee Tower Tuesday re-asserting earlier comments that "both sides" were to blame for the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia and excusing the behavior of participants in the 'Unite the Right' rally. Pramila, in announcing the resolution, noted that "not even a week has passed since the tragedy in Charlottesville. But on Tuesday, the president poured salt on the nation’s wounds by defending those who marched with white supremacists. In an unscripted press conference, we saw the real and unfiltered Donald Trump-- the logical endpoint for a man who has consistently trafficked in racism throughout his career. The American people expect their leaders to condemn white supremacy in unambiguous terms. President Trump not only failed at condemning white supremacists and neo-Nazis, he stood up for them-- for that he must be censured. The president’s conduct is un-American and it must stop." The resolution censuring and condemning Trump is set to be introduced on Friday, August 18, when the House is next in pro forma session. This is it:

RESOLUTION
Censuring and condemning President Donald Trump.

Whereas on August 11, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia, a gathering of white supremacists, including neo-Nazis, Klu Klux Klan (KKK) members, and other alt-Right, white nationalist groups, marched through the streets with torches as part of a coordinated ‘Unite the Right’ rally spewing racism, anti-Semitism, bigotry and hatred;

Whereas on August 12, 2017 in Charlottesville, Virginia, a car driven by James Alex Fields, Jr. rammed into a crowd of counter-protestors, killing Heather Heyer and injuring 20 others;

Whereas President Donald Trump’s immediate public comments rebuked “many sides” for the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, and failed to specifically condemn the ‘Unite the Right’ rally or cite the white supremacist, neo-Nazi gathering as responsible for actions of domestic terrorism;

Whereas on August 15, 2017 President Donald Trump held a press conference at Trump Tower where he re-asserted that “both sides” were to blame for the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia, and attempted to create a moral equivalency between white supremacist, KKK, neo-Nazi groups and those counter-protesting the ‘Unite the Right’ rally;

Whereas President Donald Trump has surrounded himself with, and cultivated the influence of, senior advisors and spokespeople who have long histories of promoting white nationalist, alt-Right, racist and anti-Semitic principles and policies within the country;

Whereas President Donald Trump has provided tacit encouragement and little to no denunciation of white supremacist groups and individuals who promote their bigoted, nationalist ideology and policies;

Whereas President Donald Trump has failed to provide adequate condemnation and assure the American people of his resolve to opposing domestic terrorism: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives--

(1)   does hereby censure and condemn President Donald Trump for his inadequate response to the violence in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017, his failure to immediately and specifically name and condemn the white supremacist groups responsible for actions of domestic terrorism, for re-asserting that “both sides” were to blame and excusing the violent behavior of participants in the ‘Unite the Right’ rally, and for employing people with ties to white supremacist movements in the White House, such as Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka; and

(2)   does hereby urge President Donald Trump to fire any and all White House advisors who have urged him to cater to the alt-Right movement in the United States.

I don't expect many-- if any-- Republicans to go along with this. I bet that not one musters the political courage to vote for it. In fact, it's hard it imagine Ryan and McCarthy even allowing it to come to the floor for a vote. Ryan's own statement, for the sake of concerned Wisconsin voters, who have been catching on to him as an enabler of Trump, was that "We must be clear. White supremacy is repulsive. This bigotry is counter to all this country stands for. There can be no moral ambiguity." And he unambiguously refused to name Trump or his regime.

Ryan appointed Steve Stivers (R-OH) to chair the NRCC whose task is to minimize the GOP's 2018 midterm losses. Trump's stroll into the court of public opinion holding hands with the Nazis and KKK probably won't help that effort and Stivers, clearly frustrated, blurted out "I don't understand what's so hard about this. White supremacists and Neo-Nazis are evil and shouldn't be defended." He forgot to mention Trump.

Texas Republican Will Hurd is one of the most vulnerable Republicans in Congress. Hillary won his south Texas 71% Hispanic district last year 49.8% to 46.4%. Unless the DCCC screws it up by nominating another Blue Dog who residents have already shown they do not want, Hurd will lose next year. He urged someone unnamed to "Apologize. Racism, bigotry, anti-Semitism, of any form is unacceptable. And the leader of the free world should be unambiguous about that." Well... "leader of the free world" might be a clue-- could be Angela Merkel-- but many-- too many-- Trump supporters don't have the bandwidth to put something that abstract together.

There's been a lot of chatter that Ohio Governor John Kasich is planning a primary challenge to Trump in 2020 if he hasn't been removed from office by then. He made a nice meme for his Twitter followers:

Little Marco (R-FL) is also eager to figure out how he can worm out from under his pledge to not run for president again until after serving a full 6 year Senate term. He's starting to get antsy about running against Trump too. He found himself in a tweet storm yesterday, which I can't get a screen shot of because he blocked me: "The organizers of events which inspired & led to #charlottesvilleterroristattack are 100% to blame for a number of reasons. They are adherents of an evil ideology which argues certain people are inferior because of race, ethnicity or nation of origin. … These groups today use SAME symbols & same arguments of #Nazi & #KKK, groups responsible for some of worst crimes against humanity ever. Mr. President, you can't allow #WhiteSupremacists to share only part of blame. They support idea which cost nation & world so much pain. The #WhiteSupremacy groups will see being assigned only 50% of blame as a win. We cannot allow this old evil to be resurrected." Little Marco has certainly gone further than most of the Republicans in the Senate.

But as Politico’s Kyle Cheney and Rachael Bade reported, the House Judiciary Committee, which oversees the Department of Justice’s handling of domestic terrorism, has no immediate plans to schedule an investigation into the domestic terrorism in Charlottesville, despite calls from Democrats that just such an investigation is essential. And Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has no interest in a Charlottesville hearing either. Maybe another one on Hillary's e-mails? "GOP sources suggested it might be too early to tell whether Congress should get involved. And some question what tangible action Congress could take to help the situation, aside from calling public attention to the issue through hearings."

Barbara Lee (D-CA) had some ideas on that Wednesday morning: "We cannot address the dangerous spread of white supremacy in America without first assessing its influence on our nation's highest office," she explained to her constituents in Oakland and Berkley. "Yesterday afternoon, Donald Trump defended the white supremacists who descended upon Charlottesville this past weekend while insisting there was blame 'on both sides.' As disturbing as his comments are, they should come as no surprise. As long as Trump has senior advisors with ties to white nationalist groups, he will never fully condemn racism and bigotry. That's why I wrote a letter to Trump yesterday calling for the removal of three prominent White House aides who are involved with the alt-right: Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, and Sebastian Gorka. It's time to root out white nationalism at the White House... By placing these three men in his administration, Trump has elevated hate and discrimination to the highest levels of our government. He has signaled to white supremacists that they are no longer a fringe group-- they now have advocates advising the president with their agenda in mind. We have already seen a manifestation of that agenda, from the Muslim ban and a ban on transgender Americans in the military, to raids on immigrant communities and attempts to perpetuate the era of mass incarceration and roll back voting rights. These policies are a result of the far-right extremist ideology held by Trump's top advisors."

John Harwood summed up the predicament the country finds itself in with an essay he penned for CNBC, Trump has a very clear attitude about morality: He doesn't believe in it. "Trump," he wrote, "combines indifference to conventional notions of morality or propriety with disbelief that others would be motivated by them" and noted that the more Trumpanzee "reveals his character, the more he isolates himself from the American mainstream." He was contemptuous of the business leaders who stormed for the exits of his corporate advisory committees and wound up shutting down both committees when it was clear no one would be left except for an embarrassed handful of Nazi and KKK sympathizers.

As president, Trump has emphasized power over morality. Seeking passage of health-care legislation-- which violated his explicit campaign promises-- Trump chided a reluctant GOP senator with a veiled threat.

...When Pope Francis called emphasizing walls over bridge-building "not Christian," Trump ascribed it to political manipulation. The pope, he said, was a "pawn" of Mexico.

Trump touted duplicity in business as a leadership credential, boasting that he once took advantage of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi in a real estate deal. "I screwed him," he said. "That's what we should be doing."

Though Trump cast that talent as an asset for the nation, a Fortune magazine review of his business career found this first principle: "He always comes first."

The president's fellow Republicans learned that to their chagrin in 2016, and reached common conclusions about his character.

"A con man," said. Sen. Marco Rubio. "Utterly amoral," said Sen. Ted Cruz.

"Dishonesty is Trump's hallmark," declared Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican nominee. "He's playing the American people for suckers."

Increasing numbers of Americans have reached that conclusion. In a Quinnipiac University poll this month, 62 percent called the president not honest, up from 52 percent last November.

Moreover, 63 percent said Trump does not share their values. That undercuts his ability to lead average Americans, lawmakers, business executives or foreign leaders toward common goals.

"In a president, character is everything," Republican commentator Peggy Noonan has written. "You can't buy courage and decency. You can't rent a strong moral sense. A president must bring those things with him."

Paul Ryan too. I hope CNN will pay attention to NARAL's message above. No one wants a CNN infomercial from Paul Ryan. Everyone wants a real, honest-to-goodness debate between him and Randy Bryce. Ryan has ducked accountability long enough and hidden behind the Speakers chair. CNN shouldn't be an enabler. He may not be as crude and senile as Trump, but he's the same kind of putrid, unspeakable garbage that needs to be driven out of this country's political sphere-- and soon. And that starts by exposing him as an empty suit, something Randy Bryce should get an opportunity to do on national television. It's up to CNN.

White Power