Does Trump Bug His Hotel Rooms?

Early yesterday morning our crazy, narcissistic president-elect, when not grousing and complaining about the NYTimes routinely showing photos of his double chin-- despite all the money he's spent addressing it-- was also congratulating himself for selecting an old KKK enabler to be the Attorney General. But, don't worry, he thinks part of his job is to tell the Department of Justice who to prosecute and who not to prosecute-- like sending Manuel, the door man at Trump Tower it to get him a couple of Dave's Hot 'n Juicy 3/4 lb. Triple Burgers with Cheese Combos from Wendy's.

Trump has always-- for his entire sordid life-- seen Justice as a mortal enemy that had to be beaten in battle. That's how he's led his life and run his career. I know you already know that he had all the phones at Mar-A-Lago bugged so he could listen to any phone in the place from his suite. You think he doesn't wire-tap the phones at Trump hotels? This is from a column Al Kamen wrote about Trump early in 2000 for a Washington Post column. He quotes Trump directly about the Clinton impeachment shenanigans the GOP was pulling: "I got a chuckle out of all the moralists in Congress and in the media who expressed public outrage at the president's immoral behavior. I happen to know that one U.S. senator leading the pack of attackers spent more than a few nights with his twenty-something girlfriend at a hotel I own. There's also a conservative columnist, married, who was particularly rough on Clinton in this regard. He also brought his girlfriend to my resorts for the weekend."



You know what? There's a lot worth reading in that Kamen column now that Trump has been magically transformed into El Presidente-elect Señor Trumpanzee. Let's take a look at some more of it. Remember, this was 16 years ago!

President Donald Trump? Most Beltway insiders-- and many others-- dismiss the notion as absurd, figuring only a national nervous breakdown, or worse, could put the real estate developer and noted egomaniac in the White House.

But very strange things-- Monica Lewinsky, for example-- can happen. So it's re-freshing to see Trump, in his new book, The America We Deserve, give a little preview of what a Trump inner circle would look like.

He's already floated Oprah Winfrey for vice president, though she has demurred. Trump writes that he'd like General Electric executive Jack Welch for secretary of the treasury. Muhammad Ali would have some role in the Trump operation, the book says, as would Teamsters chief Jim Hoffa-- maybe at the Labor Department? Justice? There'll be a spot for "the brilliant senator from New Jersey," Bob Torricelli, a "close friend" from a state where Trump has casinos. Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, "a good man," also might be summoned. "I believe we could get another president from the Bushes. He may be the one." Clearly, he doesn't think Texas Gov. George W. Bush will be.

Also favored are Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), former New York representative Susan Molinari, New York Gov. George Pataki, Rep. J.C. Watts (R-Okla.) and New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

Equally fun reading are the "few people who wouldn't make my list." Trump saves the sharpest vitriol for those who have personally crossed him. He blames Bill Bradley's 1986 tax reform bill for costing him a bundle.

"Phony as a twenty-dollar Rolex," Trump writes of Bradley, predicting that Vice President Gore, "a much more formidable intellect and public servant," will "send Bradley back to Jersey with his well-worn tail between his legs."

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who fought bitterly with Trump over developing prime Manhattan waterfront property, is called "one of the most egregious hacks in contemporary politics." And Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.)? He was mean at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on sister Maryanne Barry Trump's nomination to a federal appeals court, grilling her on her views about abortion.

Smith is "inarticulate, unqualified, and, according to several members I know, about the dumbest guy in the U.S. Senate... Maybe if my sister had spoken more slowly he would have understood her."

As for President Clinton and his new home in Westchester County, "in all candor, he really overpaid. He really got ripped off on the house," Trump writes. "If I had represented him in buying the house I could have saved them about $600,000" off the $1.7 million price tag.

And now he's not going to allow his Klansman Attorney General to persecute his old friends, the Clintons. Isn't that Christian of him? Will he save us from Paul Ryan's determination to gut Medicare and Social Security too? Stay tuned for the next episode of La Telenovela: El Presidente-elect Señor Trumpanzee.

You can tell this prep school is The Donald's alma mater -- it's bankrupt

By The Donald's own testimony, New York Military Academy in Croton on Hudson, NY, helped make him, er, what he is today. And, oh yes, it's gone bankrupt.

"The academy was at one time seen by New Yorkers as a place that straightened out rambunctious young boys and taught them how to take orders. (Hmmm. Apparently failed in Trump’s case.)"

-- the Washington Post's Al Kamen, in "Trump’s
high school is bankrupt, up for auction"

by Ken

In a September 10 NYT Book Review review of Michael D'Antonio's Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success, NYT columnist James B. Stewart wrote:

No amount of armchair psychoanalysis can fully explain Trump’s outsize personality, but D’Antonio’s account of his formative years suggests the source of at least some of these traits. His father, Fred, was demanding, withholding and a workaholic. “The father was really tough on the kid,” according to Theodore Dobias, a coach and something of a father figure to Trump. “He was very German.”

Trump was a rebellious 13-year-old when his parents sent him to the New York Military Academy in 1959. “Trump was always proud of himself,” Dobias recalls. “He believed he was the best.” He added that Trump “was a conniver even then. A real pain in the ass. He would do anything to win.”

And lately the school has been in the news thanks to its now-most-famous alum's recent claim that he had more rigorous military training there than you get in the real military. As Jackie Solo wrote the other day for International Business Report ("Donald Trump's Fellow Military Academy Alums Remember School A Little Differently Than The Presidential Candidate" (links onsite):

Military boarding schools have had a reputation among wealthy U.S. families since their inception as the ultimate castigation for misbehaved sons, with the belief that enrollment would force them to relinquish their unruly ways for impeccably shined shoes and beds made with crisp hospital corners.

There never seemed to be much debate as to whether the emphasis lied in the phrase in “military” or “school” -- that is until this week when presidential candidate Donald Trump made headlines for remarks that his military academy education involved more rigorous military training than actual service does. Apparently uttered without irony, the comments reminded fellow New York Military Academy alumni more of a one-liner from a freshman forced to run laps at dawn after missing curfew.

“My classmates and most people that I know find it to be funny because there is no comparison to the real military,” said Augusto Esclusa, a member of the class of ‘85. . . .

Veterans previously have questioned Trump's respect for the military this campaign season. His incendiary comments about Arizona Sen. John McCain drew fire from veterans when he said the decorated Vietnam verteran was not a hero because "he was captured." McCain spent more than five years as prisoner of war, while the real estate mogul deferred the Vietnam draft four times to avoid enlisting.

Trump has never served in the military, but he reminisces about his time at the New York Military Academy fondly. "One of the great choices I ever made in terms of success is the choice of going to N.Y.M.A.," he told CNN. . . .

Former students remembered the school as breeding students to be competitive in academics, sports and with other accolades. Students were waken up with pots and pans before sunrise to complete military training exercises that served to build more mental discipline than combat readiness. Tasks included push-ups, sit-ups and laps, but not infantry training.

“Some kids went there because academically it was a very strong school, but the other side of it was other kids who went there just because of disciplinary reasons,” said alum Spencer Tunick, who also graduated in 1985.

Trump’s own account of his time at the school speaks to the latter. "I wasn't the most well-behaved person in the world and my parents had no idea what to do with me, and they heard about this school that was a tough place,” Trump told CNN in a 2005 interview.

Well, the school is about to enter the realm of history. Some months back it filed for bankruptcy protection, and now the bankruptcy court has cleared the way for the sale of the 113-acre spread.

In the Loop
Trump’s high school is bankrupt, up for auction



by Al Kamen | September 16 at 1:35 PM

The venerable New York Military Academy, whose most famous graduate — Donald Trump — could be president of the United States, will soon be no more.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court in New York has ordered the “immediate sale” of the 126-year-old school, according to an ad in the New York Times on Wednesday spotted by our colleague Walter Pincus. The “minimum bid” is $9.5 million, the ad says, but we’re thinking it’s going to fetch a lot more.

After all, the prep school, which overlooks the Hudson River 60 miles north of the New York City and is just “minutes from West Point,” has a number of buildings on 77 acres, plus about 36 acres of vacant land next to it. (Seems like a perfect site for the Trump Presidential Library.)

The academy was at one time seen by New Yorkers as a place that straightened out rambunctious young boys and taught them how to take orders. (Hmmm. Apparently failed in Trump’s case.)

Many famous alums include bandleader Les Brown; Green Mountain Coffee founder Bob Stiller; Broadway composer Stephen Sondheim; filmmaker Francis Ford Coppola (who didn’t graduate); and former organized crime figure John A. Gotti, alleged to have been the acting boss of the Gambino family from 1992 to 1999 after his father, John Gotti, went to prison. Gotti also didn’t graduate.

Al Kamen wonders whether the soon-to-be-former New York Military Academy, in Croton on Hudson, NY, may be the future site of the Trump Presidential Library.

#

What's to be done about the 2016 GOP Presidential Field? (How many of them are there? 50? 60? 100s?)

I had it written down somewhere, but what we have above -- click to enlarge -- is either the GOP 2016 presidential field or the composite of the Waco biker-brawl suspects. It may be that the scrap of paper on which I wrote it down will yet surface, but if not, does it really matter? Let's just make our best guess and get on with it.

by Ken

Noah and I have taken to e-chinwagging about the groaning board of likely suspects that is officially the 2016 GOP Presidential Field. My question is what possesses most of these people, how have no chance of being nominated and probably no chance of achieving the "greater name recognition" that used to be an attraction of such runs -- unless the recognition that will do it for them is establishing themselves as kooks and nutjobs. Of course, in their particular world, certification as a kook or nutjob may in fact be the next step up the ladder.

MAY 20, 2015
Biker-Brawl Suspects Only Slightly Outnumber Republican Candidates
BY ANDY BOROWITZ

WACO (The Borowitz Report) – Suspects in the recent biker brawl in Waco, Texas, only slightly outnumber the 2016 Republican Presidential candidates, leading some voters to have difficulty distinguishing between the two groups, a new poll shows.

According to the poll, voters who were presented the names of a biker-brawl suspect and a Republican Presidential candidate correctly identified both only thirty per cent of the time.

For example, fifty-seven per cent of voters erroneously identified the former Texas Governor Rick Perry as a member of the Bandidos motorcycle gang, while forty-one per cent believed he belonged to the Cossacks.

Adding to voters’ confusion, the biker brawlers and G.O.P. candidates have identical views on a host of issues, such as gun rights and whether they would feel comfortable attending a gay wedding.

While the number of biker-brawl suspects stands at a hundred and seventy, if current trends continue, the Republican field could blow past that number by early summer, possibly deepening voters’ confusion.

But, in one positive sign for the Republicans, they notched a higher approval rating than the Waco suspects, five per cent to three.

Noah called my attention to the latest Washington Post "In the Loop" poll, which bears on the subject, and whose results were only just announced. Since I think of myself as a connoisseur of "In the Loop" polls, I'm not sure how I whiffed on this, but maybe it's that I'm not much interested in "winninowing" the field -- I just want the field to go away. These are, after all, people who if they presented themselves as candidates for dog-catcher, we would have to say, "Is that the lot?" Which translates as: There's nobody in this pack who seems remotely qualified for the job.

In the Loop
Find out who won the Loop's 'Winnow Down' the GOP debates contest



By Al Kamen

As our colleague Matea Gold reports, Fox News, which is hosting the first campaign debate of the 2016 primary season, plans to require contenders to place in the top 10 in an average of the five most recent national polls before the Aug.6 event.

But our Loop fans have other (and we think better) ideas. Other debate hosts may want to consider the winning entries to our “Winnow Down” contest, intended to help the GOP figure out how to deal with its 16 (more-or-less) bona fide candidates.

Here’s their suggestions:

1. Use NCAA-style brackets

A. The “Self-Important Sixteen” who will “hurl scandalous, unsubstantiated charges at each other (and Hillary Clinton).
B. The “Ego-Maniacal Eight” who will “employ the Fox News . . .model, out-yelling and degrading their opponent (and Hillary Clinton).
C. The Fractious Four,” who will “feign civility” and call each other “my good friend before insulting them (and Hillary Clinton).”

Finally: The “Tenacious Two — The Debate” who will actually discuss issues (and, of course, Hillary Clinton.) “Findings of the auditorium Applause-o-Meter will be final.” — submitted by Patrick Dozier, a property manager in the District.

2. A Three-Question Fidelity Test

A. Are you now, or have you ever been, a subscriber to The New York Times?” If so, “proceed no further.”
B. “Do you believe in a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants?” If so, “contact the offices of Matt Drudge.”
C. “Who was our country’s greatest Commander in Chief, Ronald Reagan or the 40th President?” (“Just like Hillary’s position on” the trade bill, “there’s no wrong answer!) ” — submitted by Daniel Braden, a political operative and former contest winner, from Medford, Mass.

3. A U.S. Citizenship Test

The candidates “should all agree to take the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Naturalization Test in a room with no staff or mobile devices.” The bottom five scorers would be cut out of the debate. — submitted by D.C.’s Jon Conradi, director of audience engagement for Lifezette, Laura Ingraham’s about-to-launch conservative media site.

4.”Whack-A-Pol”

“Candidates in soundproof tubes below the stage randomly pop up from their holes. They are whacked with a question on a foam mallet. . . submitted by voters. After 90 seconds, the mike goes off, they disappear back into the hole and another pops ups. As soon as they diverge from a question, they drop through the floor and are out of the game.” — submitted by Bill Diamond, a “retired bureaucrat” from Evergreen, Colo.

5. “The Choice,” modeled after NBC’s “The Voice”

Candidates get 90 seconds “to make their case to the backs of a panel of undecided voters. If nobody turns around to claim one, they’re out. Those claimed then “face-off with each other until we’re down to two or three.” — submitted by Jack Moline, a nonprofit executive from Alexandria, Va.

6. Multiple-choice answers only

A la the NCAA, use 24-second clocks for answers to multiple-choice questions. “Candidates can only anwer a, b, c, or d.”

For example: “If we knew then what we know now about Iraq’s weapons, would you have gone to war there?"
A. Of course not, but I don’t know that for sure;
B. That’s a hypothetical and I won’t answer that type of question;
C. No, I would have invaded another oil-rich nation;
D. All of the above.” –submitted by Charlie Andrews, a retired telcom executive and prior contest winner, from Ashburn, Va.

7. Lie Detector Test

“Require all candidates to take a private lie detector test, administered by a neutral team of the best experts in the field.”

Questions might include:

A.”Have you ever considered changing a vote or position because of a past or promised campaign donation?
B. Would you impose a litmus test on any specific pending issue in selecting a nominee for the Supreme Court?
C. Would you cover up for or pardon a White House subordinate who violated the law? — submitted by Joe O’Bryan, a retired federal employee from Phoenixville, Pa.

8. Play hide and seek with cash

“Give the candidates a task relevant to a presidential contest. Hide bundles of money throughout the studio, then set the candidates loose. The top eight or ten money gatherers get a spot in the debate.” — Submitted by Roger Ribert, a technical writer from West Henrietta, N.Y. (Isn’t this proposal more elegant, fairer, than the Fox News formula?)

9. Summon Ronald Reagan

Candidates will be paired off on the Ouija Board to commune with the ghost of Ronald Reagan and solicit his permission to enter the race.” — submitted by Tien Peng, a pulmonologist from Philadelphia, Pa.

10. “Political Survivor,” based on the CBS reality show

Divide the 16 or more candidates into “two tribes (Iowa and  New Hampshire) and put them through a series of immunity and reward challenges that will test their fitness for office while revealing their true character and coalition building skills. Broadcast via C-Span. Instead of contestants voting off the loser, the viewers would do so via the soon-to-be-popular Washington Post Political Survivor Web site. Final Five get to the first debate.” — submitted by Stephen Llewellyn, a retired government lawyer from Alexandria, Va.

Congratulations to the winners and thanks to everyone for entering. Special thanks to our expert judges, colleagues Rachel Van Dongen, Aaron Blake and Tom Hamburger.

Now it’s your turn to judge! What’s your favorite “Winnow Down” idea?


USER POLL

[To pick one, and then view the results, click onsite. -- Ed.]


This is a non-scientific user poll. Results are not statistically valid and cannot be assumed to reflect the views of Washington Post users as a group or the general population.

#

Say you're a guest at a N. Korean gov't do. When the check comes, how much do you tip?

Dinner with General Kim: When he invites you, make
sure you've got your wallet on you -- possibly with cash.

"[Director of National Intelligence James] Clapper said he dined with [Gen.] Kim [Yong Chol, head of North Korea's Reconnaissance General Bureau] during a secret mission to Pyongyang in November to retrieve two Americans being held by the North Koreans. 'General Kim,' he said, 'spent the entire meal berating me about American aggression' and kept 'pointing his finger at my chest.' "

-- the Washington Post's Ellen Nakashima, reporting
last week on the International Conference on Cyber
Security, at Fordham University in New York

by Ken

This is one of those stories where you get really important information but are frustrated because the reporter(s) can't answer the really interesting questions.

The story starts with the International Conference on Cyber Security last week at Fordham University in New York. In her report last week, Ellen Nakashima focused on what many people would consider the big story, FBI Director James Comey's claim of new evidence that North Korea was behind the famous Sony hacking episode. It seemed only natural, then, to bring in Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's claim earlier in the day that the man behind the hack was Gen. Kim Yong Chol, head of North Korea's Reconnaissance General Bureau, presumably the country's top spymaster.

Luckily, the paper's Loop-master, Al Kamen, spotted a larger story buried here -- the story of this dinner that Director Clapper spent having General Kim more or less poking him in the chest the whole time. And for his follow-up report, "DNI Clapper finds there’s no free lunch in North Korea," Al seems to have gotten at least some of his additional information from Ellen Nakashima, including the most explosive detail.

Now we want to know more about this dinner, don't we? First off, it wasn't some humdrum Korean takeout. Far from it!

The dinner in North Korea was delicious, Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. recalled last week as he recounted his November visit to the Hermit Kingdom to retrieve two imprisoned Americans.

As with many things in that country, it was also a bit strange.

Clapper, in a chat at a cyber security conference in New York , noted that “the plight of the citizens of Pyongyang stood in solemn contrast to the dinner” he had there the night before he picked up the two Americans.

It was, he said, “an elaborate 12-course Korean meal. Having spent time in Korea [as chief of intelligence for U.S. forces there in the mid-‘80s], I consider myself somewhat a connoisseur of Korean food, and that was one of the best Korean meals I’ve ever had.”

"Alas," Al reports, as suggested in Ellen's report last week, Director Clapper considered that "the company was not pleasurable," and a lot of the problem seems to have been with General Kim, his host,' "who claimed to me that he was my North Korean counterpart." (Ouch! The DNI sounds kind of prickly here. Does he mean that General Kim isn't his counterpart? The fact that he judges the general to have been claiming this suggests that he considers the "claim" beneath his dignity. What's up with that, Jim?) More to the point, according to the DNI, General Kim --

“spent most of the meal berating me about American aggression and what terrible people we were,” arguing his country was “under siege” by its neighbors and blaming Washington for supporting them.

“He got louder and louder,” Clapper recalled, “and he kept leaning toward me, pointing his finger at my chest and saying that U.S. and South Korean [military] exercises were a provocation to war.”

Well yes, this sounds like kind of a drag. You'd think, though, that someone occupying as lofty a post in the intelligence community as Director Clapper would have come to Pyongyang armed with some conversational cues useful for, say, changing the subject -- like perhaps some questions about Pyongyang's local sports teams.

But the kicker came "after that sumptuous meal."

[O]ur colleague Ellen Nakashima tells us that the North Koreans presented the Americans with a bill for Clapper’s share of the dinner.

Wow!

Still, there's so much more we want to know. A couple of questions we know aren't likely to get answered. Al adds as an update:

U.S. officials did not disclose how much the North Koreans charged. Nor whether they take American Express.

And wouldn't that be embarrassing if they don't take plastic and you showed up for the do without cash? I mean, who would expect?

Still, those aren't the only questions that remain open.

Like, don't you want to know whether Director Clapper's check was itemized? Or did they simply take the total tab for the event and divide by the number of diners to determine his share? You know, the way most of us would probably do it if we went to a Dutch-treat Korean banquet.

Also, was there a service charge automatically added to the bill, or was the director expected to tip separately? It doesn't seem fair to stiff the service staff just because the dinner was spoiled by the nagging host. You get back at him with, like, drone strikes or whatnot, right?

#

Look who's back! It's America's own favoritest war criminal! UPDATE: Hank the K sidelined!

UPDATE: Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Corker announced Monday that a shoulder fracture will keep the 91-year-old former secretary of state from appearing this week

Lookin' sassy, Doctor K! Okay, I've chopped former German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher out of the picture, taken in June 2013 at a Berlin reception for Henry the K’s 90th birthday (which had happened on May 27), because heck, we're here to celebrate our own Scumbags 'n' Crackpots -- and while Germans may wish to still think of our Hank as one of theirs, we know better, don't we?

by Ken

It's one of the things I have fond remembrance of the late Christopher Hitchens, a man it isn't easy to remember fondly. (This was before his brain succumbed to all that pickling, or whatever happened to it.) He began a book review with an apology, explaining that he was breaking his vow not to read another book by this author until the first volume of his prison diaries. The author, as you've no doubt guessed, was Henry Kissinger.

In the carnival atmosphere of this week in Our Nation's Capital, marking the opening of the new Congress -- "The Crackpot 114th™," as it's known affectionately to its friends -- I imagine the Capitol festooned with celebratory signs, probably hand-painted on old bed sheets, like this:



And this:



And especially this:



Because, yes, in addition to welcoming all the new scumbags taking their seats in The Crackpot 114th™, the Crackpot 'n' Scumbags ringleaders are pleased to welcome bag crackpots and scumbags from days of old. Yes, two of the Senate's new committee chairment, "Corkless Bob" Corker of Foreign Relations and "Young Johnny" McCranky of Armed Services, are kicking off their new shows with Old Gravel Puss, at 10am and 2:30pm respectively.

And — wouldn’t you know it? — it just so happens Kissinger’s  latest book, his 14th, came out a few months ago, appropriately titled, World Order.

Perhaps he could rev up the new teams with an elaborate disquisition on the Treaty of Westphalia back in the mid-17th century — you know, the one that ended the Thirty Years’ War — and the Islamist rejection of those principles?

Just make sure committee members and staff are sufficiently caffeinated.

What, you don't have your copy of World Order yet? You can probably find it at your local bookseller's, or at, you know, Amazon or one of those places.

#

It's when we Americans are put to the test that we show what we're really made of -- say howdy to ebola lawyers

Yes, the tireless David Sipress is still manning The New Yorker's "Daily Cartoon" beat. (You can click on today's offering to enlarge it.)

by Ken

I know I'm taking a certain liberty in tacking David Sipress's New Yorker "Daily Cartoon" for today onto a post that's actually concerned with getting tough on ebola. But really, terrorism, ebola, it's all the same thing, isn't it? It's all those things that present tough Americans with a need and an opportunity to, you know, be tough, to be the loud-mouthing, fist-packing, gut-toting blowhards God put us on this earth to be.

Actually, I suppose ebola is a little different. Unlike all those other depredations like Islamic extremism which sneak into God's Country principally via our shockingly underdefended Mexican border, ebola is headed for us even as we speak via an airport near you.

But we're Americans, and we fight back. And remember, we've got guns. So I say you can keep the image of David Sipress's debate combatants in mind as you read this Washington Post "In the Loop" report (which sure sounds like it was written by our pal Al Kamen) about the counter-attack against invading hordes of ebola, "Got Ebola? Call a doctor. Or maybe a lawyer."

There’s one known active case of Ebola in the United States, and President Obama was quick to remind the nation Tuesday that “only two people so far have contracted Ebola on America soil.”

But fears abound, and one Washington law firm is making itself available for all your Ebola-related legal needs.

Arent Fox is organizing a live panel discussion at its New York office on Nov. 12 to help businesses and employees with pressing concerns about the spread of Ebola — which “places caregivers in a situation where a minor error can be lethal,” Arent Fox warns ominously in a news release.

Lawyers are prepared to address any number of Ebola-related legal quandaries. Not sure what those would be? The firm has prepped a list of questions you might want to ask. Such as: How do you handle an employee who has been quarantined by the government? Can an employee who has been exposed to Ebola be ordered to stay home? Do your insurance policies have an exemption for biological or contagious diseases?

The lawyers, representing the firm’s labor, health-care and insurance practices, can also provide some historical perspective on Ebola, specifically whether “significant events” such as 9/11 and Hurricane Sandy provide any guidance for Ebola response.

Darrell Gay, a partner at Arent Fox, said that the firm contacted some clients to raise some of the above questions, and that those clients realized they had no idea how they would or should handle these worst-case Ebola scenarios.

“The issue is we don’t know how far it’s going to go,” Gay said. “The objective is to have the company thinking about it rather than shooting from the hip.”

Just in case.

FOR STICKLERS WHO PERSIST IN SEEING EBOLA
AND TERRORISM AS SEPARATE DEPREDATIONS

Hey, I hear you. I can try to work with you. Here's what I suggest: Simply reimagine today's Sipress cartoon as a pair of cartoons. Something like this:

"Now we'll turn to the issue of who will be tougher on terrorism."

"Now we'll turn to the issue of who will be tougher on ebola."

This works just fine, doesn't it? Actually, it's better, I think.

And would be better still if we kept looping the drawing substituting other things right-wing crackpots have their racing hearts set on being tough against, including but by no means limited to: godless vote frauders, godless taxers-and-spenders, godless climate-changists, godless baby-killers, godless takers-not-makers, godless Frenchies (and all things French), godless warriors against Christmas, godless aliens (of both the extra-territorial and extra-terrestrial kind), godless "other" people (including all those of of all colors unapproved by God).

#

Doesn't Carlos Danger need a better name than "Rockaway Restoration Kitchen" for his entry into the restaurant world?

Does it get any more macho? Well, it might if Anthony W didn't look like he just found out he inadvertently sent a penis picture to the pope. Meanwhile, Mikey S looks like he just threatened to throw the pope off his balcony.

"To be frank, Weiner would not be the first scandal-ridden New York pol to have tried his hand at the restaurant business. Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) of 'break you in half like a boy' fame, once ran a failed health food restaurant in Manhattan."

"Maybe they can trade notes?"

-- from Colby Itkowitz's Thursday Washington Post "In
the Loop"report, "New Weiner career? Food service"

by Ken

Yes, Colby, that was the first thing I thought of when I saw your Thursday report about former Rep. Anthony Weiner, aka Carlos Danger (or perhaps better, as inspired tweeter Ana Navarro suggested, Antonio Estupido), finding his way into the restaurant business. How could you not think of him as following in the footsteps of our favorite congressional kneecapper, Staten Island's "Mikey Suits" Grimm?

Judging from the results, it wouldn't be quite accurate to say that Mikey Suits went into the restaurant business, since his joint -- Palooka's Healthy Food Shangri-La, or whatever it was called during the blink of an eye it was open -- seemed to be more of a crime scene for financial chicanery than a money-making hospitality enterprise, and of course the scene of elaborate ongoing criminal investigations. (Okay, I looked it up. Mikey S's eatery was called Healthalicious. The palookas were on the premises -- though not apparently in any great quantity -- not in the name. See my April post "No fair! We the people demand perp-walk pix of 'Mikey Suits' Grimm! (And where's Rudy Giuliani when you need him?") And in fairness to Anthony W, what he apparently has in mind is something quite different from a hangout for palookas with pretensions.

But still, do all these congressfellows have an inner Bobby Flay trying to get out? Or is it just these queasily hyper-macho boys -- Anthony W with his compulsion to share his penis with the world and Mikey S with his craving to toss uppity reporters off of balconies.

That said, Anthony W's project really does sound like a noble effort to make a difference in the Sandy-devastated Rockaways of Queens. But as Al Kamen suggests in his follow-up "In the Loop" report, "Rockaway Restoration Kitchen" sounds almost criminally humdrum for an enterprise spearheaded by the Man Who Would Be Carlos Danger.

Let's let Al take it from here.

In the Loop
A Loop contest! Weiner’s planned
restaurant needs a better name

By Al Kamen
August 11 at 7:00 AM

It was but a year ago that disgraced former congressman Anthony Weiner lost his New York mayoral bid, undone by his annoying penchant for sexting self-portraits to a number of women –even after he resigned his congressional seat a year earlier for that same deplorable habit.

But as we reported Thursday afternoon, citing a report in The Rockaway Times, Weiner has a new, and really quite commendable, project: establishing the “Rockaway Restoration Kitchen,” which is described in an Idealist.org ad as a non-profit “healthy, sustainable restaurant in a hard luck community to provide training, on-the-job apprenticeship and placement in the culinary and food service sector for unemployed New Yorkers.”

A wonderful idea. But the name? Rockaway Restoration Kitchen? This will not draw customers. You can’t even tell what kind of food it will serve.

There has to be a better name! (Loop fans know where this is going.)

Yes, it’s the “Name the Weiner Restaurant” Contest! It needs to be catchy, able to attract customers. Perhaps a particular cuisine? (Remember, he allegedly used that spectacular alias, Carlos Danger, so maybe south-of-the-border fare might work.)

Winners get one of our highly coveted Loop T-shirts.

Send entries — only one suggestion per person — to intheloop@washpost.com. Be sure to provide your name, profession, mailing address and T-shirt size (M, L or XL), in case you’re a winner.

You must include a phone number — home, work or cell — to be eligible. Entries must be submitted by noon, Aug. 18.

(Please keep your entries, at the very most, PG-13).

Note that last point -- there's territory into which we just can't venture here. Still, "PG-13" affords a certain latitude, doesn't it? I think we might slip "Carlos Danger's Penis Palace" through, for example. Just remember, the key is to come up with a name that's even more grabalicious than, you know, Healthalicious (RIP).

#

"Gotcha, bitch!" screamed Scott Brown at NH Sen. Jeanne Shaheen. Only the cannonball landed on his own foot, which happened to be in his mouth at the time

"Ooh, gotcha!" apparently thought once and would-be-future Sen. Scott Brown. "Bitch'll never know what hit her!" Maybe, maybe not.

by Ken

Normally the modern blood sport of "gotcha" politics thrives on ignorance and stupidity, a perfect match for the virtually achieved right-wing dream of an electorate -- and a snoozemedia gang -- dominated by people with absolute-zero functional IQs (fIQs). Every now and then, though, this dream of a world where political intercourse is squeezed free of any intelligence quotient encounters a hiccup.

It turns out that in America in the year 2014, it may after all be possible to be too stupid. Today's posterboy is former Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, who of course is currently campaigning to be New Hampshire Sen. Scott Brown. And man, did the Scottster ever think he had his eventual general-election opponent, NH Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, set up for one of those "Gotcha!"s that constitute the intellectual core of modern-day policy-making. Except, well, except for that old problem of not having a clue WTF he was talking about.

The Washington Post's In the Loop team of Al Kamen and Colby Itkowitz reports:

Mass., N.H., whatever . . .

Scott Brown’s New Hampshire Senate campaign sent a news release Wednesday questioning why Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) wasn’t appearing with President Obama while he was “in town.”

But Obama was in Worcester, Mass., about 50 miles from the New Hampshire border. The president will then visit Boston to raise money for Senate Democrats.

Brown’s hometown is Wakefield, Mass. And for one term, he served the state as its U.S. senator. He moved to neighboring New Hampshire to challenge Shaheen.

When asked what constitutes being “in town,” Brown campaign spokeswoman Elizabeth Guyton said the statement itself clarified that Obama was “in New England.” Guyton reiterated that Shaheen “wasn’t there, even though the money raised at the event will be used to prop up her race.”

The Senate is in session and had votes scheduled on a health-care bill for veterans and student-loan legislation. Shaheen also attended the state delegation’s fifth annual New Hampshire reception on Capitol Hill in the evening.

Pro-tip for the Brown camp: When your aim is to endear yourself to a new constituency, suggesting that your old and new states are one and the same (it’s all New England, we guess) may not be politically wise.

Gotcha! (At least within the standard right-wing margin of error of 100 percent.)

#

It's press corps vs. press handlers (again!) -- plus a "Loop" contest update and reminder

by Ken

The lead item in today's Washington Post "In the Loop" column begins by referring back to "a recent play-by-play" by Politico's Dylan Byers, "illustrating the cat-and-mouse games the White House plays with the press," so I thought we would start with the Dylan Byers post, from last week, called "The most transparent administration, cont.":

A quick look at how the sausage gets made, or doesn't...

On Tuesday night, The New York Times reported that no reporters would be traveling with First Lady Michelle Obama to China, and that she would be giving no interviews while there. Nicholas Kristof, the Times columnist, called the First Lady's decision "a mistake," and said it "signals weakness or fear of coverage." Several conservative outlets picked up the Times report, including the influential Drudge Report, which linked to a Weekly Standard article about it.

Shortly after noon on Wednesday, I reached out to the First Lady's office to inquire about the decision. A spokesperson for the First Lady responded to my inquiry but declared the response "off the record," meaning I wasn't allowed to use the information therein. When I told the spokesperson that I needed a response I could use, the spokesperson replied with another off-the-record statement regarding the First Lady's trip.

The spokesperson then wrote, "If you need something attributable, you can take this on background from a White House official..."

The statement that followed did not address my original inquiry. Instead, it offered a formulaic explanation about "the power and importance of education" and "reaching people," followed by an explanation that the First Lady would participate in open press events and take questions online and in forums.

By now it was 5 p.m. ET, nearly five hours after my initial inquiry. When I told the spokesperson that I did not see why the quote needed to be anonymous and attributed to "a White House official," the spokesperson said if I needed something on the record I could refer to the First Lady's travel guidance and a transcript of a press call regarding the trip. These documents did not contain an answer to my question regarding why no reporters would be traveling with the First Lady.

Now, I'll leave frustration over Michelle Obama's trip to The New York Times, Nick Krisfof, The Weekly Standard and Drudge Report (a motley crew right there). What I want to know -- and what I've wanted to know since last October -- is why the spokesperson in the First Lady's office didn't want to give me a name I could put on a harmless, formulaic quote?

Actually, I think the October post to which Dylan B refers back is worth looking at too, to understand better the kind of thing he's complaining about. It was called "The problem with Washington:"

The following email just landed in reporters' inboxes:

FROM A WH OFFICIAL: Today, the President and the Vice President will meet with the bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Leadership (Majority Leader Reid, Minority Leader McConnell, Speaker Boehner and Leader Pelosi) at the White House at 3:00 pm. With only a few days until the government runs out of borrowing authority, the President will make clear the need for Congress to act to pay our bills, and reopen the government.  The President will also reiterate our principles to the leaders: we will not pay a ransom for Congress reopening the government and raising the debt limit. The President continues to urge Congress to pass a bill that raises the debt ceiling and lends the certainty our businesses and the economy needs.

Why does an official White House statement sent to every media outlet in the Beltway and beyond need to be attributed to an anonymous official? Can't someone put their name on it? Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, is probably going to reiterate these exact same points at the daily press briefing. Can't he sign off on them now?

We can debate anonymous sourcing to the ground -- I'll defend it, in many instances -- but we're hitting rock bottom when the White House can't even put a signature on a statement about its principles.

Now back to today's "In the Loop" follow-up to Dylan's post from last week. In the wake of that post, we're told, "frustrated reporters took to Twitter recounting their favorite response lines from administration officials with the hashtag #TweetYourAnonymousFlackQuotes."

This friction is, of course, nothing new. Past White Houses and government agencies have certainly been evasive. But judging from the frequent complaints we hear, the lack of transparency is worse than ever.

Our colleagues have found that a number of truly unhelpful responses have become standard at many agencies. Now, as a Loop public service, we include some of the most common -- and egregious -- examples (with some suggested reporter responses).

1. "Why is this a story?" (Because I say it is.)

2. "Who told you that?" (A person who sits in your building.)

3. "Where did you get that?" (From the e-mail you sent out to your colleagues this morning.)

4. "That's not accurate." (And what exactly is not accurate?)

5. "You're way off base." (Am I?)

6. "I have nothing for you on that." (So, "No comment?")

7. "You'll have to contact [another agency, which happens to be in the midst of an ‘all hands' conference in Vegas]." (I did. They told me to call you.)

8. "So, what's the question?" (Repeat the same question.)

9. "No comment." (Thanks -- that's helpful.)

10. "Who are you? Politico?" [In other words, insulting a fine news organization by implying you're asking a trivial question.] (Defend Politico and/or ignore and repeat the same question.)

11. "Off the record, no comment." [Most people not in the business intend this to mean "Don't use my name" or "on background," or "Don't use my name or agency," meaning "deep background." The beauty of this one is that you can't use the "no comment."] (Just say the agency "declined to comment.")

12. Their final tactic, when they realize their efforts to stop the story have failed: "We are going to point out that this is wrong." (Go ahead. Then you'll be lying to a lot more people than me.)

13. Then: "!@#$&*." (Hang up.)

GOOD NEWS FOR "LOOP" FANS

It may just be my crazy impression, but in recent years it has seemed as if the editors of the Washington Post have been doing everything they could think of to marginalize and hide the "In the Loop" column overseen by our pal (event though we've never met or communicated) Al Kamen. Which has been all the more strange in that all evidence has indicated that it's one of the paper's most unequivocally loved features. Today's column however, was preceded by this "editor's note":

In the Loop resumes its four-day a week print schedule, publishing Tuesday through Friday. We're stepping up the pace with the help of our new colleague Colby Itkowitz, formerly the Washington correspondent for the Morning Call in Allentown, Pa., and transportation reporter for Congressional Quarterly.

Indeed the column is now running under the joint byline "by Al Kamen and Colby Itkowitz."


"IN THE LOOP" CONTEST UPDATE AND REMINDER

I've already passed on tidings of one pending "Loop" contest, the "Loop Obamacare Enrollment Contest," which closes at noon this Friday, the 28th: "Simply guess the number of first-year sign-ups" by the no-penalty sign-up deadline on March 31. The 10 closest entries get both a coveted (by me, anyway) "In the Loop" T-shirt "and lifetime bragging rights." Follow the same entry procedures as for the other contest, below, but use the subject line "Obamacare." (And, again, "Those in the administration or on the Hill may enter 'on background.' ")

As to that other "Loop" contest, of which I haven't yet spread word, here's today's recap:

It takes a contest?

Hillary Clinton told a publishers group in New York last week that she still hadn't come up with a title for her forthcoming memoir and turned to the Loop for guidance.

"Helpfully, about a year ago, The Washington Post asked readers to send in suggestions," she said. “For example, one possibility was 'It Takes a World,' a fitting sequel to 'It Takes a Village.' Another plays off my love of all things Tina Fey: 'Bossy Pantsuit,' although we can no longer say one of those words."

She continued: " 'The Scrunchie Chronicles: 112 Countries and It's Still All About My Hair.' That actually is a keeper -- that's on the shortlist."

But she's still stumped. So we're relaunching the contest! Send suggestions to intheloop@
washpost.com with the subject line "Hillarycontest." The top five winners will receive a highly coveted "In the Loop" T-shirt.

Please provide your name, profession, mailing address and T-shirt size (M, L or XL). Also include a phone number. Deadline is April 4. Good luck!

#

Closing in on the Obamacare "magic number" -- meanwhile lying up a storm about the facts

Steve Sack

"Republicans in [states that have rejected ACA-endowed Medicaid expansion] can laugh all the way to election night. They got to screw the poor, which, let’s be honest, they were inclined to do anyway, and in doing so they also did political damage to the Obama administration. Quite a trick."

-- Paul Waldman, in his Tuesday "Morning Plum" post,
"What the Obamacare enrollment numbers mean"

by Ken

As I mentioned Wednesday, in passing along Washington Post "Loop"-master Al Kamen's update of his earlier report on the play All the Way starring Bryan Cranston as Lyndon B. Johnson, Al also announced a new "In the Loop" contest, in which readers are asked to guess the actual number of Obamacare signups by the March 31 non-penalty deadline. As I wrote then, "Since this takes us into the whole area of wholesale lying on the subject by the usual right-wing suspects, I think we should look at this separately tomorrow," but yesterday we had to tend to the unfortunate passing of scumbag extraordinaire Fred Phelps ("Rot in hell, Fred Phelps (1929-2014)").

First, here's Al K's contest announcement:

Guess that enrollment!

Long before Web site foul-ups snarled its launch, the White House had hoped for 7 million enrollees in the Affordable Care Act’s first year. It has since adjusted expectations a bit, although a number close to that is still the goal.

Through the end of February, there were 4.2 million enrolled. On Monday, the White House said it had broken 5 million. The Obama administration is making one last push to reach a million or so more uninsured Americans before March 31, the deadline to enroll without facing a fine.

So with the big day rapidly approaching, the question for Loop fans is: How many people will enroll in Obamacare in its first year?

Yes, it’s the Loop Obamacare Enrollment Contest! Simply guess the number who will sign up by the deadline. The 10 entries closest to the actual number will get a coveted Loop T-shirt and lifetime bragging rights.

Send entries -- only one prediction per person -- by noon March 28 to intheloop@washpost.com. Subject line: Obamacare. Be sure to provide your name, profession, mailing address and T-shirt size (M, L or XL), in case you’re a winner. You must also include a phone number -- home, work or, preferably, cell -- to be eligible.

(Obama administration and congressional employees may enter “on background.”)

THE RIGHT-WING CRUSADE OF OBAMACARE LIES

As it happens, this past Tuesday on the washingtonpost.com "Morning Plum" blog Paul Waldman put up quite an interesting post, called "What the Obamacare enrollment numbers mean," taking a look at the numbers and, more importantly, focusing on the campaign of obfuscation and outright lies the Republicans have used as the principal strategy for what they think will bring them control of the Senate.

Goodness knows there's a lot to complain about in the ACA. But almost none of that is what the lying liars of the Right-Wing Noise Machine have been screeching about. And for the most part they've gotten away scot-free with a firestorm of intentionally disinformative propaganda, on the apparent theory that Americans don't want the truth, can't handle the truth, but want instead a pack of lies crafted to tickle their deep-rooted ignorance and prejudices.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE FREE PASS FOR
RIGHT-WING ASSAULT AND BATTERY

Denver's KUSA actually tried to fact-check an Americans for Prosperity TV spot aimed at Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, and while crediting the ads with "pointing to real problems that real people are running into with the healthcare law, adds: "However, AFP doesn't have proof that millions of people are dealing with the worst case scenario. To that end, we find that this ad is attempting to puff up the problems."

Then the Tampa Bay Times's PolitiFact got into the act, rating the ad's first two claims -- that "millions of people have lost their health insurance" and that "millions of people can’t see their own doctors" as "False" and "Mostly False" -- as already known to be "false" and "mostly false," respectively, then looking into the claim that "millions are paying more and getting less" and found that "at worst, [people are] paying more to get more," and "in many cases they’re actually paying less." They rated this claim as well "false."

Anyway, here's what Paul Waldman wrote (with lots of links onsite):

The Obama administration announced late yesterday that 800,000 people have signed up for new health insurance so far in March. That brings the total under the Affordable Care Act to over 5 million and makes it likely that 6 million will have enrolled by March 31, the last day to sign up before getting a fine. That 6 million number would meet a projection made by the Congressional Budget Office. So what are we to make of those numbers?

To a degree, targets like these are arbitrary when we’re judging the law’s success. It isn’t as though we’ll say that if 5,999,999 people signed up by the end of the month then the law has failed, while if 6,000,001 sign up then it has succeeded. Nor does that number include the millions of people who have been enrolled in Medicaid, many of whom are getting health coverage for the first time. And the number of people signed up will continue to rise, particularly since the fines are quite small in the first year but get larger over time. But it’s worth remembering that for all the time we spend gaming out the political winners and losers of Obamacare, there are real people’s lives at stake.

If you were just watching political ads, you’d think that there were precisely zero Americans who had actually been helped by the ACA, since for some rather strange reason, the law’s advocates seem reluctant to actually tell the individual stories of those who have gotten covered for the first time, or can now get coverage despite a pre-existing condition. Meanwhile, the law’s opponents have spent millions of dollars blanketing the airwaves in states with upcoming elections, telling horror stories of people whose lives have allegedly been devastated by the ACA. And yes, nearly every one of those stories turns out to be utterly bogus when it is examined. But how many voters know that?
Another reality works against the administration: It’s now easy to blame everything that goes wrong in anything having to do with health care on the ACA. Sure, premiums have gone up every year for as long as anyone can remember. But this year’s increase? Obamacare! Your boss decided to cut back your benefits to pad his bottom line? Obamacare! And did you know that under Obamacare, people will continue to fall ill and even die?

And Republicans work like dogs to undermine the law and make sure it helps as few people as possible, then hold up their success at denying the law’s benefits to their own citizens as evidence that the law was misconceived in the first place. Nowhere is this more evident than on the issue of the expansion of Medicaid, where most Republican-controlled states have said no to the federal government’s offer of billions of dollars in what is essentially free money to get coverage for poor Americans.

Most cruelly, many of the states that have refused to accept the Medicaid expansion are those where Medicaid benefits are most stingy to begin with. Each state sets its own eligibility levels, and not too surprisingly, states run by Republicans tend to set them extremely low. So for instance, if you’re a single parent in Alabama with two kids and you earn a princely $3,221 a year, the state considers you too wealthy to get Medicaid. In Texas, which has more people living without health insurance than any other state, that figure is $3,737. Millions of the working poor could have gotten coverage from Medicaid through the expansion, but their state legislators and governors quite literally believe that it’s better for a poor person to have no health coverage at all than to get coverage from the government.

By one analysis, 5.2 million Americans who could have gotten Medicaid if their states had accepted the expansion will remain uninsured. And if you asked those people in a poll whether Obamacare had helped them, they’d quite reasonably say no.

So Republicans in those states can laugh all the way to election night. They got to screw the poor, which, let’s be honest, they were inclined to do anyway, and in doing so they also did political damage to the Obama administration. Quite a trick.

Republicans may well get political benefit from the issue in this year’s election, particularly if Democrats continue to do such a weak job of defending the law. But that doesn’t really matter in the long run. The law isn’t going to be repealed, something Republicans know as well as Democrats. For all its complications and the difficulty of implementation, the ACA has already done an extraordinary amount of good for those millions of people. If Republicans took their newfound concern for (some) people’s access to health care and used it to actually work to make the law work as well as possible, millions more might be helped as well. If only.

MORE ON THE MEDICAID-EXPANSION PICTURE -- WILL
IT GET BETTER ONCE OBAMA'S OUT OF THE PICTURE?

This afternoon on "The Plum Line" Paul took a look at the question "Is the tide starting to turn on the expansion of Medicaid?," recalling the argument of "some ACA supporters" that even for Republican governors, all that federal money --

would just be too enticing to pass up. After all, pre-ACA, Medicaid costs were split 50-50 between the states and the federal government, while the feds were to pick up 100 percent of the costs of expansion through 2016, ratcheting down only to 90 percent by 2020, after which it stays at 90 percent. It's an incredibly good deal for the states: they get the economic boost of a healthier population, they can stop paying for the uncompensated care that happens when sick or injured people without insurance show up at hospitals, and they get it for nothing at first, then pennies on the dollar afterward. Studies from non-partisan observers such as the Rand Corp. showed that even after they start contributing, states will get a net economic benefit. And that’s not even mentioning the moral consideration of taking the opportunity to bring some measure of security to all those people who can’t afford health insurance.

"The thinking," Paul says, "was that some of those Republican governors would make noise about it, but eventually they’d come around. After all, it took years for all the states to accept the Medicaid program in the first place after its passage in 1965; one, Arizona, held out for 17 years. And this is a much more favorable deal for the states."

The current tally, he says, is 25 states plus the District accepting Medicaid expansion, 19 rejecting, and six still debating it. He notes the suggestion by National Journal's Lucia Graves that opposition is beginning to crack, but declares himself "less optimistic," arguing that in a lot of states, "opposition to the ACA will continue for some time to be the clearest way for a Republican politician to establish his or her conservative credentials," and of course their anti-Obama bona fides.

Which leads Paul to wonder: "Might conservative loathing of Obamacare begin to dissipate once Obama himself leaves office in January 2017?"

Maybe. Ironically, the best thing for the spread of Medicaid expansion might be a Republican in the White House. If the GOP is in charge in the nation’s capital, suddenly it isn’t as important for Republican governors to shake their fists at Washington, and accepting the expansion no longer looks like a favor to a president they hate. The state's own self-interest could finally win out. That may or may not be enough to make you wish for a Republican victory in 2016.

#

More kudos for Bryan Cranston's portrayal of LBJ -- but the "Edith Bunker"-ing of Lady Bird J is no sale

No shrinking violet she: Al Kamen reports that former LBJ chief of staff Jim Jones "said there was a scene where Johnson dismissed [Lady Bird] with a curse -- which he said 'would never happen.' "

by Ken

Since I devoted a post last week ("Bryan Cranston as LBJ, according to people who worked with him") to Al Kamen's WaPo "In the Loop" item "Bryan Cranston gets two thumbs up from LBJ staffers" ("Like Walter White’s epic transformation from meek family man to unrepentant meth lord, Bryan Cranston transforms so completely into President Lyndon B. Johnson that for those who actually knew the 36th president Broadway’s Neil Simon Theatre is a time machine"), I feel obliged to pass on an important update, "Getting Lady Bird wrong."

As Al pointed out in the original item, his LBJ-connected sources -- Joe Califano, Doris Kearns Goodman, Lloyd Hand, and Larry Levinson -- were uniformly enthusiastic about "the stunning performance of Bryan Cranston" as LBJ in Robert Schenkkan's play All the Way, now playing on Broadway. And now that Al has seen the play himself, he joins the chorus of praise, declaring, "If you can, you must see Cranston’s performance."

But no sooner did the original piece see print than Al received an emphatic complaint about another portrayal, a complaint with which he "heartily agrees": the play's depiction of First Lady Claudia Taylor "Lady Bird" Johnson.

[W]e got a call the next day from Jim Jones, former House Budget Committee chairman, ambassador to Mexico and Johnson’s last chief of staff. Jones said he had heard from friends who had told him that "the real" Lady Bird Johnson was not "portrayed as she was, that she came off as "too meek and mild." Jones said there was a scene where Johnson dismissed her with a curse -- which he said "would never happen." (Johnson/Cranston tells her at one point to "get the hell out of here.")

Johnson consulted the first lady and "before any major speech or any decision he would ask what did Lady Bird say or think." Jones said "she was very good with words and had an antenna for people, and he really respected that."

Having seen the play, we heartily agree -- as does Califano -- that that particular portrayal is off, way too Edith Bunker. On the other hand, the performances of the other cast members -- playing Martin Luther King Jr. and fellow civil rights leaders Stokely Carmichael, James Farmer, Roger Wilkins and Fannie Lou Hamer, plus aide Walter Jenkins and Sen. Richard Russell (D-Ga.), seemed pretty accurate.

I never met any of these folks, of course, but certainly nothing I've ever heard or read suggested that there was any shrinking violet in Lady Bird, so it's nice to have this expert witness on the subject.


AL ALSO ANNOUNCES A NEW "LOOP" CONTEST:
GUESS THE NUMBER OF OBAMACARE ENROLLEES

Long story short: The new contest invites "In the Loop" readers to guess the actual number of Obamacare signups by the March 31 non-penalty deadline. But since this takes us into the whole area of wholesale lying on the subject by the usual right-wing suspects, I think we should look at this separately tomorrow.

The contest deadline isn't till March 28, so I don't think you'll suffer by waiting a day for the details. And after all this contest doesn't ask you to do anything clever, just come up with a number. Still, if you want to get started today,check it out for yourself.

#

Bryan Cranston as LBJ, according to people who worked with him

Bryan Cranston portrays former President Lyndon B. Johnson on Broadway in Robert Schenkkan’s play All the Way, directed by Bill Rauch

by Ken

Even those of us whose strong memories of Bryan Cranston go back beyond Breaking Bad not just to hilariously bumbling but dangerous dad Hal on Malcolm in the Middle but to his appearances as agenda-driven dentist Tim Whatley on Seinfeld, his post-Breaking Bad incarnation as former President Lyndon B. Johnson is, well, not so much a stretch as a "huh?" Let's do one of our quick show-of-hands polls: Raise your hand if you're keen to see a play about LBJ. No, really raise 'em. Hmm, I thought so.

The Washington Post "In the Loop"-ster Al Kamen has been thinking about the Cranston impersonation from a different angel: verisimilitude. "The critical buzz around Cranston's portrayal of Johnson in All the Way," says Al, "is that the actor is impeccable in the role." He adds that "anyone who watched Cranston in Breaking Bad knows his talent range," but ventures that "only those who knew Johnson can say with authority how fully Cranston embodies Johnson."

"So," says Al, "we reached deep into our Rolodex to find people who worked in the Johnson administration to survey about how well Cranston does." He has already pronounced the overall verdict in his lead: "Like Walter White morphing from meek family man to unrepentant meth lord, Bryan Cranston transforms so completely into Lyndon Johnson that, for those who knew the 36th president, Broadway's Neil Simon Theatre is a time machine."

Here's what Al found.

JOE CALIFANO
"Johnson's top domestic policy aide" -- "saw the show on opening night"

When Cranston shouted a command on stage, that familiar formidable tone shook Califano, transporting him back nearly 50 years. "I'll tell you there were moments when I thought I was actually looking at him or hearing him," Califano said.

It's hard to distinguish whether Cranston "has taken over Johnson or Johnson's taken over him," he said. Cranston "went from ‘Breaking Bad' to breaking good," he added.

For Califano, who reasons he ate more meals with Johnson than his own family in those years, Cranston perfectly captures Johnson's intensity -- his anger, his frustration, his humor, how he'd bark an order while doing five other things simultaneously.

DORIS KEARNS GOODWIN
"a historian who worked in Johnson's administration as a White House fellow, helped the president write his memoirs, and wrote her first of many books about her conservations with him" -- "also saw the show on opening night"

"Thank God LBJ kept those tapes," Goodwin said of the telephone conversations mined to tell the complete story of Johnson's political process in the early years of his presidency.

Johnson "comes alive in this," she added. "When he's on stage," she said of Cranston, "it's just magnetic."

Cranston captures Johnson's mannerisms, such as using physical proximity to intimidate, she said. Much of the play shows Johnson on the phone, "which is exactly the right way to capture him," she said. "The phone was the instrument of his power."

LLOYD HAND
"first worked for Johnson in the Senate and then in the White House"

[H]as yet to see the show, but a cadre of former Johnson officials have planned a reunion in New York to see [the show] together in mid-May.
A "Breaking Bad" fan, Hand initially could not reconcile Walter White -- a character with "no redeeming qualities" -- playing someone Hand held in such esteem.

Hand hopes the play, which focuses on Johnson's domestic achievements, serves to revisit his boss's legacy beyond the Vietnam War.

LARRY LEVINSON
"Johnson's deputy counsel"

[A]lso has yet to see the show, but has heard the same feedback from Johnson alums about Cranston's "unerringly perfect performance."

"The buzz from Austin on this is that it is an enormously helpful portrayal . . . a most accurately interesting portrayal," he said.

#

Meet your Labor Secretary (via an "In the Loop" Background Check) -- plus State Dept. travel tips for students

Labor Secretary Thomas Perez with the boss

by Ken

If Washington Post "In the Loop"-master's idea with the Background Checks is to give us a better sense of the officeholder as a person, I have to say that this one on Labor Secretary Thomas Perez sure did the job for me.

DIAMOND DREAMS

When President Obama nominated Thomas Perez a year ago to be labor secretary, he noted that Perez was then an assistant attorney general for civil rights and had also been Maryland's labor secretary.

But he added that Perez -- the son of immigrants from the Dominican Republic and the first Cabinet secretary of Dominican descent -- had also worked in some less glamorous jobs, helping to pay his way through college as a garbage collector and in a warehouse, before he "went on to become the first lawyer in his family."

In his Background Check, Perez reveals, that, despite his Dominican roots, he can't come around very well on a fastball and that his own fastball, well, left a little to be desired. So he had to seek other professional opportunities.

Which Cabinet secretary would you most like to hang out with, and what would you do?

I have enjoyed working with all my Cabinet colleagues, and, while I have spent a considerable time with my former boss, Eric Holder, I currently work extensively and very productively with Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker. We have a shared belief that if we can help workers and businesses succeed, then America succeeds.

What's your favorite non-work-related Web site/blog/
app/magazine?

ESPN.com

Fill in the blank: People would be surprised to know that I _____.

Ran the Boston Marathon three times and have coached at least one of my children in basketball or some other sport for 10 years.

What's your dream job (other than your current gig)?

Major League Baseball commissioner. I played baseball throughout high school, but, unlike other Dominican Americans, I couldn't hit a fastball. My own fastball had deceptive speed -- it was slower than you think.

What motivated you to go into public service?

My parents emigrated from the Dominican Republic to escape a brutal dictator. [Loop note: That would be Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, a.k.a. "El Chivo," finally gunned down, apparently with CIA help, in 1961.] America was a land of opportunity for them, and they taught my four siblings (all of whom are doctors) and me to work hard, aim high and always give back to others. They taught us that if you want to get to heaven, you better have letters of reference from the underserved.

Favorite TV show?

The Wire.

Which character from that show do you most identify with?

I identify with the young people living in tough neighborhoods for which meaningful opportunity was elusive.

What subject, other than your work, do you know most about?

Civil rights history.

What's one word you wish people would use to describe you?

Innovative.

You can draft one person in the private sector to come work for the federal government. Who would it be, and what would you have them do?

I would resurrect Steve Jobs and enlist him to work with the Department of Labor to develop the next generation of technological tools to enable us to carry out our mission of expanding opportunity for everyone.

STATE DEPT. TIPS FOR SPRING BREAK 2014

Note that in this same column Loop-master Al offers his take on the State Department's just-released "Top Five Travel Tips for Spring Break 2014," which he suggests "read like a helicopter parent gone wild, or a post-Colorado-legalization version of Reefer Madness." You should check out Al's take on them, but here's the official State Department version (there are links onsite):

For some college students, Spring Break is a time to bask in the Caribbean sun. Some use their respite from classes to volunteer in a foreign country. Others venture across the Atlantic to embark upon a European adventure or to visit friends studying abroad. Regardless of the destination, the U.S. Department of State encourages students to follow our tips for traveling abroad:

• Avoid underage and excessive alcohol consumption. “Overdoing it” can lead to an arrest, accident, violent crime, or death.

* Obey all local laws, and remember they might be different from our own. Don’t carry or use drugs, as this can result in severe penalties. Don’t carry weapons either—some countries have strict laws, and even possessing something as small as a pocketknife or a single bullet can get you into legal trouble.

* Before you leave for your trip, learn as much as possible about your destination at our website dedicated to student travelers: studentsabroad.state.gov. Here, you can find out about entry requirements, crime, health precautions, and road conditions.

* Enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP). This program keeps students up-to-date with important safety and security announcements, such as Travel Warnings, Travel Alerts, and security messages.

• Keep in touch with your parents. If you will be without Internet or phone service for a few days, let them know. We receive many calls from parents who fear the worst when they have not heard from their children. In most cases, their child is fine, but has been too busy to check in.

• Remember to wear clean underwear and, for heaven’s sake, floss regularly!

This last one, Al admits, "we made up."

The State Department media release notes in conclusion: "Of course, even well-prepared travelers may face an emergency, like a lost passport or an injury. In those cases, our embassies and consulates are available to help 24/7. Be sure to write down the contact information for the U.S. embassy or consulate in your destination country." And there's a link for "members of the media who wish to speak about Spring Break travel tips with an official from the State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs."

#