Bolton: Personal Gain Is At The Heart Of Trump Family Decision-Making On U.S. Foreign Policy

Yesterday, South Carolina Republican Mark Sanford ended his half-assed primary challenge to Trump. He went out with a whimper. "The party," he said, "is populated by some really great people, but it’s underserved or misled by too many in leadership positions-- and I think President Trump and his approach has exacerbated this." And that was it. The other two Republicans sill trying to mount primary challenges against Trump, Bill Weld and Joe Walsh, are being blocked by the completely Trumpified Republican Party establishment and aren't making any headway either.

Meanwhile, Fox News has eliminated all but one of the few voices that have ever spoken up against Trump's excesses. The last remaining Fox personality who ever challenges Trump is the network's legal analyst Andrew Napolitano. On Monday, AP's David Bauder reported that "More than two decades into his career as a commentator at Fox News Channel, Andrew Napolitano reached a milestone of sorts when he was called a 'fool' on his own network. Not to his face, of course. But Tucker Carlson guest Joseph diGenova’s dismissal of Napolitano for saying that soliciting campaign aid from a foreign government is against the law illustrates the awkward place that the former New Jersey Superior Court judge finds himself in at Fox during the Trump era."

Napolitano has defended an impeachment inquiry that many Trump supporters call unfair, noting it follows rules written by Republicans. He said the White House counsel’s arguments against the process were “profoundly misguided,” and described Trump’s since-withdrawn proposal to host a summit of world leaders at his Miami resort as a constitutional violation “about as direct and profound ... as one could create.” He has questioned how seriously Trump takes his oath of office, and said he governs like a mafia don.

The commentator’s assertion that Robert Mueller had found 10 instances of obstruction of justice that could have resulted in a criminal indictment if Trump hadn’t been president earned him an angry tweet from the White House. “He’s beginning to sound like Judge Shepard Smith,” said Tim Graham, director of media analysis at the conservative Media Research Center.

It was Smith, the since-departed Fox News anchor who occasionally fact-checked claims by Fox opinion hosts, who came to Napolitano’s defense after diGenova’s remark on Sept. 24. Smith called the attack repugnant.

“It just sort of rolls off my back,” Napolitano said in an interview. “I realize that when you’re in this business-- and I’m on the opinion side, not the news side-- that it’s going to ruffle some feathers. I never take it personally.”

He suspects his opinions have cost him airtime on Fox, although he says it can be cyclical. While he appears regularly on the “Fox & Friends” morning show, he’s invisible on the prime-time opinion shows hosted by Carlson, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham. Many of his commentaries appear online, taped on the plaza outside of Fox’s Manhattan headquarters.

Does he think some of his colleagues resent his opinions? “I don’t think so,” Napolitano said. “I think they’re mature enough to respect intellectual honesty.”

...When asked whether Trump should be impeached, Napolitano said that is a political judgment.

“If I could modify your question to ask if there’s a legal basis to argue high crimes and misdemeanors, then the answer is yes,” he said. “That’s really beyond dispute ... If I were a Democrat in the House, which I am not and never will be, I would vote to impeach.”

And if he were a Republican in the Senate?

“I think they’re going to find some of his behavior difficult to defend,” he said.

And then-- more interestingly and, for Trump, more dangerously-- is Bolton. Yesterday NBC News reporters Stephanie Ruhle and Carol E. Lee penned a piece about what an existential threat Bolton has been turning into for Trump. Last week, at Morgan Stanley’s global investment event in Miami, Bolton, as part of a private speech, derided Trump's whole approach to foreign policy and was particularly acidic towards the laughable roles played by Ivanka and Kushner-in-law. Bolton "painted a dark image of a president and his family whose potential personal gain is at the heart of decision-making." Ruhle and Lee wrote that "According to six people who were there, Bolton also questioned the merits of Trump applying his business acumen to foreign policy, saying such issues can’t be approached like the win-or-lose edict that drives real estate deals: When one doesn’t work, you move on to the next. The description was part of a broader portrait Bolton outlined of a president who lacks understanding of the interconnected nature of relationships in foreign policy and the need for consistency, these people said... Bolton is a potential linchpin witness in the inquiry into Trump’s efforts to elicit help from the Ukrainian government to investigate the family of former Vice President Joe Biden, given his central role in the White House during that time."

Bolton told the gathering of Morgan Stanley’s largest hedge fund clients that he was most frustrated with Trump over his handling of Turkey, people who were present said. Noting the broad bipartisan support in Congress to sanction Turkey after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan purchased a Russian missile defense system, Bolton said Trump’s resistance to the move was unreasonable, four people present for his speech said.

Bolton said he believes there is a personal or business relationship dictating Trump’s position on Turkey because none of his advisers are aligned with him on the issue, the people present said.

The Trump Organization has a property in Istanbul, and the president's daughter Ivanka Trump attended the opening with Erdogan in 2012. Though it’s a leasing agreement for use of the Trump name, Trump himself said in a 2015 interview that the arrangement presented “a little conflict of interest” should he be elected.

During an Oct. 6 phone call with Erdogan, Trump agreed to pull back U.S. troops from northeast Syria so Turkish forces could launch an attack against America’s Kurdish allies in the area. The presence of U.S. forces had deterred Erdogan from invading Syria, which he had threatened to do for years. Trump’s decision, followed by an order for all U.S. troops to exit Syria, was widely criticized even among the president’s Republican allies and was seen by many as a gift to the Turkish leader.

Erdogan is set to visit the White House on Wednesday.

Like other former Trump advisers, Bolton said regardless of how much evidence is provided to Trump that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, the president refuses to take any action because he views any move against Moscow as giving credence to the notion that his election is invalid, the people present for Bolton's remarks said.

At one point in his closed-door remarks, Bolton was asked what he thinks will happens in January 2021 if Trump is re-elected, people present for his remarks said. Bolton responded by taking a swipe at Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and Ivanka Trump-- both of whom are senior White House advisers-- and Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, three people familiar with his remarks said.

Bolton said Trump could go full isolationist-- with the faction of the Republican Party that aligns with Paul’s foreign policy views taking over the GOP-- and could withdraw the U.S. from NATO and other international alliances, three people present for his remarks said.

...Bolton has been writing a book, having reached a deal with Simon & Schuster, and people present for his remarks in Miami said he suggested to the audience several times that if they read it, there would be much more material along the lines of what was in his speech.

The Three Stooges Take To The Pages Of The Washington Post

The 3 Stooges by Nancy Ohanian

Mark Sanford (SC), Joe Walsh (IL) and William Weld (MA) don't have anything in common except that they are Republicans who hate Trump and are "running" for the Republican nomination against him. The party isn't interested in their criticisms of Trump and they are being largely ignored even though Sanford is a former governor and congressman, Walsh was a congressman and tea party firebrand and Weld was a distinguished governor and ambassador. Even if the Republican establishment-- and voters-- yawn at the mention of their campaigns, the Washington Post revels in the puny challenges to Trump. Yesterday readers woke up to a joint op-ed by the three of them-- without the Nancy Ohanian cartoon of Trump's characterization of his opposition.

The three of us are running for the Republican nomination for president in a race that will inevitably highlight differences among us on matters of policy, style and background. But we are brought together not by what divides us but by what unites us: a shared conviction that the United States needs a strong center-right party guided by basic values that are rooted in the best of the American spirit.

A president always defines his or her party, and today the Republican Party has taken a wrong turn, led by a serial self-promoter who has abandoned the bedrock principles of the GOP. In the Trump era, personal responsibility, fiscal sanity and rule of law have been overtaken by a preference for alienating our allies while embracing terrorists and dictators, attacking the free press and pitting everyday Americans against one another.

No surprise, then, that the latest disgrace, courtesy of Team Trump, is an effort to eliminate any threats to the president’s political power in 2020. Republicans have long held primaries and caucuses to bring out the best our party has to offer. Our political system assumes an incumbent president will make his case in front of voters to prove that he or she deserves to be nominated for a second term. But now, the Republican parties of four states-- Arizona, Kansas, Nevada and South Carolina-- have canceled their nominating contests. By this design, the incumbent will be crowned winner of these states’ primary delegates. There is little confusion about who has been pushing for this outcome.

What does this say about the Republican Party? If a party stands for nothing but reelection, it indeed stands for nothing. Our next nominee must compete in the marketplace of ideas, values and leadership. Each of us believes we can best lead the party. So does the incumbent. Let us each take our case to the public. The saying “may the best man win” is a quintessential value that the Republican Party must honor if we are to command the respect of the American people. Cowards run from fights. Warriors stand and fight for what they believe. The United States respects warriors. Only the weak fear competition.

Across the aisle, the Democratic primary challengers are still engaged in a heated competition of debates, caucuses and primaries to give their voters in every corner of our country a chance to select the best nominee. Do Republicans really want to be the party with a nominating process that more resembles Russia or China than our American tradition? Under this president, the meaning of truth has been challenged as never before. Under this president, the federal deficit has topped the $1 trillion mark. Do we as Republicans accept all this as inevitable? Are we to leave it to the Democrats to make the case for principles and values that, a few years ago, every Republican would have agreed formed the foundations of our party?

It would be a critical mistake to allow the Democratic Party to dominate the national conversation during primary and caucus season. Millions of voters looking for a conservative alternative to the status quo deserve a chance to hear alternate ideas aired on the national stage. Let us argue over the best way to maximize opportunities in our communities for everyday Americans while the Democrats debate the merits of government intervention. Let us spend the next six months attempting to draw new voters to our party instead of demanding fealty to a preordained choice. If we believe our party represents the best hope for the United States’ future, let us take our message to the public and prove we are right.

Trump loyalists in the four states that have canceled their primaries and caucuses claim that President Trump will win by a landslide, and that it is therefore a waste of money to invest in holding primaries or caucuses. But since when do we use poll numbers as our basis for deciding whether to give voters an opportunity to choose their leaders, much less their presidents? Answer: We don’t.

Besides, the litigation costs these four state parties will likely be forced to take on in defending legal challenges to the cancellations will almost certainly exceed the cost of holding the primaries and caucuses themselves.

In the United States, citizens choose their leaders. The primary nomination process is the only opportunity for Republicans to have a voice in deciding who will represent our party. Let those voices be heard.

By Unanimous Consent: Señor Trumpanzee Was Always Unfit For The Presidency

From the editors of USA Today 3 years ago: "In the 34-year history of USA Today, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now."

This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates-- Republican nominee Donald Trump-- is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.

From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.

Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.

Read the whole editorial here. They summarized their reasons by citing 8 overall disqualifiers. Has anything changed since he occupied the White House-- other than the incontestable fact that he's gotten worse?

• He is erratic.
• He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief.
• He traffics in prejudice.
• His business career is checkered.
• He isn’t leveling with the American people.
• He speaks recklessly.
• He has coarsened the national dialogue.
• He’s a serial liar.

Mark Sanford Says He Doesn't Want To Be A Human Piñata, But...

About 3 weeks ago, former South Carolina governor and congressman announced he would probably be announcing a primary challenge to Trump. A practiced liar and career-long phony-- kind of a southern, more genteel version of Trump-- Sanford made a concerted attempt to sound authentic and accessible in his campaign video: "You can track me down at 843-737-1888..." I called and spoke with his secretary for 10 minutes. She said she's have him call me back. It's been 3 weeks; still waiting.

This morning he officially announced he's running on Fox News (video below). His campaign theme is "Sanford: Fiscal Conservative."

[The announcement] comes less than 24 hours after the South Carolina Republican Party voted nearly unanimously not to hold a GOP primary election in the state next year in a sign of loyalty to Trump-- a move being replicated by three other states.

But Sanford has indicated he’s aware of the daunting challenges ahead and the extent to which he will be marginalized by members of his own party, including those in his home state.

He said he plans to run on a platform of restoring fiscal discipline to government decision-making, arguing that politicians-- including the current president-- are doing little to protect the country from an economic meltdown under the weight of the rising national debt.

“No one ‘leading’ in Washington is leading, or even speaking of, our financial predicament,” Sanford said in his email message.

“Presidential races focus our attention to politics and have historically been the stage on which we debate where we go next as a country,” he continued. “If we don’t do it this year, we put that national debate off until the next presidential election cycle. I don’t believe we have five more years before inaction guarantees a day of financial reckoning.”


...In declaring his candidacy, Sanford emphasized he would not make the race personal to Trump. It’s a notable strategy given that the president has gone out of his way to publicly criticize and humiliate Sanford-- on Twitter, at campaign rallies in South Carolina and even in front of Sanford’s former colleagues on Capitol Hill.

“Can you believe it? I’m at 94% approval in the Republican Party, and have Three Stooges running against me,” Trump tweeted most recently, referring to former Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh and ex-Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, two other Republicans pursuing primary challenges. “One is ‘Mr. Appalachian Trail’ who was actually in Argentina for bad reasons.”


...Sanford’s desire to make the race issue-focused could ultimately have the effect of failing to energize and mobilize disenchanted Republicans who desperately want to beat Trump in large part because they find his character and behavior unbecoming of the presidency.

Walsh, for instance, has called Trump “completely unfit” for the office in which he serves-- a rallying cry the “Never Trump” contingent longs to hear from one of their own.

Sanford, in contrast, recently told NBC that while he didn’t believe Trump deserved a second term in office, he would still vote for Trump in 2020 if the president gets re-nominated.

As of Sunday, it was still unclear who, if anyone, Sanford has hired to help run his campaign, beyond volunteers or a couple of communications aides.

Members of the close-knit team he fostered during his previous political endeavors have said they don’t plan to join him on this campaign. In a sign of what support he’ll get from fellow South Carolina Republicans, a crowd of conservatives heckled him in late August when he attended U.S. Rep. Jeff Duncan’s annual Faith and Freedom Barbecue in Anderson.

It was the the says after my primary loss last June that a buddy of mine called and said 'God just cleared your calendar for a reason; I know what it is." But, no, the buddy didn't want Sanford to come over to help him re-paint his house. He told him God wanted him to primary Señor Trumpanzee. So he is-- on one issue-- the federal deficit. And Trump immediately dubbed him, along with Bill Weld and Joe Walsh, "the three stooges." The GOP, now the Trump Party, reacted with hostility. On Saturday, the South Carolina Republican Party declared there would be no primary next year and Kansas and Nevada are doing easily manipulated causes instead of primaries. The Arizona GOP has also promised the Trump campaign that they will do something to prevent any expression of negativity towards Trump.

"They're more worried than they let on," said Bill Kristol, a #NeverTrump Republican who is trying to encourage primary challengers.

"If you are confident, if you're Donald Trump, if these are just minor irritants, you know what, you beat them all, you crush them all in the primaries and everyone says, 'Wow, look how strong Donald Trump is,' " Kristol said. "If you're shutting down primaries, you're a little nervous about how the dynamic of these primary challenges could go."

Kristol's hope is that one of these long-shot candidates starts to gain traction-- or that someone else gets into the race with an even better chance-- and that somehow, Trump is denied the nomination.

Kristol readily admits "that's unlikely." So a secondary goal is to bruise Trump enough to hurt his chances come November 2020.

That's what happened, most recently, in 1992, when Pat Buchanan challenged George H.W. Bush in the Republican primary and earned enough delegates to get a prominent speaking slot at the convention. Bush lost that November to Bill Clinton. Since then, presidents of both parties have successfully avoided a similar fate.

What Will Mark Sanford Do? Will It Matter?

The video above is a pre-announcement of Mark Sanford's run-- or possible run-- for president. He handed out his office number for people to call him. I did. A handler eventually agreed to pass my name and number along to him.

Sanford comes from a whacky Florida family. His wealthy parents-- dad was a cardiothoracic surgeon-- insisted the whole family share one bedroom during the summers in order to save electricity. That vignette actually helps people understand who Sanford is politically. Back in the mid-'90s I saw him as a hard right member of Congress with a libertarian bent on some politically-correct issues-- libertarian on wrecking the federal government, not so libertarian about women's Choice or LGBTQ equality for example. The Cato Institute named him the most fiscally conservative member of Congress.

A real estate agent, he ran for the open seat Arthur Ravenel (father of the nut from Southern Charm) gave up in 1994. Democrats didn't bother to field candidates against him when he ran for reelection in 1996 and 1998. He made a name for himself by for voting against bills that otherwise got unanimous support, like the time he voted against a bill that preserved sites linked to the Underground Railroad-- a very convenient way to appeal to backward voters in Beaufort, Berkeley and Dorchester counties if not in Charleston. He voted against pork barrel projects even when they benefited his own district, infuriating some of his own constituents by opposing a defense appropriations bill that included funds for Charleston's harbor. A political careerist, he insisted on painting himself as a "citizen-legislator"-- retiring from the House to keep his promise to serve only 3 terms-- but then immediately turning around and running for governor.

He beat the Democratic incumbent and embarked upon a rocky couple of terms, despite the GOP controlling the whole state government. Chris Haire of the Charleston City Paper shared his insights into Sanford in a 2014 state-by-state rundown of the country's worst politicians. "Until June 2009," wrote Haire, "Mark Sanford was little more than a buffoon in C Street slacks and a sensible libertarian sports jacket from the clearance rack at Kohl's. During his first term as governor of South Carolina and most of his second, there were laughs aplenty. He took two piglets into the Statehouse to protest earmarks. One was named Pork, the other Barrel-- natch-- and one, if not both, promptly shat on the floor during Sanford's important presser.

Then there was the time when the Legislature overrode, or nearly overrode, all of his vetoes. We're not sure if that was in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, or 2009 because it seemed to happen every year. And then there was Sanford's general weirdness. When he was a child, his well-to-do family slept in the same room during the summer to conserve electricity, and when his father died, guess who made the coffin-- Mark. During his gubernatorial years, Sanford liked to dig holes with a hydraulic excavator back at his country farm in order to relax-- unfortunately, a child fell into one of those holes and died.

But then came some real creepiness. It began when Sanford apparently told his staff he was taking off to hike the Appalachian Trail, but instead he flew to Argentina on the taxpayer's dime to be with his mistress.

Upon his return home, the Luv Guv gave a strangely honest but extremely uncomfortable confession on live television. Much to everyone's surprise, the Bible-beating members of the South Carolina Statehouse didn't demand his immediate resignation-- and this was even after they had read his erotic poetry. Shortly after Sanford's affair became public, his wife Jenny divorced him and wrote a tell-all book (the governor once gave her a piece of paper for her birthday featuring a drawing of half of a bicycle, and the next year he gave her a drawing with the other half, along with a $25 used bike). Jenny also filed a complaint with the court after Mark repeatedly trespassed on her property; he even hung out at her home during the Super Bowl when she wasn't there.

And get this, he flew airplanes at their two sons. Yes, you read that correctly-- he flew airplanes at his children, whatever that means, according to a divorce documents. But despite all of that-- the cheating, the lying, the stalking, and North By Northwest-style terrorizing-- Sanford ran for his old U.S. House seat and won. Now he can take his mistress out to eat in D.C. without meeting the disapproving eyes of his constituents back home in Charleston.

He managed to escape impeachment, shrugged off a 102–11 censure vote, and finished his second term as governor (2011) and-- even more incredibly-- turned right around and ran for his old congressional seat-- and won! It was an open seat and 16 Republicans contested the primary making Sanford's name recognition the decisive factor. Endorsed by Nikki Haley, John Boehner, reality TV star Tom Ravenel, Rand and Ron Paul, Lindsey Graham, he beat Steven Colbert's sister in the general election. He was also endorsed by pornograhpher Larry Flynt: "His open embrace of his mistress in the name of love, breaking his sacred marriage vows, was an act of bravery that has drawn my support."

He was re-elected in 2014 and 2016 without opposition and then... along came Trumpanzee. Trump backed him in 2016 but almost as soon as Trump occupied the White House, Sanford realized what a dreadful mistake he had made and began criticizing him regularly. In the first term he voted against Trump more frequently but all but 3 House Republicans. Trump opposed him during the 2018 primary and endorsed state Rep. Katie Arrington who defeated Sanford by less than 3 thousand votes.

Arrington was then defeated by Blue Dog Joe Cunningham, currently the most conservative Democrat in the House and the most likely to lose his seat next year. But my bet is that Sanford doesn't join the half dozen Republicans already in the primary (and the half dozen actively considering running) but runs against Trump instead, perhaps as a Republican, perhaps as a Libertarian, which could actually hurt Trump even more. He's in New Hampshire today-- no public events, but "quietly having meetings with individuals he trusts to give him honest feedback on the best political path forward."

And, no, he didn't call back

"...As We Sleepwalk Our Way Towards The Most Predictable Financial Crisis In The History Of Man"

There wasn't a policy of his I ever agreed with when Sanford was a congressman the first time, nor while he was governor, nor when he rejoined Congress. And I still don't. When he hits on a truth-- example: Trump is a shit head who is wrecking our country-- his analysis is never correct. Same goes for shit-for-brains professional centrist and NY Times columnist Thomas Friedman. His latest column-- with the click-bait title ‘Trump’s Going to Get Re-elected, Isn’t He?'-- is little more than a gussied up neo-liberal plea for "serious" Democrats and #NeverTrumpers to nominate anyone but Bernie.

Friedman and his wealthy circle were horrified in June when Democratic presidential candidates talked about fundamentally changing the system that has been so very good to those, like Friedman, in the top 1%. Status Quo Joe was tailor-made for Friedman. If he didn't already exist, they would have to create him-- or draft Gina Raimondo, the neoliberal Wall Street shill from Rhode Island. He's their man. And if he wasn't before-- all those decades of racism can be embarrassing to pretend liberals-- those comments about how "nothing would fundamentally change" clinched it.

I was shocked that so many candidates in the party whose nominee I was planning to support want to get rid of the private health insurance covering some 250 million Americans and have “Medicare for all” instead. I think we should strengthen Obamacare and eventually add a public option.

I was shocked that so many were ready to decriminalize illegal entry into our country. I think people should have to ring the doorbell before they enter my house or my country.

I was shocked at all those hands raised in support of providing comprehensive health coverage to undocumented immigrants. I think promises we’ve made to our fellow Americans should take priority, like to veterans in need of better health care.

And I was shocked by how feeble was front-runner Joe Biden’s response to the attack from Kamala Harris-- and to the more extreme ideas promoted by those to his left.

So, I wasn’t surprised to hear so many people expressing fear that the racist, divisive, climate-change-denying, woman-abusing jerk who is our president was going to get re-elected, and was even seeing his poll numbers rise.

Dear Democrats: This is not complicated! Just nominate a decent, sane person, one committed to reunifying the country and creating more good jobs, a person who can gain the support of the independents, moderate Republicans and suburban women who abandoned Donald Trump in the midterms and thus swung the House of Representatives to the Democrats and could do the same for the presidency. And that candidate can win!

But please, spare me the revolution! It can wait. Win the presidency, hold the House and narrow the spread in the Senate, and a lot of good things still can be accomplished. “No,” you say, “the left wants a revolution now!” O.K., I’ll give the left a revolution now: four more years of Donald Trump.




That will be a revolution.

Four years of Trump feeling validated in all the crazy stuff he’s done and said. Four years of Trump unburdened by the need to run for re-election and able to amplify his racism, make Ivanka secretary of state, appoint even more crackpots to his cabinet and likely get to name two right-wing Supreme Court justices under the age of 40.

Yes sir, that will be a revolution!

It will be an overthrow of all the norms, values, rules and institutions that we cherish, that made us who we are and that have united us in this common project called the United States of America.

If the fear of that doesn’t motivate the Democratic Party’s base, then shame on those people. Not all elections are equal. Some elections are a vote for great changes-- like the Great Society. Others are a vote to save the country. This election is the latter.

That doesn’t mean a Democratic candidate should stand for nothing, just keep it simple: Focus on building national unity and good jobs.

I say national unity because many Americans are terrified and troubled by how bitterly divided, and therefore paralyzed, the country has become. There is an opening for a unifier.

And I say good jobs because when the wealth of the top 1 percent equals that of the bottom 90 percent, we do have to redivide the pie. I favor raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans to subsidize universal pre-K education and to reduce the burden of student loans. Let’s give kids a head start and college grads a fresh start.

But I’m disturbed that so few of the Democratic candidates don’t also talk about growing the pie, let alone celebrating American entrepreneurs and risk-takers. Where do they think jobs come from?

The winning message is to double down on redividing the pie in ways that give everyone an opportunity for a slice while also growing the pie sustainably.

Trump is growing the pie by cannibalizing the future. He is creating a growth spurt by building up enormous financial and carbon debts that our kids will pay for.

Democrats should focus on how we create sustainable wealth and good jobs, which is the American public-private partnership model: Government enriches the soil and entrepreneurs grow the companies.

It has always been what’s made us rich, and we’ve drifted away from it: investing in quality education and basic scientific research; promulgating the right laws and regulations to incentivize risk-taking and prevent recklessness and monopolies that can cripple free markets; encouraging legal immigration of both high-energy and high-I.Q. foreigners; and building the world’s best enabling infrastructure-- ports, roads, bandwidth and basic social safety nets.

Ask Gina Raimondo, Rhode Island’s governor, and my kind of Democrat.

And Biden's kind of running mate... if they're going to force him to pick a girl? Literally a Blue state Republican who calls herself a Democrat because of abortion and for no other reason whatsoever. She may be Thomas Friedman's-- and other neo-liberals'-- wet dream, but I can't think of many Democrats less fit for the presidency than Joe Biden... but Gina Raimondo, who nearly ran until she did the polling, is certainly one of them. Andrew Cuomo too.

Meanwhile the big-money Democratic funders have made their decision about who to back. As anyone would have guessed, they've always wanted Status Quo Joe and have banked on McKinsey Pete in case-- as is likely-- Biden self-destructs. And then there's Kamala, another one who has always been on good terns with the very wealthy. These bundlers raised tens of millions of dollars for Clinton and for Obama and now are just thinking about one thing: stopping the one candidate who is for fundamental; change. Career-long Wall Street shills Booker, Gllibrand and Klobuchar have also done very well. They usually give to multiple candidates...but not Bernie.

Politico looked at 1,923 big donors and bundlers who gave to Obama and Hillary. Give to anyone you want at the DWT thermometer on the right. Here's how the money flowed in terms of the number of big donors and fundraisers:

• Status Quo Joe- 253
• Kamala Harris- 246
• McKiney Pete- 224
• Cory Booker- 152
• Amy Klobuchar- 113
• Gillibrand- 106
• Beto- 60
• Michael Bennet- 48
• Jay Inslee- 46
• Bullock- 42
• Frackenlooper- 39
• Elizabeth Warren- 39
• Castro- 19
• Delaney- 15
• Moulton- 12
• Tim Ryan- 11
• de Blasio- 7
• Eric Swalwell- 7
• Marianne Williamson- 5
• Andrew Yang- 4
• Bernie- 4
• Tulsi- 2

One of them, obviously delusional, said, with a straight face, "Electability is the most important thing. We just want a candidate that can beat Trump. You invest in candidates that are delivering as a candidate, or that polling tells you has a good shot to beat Trump."

How Big Will The Anti-Red Wave Be?

Joe Cunningham (SC) & Amy McGrath (KY)-- their races will be the 1st reported. If they both win, the  Republicans will lose 60 seats

Next Tuesday we may have an idea how big the wave is going to be because of something that happens in South Carolina. SC-01 is, generally speaking, the coast-- not counting the stretch from Georgetown to Myrtle Beach and the North Carolina border. It includes most of Charleston (the white parts of the city), stretches down through Beaufort to Hilton Head and takes in a lump of inland country northwest of Charleston to Summerville and Moncks Corner as far north as Lake Moultrie. The PVI is R+10 but Trump (53.5%) didn't do as well as either McCain (56.1%) or Romney (58.3%). I'll guess it's the least Trumpified of the 6 red districts in the state. And the Republican candidate for Congress this cycle, Katie Arrington, is pure Trump. With Trump's help she ousted Mark Sanford in the GOP primary and now she has to face Democrat Joe Cunningham. People will still be voting in most of the country when South Carolina polls close on Tuesday. If Cunningham wins, it will signal a humongous Democratic wave is sweeping the country. Can he?

Well... as of the October 17 FEC reporting deadline he had outraged her $1,908,175 to $1,313,382 and outside spending has been modest on both sides. A very conservative 538 underestimates his chances, which are not great to start with.

In June, soon after Arrington beat Sanford 33,089 (50.6%) to 30,428 (46.5%), she was in a serious auto accident suffering a broken ribs and a back fracture that have kept her from vigorous campaigning. There hasn't been any public polling since the end of August when PPP found Arrington leading Cunningham 49-42%. What's changed since then? Cunningham has become much better known. And Trump has become more disgusting than ever. This week the Post And Courier reported that Sanford won't endorse Arrington. "Sanford’s silence," wrote Caitlin Byrd, "comes as Arrington’s race with Democrat Joe Cunningham is showing signs of being much closer than Republicans envisioned months ago, with the National Republican Congressional Committee on Monday sinking $87,000 into TV ads on her behalf.

The buy signals the race could be more competitive than initially thought, experts say, in a district traditionally considered “safe Republican.”

“She’s in a fight,” College of Charleston political scientist Jordan Ragusa said of Arrington. “She is still likely to win that fight, but it’s going to be a tough battle.”

...The fact the NRCC is investing at all in this race is raising eyebrows among political watchers.

If Arrington wins in an R+11 district it won't say anything at all about the rest of the night's results. If Cunningham wins, the GOP nationally should be on suicide watch. J.D. Scholten's district is also R+11. But the next bellwether seat that will probably be reporting is KY-06 (with an R+9 PVI), where Democrat Amy McGrath has outraised Republican incumbent Andy Barr $7,767,610 to $4,778,302 and has him on the ropes. Ryan's sleazoid SuperPAC has felt that it had to jump in to save his seat and has spent $3,237,558 smearing McGrath. The DCCC and Pelosi's PAC responded weakly with around $1.3 million. If Cunningham and McGrath both win, Republicans waiting on line to vote in Orange County and the Central Valley will stop waiting and start to drift home, understanding that they've lost the House-- by a lot. Cunningham and McGrath victories will signal that the pundits and pros had it all wrong again and that the Democrats won't be taking 25 seats by closer to three times that number!

So what happened to all that GOP enthusiasm because of Kavanaugh? It motivated more Democrats than Republicans. And Trump's rallies? They're  motivating more Democrats (and independents) than Republicans. If anything, the hate rallies are actually turning off mainstream Republicans! The frontlines are mow deep in the heart of Republican territory... like the aforementioned districts in South Carolina, Iowa and Kentucky. No, Democrats can't wage plausible battles against Mo Brooks or Rob Aderholt in Alabama or in the Florida, Texas and Oklahoma panhandles, serious fighting in those districts would be like Republicans trying to win inner city districts in Chicago, Baltimore, Newark, Los Angeles and New York. Instead, there are no longer any safe GOP seats in California... and Orange County-- once the soul of the party-- is about to be free of Republicans completely. Washington state has 4 GOP-held seats. 3 of them are all but gone. Democrats-- if not the lame and short-sighted DCCC-- are fighting seriously for Amish country in Pennsylvania, for Wichita, Kansas, for severely gerrymandered Texas districts, for at-large seats in Alaska and Montana... even for seats in West Virginia.

It looks like this is the year that women take their revenge on the GOP for its anti-family agenda, its anti-education agenda, for its anti-women agenda, for its gun agenda, its pollution agenda, and for the divisiveness, bullying and immoral essence of its contemptible leader. Here's where they get pay-back for the enabling and the rubber stamp attitude just when a Congress with some guts and dignity is most demanded. You think Kavanaugh is going to help GOP incumbents with women in suburban districts.

And the #MAGAbomber Trump rally nut from Florida and the murderous #MAGAshooter in Pittsburgh... you think women appreciate that? Or independent voters. That was a last straw for many-- even in Republican strongholds in Utah, Kansas, North Carolina... where the party never expected to be forced to spend millions of Sheldon Adelson's dollars to defend incumbents in carefully gerrymandered seats Trump won on auto-pilot.

Writing for super-cautious RealClear Politics, Sean Trende reports the outdated conventional wisdom that even he doesn't believe: "The consensus view is that Democrats are favored to take the lower chamber. Analysts disagree on just how large a majority they are likely to win, and how likely that majority is. If you split the RealClearPolitics tossups in half, it results in Democrats gaining about 25 seats, for a narrow 220-215 majority. I tend to think that the tossups will break disproportionately toward Democrats, and see something more on the order of a 225-210 Democratic majority." It's hard to realistically see the Republicans with 200 seats.

He also admits that almost all their House polling comes from a gimmicky and totally unreliable source, the worst polling operation of the cycle-- sillier than GOP polling firm Rasmussen: "[M]ost of our House race polling has come from the New York Times, in partnership with Siena.  On the one hand, this is good, because without them we would have virtually no polling. On the other hand, polling is both an art and a science, and having a disproportionate amount of our data coming from a single view of what the electorate looks like increases the chances of" absurd assumptions and ridiculous mistakes. (My words, not his.)

YES, IT'S TREASON

Lenin-Trump Doctrine by Chip Proser

According to the law, the federal crime of treason is committed by a person “owing allegiance to the United States who... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.” Misprision (abetting) of treason is committed if a person “having knowledge of the commission of treason conceals and does not disclose” the crime."

Trump has certainly captured more than a quick news cycle. His treason on TV-- who ever heard of that-- isn't going away soon. Even before the Helsinki thing happened, Ryan Lizza, in an essay, Vanishing Point for Esquire focussed in on one of the key questions: "As the GOP increasingly comes to resemble a personality cult, is there any red line-- video tapes? DNA evidence? a war with Germany-- President Trump could cross and lose party support? 'Very doubtful,' say a dozen GOP members of Congress stuck hard behind the MAGA eight ball."

Mark Sanford (R-SC) went out of his way to say-- and seemingly out of the blue-- that he's not comparing Trump to Hitler, which is exactly what he was doing. "Like any good conservative," wrote Lizza, "Sanford has studied and reveres Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom, the philosopher-economist’s 1944 account of how dictators take over democracies. Sanford is "worried about America’s political dysfunction, Trump’s 'strongman' affinities, and where that combination could lead. He also brings up the fall of Athenian democracy. 'In part this is not a new movie,' he concluded. 'This is a replaying of a script that’s played throughout the ages, but with incredibly ominous possibilities if we don’t recognize the dangers of the themes that are now at play within American society.'"

Right after the press conference former CIA director John Brennan said flatly that the event was "nothing short of treasonous." When have you seen a tweet like this before?

Brennan, as you know, never worked for Trump. Dan Coats does. Coats, a former Republican senator from Indiana, was appointed by Trump to be Director of National Intelligence, in other words, the guy who oversees all the U.S. intelligence services. After Trump said he believes in the Russian intelligence services as much as the U.S. intelligence services. This is what the idiot blurted out: "My people came to me, Dan Coats came to me and some others. They said they think it’s Russia. I have President Putin, he just said it’s not Russia." Coats' reply:

The role of the Intelligence Community is to provide the best information and fact-based assessments possible for the President and policymakers. We have been clear in our assessments of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and their ongoing, pervasive efforts to undermine our democracy, and we will continue to provide unvarnished and objective intelligence in support of our national security.

He didn't offer an opinion on whether or not Trump is a Russian operative and if he's guilty of treason. But what do you call this that Trump babbled yesterday? "I don’t see any reason why it would be Russia who hacked the opposition party. I have great confidence in my intelligence people. But I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today."

I wonder what Leonard Lance (NJ) will say. He was one of the only Republican congressmen Ryan Lizza found who was-- on the record-- willing to say there is a red line for him over which Trump could not cross and still expect his support: "Personal collusion by Trump with the Russians during the campaign."

Conservative Trump critics fear becoming the next Sanford and stay quiet—what Flake and others call the “don’t poke the bear” mind-set. Meanwhile, many of the moderate anti-Trump Republicans are leaving office. Congressman Ryan Costello, a Republican from Pennsylvania who decided to quit (redistricting gave him a bluer constituency), said, “If I were running for reelection, every single time that I saw on the TV screen that the president was going to hold another rally, I’d be like, ‘Oh, fuck!’ Because he’s going to say fifty things that aren’t accurate.”

Sanford has started to think seriously about what he should do now to contain the forces he says Trump has unleashed. “I came back to Congress worried primarily about debt, deficit, and government spending,” he told me. “This thing, though, given my own personal experiences, has begun to crowd into that space, to say this is a bigger and more clear and present danger to the republic than even the debt and the deficit that I thought was the end of the world.”

I asked Sanford: If he really believed what he said about Trump, shouldn’t he too support a Democratic takeover of the House or Senate? He paused for a long time, perhaps wondering how Friedrich Hayek might answer.

“I don’t know,” he finally said. “I mean, everybody’s going to come up with their own remedy as to what you do next. I wouldn’t say that’s mine.”

But he wouldn’t rule it out.

“I’m not there at this point,” he said. “Let me just take one day at a time.”

Thomas Friedman is pulling his hair out of his head: Trump and Putin vs. America. Is that not an accusation of treason? "My fellow Americans," he wrote, "we are in trouble and we have some big decisions to make today. This was a historic moment in the entire history of the United States."

There is overwhelming evidence that our president, for the first time in our history, is deliberately or through gross negligence or because of his own twisted personality engaged in treasonous behavior-- behavior that violates his oath of office to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Trump vacated that oath today, and Republicans can no longer run and hide from that fact. Every single Republican lawmaker will be-- and should be-- asked on the election trail: Are you with Trump and Putin or are you with the C.I.A., F.B.I. and N.S.A.?

...Putin unleashed a cyberattack on America’s electoral process, aimed at both electing Trump-- with or without Trump’s collusion-- and sowing division among American citizens.

Our intelligence agencies have no doubt about this: Last week, America’s director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, described Putin’s cybercampaign as one designed “to exploit America’s openness in order to undermine our long-term competitive advantage.” Coats added that America’s digital infrastructure “is literally under attack,” adding that there was “no question” that Russia was the “most aggressive foreign actor.”

I am not given to conspiracy theories, but I cannot help wondering if the first thing Trump said to Putin in their private one-on-one meeting in Helsinki, before their aides were allowed to enter, was actually: “Vladimir, we’re still good, right? You and me, we’re still good?”

And that Putin answered: “Donald, you have nothing to worry about. Just keep being yourself. We’re still good.”

I guess when he eventually needs to, Trump can fly off to Moscow and ask for asylum-- though not soon enough for me or anyone I know. Meanwhile, Paul Ryan wants to be really clear-- wellllll.... he wants to be clear enough to not cause a landslide against Republicans in November, but not clear enough to anger Señor Trumpanzee:

Elections Last Night... Some Excitement In South Carolina

Trumpanzee, of course, had to make the primaries all about himself by tweeting an endorsement against South Carolina's Congressman Mark Sanford, whose voting record is pretty pro-Trump (73.1%) in a district where Trump only won with 53.5%-- has called Trump out now and then. Maybe Trump got an idea to attack him yesterday after his meeting with Kim Jong-un, who once killed a general for not applauding him with enough vigor. In any case, everyone in the state knows Sanford because he used to be governor and it is extraordinarily rare for a president to attack an incumbent of his own party. Once the glow of being fucked by Kim Jong-Un wore off, Trump took down the tweet-- this tweet:

Do you watch Southern Charm on TV? SC-01-- most of the state's coast, from Hilton Head through Beaufort and the white parts of Charleston and north beyond McClellanville-- are not really that Trumpish of a district. But Trumpish enough. Largely due to being heavily gerrymandered to put as many African-Americans as possible into Jim Clyburn's 6th CD, the PVI is a prohibitive R+10. The Trump candidate, Katie Arrington, beat Sanford in a 3 person race, the third being Dimitri Cherny, a Berniecrat who switched parties in March. He has a Bernie tattoo on his forearm and has run for Congress twice before (as a Democrat). In November the Democrat running against Arrington will be Joe Cunningham who beat Toby Smith yesterday 60.1% to 39.9%.

• Katie Arrington- 32,499 (50.5%)
• Mark Sanford- 29,969 (46.6%)
• Dimitry Cherny- 1,899 (3.0%)

Meawhile, parenthetically, Senator Bob Corker, got up on the Senate floor yesterday to rip his cowardly Republican colleagues, hours before Sanford lost. Now they'll be even more cowardly... and more likely to serve as his handmaidens and enablers.

In Virginia the only worthwhile congressional race that was worth watching was in the 10th district which includes DC's well-heeled western suburbs, including most of McLean, all of Leesbug, Winchester, Chantilly and Dulles Airport and skirts both the Maryland and West Virginia borders. Incumbent Republican Barbara Comstock is a long-time extremist who has been trying to behave like a mainstream conservative. The DCCC was favoring conservaDem Jennifer Wexton in the 6-person race. The Democratic establishment never learns and they managed to get their worthless and meaningless status quo careerist candidate nominated

• Jennifer Wexton- 22,530 (41.8%)
• Alison Friedman- 12,362 (22.9%)
• Lindsey Stover- 8,660 (16.1%)
• Dan Helmer- 6,738 (12.5%)
• Paul Pelletier- 2,023 (3.8%)
• Julia Biggins- 1,530 (2.8%)

And the KKK guy, Corey Stewart, won the U.S. Senate nomination to run against Tim Kaine. The Republican establishment was sad last night-- and they still are this morning. They don't want their party to be publicly associated with racists and neo-Nazis. Stewart won with 44.8% against Nick Freitas (43.1%) and E.W. Jackson-- maybe even a crazier loon than Stewart-- (12.1%)

Because of the introduction of tiered voting, we won't have the final numbers from Maine until the end of week or possibly next week. But with just over 60% of the votes counted, the progressive candidate in Maine's 2nd congressional district, Jared Golden, was way out front with 50.5% against 2 other candidates, Lucas St. Clair (40.2%) and Craig Olson (9.3%).

With all the hubbub about the primaries today, we don't want to lose track of an extremely important special election that took place in northeastern Wisconsin yesterday, State Senate seat 1-- which includes all of Door and Kewaunee counties and parts of Brown, Manitowoc, Calumet and Outagamie counties.

The former incumbent, state Senator Frank Lasse (R) retired in December to take a position in Scott Walker's administration since his district was so red that Walker seemed sure there was no chance it could possibly flip from red to blue. The Senate seat had gone to Trump by a whopping 18 points in 2016 and in 2014 Walker had won it by 24 points. Oops! Last time Walker made that kind of a calculation, it was for a deep red Senate seat in western Wisconsin, and the special election was won by Democrat Patty Schachtner. Walker, dismayed, called that result a "wake-up call" that should warn Republicans they could be in trouble this fall. He then promptly called off all special elections. He was challenged in the courts and thrashed by the judges, ergo: last night.

Last night, Democrat Caleb Frostman, the former head of the Door County Economic Development Corp, beat state Rep. André Jacque 14,606 (51.4%) to 13,800 (48.6%). The most progressive member of the state Senate, Chris Larson, who worked hard to help Frostman win, was over the moon last night. "This is the third and strongest indication in a few short months that a blue wave is crashing across Wisconsin," he told me. "Wisconsinites are on to the Republican con and nothing is going to keep them from the polls. Underwater, we’ve seen the largest cuts to education, an unbridled attack on the working class, our environment put in danger, and a degradation of our culture of open, transparent government. We are ready to move forward with strong, progressive candidates like Caleb Frostman. Caleb has a background in economic development and knows that helping businesses doesn’t  have to come at the expense of students or access to healthcare. I am proud to pass him the baton of the youngest Democrat in our senate caucus and look forward to working with him to ensure we have even more people fighting for the working class after this fall's elections."

This seat will be up for reelection in November. The Republican control Wisconsin's state Senate is just 17-15 so very winnable by the Democrats in this political environment. Randy Bryce, not a public official but a candidate in the southern Wisconsin, also worked hard to help pull Frostman over the finish line. He implored his own supporters to contribute to Frostman's campaign. To some extent Frostman's victory showed the power Bryce has for other Democrats all around the state and all over the country. He's what Democratic solidarity is all about. Last night Bryce told me that "Wisconsin continues to show what a wave is-- working families coming together, no matter what the Beltway or the pundits say, to stick it to those trying to rip apart our futures. Tonight, Caleb Frostman showed that we aren’t splintering, rather he showed we’re growing. Scott Walker, Donald Trump, Brian Steil, you’re not going to fool working people again. Folks are catching on and are ready to make sure you feel it this November."