For The Trumpist Regime, Everything Is Falling Apart

Nothing seems to work. Trump tried negotiating an increase in oil prices but 3 days later they resumed their nose-dive-- as did the stock market (down another 2.4% yesterday). His regime has failed to deliver the emergency $1,200 checks that everyone should have had in their pockets almost a month ago. Betsy DeVos botched the $6 billion emergency funding for college students. And as Trump tells federal employees to prepare to come back to work, the number of confirmed infections shot up by around 20,000 overnight. A new YouGov poll shows that the "Fire Fauci" rallies that the Trumpist regime is promoting aren't working. 71% of Americans are more worried about lifting the restrictions too quickly, rather than too slowly (29%). Even 51% of Republicans say lifting the restrictions too fast are dangerous and that they oppose that. Most Americans-- including a plurality of Republicans-- oppose the Trumpist protestors.

California, which put social distancing rules in place early and entirely ignored Trump's ranting and raving, has just 30 deaths per million people. Compare that to states with governors who insisted on waiting and whose residents waited to take social distancing seriously:

• New York- 957 per million
• New Jersey- 493 per million
• Connecticut- 315 per million
• Louisiana- 285 per million
• Michigan- 248 per million

There are 9 more states with seriously increasing rates of infection that are likely to also show over 200 deaths per million in the next month:

• Ohio- 1,317 new cases yesterday
• Pennsylvania- 1,180 new cases yesterday
• Maryland- 854 new cases yesterday
• Georgia- 790 new cases yesterday
• Louisiana- 595 new cases yesterday
• Indiana- 476 new cases yesterday
• Virginia- 453 new cases yesterday
• Rhode Island- 384 new cases yesterday
• Florida- 346 new cases yesterday
• Iowa- 257 new cases yesterday

A new poll of Michiganders by the Glengariff Group for the Detroit Regional Chamber shows that Michiganders trusts their governor, Gretchen Whitmer considerably more than they trust Trump, who has been attacking her for her social distancing policies, which aren't even that strong and need to be tightened. Her approval on the pandemic is 57% with 37% disapproving. Only 44% approved of Trump's handling of the pandemic and 50% disapproved.





The Associated Press reported yesterday that Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General of the World Health Organization, that said that in terms of the pandemic "the worst is yet ahead of us... It has a very dangerous combination and this is happening… like the 1918 flu that killed up to 100 million people. But now we have technology, we can prevent that disaster, we can prevent that kind of crisis."

Stat's infectious diseases specialist, Helen Branswell, wrote yesterday about the magical thinking behind the inaction of the political class as China was being pounded by the pandemic in January and February, when Trump ignored it or made light of it. "Magical thinking-- you could call it denial-- hampered the ability of even some of the most seasoned infectious diseases experts to recognize the full threat of what was bearing down on the world," she wrote... "The virus, the thinking went, didn’t appear to be behaving as explosively outside of China as it had inside it. In hindsight, that argument, from a biological point of view, didn’t make any sense-- and it ignored a soon-to-be-apparent Epidemiology 101 lesson: It takes time for a virus that spreads from person to person to hit an exponential growth phase in transmission, even if every new case was infecting on average two to three other people. It wasn’t that the virus was behaving differently; we simply hadn’t yet seen what it was doing as it moved beyond China. When large outbreaks exploded in Iran and then Northern Italy in late February, the reality became abundantly evident. And then it was too late."

Some would argue that it was too late after January, 2017, when the orange slug-- a sociopath and narcissist, moved into the white House. Over the weekend, David Masciotra, wondered aloud, at Salon, why Democrats don't level with the American people about Trump's mental illness. "Trump," he wrote, "is the lunatic authority figure stalking and traumatizing the victims-- the American people-- while the Democratic Party, along with the mainstream media, act as the silent partner. It becomes increasingly evident, with Trump's every social media post, public utterance and policy directive, that our president suffers from a severe form of mental illness. His insanity threatens millions of lives, and has become particularly dangerous during the most devastating public health crisis in the last 100 years. For all the criticism that Democrats and pundits advance against Trump, their refusal to state the obvious forces the American public to feel as if we are the ones confined to a mental institution. It also emboldens Trump, even as he prioritizes his fragile ego, his compulsion to appear infallible and political expediency above the lives of countless human beings."

The most popular terms that Trump's opponents use are "liar," "un-American," "egomaniac" and "malignant narcissist." All of these labels are weak, which is why we watch as Trump peels them off like Band-Aids after a shower. Half the public probably doesn't know what "malignant narcissist" means, while "un-American" is too vague and ideological to have any widespread resonance. "Liar" quickly collapses into the "all politicians lie" refrain, and "egomania" is borderline meaningless, considering that almost anyone who becomes famous in our consumer society-- including most high-powered CEOs, Hollywood celebrities and professional athletes-- obviously have massively swollen egos.

...One recent morning-- again, while thousands are dying and the coronavirus ravaged numerous American cities-- Trump tweeted 46 times in a few hours, mostly to mock House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whine about "fake news" and retweet conspiracy theorists arguing for the firing of Dr. Anthony Fauci.

If any of our loved ones behaved in a similar manner, we would plead for psychiatric intervention. One does not have to have the expertise of a psychiatrist at the Yale University School of Medicine to make that assessment, but Dr. Bandy X. Lee, who indeed holds that title, recently told Salon that Trump's "pathological malice," "mental pathology," and "bottomless need to place his own psychic survival above any protection of the public" could "destroy the nation or the world."

...Even as rates of infection and the daily body count escalate, while overwhelmed hospitals lack the equipment to properly care for their patients and protect their workers, Trump displays a horrific failure to empathize with victims, place public need above personal interest or even acknowledge reality. He continues to tout the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine, which so far has shown little if any positive effects on coronavirus patients, and is known to increase the risk of cardiac arrest.

Trump makes decisions that threaten more lives, such as the elimination of U.S. funding for the World Health Organization, which is not only on the front lines against the global spread of COVID-19, but is also central to the campaign against treatable diseases throughout the developing world. He boasted of the creation of a coronavirus website in partnership with Google-- which does not exist and never will-- and has likened his presidential powers to those of a dictator, telling a report that "the authority of the president of the United States is total." (In an entirely typical Trumpian maneuver, he then retreated from that position without acknowledging he had ever said any such thing.)

Unlike other world leaders, who allow their chief medical officials to lead press briefings on the pandemic, the wannabe dictator hosts a surreal press conference nearly every afternoon. This has become a pathological national spectacle, in which Trump insults journalists, makes transparently false claims and answers simple questions, like "What do you say to the Americans who are scared?" with incoherent rage: "I say you're a terrible reporter."

In their cowardice, weakness and lack of imagination, the White House correspondents, the networks and publications they represent, and most Democratic officials offer a hideous illustration of "malignant normality."

Most journalists, adhering to an institutional decorum that might have been appropriate during the Carter administration, ask Trump a question and then dutifully take notes while he blusters through an illiterate response.

Lenore Taylor, an editor with Guardian Australia, offered a reasonable perspective on Trump last year that still eludes her American peers. After attending a White House press conference, she wrote that she realized "how much the reporting of Trump necessarily edits and parses his words, to force it into sequential paragraphs or impose meaning where it is difficult to detect," and concluded that most of journalism "masks and normalizes his full and alarming incoherence."

Major newspapers and television networks largely refuse to publish or air consideration of Trump's mental health, ignoring the consensus of hundreds of the most prestigious academics and doctors in the field.

Dr. Anthony Fauci was recently compelled to grovel before the Dear Leader, insisting that when he had said that earlier adoption of social distancing would have saved lives, he of course intended no criticism of the porcelain president.

For the sake of the country, millions of lives and everyone's sanity, some political figure of national prominence needs to respect the consensus of mental health professionals, and publicly declare that President Donald Trump is mentally unstable and unfit for office. This must be stated in the simplest terms possible, and while making clear that he or she is not joking or issuing the statement for dramatic effect. It is time to liberate American discourse from its self-imposed restraints, and it is essential to the future of American democracy that Trump's mental condition becomes a focal point of urgent investigation and discussion.

Shameless and dishonest operatives on the right have no reticence about making the health of a major Democratic figure part of public inquiry, even when they have to resort to baseless lies. In 2016, many Republican commentators-- from Sean Hannity to Trump himself-- warned that Hillary Clinton was near death, because she appeared wobbly at one public event. Four years later, she is still alive. Currently, discussions of Joe Biden's "dementia," without any clear evidence of cognitive decline, dominate right-wing chatter about the prospective Democratic nominee.

More than a thousand mental health professionals are now on the record declaring that Donald Trump is mentally unfit for office, but leading Democrats still refuse to discuss the issue openly. Amid this pandemic, Democratic cowardice regarding Trump's insanity goes beyond the usual liberal pattern of bringing a pillow to a knife fight. It puts millions of lives at risk.

No Democratic governor, even one with considerable power and influence like California's Gavin Newsom or New York's Andrew Cuomo, can afford to gamble with the health of his or her people by alienating Trump. But a prominent U.S. senator-- perhaps Chris Murphy of Connecticut or Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts-- or even Joe Biden himself, must level with the country about what anyone outside Trump's cult following can see with their own eyes. The president is sick. It's time to talk about it.

A recent profile in the New Yorker of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell quoted a staffer as claiming that behind closed doors McConnell has described Trump as "nuts." Democrats should demand to know if the Republican Senate mastermind truly believes that the president is impaired, and force McConnell to choose between yet more lies and the future of his country.

Democrats should also get over their concerns about angering Trump supporters. Anyone who continues to applaud Trump's weird and reckless disregard for humanity at this point is beyond the limit of rational persuasion. Trump supporters live in a hallucinatory dreamscape under the authority of a maniac. Let them have their anti-social distancing rallies, and allow them to believe that Barack Obama invented COVID-19 shortly after he was born in Kenya.

Rational Americans need to stop enabling this abusive and deranged presidency. Declare Donald Trump insane and, at long last, bring an end to our era of malignant normality.

The Pandemic Is Killing Progressive Congressional Campaigns-- We Can't Let That Happen

You know what's come to a grinding halt? Fundraising for grassroots congressional candidates. Coronavirus fear and the stock market collapse seem to have hit most campaigns across America. I've been hearing from candidates that their call time efforts are yielding less than half of what they were raising last month and that their e-mail programs are doing even worse.

"It is super slow," one progressive candidate up against a well-heeled conservative told me this morning. "I just spent 5 hours doing calls and that resulted in $160 dollars-- and only because I was also calling people to thank them for their February contributions and they contributed again. No new contributions." Another candidate, up against a Trump bootlicker, told me her efforts are "$75,000 behind where we should be for this quarter and are looking at having to cut $1 mill out of our $2,750,000 budget." And a third House candidate said "Fundraising dropped dramatically in a month it should have (and needed to) go up dramatically. We had 12-15 house parties scheduled. A few of them were meant to be big dollar (many people) affairs with a band and everything. We were calculating that we would have enough to have major field operations occurring and do 3 or more mailers. Now we are laying off field organizers at the end of the month because we have very little coming in. Mailers are unlikely. Virtual house parties have not been very successful so far."

Mark Gamba, as an Oregon mayor, is already coping with the pandemic-- while trying to run a congressional campaign for a seat held by one of Congress' most reactionary Blue Dogs, Kurt Schrader. This morning Mark came right to the point: "This is an extraordinary moment in history. No one alive has experienced this. Certainly, no modern political campaigns have been waged when doors are unknockable, houses are unpartyable, and people are truly feeling the need to hunker down, draw in, hoard toilet paper and pray they survive whatever the hell is happening out there.

This should also serve as a clarion call to the left.

We are seeing in stark terms the utter failure of the neo-liberal philosophy. Privatized hospitals for profit, states bidding against one another for critical life saving materials and equipment, people who avoid seeking medical attention because they can’t afford the bill, people working when they are sick because they can’t afford not to. Every single bit of that can be laid at the feet of the neo-liberal establishment.

Make no mistake, it is actually in their play book to use disasters like this to further their agenda-- we should all be watching for the privatization of some other critical service, or the gutting of Social Security, or massive cash out-pouring to the corporations and the one percent. They will attempt it, and most of Congress will go along with it. Maybe all will, because it will by tied to money for critical things like hospital beds and ventilators and voting against that will look heartless.

Now more then ever in the history of our country, do we need a massive influx of new members of congress. Members who are not millionaires, members who didn’t adjust their stock holdings before they warned the American people of the impending disaster. People who actually care about America and its extraordinary people more than they do about profits for a few... [T]his is the time to do everything we can to replace the status quo... Phone bank, text bank and please donate to the campaigns that are doggedly staying the course in order to fix all that is broken.

A couple of days ago, super-progressive Queens candidate Shaniyat Chowdhury sent an e-mail to his supporters explaining the situation:

"The COVID-19 epidemic has taken hold of our lives here in New York 5. We have just begun to adapt to remote work and social distancing for an indefinite period of time. It’s important to keep in mind that this insurgent campaign is full of working class people who are also vulnerable in a number of ways.

As the number of cases rise, we are increasing our efforts as a campaign to participate in and promote Mutual Aid. We will always strive to love our neighbors and take care of our community, no matter the struggles we face.

 ...This is an extraordinary circumstance. In times like these, we need leaders in power who will not only put our public health and safety first but will also fight to secure the necessities that will sustain us through good and bad times.

For example:

We need a $2,000 universal basic income for every American for the duration of this crisis.

We need a universal rent freeze and paid sick and family leave.

We need to make all healthcare costs free. All workers deserve paid sick and family leave, especially now as going to work could mean risking your safety or the safety of loved ones.

We owe a great deal of gratitude to those who continue necessary service work at this time. Those who continue to work on the front lines in hospitals and in grocery stores are truly inspiring!

This campaign is continuing its operations digitally and many of our paid staff are working class people, like you and me, with families to protect at this vulnerable time. Each of our members has participated in Mutual Aid of some sort. I understand that at this time you have other, far more serious, concerns.

Our top priority is to ensure that our incredible staff gets paid. But, with such a slowdown in donations, that is going to be difficult.

If you can, please spare $15 or $20 so that we can pay our working class staff for the next few months so they don't have to worry about the instability that this pandemic has caused for so many. 

When I contacted him directly, Shan told me that "Fundraising was going well the last two months up until this pandemic hit us. It’s been abysmal since. Fundraising is an essential component for a grassroots campaign like ours. Like many who are being laid off and losing jobs right now because of the current situation, campaign staff feel it the most. These campaigns are not just political-- these are full time jobs for them. Without it, they could be jobless. The last thing campaigns want to do it is lay people off or cut hours."

Shaniyat Chowdhury and Robin Wilt-- New York's future

Robin Wilt's New York-- the Rochester area-- is far from Shan's... but their campaigns are suffering the same pandemic problem. This morning she gave me a somber update:

Fundraising in light of the COVID-19 pandemic has been difficult, as you can imagine-- Not just because of the uncertainties ahead, but also because, as an activist, my first priority is assisting the frontline communities that are most directly at risk for immediate impact in this crisis. The first thing our campaign did in the wake of the State of Emergency protocols was transition to mutual aid efforts. We joined with a local food program-- ROC SALT, which operates out of the South Wedge Food Pantry in the city of Rochester (it is now one of the only food pantries operating in all of Monroe County) to deliver food to those in need. In addition to traditional outreach, our phone banking has transitioned to wellness checks on seniors. Our social media outreach has been updates on the ever-changing landscape and protocols in response to mobilizing to stem the spread of COVID-19. Fundraising, as a priority, has shifted in wake of the emergency. We have led by example and in keeping with our principles.

Fundraising also proves difficult because those in a financial secure position to give have suffered tremendous losses in the markets, and those who could only afford small donations are now most at-risk for the dire effects of the pandemic-- from the standpoints of health, housing security, debt burden and education inequity, our frontline communities are struggling even worse than previously. While our Governor, to his credit, was quick to ensure those who carry student loan and mortgage debt were protected from the pandemic, and halted evictions, rent payments were not similarly stabilized. We have also partnered with the Citywide Tenants Union and Citizen Action New York (CANY)-- by whom we were recently endorsed-- in calling for equity in protections for those frontline communities-- like immediately housing the homeless, and halting cuts to Medicaid proposed by Governor Cuomo.

The pandemic has highlighted the very issues that progressive policy has sought to address, as well as the mutuality and intersectionality of our communities. While the pandemic remains the best case for our progressive platforms, our ethic and moral obligation to live our values has necessitated us turning into the leaders that we wish to see during the crisis, and shifted our priorities from the campaign’s individual fundraising goals.

Arizona progressive Eva Putzova noted that "While our opponent got $400,000 from corporate PACs just last year, we depend completely on individual donors. I understand the uncertainty people are dealing with today. The truth is that when the stock market was 'doing well,' too many working people were not. They were living paycheck to paycheck. I'm taking unpaid time off from my day job to continue this campaign because one day, this current global crisis will be over and we need a Congress that will transform our economy, our healthcare, and our attitude toward the climate crisis that is not in any way less significant than the public health crisis we are experiencing. We can't just go to pre-Trump America. And this is why I'm running for Congress and why I need the support of people of good will." She also told me that he online funding raising has taken a major hit. "It’s dismal. Both email and Twitter are delivering very little."

Ditto for Spokane area progressive Chris Armitage, who told me that he "had to cancel major fundraisers and we're switching all operations to digital outreach. Our fundraising is about 25% of what it would be without the public health crisis. Our district had over 10% unemployment before this, and it is now much worse. On the upside we are only a few days from having 100 text bankers mobilized, people are mad as hell and ready to act."

Julie Oliver is another progressive Democrat running for a Republican-held seat in one of the grotesquely gerrymandered Austin-area districts. She won her primary outright-- no runoff-- and now she's organizing and campaigning, digitally, against Texas' most corrupt congressman, swindler Roger Williams. This morning, Julie told me that "As the mother of a child with a compromised immune system, who's physical health could degrade quite rapidly if he came into contact with an infected person (who may or may not have symptoms), taking the threat of the spread and devastation of the coronavirus is something I take quite seriously. We need to hold elections, and one of the simplest ways to ensure that everyone who is eligible and wants to vote can indeed vote is to offer every voter the ability to vote by mail. It's safe; it's cost-effective; it results in a more informed electorate; and it allows the bedrock of our democracy-- voting-- to continue to function in times of uncertainty."

Kentucky state Rep. Charles Booker (D-Louisville) is the progressive candidate taking on Mitch McConnell. There's also a centrist Schumer candidate running in the primary. Like virtually all campaigns, Charles moved his campaign on line. "Like so many Americans, our campaign is making many adjustments to take every precaution and keep moving forward. The movement growing in Kentucky is powered by regular folks, many of whom were already doing their best to survive. Now that jobs are being lost, and businesses are closing, we have seen fundraising slow down as well. We are encouraged to see our support still growing, and we are dedicated ever more toward the goal of making sure Kentucky finally has a U.S. Senator who knows healthcare is a right, and actually gives a damn about us." Charles can certainly use some help, especially when you consider that McConnell's corporately-funded campaign has already taken in an obscene $17,404,905!

Jim Harper and Jennifer Christie are the two progressives with a shot of winning Indiana congressional races. And both have run into the same pandemic falloff everyone else has. Jim told us that his "campaign relies on small-dollar donors to fuel our grassroots effort. This fundraising has taken a significant hit for a couple of reasons. First, we have shifted some of our campaign time and energy to helping local non-profits and community aid organizations. Each day, our team volunteers somewhere in the district to try to lend a hand. But second, average Americans, who chip in $25, $50, or $100 to campaigns, are feeling the economic distress particularly hard and are understandably limited in their ability to help campaigns. Despite this, I am more committed to this race than ever. This crisis shows the need for progressive leadership to rebuild our country and repair our broken healthcare system. I am committed to providing that leadership in Congress, and we will call every voter and expand our digital organizing efforts so that we can fight for Medicare for All and rebuild our economy in a progressive manner."

Jennifer Christie, trying to win an open suburban district just north of Indianapolis, emphasized that she's the only scientist on the ballot, the only mother with young children, and the only candidate fighting for a Green New Deal, Medicare for All, and other progressive causes. "We are also the only campaign in the race to refuse corporate PAC money and sign the 'No Fossil Fuel Money Pledge.' We have already been up against big money because the DCCC is helping our opponent. That’s not new and isn’t what concerns us. We know how to be efficient with our funds and have built a very strong field program. Recently, our Governor moved our Election Day by one month. We are not able to canvass door-to-door or do big events due to the pandemic, so we have reorganized our campaign to reach voters through other means. People are also feeling a financial pinch due to the COVID-19 pandemic which has effected our fundraising. It’s challenging because 100% of our donations come from individuals. We do not have high-priced consultants; our staff are experienced experts and local change-makers. We also have an extensive volunteer base. Nonetheless, it takes money to reach voters through mail, phone-banking, virtual events, and media.  We deeply appreciate every donation. Every dollar makes a difference. These times are uncertain in many ways, but one thing we know is that this time will be transformative. When we get through this, we can no longer accept that 87 million Americans are not insured or underinsured. We cannot accept an economy that only works for the billionaires. And we will still have the climate crisis to solve. It’s time or a Green New Deal, Medicare For All, and a Congress that works for the People. I will bring that change to Washington, but I need your help. The coronavirus pandemic has made our fight more challenging but it’s more important than ever."

Morgan Harper, the progressive taking on a wealthy conservative in Columbus, Ohio, is running a campaign going through the same tough times. "As we’re eagerly anticipating an update on the new date of Ohio’s primary, we’re still organizing and engaging the community as best we can. Once we have the new date, we will need to swiftly ramp up our voter outreach efforts. Netroots support now will help us gear up to win, because our current health and economic crisis is highlighting that we need leadership advancing progressive policies now more than ever."

Another Midwest progressive candidate JD Scholten, is taking on neo-fascist extremist Steve King in Iowa. "Our first and primary focus is sharing accurate, reliable information and resources and helping those most in need," JD told me yesterday. "If folks have an extra dollar or two and they're willing to donate to our people-powered campaign, we're very grateful because we're not relying on corporate PACs. Right now, Iowa's 4th district has a congressman who voted against the Families First coronavirus relief package and has shown his utter lack of leadership during this crisis-- we're stepping up and filling that void."

Tom Guild is the progressive taking on Trump-friendly Blue Dog Kendra Horn in Oklahoma City. "Campaigning in the middle of a pandemic is quite a challenge," he acknowledged. "Knocking doors is out of the question because of the fear of transmission of the coronavirus. Campaign kickoffs or receptions are out because no groups of 10+ are allowed. Groups or party organizations that usually invite candidates to speak and/or attend their events are out because those gatherings have been canceled. The Democratic Party’s state convention in Oklahoma, originally scheduled for April 4, was canceled a few weeks ago. Nearly all fundraising now takes place online. People who work for restaurants, bars, universities, public schools, gyms, and a variety of other organizations have been told to work from home or not at all. Many Americans are understandably freaked out about how they are going to pay their bills and survive during the current national crisis. Those scraping by from paycheck to paycheck, God bless them each and every one, are now unsure of when their next paycheck will arrive. It is a cinch that this all has a chilling effect on discretionary contributions to candidates for public office. As Eva Peron would say or sing at a time like this-- Don’t Cry for Me Argentina or Moscow, Oklahoma for that matter!”

All of these candidates mentioned above are explicitly running on platforms that include Medicare-for-All. The thermometer above is dedicated exclusively to candidates running on that issue as part of their platform. Please help them be able to continue their campaigns by contributing. Just click on the thermometer to get to the contribution boxes. And give what you can afford.

Can Jeff Flake-- And Perhaps Mitt Romney-- Bring The Cult To A Grinding Halt?

Incipient tyrants and fascists always seek to destroy media and the judicial system before their authoritarian assault begins in earnest. One would have to have been in a coma for the past 19 months not to have noticed Señor Trumpanzee's attack on the mainstream media. He's also been remaking the judicial system by rushing through the worst judges every nominated in recent history. And he's still on the attack against the judiciary. This tweet was from yesterday:

I'm guessing that every Republican politician noted how effortlessly Trump disposed of Mark Sanford, a tepid congressional critic, a couple of weeks ago-- all it took was one tweet on primary day and Sanford was upended by a relatively unknown self-funder in a moderate South Carolina district. That was a warning shot across the bows of any Republicans who were thinking of separating themselves from Trump, his regime and their fascist agenda.

Over the weekend, Mitt Romney wrote an OpEd for the Salt Lake Tribune, Where I Stand On The Trump Agenda. "I will," he wrote, "support the president’s policies when I believe they are in the best interest of Utah and the nation. I have noted, the first year of his administration has exceeded my expectations; he made our corporate tax code globally competitive, worked to reduce unnecessary regulations and restored multiple use on Utah public land. In addition, I am pleased that he backed away from imposing a 35 percent tariff on all foreign goods."

But I have openly expressed my disagreement with certain of the administration decisions such as the withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP); I want more markets open for Utah and American goods. I also oppose broad-based tariffs, such as those proposed on steel and aluminum, particularly when they are imposed on our allies. I agree, however, with narrower penalties levied on companies or nations that employ unfair trade practices, such as China.

I have and will continue to speak out when the president says or does something which is divisive, racist, sexist, anti-immigrant, dishonest or destructive to democratic institutions. I do not make this a daily commentary; I express contrary views only when I believe it is a matter of substantial significance.

Meanwhile, Trump can't do much to Arizona Senator Jeff Flake. Flake, who's been far more of a critic of Trump's than Sanford, decided to retire, so he won't be facing a primary, a primary that will now result in one of three Republicans who are each polling behind Kyrsten Sinema, the putative Democrat in the race.

On Sunday, Flake told ABC-TV's George Stephanopoulos that he and what he called a "number of senators" are serious about blocking Trump's lousy judicial nominees if his headlong rush into a trade war, among other things, isn't stopped. Flake: "I do think that unless we can actually exercise something other than just approving the President's executive calendar, his nominees, judges, that we have no reason to be there. So I think myself and a number of Senators, at least a few of us, will stand up and say let's not move any more judges until we get a vote, for example, on tariffs."

Flake is on the Judiciary Committee which only has an 11-10 Republican majority. If he starts voting with the Democrats on Trumpy-the-Clown nominees... the Judiciary Committee will come to a grinding halt.

No light
No people
No speak
No people
No cars
No people
No food
No people
Stopped
Short
Grinding halt
Everything's coming to a grinding halt

Flake told Stephanopoulos "The Mark Sanford loss clarified something if it wasn't clarified before. You can't, as a Republican these days, stand in-- in-- you know, in opposition to some of the president's policies or-- or not condone his behavior and expect to win a Republican primary. That's the reality and then we're seeing that played out."

Yeah, Corker was right-- it's a fucking cult! Academic cult expert and author Janja Lalich: "The people around Trump, and the Republicans in Washington, absolutely kowtow to him, either out of fear they're going to anger him, or out of adulation. That behavior is very typical of a cult... I think you have to look at the effect of Trump's behavior and language on his base. He readily ridicules and chastises people. He readily pushes people aside if they're not worshipping him. We've all seen the videos of his aides praising him to high heaven. That's the kind of adulation cult leaders expect and demand... Cult leaders constantly need to rev up their people. That's one of the challenges of being a charismatic leader. You have to keep people enchanted with you. Him holding these rallies is both a recruitment technique and a way to keep his followers happy. He's showing him in their presence-- being there for them, talking to them, relating to them. All of that helps to solidify their cult membership, so to speak. It reinforces the idea that they're a special group of people following this very special man. With Trump, it's not a religion, but there's the same kind of fervor."

Trump is happily making these pronouncements and expecting everyone to go along with him, and he's not getting much flack. Most of his followers have bought into his fear-mongering, which creates an us vs. them mentality that is typical of a cult.

...Separating the cult from the rest of the world is pretty much what all cults do. That doesn't mean you have to live in a compound. It just means that, in your thinking, you're part of this special elite, separate from the unworthy... Once you internalize that, you're done for.

Don't forget to vote tomorrow if you live in New York, Maryland, Colorado, Oklahoma or Utah. Try bringing some friends along. I doubt Flake-- or even Romney-- is going to stop Trump or turn the GOP away from their dedication to fascism and their ugly new cult. But you know who could? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, DuWayne Gregory, Michael DeVito, Jeff Beals, and Dana Balter in New York, Levi Tillemann, Saira Rao and Emily Sirota in Colorado, Tom Guild in Oklahoma and Maryland's Ben Jealous.

Goring Someone Else's Ox

Yesterday, when I was trying to work, my most financially successful friend-- one of the inventors of iTunes-- called to make idle chitchat. I wonder what those people do over there! He tried getting my attention by lurching into a topic he rarely thinks about: politics. He wanted to know about Obama's meeting with the GOP leaders and how that would impact a compromise on the Bush tax cuts. His opinion is that no one making over a billion dollars a year should get to keep his or her tax break. He would even be willing, if push comes to shove, to lower the threshold to $10 million; he's a liberal.

And for the ultimate in Republican ritual hypocrisy, we can just turn to today's Wall Street Journal where we find that semi-official GOP policy is now to oppose all earmarks-- except ones in your own state. Talk about goring someone else's ox! The Journal points to the crucial work being done on ports in Georgia and South Carolina-- and the Republican senators, Saxby Chambliss, Johnny Isakson and Lindsey Graham, who are earmarking them to completion.

Earmarks were denounced by conservative activists during the recent midterm election campaigns, and Republicans in both chambers banned them last month. But several GOP senators have suggested they'll make exceptions if they see fit, including three of the four from Georgia and South Carolina.

...Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) supports the earmark ban but has vowed to earmark funds for the Charleston port if necessary. "I'm in a spot where I have to get the port deepened for economic reasons," he said.

...Georgia's Republican senators are touting their opposition to earmarks but also suggesting they'll do whatever it takes for the port. "My position has consistently been, I'm going to support reform or total elimination of earmarks," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., Ga.). "But if a project is vital to the economy and jobs of my state, I'm sent here by the people of my state to make sure their interests are looked after."

Sen. Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.), who also supported the ban, said he would "continue to fight for funding for projects such as the expansion of the Savannah port that is critical to my state and to U.S. trade."

Many senators are allowing themselves such wiggle room. Other Republicans oppose the ban outright and are not committed to abstaining from earmarks at all. Democrats, who have a majority in the Senate, have not adopted a ban.

And what about anti-earmark fanatic, Jim DeMint? He's not budging, even if the port of Charleston fails and brings down the whole South Carolina economy. Take that, you damn libruls!

It's so much easier for rightists to assuage their hopped up base by screaming about "sacrilegious art," throwing Latinos and other "foreigners" to the dogs or by stomping on the heads of gay and lesbian active duty service members, than actually doing anything that will get anyone's nose bent out of joint-- at least not anyone who "counts." This week most Republican senators will vote against repealing DADT-- even the ones who claimed they were only opposed until the Pentagon issued it's report-- and against the DREAM Act, even though fully 66% of the American people support it, "including majorities of Democrats (81%), independents (60%), and even Republicans (57%)!"

But Republicans don't count on non-Cuban Hispanics, on the non-closeted LGBT community or on low income workers for their votes. So they don't really care what these communities think or do or say. For the sake of appearances-- even Republicans need to look moderate and unbigoted from time to time to help them with dizzy independents-- more than a few Republican senators claimed they just wanted to wait until the Pentagon reported on what the impact of repealing DADT would be before they voted. Now the military brass has reported and they reported that the ridiculous and outmoded law should be immediately repealed for the sake of national security. But the same freaks who opposed it-- and who would have opposed allowing African-Americans to serve in an integrated military before Harry Truman told them to get over themselves and just did it as Commander-in-Chief, are unlikely to live up to their words. Take that Maine profile in courage, Olympia Snowe, currently quaking in her boots over a teabagger primary challenge. In refusing to support repeal earlier this year this is what she said:

Moreover, as I have previously stated, given that the law implementing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has been in place for nearly 17 years, I agree that it is overdue for a thorough review. The question is, whether we should be voting on this issue before we have the benefit of the comprehensive review that President Obama’s Secretary of Defense ordered in March, to secure the input of our men and women in uniform during this time of war-- as the Joint Chiefs of Staff from all of the services have requested prior to any vote. We should all have the opportunity to review that report which is to be completed on December 1, as we reevaluate this policy and the implementation of any new changes.

I can't wait to hear her excuse for not voting for it now. And I doubt it will be a truthful, "I'm afraid of the damn teabaggers. They just elected one as governor of my idiotic state."


Here's the summary of the Pentagon's finding's that Snowe and her colleagues will have to look for excuses in to support McCain's narrow-minded, bigot-rich filibuster:

- 70% of Service members said they would be able to “work together to get the job done” with a gay servicemember in their immediate units.

- 69% said they worked in a unit with a co-worker that they believed to be homosexual.

- 92% stated that their unit’s “ability to work together,” with a gay person was “very good, “good” or “neither good nor poor.” (89% for those in Army combat arms units, 84% for those in Marine combat arms units.)

- 74% of spouses of military service-members say repeal of DADT would have no impact on their view of whether their husbands or wives should continue to serve.

- 30% overall (and 40–60% in the Marine Corps and in various combat arms specialties) expressed negative views or concerns about the impact of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

And although, no one's going to accuse the current occupant of the White House of having the cajones of a Harry Truman, he popped his head out yesterday after the Pentagon report to give this statement in support of repeal:

As Commander in Chief, I have pledged to repeal the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law because it weakens our national security, diminishes our military readiness, and violates fundamental American principles of fairness and equality by preventing patriotic Americans who are gay from serving openly in our armed forces. At the same time, as Commander in Chief, I am committed to ensuring that we understand the implications of this transition, and maintain good order and discipline within our military ranks. That is why I directed the Department of Defense earlier this year to begin preparing for a transition to a new policy. 
 
Today’s report confirms that a strong majority of our military men and women and their families-- more than two thirds-- are prepared to serve alongside Americans who are openly gay and lesbian. This report also confirms that, by every measure-- from unit cohesion to recruitment and retention to family readiness-- we can transition to a new policy in a responsible manner that ensures our military strength and national security. And for the first time since this law was enacted 17 years ago today, both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have publicly endorsed ending this policy.
 
With our nation at war and so many Americans serving on the front lines, our troops and their families deserve the certainty that can only come when an act of Congress ends this discriminatory policy once and for all. The House of Representatives has already passed the necessary legislation. Today I call on the Senate to act as soon as possible so I can sign this repeal into law this year and ensure that Americans who are willing to risk their lives for their country are treated fairly and equally. Our troops represent the virtues of selfless sacrifice and love of country that have enabled our freedoms. I am absolutely confident that they will adapt to this change and remain the best led, best trained, best equipped fighting force the world has ever known.

On the other hand, much more difficult for these heroes in the Senate to deal with would be a thorny topic like the billions of wasted dollars on the ethanol boondoggle. As the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday, there's a broad bipartisan consensus-- eveyone from MoveOn.org to FreedomWorks-- forming around ending the taxpayer subsidies for ethanol. But some of the loudest right-wing voices for a balanced budget and for abolishing Medicare and Social Security and cutting wages on low income workers, are screaming the loudest about the subsidies. They don't want their ox gored.

The tax credit, which is due to expire Dec. 31, cost the government $4 billion in 2008 and could cost $6.75 billion a year by 2015, according to the Government Accountability Office. That has made it a target for conservatives who want to cut federal spending and handouts to private interests. On the left, ethanol’s image as a “green” fuel has taken a hit as environmentalists-- including former Vice President Al Gore-- have swung to the view that the energy benefits of using corn as fuel are marginal. Some environmentalists and hunger groups complain corn ethanol drives up the cost of food without making a real dent in global greenhouse gas emissions, claims that the ethanol industry has disputed.

As Markos pointed out at Daily Kos yesterday, " As much as the village likes to pretend otherwise, fact is, Republicans don't give a damn about the deficit. They grow them, while Democratic administrations shrink them. That's the objective and provable reality, no matter what anyone else might think."

Ethanol subsidies have had a two-track level of support-- farm state legislators of both parties support them, as well as anyone with presidential ambitions. Iowa, anyone? But even beyond the primaries, The midwest is a key electoral battleground, and ethanol is huge in Iowa, Illinois, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. South Dakota isn't competitive at the presidential level, but one congressional district in Nebraska is (1 EV) as well as another 68 EVs in the other states (minus a handful they'll lose in next year reapportionment).

That's quite a few senators who will fight to protect free government money to their agricultural sector. Not a single one of those states is represented in the letter calling for the abolition of those subsidies. And it's significant money. From the letter:

We are writing to make you aware that we do not support an extension of either the 54 cent-per-gallon tariff on ethanol imports or the 45 cent-per-gallon subsidy for blending ethanol into gasoline. These provisions are fiscally irresponsible and environmentally unwise, and their extension would make our country more dependent on foreign oil. Subsidizing blending ethanol into gasoline is fiscally indefensible. If the current subsidy is extended for five years, the Federal Treasury would pay oil companies at least $31 billion to use 69 billion gallons of corn ethanol that the Federal Renewable Fuels Standard already requires them to use. We cannot afford to pay industry for following the law...

Democrats will fall along regional lines on the matter, like they always do. Wasteful spending in Iowa won't seem so wasteful to Iowa's Democratic congressional delegation. And in normal times, the same would apply to the region's Republicans.

But these aren't normal times, with the teabaggers demanding that Republicans pay more than lip service to deficit reduction. And there's no doubt that these subsidies aren't just wasteful, but they're unsound on any possible policy grounds. Subsidizing Big Oil and Big Agribusiness for environmentally unsound ethanol subsidies is madness, and has only persisted as long as it has because of Iowa's presidential clout.

And in a presidential cycle where Republicans will be tripping over themselves to curry favor with the teabaggers and with Iowans ... well, this topic should prove entertaining to say the least.