Month: June 2017

What do you do with a rogue president?


by digby

Trump’s not listening to anyone anymore because he has a very good brain. I wrote about it for Salon this morning: 

The last few days have revealed that President Donald Trump has now gone beyond just playing the different factions within his administration off one another. He has apparently rejected them all. What happens when the leader of the most powerful nation on earth refuses to listen to anyone?

They’re just having him play pretend now

by digby

This is your president:

President Trump endorsed a proposal on Monday to privatize air traffic control, seizing on a decades-old idea as proof that he is advancing the ambitious infrastructure rebuilding plan he promised during his campaign but is still months from delivering.

At an East Room event that was choreographed like the elaborate ceremonies for enacting major legislation, Mr. Trump signed a memo and letter to Congress outlining his principles for overhauling the nation’s air traffic control system. He handed out pens to lawmakers who had been invited to attend, and reveled in several rounds of applause.

But Mr. Trump’s announcement did not have any binding effect, and Democrats quickly denounced the proposal.

He did not take any action on Monday toward a broader $1 trillion initiative to rebuild the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, including old and inefficient airports, a subject he spoke about many times as a candidate. His advisers say that package is months away, though Mr. Trump said in April that it would be ready last month.

This is pathetic.

.

They’ve sharpened a stick at both ends
by Tom Sullivan

Ed Kilgore considers a McClatchy report about the 2018 GOP strategy for fueling public hatred of reporters. They’ve turned the ritualized working of the refs into “an integral part of next year’s congressional campaigns,” as McClatchy reported days ago:

The hope, say these officials, is to convince Trump die-hards that these mid-term races are as much a referendum on the media as they are on President Trump. That means embracing conflict with local and national journalists, taking them on to show Republicans voters that they, just like the president, are battling a biased press corps out to destroy them.

They don’t have Hillary Clinton to kick around anymore. They need a new beast with which to frighten the littluns.

Kilgore adds:

The strategy makes some cold political sense. Base mobilization is really the only effective defense an incumbent White House party can pursue in midterms, where the relatively few swing voters usually tilt toward the “out party” unless the president is very popular. And attacking the media has the dual value of reminding “the base” of an old conservative punching bag while neutralizing any inconvenient media reporting or analysis that undermines the GOP. And as a bonus, it may also intimidate members of the Fourth Estate into more favorable coverage of the GOP.

Attacking the press is pretty much old hat for the GOP. Kilgore dredges up a quote from Eisenhower:

“Let us particularly scorn the divisive efforts of those outside our family, including sensation-seeking columnists and commentators, because I assure you that these are people who couldn’t care less about the good of our party.”

“Safe from shame or self-consciousness behind the mask of his paint,” Trump named the press “the enemy of the American People” in a new improvization on an even older theme. Though “enemy of the people” has roots in Roman times, Business Insider’s
Veronika Bondarenko wrote, the phrase and its variants saw action during the “Reign of Terror,” during the Third Reich, and under Stalin.

But branding the press the enemy as a formalized, national campaign strategy by a political party in the United States of America is, well … novel. Kilgore wonders:

The obvious question these plans raise is whether there is any awareness of a limit to acceptable media-bashing — particularly in the wake of the literal bashing of an actual journalist by now-congressman-elect Greg Gianforte of Montana.

As biguns, Trump and Gianforte have set a clear example for their tribe to follow. Trump, you will recall, promised he would “pay for the legal fees” of any supporter who might “knock the crap” out of a protester at his rallies, and stated his people were looking into doing so for another supporter who did just that. So far, Gianforte has paid no price for the alleged assault. He has yet to appear in court. Reportedly worth hundreds of millions of dollars, though, Gianforte can pay his own legal fees. Between them and other well-heeled GOP, donors, they can buy a lot of face paint and sharp sticks.

“I’m warning you. I’m going to get angry. D’you see? You’re not wanted,” said the Lord of the Flies.

Wanted: Role Model Of Strength & Restraint For TV Appearance

By Spocko

My friend Will Bunch wrote a book about Reagan “Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy” in which he recounted how profoundly the movie The Day After affected Reagan. After watching it, he started reducing our nuclear arsenal.

Reagan needed to see the darkest timeline play out on TV in a serious fashion. That was how he absorbed information, via a visual story that kept him engaged for two hours and 7 minutes. It was a story that emotionally pulled him in. It showed him characters he could care about and identify with.

As an actor Reagan understood the role appearance plays in people’s perceptions and self identification.  During his presidency he must have had people telling him. “Look strong against the commies!”  There also had to be others telling him about the danger of brinkmanship with nukes on a hair trigger.  A nuclear exchange is not something we can recover from.  

Fortunately, something about that movie reached Reagan. It got him to reconfigure his world view.  Was it the images of destruction of our country? Did he relate to the characters who were like his own family and friends? Did he put himself in the picture, seeing a leader who failed to protect his country?

People joke about how Trump’s staff structured briefings to included his name every third sentence, just so he would pay attention. I say great! Well done! Do what you must to get him to pay attention. Maybe if Condi Rice did something like that with the Presidential Daily Briefing we would be in a different timeline.

In one timeline everyone has goatees

We’ve seen how DJT takes situations and turns them into personal win or lose contests. He has an idea of what it means to be a man in his personal life and business life.  They have worked for him. He can say, “I’ve got a hot wife and I’m rich! Why should I listen to anyone?”

However, in the area of international relations, and situations that could lead to war, his model of strength is not working for him–or the US. Trump needs someone to show him that a peaceful solution, instead of a violent one, is a stronger solution.

I have some friends who were serious warriors in the military. Their stories of war curl my straight Vulcan hair. They are now artists, musicians and writers, they are also profoundly anti-war. These are the type of male role models I would want Trump to talk with.

If I wanted to help prevent Trump from starting a war, an armed conflict or a nuclear catastrophe, I would look for men who embodied the strength of NOT starting a fight. These men could describe all the ways that showing restraint is real power.

 I would then try and get these guys in front of Trump to explain how and why restraint will make the mocking stop.  These could be in person meetings but getting them on TV would also reach Trump’s base at the same time. My preferred venue for these guys is Fox and Friends (I’m very serious. The producers of that show have tremendous power right now. I don’t think I need to quote Uncle Ben to them, but it’s true. The good news is that they live on the same planet as we do and many of them have children.)

Attractive humans who solve problems with their brains

I’m a fan of the TV show Madam Secretary. The show depicts real-life solutions to global crisis situations that have been fictionalized. Its lead characters are people who understand what an international crisis situation means on the surface as well as under the facade. The characters know the people and cultures involved in a situation and our history with them.

When it comes time for solutions in the show, there is usually a Security Persona offering the military option which is held off until our heros can find a solution that doesn’t lead to war or de-escalates the conflict.  (The Security Persona isn’t always rejected, unlike Worf in ST:TNG. )

Yes, I am drawn in by the attractive human female lead that’s part of what keeps me engaged. But I also love the banter and how these characters solve problems. That is another form of attraction that keeps me coming back.  What can I say, I’m a sucker for Kobayashi Maru scenarios.  I give credit to the writers Alexander Maggio, Alex Cooley and series creator Barbara Hall for that.

If Trump, like Reagan, needed a fictional show to help him visualize successful crisis management that doesn’t involve going to war, I’d recommend this show. But sadly Madam Secretary probably isn’t the best show for him.  The good news is we can show Trump the reality of successful solutions to problems that did not lead to war.

For example, look at this real-life success from January 2016 Iran releases 10 US Navy sailors after boat drifted in Persian Gulf

The same career military and state department who worked out that deal are most likely still in place. They could point to that diplomatic solution as a model. But would they even get a chance to talk about it to the president?

This is where my friends in the military, the media, communications and the peace movement could work together.  We could call it the “Let’s not blow up the world” coalition.

Is there a retired Navy Admiral who can go on TV and explain how smart the handling of that whole incident was, and how it was a win for the US? (I picked this account because it was recent and public, but I know it has baggage since it involved John Kerry, the Iranians and Obama.)  But if this isn’t the right example, and the person in charge isn’t the right one to speak, find the ones that can be used.

I like that incident because it was short and appears simple.

1) Nobody died, a war wasn’t started and our people were returned safe.

WIN!   OR

2) We start a war, killing 100’s of thousands and costing billions of dollars.

LOSE, bigly!

These are the stories Trump needs to know about. And they need to come from people he trusts, or from people he wants approval from. With Trump who is telling the story is as important as what the story is.

A friend of mine knows the people who helped produce The Day After. They didn’t know it at the time, but that movie helped save the world.  Maybe people told them it wouldn’t make a difference. “Reagan’s set in his ways” they said, “He’s 72, he’s not going to change his mind now!”

Bear baiting is fun for some people. The media love it. It’s dramatic! There will be news!  But the campaign is over, to avoid a tragedy we need to add to our strategy of mocking and blocking.

I know that right this instant there are people in this country figuring out ways to prevent wars and save lives–by understanding how best to interact with President Trump.

To those of you who are working to prevent the darkest timeline, thank you. Keep working. I can’t show you the future, but I can remind you that there are people from the past who did avert wars. Lives were saved because people found another way.  You might be alive because they succeeded, and you didn’t even know it. Find those people, help them tell their stories.

Getcher fake news right here

by digby

This is a good one:

Last month, President Trump visited Saudi Arabia and his administration announced that he had concluded a $110 billion arms deal with the kingdom. Only problem is that there is no deal. It’s fake news.

I’ve spoken to contacts in the defense business and on the Hill, and all of them say the same thing: There is no $110 billion deal. Instead, there are a bunch of letters of interest or intent, but not contracts. Many are offers that the defense industry thinks the Saudis will be interested in someday. So far nothing has been notified to the Senate for review. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, the arms sales wing of the Pentagon, calls them “intended sales.” None of the deals identified so far are new, all began in the Obama administration.

There is literally nothing they haven’t lied about.

.

Can you see what’s wrong with this picture?

by digby

I’m talking about the fact that CNN considers it a highlight that it’s not terrorism and also that it happened close to the year anniversary of the Pulse nightclub attack. I know people are concerned about terrorism an that’s to be expected. But workplace gun violence is not just some normal everyday thing that we don’t need to worry about because they are are not usually committed by terrorists. This piece is from Think Progress in 2015:

Guns are by far the most common instrument that kills people at work. In 2013, there were 316 fatal, intentional workplace shootings. They made up 80 percent of homicides at work.

Women are far more susceptible to being murdered at work than men. While women have a lower workplace fatality rate — there were 302 fatal workplace injuries involving female workers in 2013–22 percent of them involved a homicide, making it the leading cause of death. For men, just 8 percent related to a homicide. That’s thanks to the fact that for victims of domestic violence, who are overwhelmingly female, the workplace is an ideal target for an abuser, given that it’s often a public and easy-to-find place. A woman is killed by an intimate partner at work about twice a month.

These workplace killings fit into the nation’s broader gun violence problem. There are far more gun killings in the United States than other countries. Among developed nations, the U.S. has by far the highest rate of homicides by firearm. It also owns most of the world’s guns: the country makes up 4.4 percent of the global population but almost half of the world’s civilian-owned guns. This leads to more violence. The largest study to look at the issue found that in the U.S., an additional 1 percent increase in the proportion of gun ownership in a given state results in a 0.9 percent higher firearm homicide rate. States with looser gun laws also have higher rates of gun deaths and injuries.

Things haven’t improved since then.

.

Americans are getting sick of all the winning

by digby

Unfortunately most Republicans are still with him:

This wouldn’t be a good thing for him if elections were being held this week. Independents are abandoning him in droves. But the sad fact is that a large majority of Republicans are still on board with this incompetent buffoon and they have all the institutional power. It doesn’t matter in the short run one bit.

More Russian involvement in the election?

by digby

The Intercept has a big new scoop. The NSA apparently has evidence that the Russian military hacked into the actual voting systems. Oh my:

This NSA summary judgment is sharply at odds with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s denial last week that Russia had interfered in foreign elections: “We never engaged in that on a state level, and have no intention of doing so.” Putin, who had previously issued blanket denials that any such Russian meddling occurred, for the first time floated the possibility that freelance Russian hackers with “patriotic leanings” may have been responsible. The NSA report, on the contrary, displays no doubt that the cyber assault was carried out by the GRU.

The NSA analysis does not draw conclusions about whether the interference had any effect on the election’s outcome and concedes that much remains unknown about the extent of the hackers’ accomplishments. However, the report raises the possibility that Russian hacking may have breached at least some elements of the voting system, with disconcertingly uncertain results.

The NSA and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence were both contacted for this article. Officials requested that we not publish or report on the top secret document and declined to comment on it. When informed that we intended to go ahead with this story, the NSA requested a number of redactions. The Intercept agreed to some of the redaction requests after determining that the disclosure of that material was not clearly in the public interest.

The report adds significant new detail to the picture that emerged from the unclassified intelligence assessment about Russian election meddling released by the Obama administration in January. The January assessment presented the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusions but omitted many specifics, citing concerns about disclosing sensitive sources and methods. The assessment concluded with high confidence that the Kremlin ordered an extensive, multi-pronged propaganda effort “to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.”

That review did not attempt to assess what effect the Russian efforts had on the election, despite the fact that “Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple US state or local electoral boards.” According to the Department of Homeland Security, the assessment reported reassuringly, “the types of systems we observed Russian actors targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying.”

The NSA has now learned, however, that Russian government hackers, part of a team with a “cyber espionage mandate specifically directed at U.S. and foreign elections,” focused on parts of the system directly connected to the voter registration process, including a private sector manufacturer of devices that maintain and verify the voter rolls. Some of the company’s devices are advertised as having wireless internet and Bluetooth connectivity, which could have provided an ideal staging point for further malicious actions.

Read on.

I don’t know if this is related but it might be:

Atlantic magazine writer Steve Clemons said during a Saturday panel on MSNBC’s “The Point with Ari Melber” that National Security Agency (NSA) Director Michael Rogers “may have a bomb to drop” on the Trump administration.

Rogers will testify Wednesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, which is currently investigating whether President Donald Trump’s campaign colluded with Russian officials to sway the results of the 2016 election.

“We now know for certain that Vladimir Putin waged political warfare against America’s democracy with the election last year,” said Mother Jones magazine’s David Corn. “While that’s going on, Donald Trump is saying, ‘No, it’s not happening.’ It’s like a guy in front of a bank robbery saying, ‘Nothing is going on here.’ He was helping.”

“He made it easier for Putin to pull this off,” Corn said. “That in itself should be a big scandal.”

“While a lot of people have focused on James Comey and that’s obviously a huge anchor in this,” Clemons said at the end of the segment, “watch the Senate Intelligence Committee hearings on Wednesday. National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers may have a bomb to drop in this, as well as Dan Coates. I have been tipped off that Mike Rogers has a story to tell as well that goes right along the lines that our friend David Corn has shared.”

via GIPHY

It’s not getting any better

by digby

That could refer to a lot of things. But in this case, I’m talking about this:

His previous low is 35% approval. That happened after the first health care debate when he proved to American that he had the negotiating skills of a 4th grade bully. This dive seems to have been precipitated by the fallout from his disastrous overseas trip and subsequent disastrous decisions. Now he’s just having a daily tantrum.

Here’s are your official presidential statements today. It will make you feel so proud:

Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Note that he disses his own Justice Department, blames the Democrats for his own failures to appoint people and insults the Mayor of London again. In the wake of a terrorist attack.

He’s a pig. Actually, that’s insulting to pigs which are actually quite intelligent.

.

Alt-right PC?

by digby

Apparently:

Katie McHugh, the Breitbart writer who tweeted a number of incendiary remarks in the immediate aftermath of the London terror attack, is no longer with the right-wing news site, four sources familiar with the situation told CNN.

Breitbart Editor-in-Chief Alex Marlow announced McHugh’s departure internally Monday morning.

McHugh had ignited controversy on Saturday night when she wrote on Twitter that “there would be no deadly terror attacks in the U.K. if Muslims didn’t live there.”

“You’re a real moron,” actor Pej Vahdat replied.

“You’re an Indian,” shot back McHugh, incorrectly identifying the ethnicity of Vahdat, who is Iranian-American.

McHugh’s comments prompted outrage from a number of her own colleagues. Breitbart employees who spoke to CNN Sunday characterized McHugh’s remarks as “appalling,” “terrible,” and “dumb.”

Man, they are really going soft. Back in the Bannon days they didn’t hold hold back. For instance, McHugh commonly tweeted lovely stuff like this:

It was cheered by their readers:

This is their brand. And their brand is in crisis.

.