ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [433] -- Trump Suffering From "100 Days Envy"

[ Posted Friday, April 21st, 2017 – 16:08 PDT ]

We'd like to boldly add a new disease's definition to the political lexicon. We feel this is necessary since Donald Trump seems to have caught a rather drastic case of "100 Days Envy." Symptoms are a tendency to flail around looking for a legislative win you can brag about, and an unnatural fear of being called a loser by the entire planet's media for not even coming close to fulfilling pretty much any of the grandiose promises you made for your first 100 days in office.

The only cure for such a malady is time. Give it a few more weeks, and the media will probably forget all about how much fun it is to mock your lack of achievements. It'll all get better soon, but you're going to have to take your medicine while it happens, sorry about that.

Heh. To put all of this another way: next week's scheduled "100 Days Schadenfreudefest" has already begun, here at Friday Talking Points headquarters.

We have to wonder, given Trump's masochistic fascination with Saturday Night Live, if this all wasn't spurred on by Alec Baldwin's Trump portrayal last week, during which he asked that the list of his 100-days accomplishments be read to him. The list consisted of: "1. Confirmed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court," and nothing else. This is but a harbinger of the coming flood of "100 days" stories written in the next week, all of which will conclude exactly the same thing: Trump has absolutely squandered any political capital he might once have had. He got a Supreme Court justice confirmed, and that is indeed the extent of his major accomplishments. Which is one of the big reasons why he's now less popular than United Airlines.

This is all the more schadenfreude-y because Trump himself promised so much for his first 100 days. Here's but one of his tweets with a list of things he'd accomplish. Note well -- only one thing on that list has actually even been attempted. It then failed spectacularly (the "repeal and replace" fiasco in the House). And remember all that talk about how we'd "get tired of winning" and beg Trump to slow down with all the winning because we couldn't take it? With one week to go, is anyone now tired of Trump's incessant winning? Didn't think so.

Panic is reportedly setting in over at the White House. The new idea is to try to jam through the "repeal and replace Obamacare" bill once again. A quick review -- this bill had an artificial deadline set originally (by Paul Ryan), was so hastily constructed that the final version didn't even get a chance to be scored by the Congressional Budget Office, and did not have the support of enough Republicans to get passed. This was due to two groups, one of which thought the bill was pretty awful because it kicked 24 million people off health insurance, and the other that (incredibly) thought that that the bill wasn't awful enough.

Now the White House is setting its own artificial deadline (pass it before Trump's 100 days are up, so he's got something to brag about), it is being so hastily constructed that the final version will not have enough time for the C.B.O. to score it, and (amazingly) has been tailored to be even more awful than the first go-round, in order to tempt Tea Partiers to vote for it. This is going to lose even more centrist Republican votes, and is likely doomed to failure even in the House.

Wow. It's like déjà vu all over again (as Yogi Berra famously said). Here's Trump, predicting victory: "The plan gets better and better and better, and it's gotten really good, and a lot of people are liking it a lot. We have a good chance of getting it soon. I'd like to say next week, but we will get it." This is, of course, fake news. The plan is actually getting worse and worse, and a lot of people are hating it a lot -- a lot of Republican people, even.

And they're going to attempt to do all this in the midst of a looming deadline of a government shutdown if a continuing resolution budget bill doesn't pass. Good luck, guys!

But because at this point it's hard not to feel sorry for Trump, we'd like to offer up a suggestion to both the White House and the Republicans running Congress. Why not pass a single-page "We hate Obamacare" resolution? Just fill it up with all the "Obamacare is bad... mmm'kay?" stuff you want (with apologies to Mr. Mackey). However, the one-page bill wouldn't actually change anything, it would just be a way for you to express your displeasure to the world.

See, Trump doesn't really care what he signs, as long as he gets to sign something. This is obvious -- compare what he said he wanted to do on healthcare before he got elected with the garbage-fire that is the Ryancare bill. Trump doesn't care, so just pass some meaningless "sense of the Congress" resolution about how much the GOP hates Obamacare. Kind of like all those dozens and dozens of bills the House passed back when they knew Obama would veto them.

This way, everybody wins. Trump gets to sign something, he gets to brag about it, Republicans get to vent, but (crucially) nobody's health insurance gets taken away. The perfect solution!

In keeping with this reach-across-the-aisle (with tongue firmly in cheek) attitude, we'd now like to say something positive about a Donald Trump photo-op. No, really! Trump went up to a Snap-On tools factory to announce a crackdown on H-1B visas, and we honestly have to admit that even we were impressed by the backdrop -- an American flag mosaic made entirely of Snap-On tools. Now that was a nice flag! Maybe it's a "guys who love tools" thing, we don't know, but we were indeed impressed with whoever had the initiative to put such a cool thing together for a presidential visit. Well done! And, incredibly enough, even on message for Trump's speech! Somebody at Snap-On deserves a raise....

Also pleasant to see on television last week was the news that Bill O'Reilly will not be appearing on television anymore. Yep, Bill-O has finally been dumped by Fox News. Only a decade or so after the world learned what a complete and utter pig he is -- on a regular basis -- towards women he wants to have sex with (no matter what they thought of the prospect). Really, this should come as no surprise to anyone, since we've had the transcripts for a long time now. But when advertisers started dropping Bill like a hot potato, Fox finally acted. "About time" doesn't even begin to cover it. Like Glenn Beck before him, Bill O'Reilly got the boot because he was starting to affect the company's bottom line and attracting massive protests right outside their front door. The one iron-clad law of working for a corporation has always been: "Everybody can be replaced -- even you." Especially when the company's trying to buy Europe's Sky News network.

Hey hey, ho ho, Bill O'Reilly's got to go.

To close on a more positive note, we would like to point out that this weekend is the second in a string of three where anti-Trump protests are happening, so we'd encourage everyone to attend the nearest march for science this weekend. Technically, this one is not so much "anti-Trump" as "anti-anti-science" -- fighting the tide of politicians refusing to believe the data in front of them, on all sorts of important issues. So it's not an "anti-Trump" rally so much as an "anti-Republican idiocy" rally, really. Hopefully all the marches all get good weather and overwhelming turnout!

 

Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week

A special House election happened in Georgia this week. Democrat Jon Ossoff got a whopping 48.1 percent of the vote, in a "jungle primary" that had more candidates on the ballot than the Republicans put up for president last time around. Ossoff's nearest competitor was a Republican who pulled in just under 20 percent of the vote.

That's impressive -- a 28-point margin win! Especially considering this is Newt Gingrich's old House seat. Which is why Jon Ossoff is easily our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

Ossoff beat expectations handily, since most polls showed him with support in the 41-45 percent range. He did five points better than his polling average, which can only be called extremely impressive in such a red district. This also showed the Democrats' turnout was much better than anyone expected, and the Republican turnout was down from what they'd expected. This is all to the good.

However...

 

Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week

...Jon Ossoff also failed to gain an absolute majority of the vote (by two points), which means there will be a runoff election in June where he faces off against a single Republican opponent.

That was very disappointing to a whole lot of Democrats, which is why we've also got to hand Ossoff the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award as well.

If Ossoff had cleared the 50-percent bar and won the seat outright (no runoff necessary), then Democrats across the country would have rejoiced and proclaimed the inevitability of a "wave election" coming in 2018 which would sweep the Republicans out of power in at least one house of Congress. Whether this would become true or not, this would have energized the party's faithful by giving them a clean win in a previously staunch Republican district to crow about. By falling short, Democrats now have to pin their hopes on either the Georgia runoff or a special House election in Montana where they think they have a good shot at another upset.

Ossoff still has a chance, of course. There were other Democrats in the race, who (together) pulled in about a single percent of the vote. This means 49 percent of the people who voted in the special election voted for a Democrat. So all Ossoff might have to do to win in June would be to pick up a single additional point -- putting the race squarely in the "tossup" category.

But for the next two months, Ossoff won't have the luxury of being able to stay largely above the fray, as he did in the primary phase (when all the Republicans were mostly focused on attacking each other). Now it will be a one-on-one partisan race, meaning Ossoff's going to have to go on the offense a lot more. We'll see if he can maintain his sunny atmosphere throughout.

Bazillions of dollars from both sides have already been spent on this race, and that flood of money and advertising is only going to increase. We feel sorry for anyone attempting to watch television for the next few months in Atlanta, that's for sure.

The contest will very likely become a referendum on Donald Trump. Trump's not very popular even with Republican voters in this district, so his performance over the next two months will likely influence the race.

But the big disappointment this week was clearly that we have to go through this phase at all. If Ossoff had pulled in two percent more last Tuesday, he'd be on his way to being sworn in right now, because no runoff would have even happened. For that disappointment, Ossoff becomes the winner of both the MIDOTW and the MDDOTW -- a convergence which has only happened three previous times in this column's history.

[Jon Ossoff is currently a candidate for office, and it is our longstanding policy not to provide links to campaign sites. Therefore, to either commiserate with or congratulate Jon Ossoff, you'll have to search out his contact information on your own, sorry.]

[Editorial note: For the record, the three previous dual award winners were: Joe Biden won both awards in FTP 223 (8/17/12) for two remarks he had made that week; Eric Holder in FTP 144 (10/22/10) for settling a decades-old case brought by Native Americans against the federal government but also for weighing in (unethically, if not illegally) on the side of defeating California's first attempt (Proposition 19) at legalizing recreational marijuana; and Hillary Clinton way back in FTP 22 (3/7/08), for winning the Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas primaries, but also for how she campaigned in these states (which saw the first airings of the infamous "3:00 A.M." ad) -- and for blowing the line: "Live, from New York, it's Saturday Night" in her SNL appearance. This column was even subtitled "Hillary Sweeps The Awards!" which is why we're pointing out the relative rarity of such an occurrence -- only the fourth time in 433 Fridays!]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 433 (4/21/17)

Another mixed bag of talking points this week. Which includes a fun one towards the end, where you get to make up your own conspiracy theories! So without further ado, let's just get right to it.

 

1
   Maybe Matt Lauer can help?

This is already a running joke on late-night television.

"Perhaps Donald Trump should appoint Waldo to run the Navy. Maybe he could find where our aircraft carriers are in all of that ocean. No, wait -- I've got a better idea! Let's get Matt Lauer on the case. He could fly around the world and broadcast 'Where in the world is the U.S.S. Carl Vinson' segments! Now that'd be good television -- or at least better than the White House clown show we saw over the past few weeks on the issue."

 

2
   Like a lead balloon

More bad news for Trump from Gallup.

"In the past month, Donald Trump's poll numbers have taken quite a few major hits. On the question of whether Trump keeps his promises or not, he fell from 62 percent believing he kept his word to only 45 percent in one month's time. This drop was across the board -- among women, men, millennials, baby boomers... pretty much everybody. Among independents, the drop was from 59 percent to 43 percent. But that's not the only metric where Trump's numbers are tanking -- once again, it's pretty much across the board. 'Strong and decisive leader' went from 59 percent to 52 percent. 'Trump can bring about changes this country needs' went from 53 percent to 46 percent. He's really in the toilet on 'honest and trustworthy,' which went from 42 percent to a dismal 36 percent. And we're not even at 100 days yet, so those numbers can fall even further! Donald Trump is definitely going to set all kinds of records for 'most unpopular president ever,' that's for sure. No wonder he's so worried that he hasn't done much of anything in his first 100 days...."

 

3
   Who's gonna pay? Mexico!

So it goes, in Trump's fantasyland.

"Remember when Donald Trump used to give rallies and call out to his audience: 'Who's gonna pay for the wall?' and they'd scream back: 'Mexico!' at the top of their voices? Well, if indications are correct, Trump is about to threaten to shut down the government if he doesn't get what he's asking for -- which is forcing American taxpayers to pay for his wall to nowhere. He went from guaranteeing Mexico would pay for his folly to now throwing a tantrum if Congress doesn't force all of us to pay for it, because he never had a plan to make Mexico pay for it in the first place. That's a pretty stunning broken promise, and Trump's only going to call attention to his hypocrisy if he chooses to have this fight next week."

 

4
   Headline of the week

Nothing like showing our best... um, face... to the world.

"Donald Trump announced he's going to name none other than Scott Brown to be America's ambassador to New Zealand. This prompted one of the biggest newspapers in New Zealand to run one of the best headlines I've seen in a long time: 'Man tipped for US ambassador role in NZ a former nude model who supports waterboarding.' That about sums it up, don't you think?"

 

5
   Want to save a quick billion?

This isn't going to happen any time soon, but sooner or later someone's going to notice it on Capitol Hill.

"Congress is about to tackle the budget, tax reform, and if rumors are true they're also going to revisit healthcare reform. They should really check out a recent study which shows how they could save a cool billion dollars a year on Medicaid alone. All they'd have to do for these savings to appear would be to approve medical marijuana. That's it. Prescriptions for pain pills would go down, life would get better for patients, and the federal government could pocket a billion dollars a year in savings. Just by making this one change."

 

6
   He's Hillary's love child!

Open the floodgates! Release the conspiracies!

"While much more media attention was paid to Bill O'Reilly being forced out of a job, we found the news from Representative Jason Chaffetz even more interesting. Chaffetz chairs the House committee whose duty it is to oversee government, and he sure had a fine old time investigating Hillary Clinton within an inch of her life last year. However, since Trump has taken over, Chaffetz has been refusing to investigate anything Donald Trump does. So he's stepping down from the committee, and now it seems he might even just quit Congress before his term is up, ostensibly to run for governor of Utah. But it only seems appropriate that conspiracy theories are now popping up for why Chaffetz is abruptly stepping down. After all, he never met a Hillary conspiracy story that wasn't worth the committee's time to investigate, so turn-about is indeed fair play. There are already unfounded rumors that he's secretly gay or is being blackmailed somehow by the Russians, but surely we can do better than that! Maybe he was raised by Bigfoots! Bigfeet? Whatever... or perhaps he gets regularly probed by aliens on invisible spacecraft? No, wait -- I've got it! He's the secret love-child of Orrin Hatch and Hillary Clinton! I think that's worth investigating, don't you?"

 

7
   Shooting the....

The Washington Post had an amusing article this week on the (ahem) oratory style of the new head of the Democratic National Committee, Tom Perez. It would have been a lot more amusing, though, if they had run it with a more-accurate title, such as: "Tom Perez Talks Some Shit." Perez was asked about his use of this particular word, and responded very candidly. In fact, our talking point from Perez consists of the only quotes from the article which don't actually contain rough language (you'll have to read it for yourself to see what else he had to say!). Speaking of his penchant for vulgarity, Perez responded:

Talk about ridiculous. I grew up in Buffalo. We're a blunt community. We tell it like it is. I think folks want to hear the straight skinny; they don't want double-talk.

When asked about the Democratic mantra of "when they go low, we go high," though, Perez showed some real backbone -- which is really why we're highlighting his comments this week:

They consistently went low, and you know what? It's a great aspiration to want to turn the other cheek. But my first goal is to make sure we're standing up for our values. And in today's toxic politics, it was clear from Day One that Mitch McConnell's one goal was making Barack Obama a one-term president. We have to fight with a similar relentlessness.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

36 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [433] -- Trump Suffering From "100 Days Envy"”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Further Editorial Note:

    I think this is the earliest I've posted one of these in the past year or so....

    :-)

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week should go to all of them every week until they collectively decide to resist Sessions and his reefer madness.

  3. [3] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Now that Fake News has paid Billo the clown $25 million to go away, we can look forward to seeing his new show on MSLSD. Maybe he can co-host with BriWi. NBC grabbed up racist Megyn Kelly and that space alien Greta too, so Billo is a timely slam dunk. He has a lot in common with the Orange Queen. Both are delusional, lie a lot, and talk about themselves incessantly.

  4. [4] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey CW

    Nice column.

    I think it would have been nice to mention that Repubs had to change the rules in order for Trump to achieve his single accomplishment, but I do tend to like rubbing salt into wounds and you're a better person... or you were until that United Airlines dig. Ouch!

    Ossof's awards are both merited.
    If he ends up losing there's going to be a lot of hand wringing.

    I don't get the Matt Lauer reference, but that whole episode and Trump pissing off the Koreans to boot was hysterical.
    I would add that we should all feel lucky that Number Un didn't launch an attack and leave us wishing the missing battle group would show up.

    Trump choosing Brownie for NZ is just odd.
    It reminds me of that column you wrote about presidents choosing VP's who won't outshine them. Apparently Trump fears heck of a job ambassadors too.

    I think the billion dollar estimate on medical marijuana is probably low.
    People use it for all sorts of things other than pain relief. Everything from PTSD to depression.

    As far as Chaffetz and conspiracy theories...
    I think one uninvestigated aspect of Benghazi should be in there... or at least uninvestigated by Congress... Seymour Hersh did some investigative journalism on it.

    Supposedly the real reason our boys were in that lovely city was to buy Libyan weapons for delivery to the Syrian "rebels"... so my conspiracy would involve Chaffetz accidentally revealing this information and therefore being threatened with losing his security clearance if he didn't resign.

    Not as exciting as a Bigfoot love child, but...

    A

  5. [5] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    I think when it comes to a successful 100 days it all depends on how you want to view it. In terms of living up to his "contract with the american voter" he has not delivered in todo...but in terms of supporting the "forgotten voices" he has been stellar.

    If it transfers wealth he has signed it...

    Let's see he has:
    Signed legislation allowing our information to be sold without our consent.

    Signed the repeal of regulations that required government contractors abide by the labor laws and not commit wage theft.

    Repealed the overtime regulations that would have put money into the pockets of the workers

    Repealed the clean streams act. Thus transferring responsibility from companies that can afford to keep water clean before it gets polluted to the taxpayer after it has been polluted.

    Got rid of that pesky requirement that employers track workplace injuries for 5 years.

    Signed legislation repealing regulations that allow states, counties, and cities to implement their own retirement savings systems for people who do not get it through work.

    Signed the CRA to allow christian sharia forces to defund planned parenthood.

    Signed the CRA to striking down the DOL guidelines for states drug testing on Unemployment.Thus making it harder for people to get the benefit they have paid for.

    Signed his EO essentially forbidding the government from preparing reports on the effects of climate change. It can't be happening if we aren't reporting on it right?

    Signed the CRA repealing regulations in place that made it easier for the public to comment on the use of public lands during planning and permitting phases.

    Signed a CRA for the repeal of regulations that required states to effectivly comply with teacher training program regulations from the higher education act of 1965.

    Signed legislation "realigning" NASA to be soley looking into space and away from Earth. I guess understanding our planet is not essential to colonizing another.

    Signed a CRA to continue to allow people who need someone to manage their affairs and are on disability to own guns.

    Signed the CRA requiring disclosure of payments to foreign governments by resource extractors. nothing says security more than not knowing when you may be getting into a conflict with someone who is funded by one of your own energy companies.

    Signed memorandum delaying the implementation of the fiduciary duties rule

    Signed memorandum for allowing the KXL and Dakota Access pipelines to go through...all sans American steel.

    Signed memorandum requiring the departments permitting big projects to speed things up and to seek input from the people seeking the projects on how the process can be streamlined. NOthing can go wrong there.

    Gag rule on abortion back in place. Christian sharia at it's finest.

    Two stabs at a ban...which has been semi successful even-though they have not been implemented. Just the concept has lead to less people wanting to come to the US for tourism and bussiness.

    That gem increased vetting for all who are coming or going from the US ...

    He has brought back Federal for profit prison contracts.

    I am sure that there are some I missed, but given the above list he has had a pretty successful 100 days on the incremental front.

  6. [6] 
    TheStig wrote:

    JFC - MSLSD, hee, hee, you are in good form.

  7. [7] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Once again I must disagree with the MIDOTW and MDDOTW awards.
    But I do agree that both awards should go to the same person- Chris Weigant.
    Most Impressive from the view of an establishment Democrat.
    Writing about the Georgia primary before the results are in and how it could effect the Democratic Party without any mention of the farce of the top-two primary lie. It is not a primary, it is a general election because a candidate can be elected to office if they get 50% of the vote in the primary. The "general" election is not a general election, it is a run-off election.
    This is designed to fool people into thinking that they have a choice while actually protecting the two party system and gerrymandered districts from competition.
    No mention about how only about 10% of eligible citizens voted in the California 34th special election general election that they called a primary and that only 5% of eligible voters selected the two choices for the run-off.
    As long as it seems to benefit the establishment Democrats all the rest can be ignored.
    Then the weed article on 4-19 instead of 4-20.
    Then the Trump military article that was really part one of the Trump first 100 days FTP.
    All these articles and topics terribly timed or desperately chosen to avoid writing about something that could have made a difference if written in a timely manner.
    Which is why you are also, from an independent and Bernie wing of the party perspective the Most Disappointing.
    You could have returned from the dark side and written about the farce of the top-two primary lie and written about my efforts to Hijack the 2017 NJ Primaries this week so that the Bernie wing of party both inside and outside NJ could work with independents as Bernie recently encouraged Democrats to do by participating in the conference call on Monday April 24th at 8pm EST.
    Please don't continue down the road of Bill Maher and Michael Moore that supported Ralph Nader in 2000 claiming that it was just the beginning and they were committed to stay the course and then got on their knees in 2004 to beg Ralph not to run again on Real Time (a name that has now become ironic) joining the chorus of the Blame Nader for Gore Losing in 2000 crowd.
    While your Monday article will be too late to inform people about hijacking the primaries before the call, you could still make an impact if you contacted Sue Davies at njindependentvoters@gmail.com and tell her that you will be listening to the call and writing about it and whether or not NJIV will advocate for hijacking the primaries in NJ in 2017.
    As I was instructed by NJIV to invite people to participate in the call, it is OK for you or anyone that would like to see this tried in NJ to see if it could work and possibly be expanded nationally in 2018 to participate in the call even if you do not live in NJ.
    The number for the call is 712-451-0011 . The access code is 341511 . Monday April 24,2017 at 8pm EST. The calls usually last a little less than an hour.

    Have you given up on the the Bernie wing of the party and democracy? Are you now an establishment Democrat first and an American second?

  8. [8] 
    altohone wrote:

    Don
    7

    I occasionally wish CW would cover topics he does not choose to mention, and I try to encourage him to do so.

    But since he provides a forum in which you are able to essentially post a guest column in the comment section, and since you have covered the topic thoroughly leaving little left to write about, perhaps a different approach to convince him is in order?

    I'm just saying I think you know CW well enough to know that your last two questions are not fair, and that your approach may be counterproductive.

    A

  9. [9] 
    altohone wrote:

    goode trickle
    5

    Thanks for that list of accomplishments the Trumpon can't boast about. It sure does point to who he is actually working for and can't be repeated often enough.

    A

  10. [10] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Altohone-
    Of course, I appreciate the privilege of being able to post a colum- er, comments here. I also agree that I have covered the topic thoroughly during the past week. As the call is on Monday that ship has sailed anyway.
    As for the questions being unfair, that is in my opinion a matter of perspective. Remember, I did ask them as questions to challenge CW to think about which side he is on. They could have been phrased much more belligerently as accusations.
    If you saw the Inception movie think of my previous posts as the music to wake up the person from their dream state and the questions as the hard jolt required when the music isn't working.

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @gt,

    good list. i would also add the spate of deportations without due process, mostly of individuals who were not even remotely "bad hombres" as donald had suggested would be the case - and threatening to withhold federal funding from cities whose authorities don't comply with this hysteria.

    JL

  12. [12] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    @ alto 9-

    It is only the OT listing since we are measuring only his first 100 days... So I opted to keep it legislative. The next 6 months will be when we start to see his agenda for the "forgotten voices" come to fruition.

    He has issued a few memorandums ordering the evaluation of various environmental, workplace, and financial regulations and then has directed the agencies to go back to the industries being regulated to seek input as to which ones should be done away with and how processes can be "streamlined",or, as I like to call it moving things back to the darkness.

  13. [13] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    JL 11-

    I thought about adding in the Immigration and the resulting expansion of the constitutional rights free zone stuff, but again that is more of a judicial function and as such in not traditionally used as a yard stick for the first hundred days.

    But... Since I am sorta visiting this. He to has been wildly successful here as well... If you apply the POTUS is the POTUS and there shall be no others before the POTUS logic of the GOP. Except of course when the POTUS can't get what he wants, let alone gets what he needs... then it is always the DEMS in Congress' fault.

    He has managed to not only deport those "Bad Hombre" DACA recipients, he has also caused a drop in the reporting of crimes of the said "Bad Hombres" due to the fact that the RP might get deported for simply reporting that actions of a bad person.

    He has further codified the violation of rights against unreasonable search and seizure by allowing and encouraging search of phones and other electronic devices upon entry to the country.

    He has further infringed upon our rights to travel freely by imposing US exit interrogations for various countries.

    He has set the playing field for the restriction of free speech by calling for the searching of social media not just of those wishing to emigrate here but also for those returning home.

    All in all he is doing a good job of returning us to the 50's ... Which was a great time for all... Right?

    As an interesting side note he has managed to spend 4 million on legal fees resulting from shenanigans on the campaign trail....

  14. [14] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    GT - great list! Don't forget that he's also made the White House visitor list secret (can't be having another Nunes incident), essentially gutted the EPA and Education Departments by appointing Secretaries hostile to their missions, has a virtual mannequin running HUD, and Morgan Stanley running the Treasury.

    Maybe that should all go under the category of Swamp Maintenance.

  15. [15] 
    altohone wrote:

    Don
    10

    Indeed.
    I was offering my perspective.

    But questioning CW's loyalty to our country does seems a little extreme to me, however you put it.

    And CW has a clear record of seeking positive reforms within the Democratic party which are regularly in direct opposition to the wishes of the Democratic establishment... including on your favored topic of campaign finance reform. He is an ally in your efforts.

    That is what shapes my perspective.

    But if you think your tactics are effective, go for it.

    A

  16. [16] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Some food for thought....

    Since the GOP refuses to actually put forth legislation, thus continuing the trend begun during the Obama years, I can't wait to see the hidden gems put forth to further the goals of the "forgotten voices" in the upcoming CR.

    All one has to do is look at the list of big money donors to the inauguration and start checking off stuff done to help them...

  17. [17] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Altohone-
    I also agree that CW has been in opposition to the Democratic establishment and see him as an ally on some issues. I would like to see a return of that CW.
    I also believe (or hope) that CW is capable of seeing my comments as a challenge to be better rather than a insult.
    It is a difficult position to be in try to point out when people that you want to be allies are in your opinion not doing what you think they should be doing without pushing them farther away.
    This discussion reminds of a journalist that continued to write articles calling for exactly what One Demand (Voucher Vendetta at the time) is. I wrote to this journalist about 6 times over an 8-9 month period using his words in his articles and asking very nicely for an opinion on One Demand.
    I got no response.
    Finally when he wrote another article about how we need something like One Demand and claiming that nothing like One Demand was being proposed by anyone, I wrote to him and said that one might suspect that he was just writing about the problem without really wanting a solution- that he might be just exploiting the problem as he had ignored my previous emails. I also said I thought he was better than that.
    I then got a response that did not address the issue. All he said was that insulting people was no way to get a response. He said if I want a response I should instead make my argument the way I did in the previous emails that he ignored.
    That right- he ignored that emails that met his standard for a response and responded to the email that he felt did not meet his standard for a response.
    As I said, I think CW is better than that and is capable of recognizing how frustrating the bullshit from journalists like the one above can be for someone like me and will let me know and forgive me if I occasionally go a little too far and take some of that frustration out on him whether he deserves it or not.

  18. [18] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    correction:
    It should be "that [one might suspect] that he might just be exploiting the problem.."

  19. [19] 
    altohone wrote:

    Don
    17

    If neither of your approaches is working, come up with a third one.

    I do agree that CW will forgive you though.
    But I may hold a grudge.

    A

  20. [20] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    Just a reminder that other approaches are possible and may even be more successful-

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-survey-shows-bernie-is-right-young-americans-want_us_58fd0314e4b0f420ad99c918?93l&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

    The idea of Democrats addressing the issue of inequality with policies rather than platitudes is not welcome by the establishment, so if you think everything is great right now or you're afraid of rocking the boat, don't follow that link.

    A

  21. [21] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Altohone-
    Please don't hold a grudge.
    I understand and appreciate that you were offering constructive advice, even if my responses were or seemed argumentative.
    And even if I don't take your advice, I do consider it- so please keep it coming.

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Altohone (20)-
    Speaking of holding grudges, I don't hold a grudge but have stopped paying attention to Les Leopold.
    I don't hold a grudge against Les Leopold because he actually responded more than once when I contacted him. He even had positive things to say about One Demand (VV).
    But when I asked him why he kept writing how nothing like One Demand was available when he knew that it was, his response was that he gets behind anything that has been proven successful.
    Of course, as with some commenters here the Tea Party proving taking on the establishment candidates in the primaries can work, Bernie proving that small contributions can work and many internet efforts like the Women's March proving that part of One Demand can work is not enough proof.
    If tonight I can convince NJIV to hijack the NJ primaries in 2017 and it leads to One Demand becoming a force in the 2018 elections, then I'm sure Les Leopold will jump on the bandwagon as he says he does- but at that point who cares?

  23. [23] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    But my "favorite" responses came from a journalist that I wrote to in January of an election year.
    He said One Demand was a good idea, but it was too close to the election to start now. He said I should write again after the election in November.
    I wrote to him in November and his response was that people were sick of elections so now was not the time to start this and I should write to him nine or ten before the election.

  24. [24] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    ooops.
    it should be:
    "nine or ten months before the election."

  25. [25] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [22] Don Harris wrote:
    If tonight I can convince NJIV to hijack the NJ primaries in 2017
    Would you clarify for me: at its root, what are you trying to do, and if it were to happen, what would be the electoral consequences you envision?

  26. [26] 
    altohone wrote:

    Don
    21-23

    Yeah, well, most journalists aren't activists, and mainstream journalists in particular have been trained not to rock the boat... and they are well aware that the number of jobs in the profession has dwindled with the massive consolidation in the "news" business.

    I wouldn't get too hung up on what Les said.
    It sounds like he'll be a supporter when you notch your first success. But people with a full plate already aren't the ones you should expect to help you get there.

    As for holding a grudge, though he does it to maintain the status quo or make things worse, we've already got one guy here playing the fake "loyalty to the country" card. We don't need another.
    I was just reminding you that CW isn't the only one reading the comments.

    A

  27. [27] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-trumps-wars-should-seem-so-familiar_us_58fe0d5ee4b018a9ce5d15b9?wyl&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

    It's just a general overview of how we got where we are from TomDispatch, but he raises a few issues that are worth considering in both policy and politics... as we have a little more than thirteen and a half more periods of "one hundred days" of Trump to go.

    A

  28. [28] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    Leaning Blue-
    The hijack the NJ primaries plan is for independents that make up 48% or NJ voters to use the write in slot to vote for third parties and independents or write-in their own name as a protest vote that we want open primaries.(Democrats and Republicans can also participate).
    In NJ you must declare Democrat or Republican to vote in the primaries (independents can declare on primary day at the polls).
    Many independents don't want to join a party to vote in the primaries. We also want to be able to vote for different candidates from different parties for different offices which we can't do now.
    While this would have no electoral effect in the primaries (those votes may not even officially be counted), it could establish a third party or independent that got enough votes in the primary as a viable candidate for the general election (exit polls and the petition mentioned below could reflect the votes if they are not officially counted).
    Many citizens are wary of voting for a third party or independent candidate in the general election because they are afraid others won't be voting for them. This would establish that the candidate can get votes. A petition before the primaries where citizens can sign up to commit to casting this protest vote in the primaries would demonstrate the same principle in the primaries and could be repeated for the general election.
    The real electoral effect would be in 2018 when this voting tactic is expanded to include a commitment to only vote for small contribution candidates on the One Demand website.
    You may be new here and missed all the stuff I posted about that in 2015 and 2016.
    With 20% national participation in 2018, there would be some states and congressional districts below the 20% average and some above. A state or district above the average at 25-35% would make it possible to take on the Big Money candidates in the primaries within the parties and enable third parties and independents to challenge the Big Money candidates in the general election.
    The primaries generally have a low turnout so even just 10% of general election voters could be as much as 25-50% of the primary vote. In NJ for example only about 20-30% of general election voters participate in the primaries.
    In the general election in a district with 25-35% committed to voting for a small contribution candidate a third party or independent small contribution candidate could compete with the Current Major Party candidates. A CMP small contribution candidate that won the primary could even win the general election in a district gerrymandered for the other CMP.
    This could result in 10-50 small contribution candidates elected to Congress (includes the Senate) in 2018. This could encourage more citizens to participate in each subsequent election reaching the point in a few election cycles where the majority of congressional districts have competitive small contribution candidates.
    Once enough people are participating then the Big Money candidates won't be able to get enough votes to win an election making the Big Money contributions worthless.
    This is the quick version, which is all I have time for now because the NJIV call is starting soon.
    You could also check out www(dot)vouchervendetta(dot)org or www(dot)onedemand(dot)org . One Demand is the new name for Voucher Vendetta and the website is being updated, but either should take you to the same website depending on whether your search engine recognizes one of them.

  29. [29] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    altohone (26)-
    "I was just reminding you that CW isn't the only one reading the comments."
    As CW is subject to the same or at least similar pressures as Les Leopold, I'm counting on that.

  30. [30] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    www(dot)vouchervendetta(dot)org
    www(dot)onedemand(dot)org

    Take that filter!

  31. [31] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    [28] Don Harris

    Thanks for the response. It's quite -and I mean this in a good way- informationally dense, so I'm not now in a position to comment intelligently until I have the time to look at.

    In general, though, I support electoral reform encouraging increased candidate access. This so, while at the same time realizing that reforms which threaten both political parties will face reactionary resistance, above and below board, and, quite unusually, not resistance by one checked by support of the other.

    Herein may lurk the unintended consequences of well intended success of the reform.

  32. [32] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @don,

    much improved name. what's the demand? keep at it.

    JL

  33. [33] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    My sentiments, exactly. :)

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01
    27

    It's just a general overview of how we got where we are from TomDispatch, but he raises a few issues that are worth considering in both policy and politics... as we have a little more than thirteen and a half more periods of "one hundred days" of Trump to go.

    Good article. Thank you.

  35. [35] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    nypoet22-
    The One Demand is that candidates finance their campaigns only with small contribtuions.

  36. [36] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    contributions.

Comments for this article are closed.