The invasion has now officially begun. Vladimir Putin wasn't bluffing. President Joe Biden's warnings that this was going to happen were not overblown or premature. Russia is redrawing the geopolitical lines in Eastern Europe and the rest of the world is going to have to adjust to the new reality. This is all very grim to contemplate, obviously. We are going back in time to the 20th century, when wars of aggression were a reality that killed untold millions. So it behooves us to look ahead to what this new order will mean, especially what it will mean militarily.

Continue Reading »

This is going to be an article on political spin. I admit it, right up here at the start. But every once in a while, an opportunity arises for Democrats to do what Republicans always manage to do so effortlessly -- paint their entire opposition party as dangerously out of touch because of the extreme positions of a handful of them. Look how much mileage the GOP has gotten out of not only demonizing but also painting the entire Democratic Party with the broad brush of "Defund The Police," for instance. So when Democrats get a chance to return the favor, they really should leap at it.

Technically, that headline (if it weren't spun) should read: "One Republican Senate leader proposes making 'all Americans' pay at least a minimal amount of income taxes, which would mean that half of the American public would see a tax increase." That's a sober and very intellectually-honest way of putting it. But for once Democrats shouldn't worry about the niceties of absolute fealty to accuracy.

Instead, they should grab that broad brush and smear the entire GOP with it, for: "wanting to raise taxes on the poorest Americans -- those who can afford it least -- while continuing to shovel tax breaks at the ultra-wealthy." Because right now, it is as close to a national party platform for Republicans as they've been willing to make public. So Democrats should tear into it with a frenzy.

Continue Reading »

How much does America care what happens in Ukraine? That is the question that is at the heart of how this crisis is going to play out politically, here at home. So far, there's no real clear answer. It's hard to ascertain, mostly because events on the ground are changing so swiftly. Americans are still forming their opinions rather than having long-held ideological positions to fall back on. Ukraine has never been a close ally of America historically, unlike other European countries such as Britain and France. We don't really have a close relationship that stretches back centuries, in other words. This is the biggest reason why the American public's opinion is so malleable right now. To put it another way, if Russia had tried to invade and annex parts of Scotland and England, we'd immediately know how we felt about it -- there wouldn't be any question at all.

Throughout history (like virtually every other country in Europe), Ukraine has seen plenty of changes over time. Even in the modern post-World War II era, the country has seen its borders redrawn more than once. Most recently, Russia reclaimed the Crimean peninsula, claiming that since it had historically been part of Russia, therefore it should be part of Russia once again. The crisis today is centered on two regions in the east of Ukraine (on the Russian border), where Vladimir Putin seems to want to rerun the playbook he used to snatch Crimea. He's claiming the region is more Russian than Ukrainian, and therefore logically belongs within Russia. But this time he's going to face stiffer consequences than he did with the forced annexation of Crimea, so he seems to be moving slower and more cautiously (at least for now -- the situation on the ground could change even while I am writing this).

Continue Reading »

For no good reason, I am taking today off and running an old Presidents' Day column instead. Perhaps it is the weightiness of current events overseas, or perhaps it is just garden-variety Monday laziness. Either way, tomorrow seems soon enough to delve into the present crisis.

Today, though, I thought I'd run a column I wrote four years ago. Four years ago, of course, Donald Trump had been president for just over one year. Nobody had any idea how it all was going to end, as we had barely hit the one-fourth mark of his time in office (or, worst-case scenario, one-eighth). But even back then I could tell that his post-presidency was going to be a lot different than the usual "sitting back and planning his presidential library" phase that most ex-presidents go through.

Trump would be more hands-on and involved, and he wouldn't care one whit about libraries, instead he would care much more intensely about his "brand" and how he would be seen in the future. While back then I certainly never could have imagined the fallout from the 2020 election (and the January 6th attempted insurrection), I did manage to get a few things right.

Judge for yourself. Image it was still 2018 and the worst parts of Trump's presidency were still in the future. Imagine still being able to think of his post-presidency period in somewhat rational or normal terms. That is where I was when I wrote this.

And finally, I sincerely hope everyone has a great Presidents' Day everywhere, whether you were one of the lucky ones who got the day off work or not.

Originally published February 19, 2018

Since it's fun to do, and since today's a good day for it, let's take a look at one particular moment in American history. A Republican president sits in the White House. His very presence terrifies liberals, who consider him an intellectual lightweight (and even that's being polite) and not up to the job in any way. He cares more for his television presence than actual policy matters, it seems. Both the president and his wife seem elitist to the core and disdainful of reining in their excesses after moving to the White House. He is seen as a total puppet, and the only question members of the media have to explore is who the puppetmaster pulling his strings currently is. He packed his White House with his buddies, and they spend a lot of time fighting with Washington insiders. The rest of the world is horrified that we elected such a man president. There are even rumors that his campaign cut a deal with a tyrannical foreign government in order to help him get elected. In fact, there are very real fears he could start a nuclear war at any time, since his foreign policy is both erratic and belligerent. About the only thing he can get done in Congress is to pass a massive tax cut. That's what the prevailing opinion was at the time, inside the Beltway. His name? Ronald Reagan.

Continue Reading »

The world pauses and holds its collective breath as we all wonder the same thing: What is Vladimir Putin up to? Will he invade Ukraine? Is this all some sort of bluff or feint? Or is he deadly serious about reconstituting the Soviet Union's sphere of influence (of satellite states subservient to Moscow)? Is he just waiting for the Olympics to end as some sort of favor to China? Or will the troops eventually go home and the whole crisis blows over?

Nobody knows the answers to those questions except for Putin himself. President Joe Biden and the United States have a limited number of options before anything happens, and a limited number of realistic options even if an invasion begins. We are not going to send U.S. troops and aircraft to fight Russian forces in Ukraine itself. That is clearly off the table. Militarily, we are essentially going to sit back and watch whatever happens from the sidelines. Which is a good thing, because direct military conflict between the two largest nuclear powers on the planet wouldn't be good for anybody concerned. But it would still mean watching it all play out in real time on our television sets, if the invasion actually happens.

Continue Reading »

The Republican Party, these days, is the Party of Donald Trump. The question the 2022 elections might answer is precisely how Trumpy the party is going to get, for at least the next two years. A corollary question is how big Trump's influence truly is with both Republican voters and Republican donors. Many are fervently hoping Trump's influence will fade to at least some degree if a few of his anointed candidates lose spectacularly, but no matter how many wind up losing, the near-certainty is that Donald Trump is going to make another presidential run in 2024 -- meaning the 2022 results may not actually matter all that much. An election with no Trump on the ballot is one thing, but if he's at the top of the ballot the next time around then all bets will -- once again -- be off.

Trump's influence will first be measured in the 2022 primaries, which are fast approaching. Texas will be the first major test, in less than two weeks. The incumbent Republican governor (even though he's already been endorsed by Trump) and the attorney general both face insurgent Republican candidates from the right, as well as a few other GOP-v-GOP state races and House contests. If any of the incumbents lose to challengers seen as more pro-Trump than they are, it might be the beginning of a shift towards Trump which could reverberate in other red states as the primaries unfold. But if the incumbents beat the Trump-favored challengers, it could signal that a Trump endorsement isn't the magic bullet many Republicans now see it as.

Continue Reading »

I've said it before and (sadly) I expect I will say it again, but it continually amazes me that the Republican Party could sink even lower than it already has. It used to be (according to them) the party of morals, of law and order, and of personal responsibility. It is none of those things any more. The last to go was the "law and order" stance, but now they are openly taking political stances that are absolutely astonishing for their support of lawlessness. Such as standing up for the right of airplane passengers to be as disruptive as they please while breaking the rules all who fly must follow. That's not hyperbole or any type of overstatement, that is exactly what just happened.

Continue Reading »

That headline is specific because I have my own personal bias from living in California, but it really could have been generic instead: "All States Should Vote The Way Alaska Votes." Because Alaska (of all places) seems to have come up with the best mix of new ideas in redesigning how people get to vote. They've combined the "jungle primary" system with "ranked-choice voting" and by doing so eliminated the worst aspects of both while keeping the best parts intact. That's quite a feat, which is why I am so strongly endorsing their concept.

Continue Reading »

The Canadian trucker protest seems to be winding down, at least somewhat. The vital bridge between Detroit and Windsor has been cleared and reopened. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has announced a national public emergency, which will allow him to clear the protests in Ottawa as well. But the big remaining question further south is whether American truckers will stage their own protest or not. The right-wing media echo chamber is rooting for such a protest to take place, but so far nothing tangible has emerged from the effort. Perhaps this is because there just isn't any great reason for them to protest here in the first place?

In Canada, the truckers were ostensibly protesting mask and vaccine mandates. However, with each week that goes by there are fewer and fewer pandemic measures even in effect down here in the United States. There is no nationwide vaccine mandate for truckers at all. Mask and distancing mandates are being lifted daily, even in blue states, as everyone rushes to get back to normal again. Give it a few more weeks and there just won't be anything left to protest at all, at least on the pandemic front.

Continue Reading »

Did what happened at the United States Capitol on January 6th, 2021 constitute "legitimate political discourse" or not? That was the question that has divided the Republican Party all week, and may serve to be the one memorable phrase that sums up the difference between those in the GOP who have completely surrendered all their morals and thought processes and attachment to reality to Donald Trump -- and those who have not. Because that's what it all boils down to, really.

Was January 6th a bunch of harmless tourists wandering through the Capitol in search of legitimate political discourse with their elected officials, or was it a violent insurrection perpetrated by a terrorist mob chanting "Hang Mike Pence!" who were intent on stopping the constitutional transfer of power between presidencies? The answer's pretty obvious, one would think, but apparently not -- not over in Republicanland, at least.

The raging debate over January 6th, what to call it, whether to condemn it, and whether it should be investigated as the worst crime against the U.S. Capitol since the War of 1812 was all succinctly summed up by the "legitimate political discourse" phrase, since it was deployed in a censure against two Republican House members who actually had the temerity to make good on their oath of office to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic." A violent attack on the Capitol while Congress was attempting to certify the winner of a presidential election would certainly seem to qualify as something to be defended against, since the insurrectionist mob was so obviously comprised of domestic enemies of the Constitution.

Continue Reading »