Looking Through the Smoke for the Fire.

In life, where there are always at least two sides to every argument, it is often difficult to filter out the extraneous noise and get down to the heart of the matter.  In fact, what one side might call diversionary or unnecessary facts might well be called pertinent and critical elements by the opposing side.  Given the polarized environment we have today, this situation is more prominent than ever and it is so very difficult to weed out the fact from the fiction.  Each political party, the mainstream media, and even society in general has adopted an attitude that distortion, misrepresentations, straw men exaggerations, and downright lies are all perfectly acceptable in the quest for a personal or political agenda.

But as we all experience from living, eventually the smoke will clear.  At some point, the noise will die down and we will be confronted with the bare truth.  And even though historical revisionists have a reached a new level of efficiency, reality has a way of outlasting all of its competition and with varying lengths of time passing; a clear view of the way things were and are will come into view. 

There are several issues swirling around our political world these days that are perfect examples of what I’m talking about.  And although oftentimes the time it takes for the truth to come out seems to be excessive; it is probably true that the length of time required to drill down to the real center is directly related to how thick the smoke is.  Put another way…if there is little substance to the objections, the smoke ends up being a thin veil and drifts away in the short term.  At that point in time, the paramount question should become what, if any, judgment should be made upon the creators of the smoke.  Was the smoke thick enough to constitute valid objections and concerns and once they were addressed, did the accusers get their proper credit for bringing up serious conversation and move on with the process?  Or…were the accusers exposed for creating an environment where the wispy smoke they’d been spreading turns out to be nothing more than clanging cymbals and static; a hypocritical and shallow effort to obscure their lack of legitimate points in opposition?  And, were these accusers who sucked all of the air from the room with their rhetorical nonsense get exposed as the charlatans they are?  Among the many issues cropping up in WDC lately, there are five that fall squarely in this realm.   It will be most interesting, and consequential, to see exactly how thick the smoke was when the room clears.

Did the Donald Trump Campaign collude with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election?  For well over a year, a large portion of which Obama and the Democrats controlled the White House and government agencies, evidence has been sought to verify that the Trump Campaign was working behind the scenes with Putin to defeat Hillary.  The reality is that nothing…nothing…of substance has been discovered by accusers to prove this illicit relationship; heck, a significant portion of the accusations occurred after the election in November of 2016.  Even more remarkable is the fact even if it had occurred, it is not against the law.  Now don’t get me wrong: It would certainly be unacceptable and unethical and totally reprehensible; but it is not illegal.  The Obama Administration made a clumsy effort to influence the outcome of Israel’s recent elections using taxpayer money (unsuccessfully, BTW).  There can be little doubt that many Presidents before Obama, from both parties, dabbled in the sovereign political affairs of foreign nations.  This does not make it right; it just makes it yesterday’s news and builds a strong foundation for ferreting out hypocrisy.  So we now have Special Counsel Mueller investigating a matter that has no central crime, no evidence of wrongdoing, and is accompanied by a political frenzy that rivals my seven-year old granddaughter’s drama queen act when she doesn’t get her way.  This affair certainly seems to be putting to the test the old adage that if you tell a lie often enough, it becomes truth.  A huge amount of taxpayer dollars will be spent on a runaway lawyer casually pursuing an ill-defined goal while those in Executive Agencies and Congress, whose official duty it is to monitor the very things the Special Counsel is looking into, can simply pass the buck and perform calculated commentary as the investigation interminably proceeds.  When the smoke clears on this one, there should several dozen egg cartons used up for face painting.

DNC Lawsuit Regarding Clinton Favoritism over Sanders.  One of the side benefits (perhaps sometimes the prime directive) of blowing smoke is obscuring issues other than the one talked about by drowning out all the other talk in  the room.  This would explain why many have heard nothing about the DNC being sued by Bernie Sander’s supporters for their actions during the Democratic Presidential Primary that appeared to unfairly (illegally?) favor Hillary Clinton and helped to insure her ultimate primary victory.  Based on DNC statements, leaks of DNC conversations, and the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz as DNC Chair, the smoke surrounding this episode looks pretty thick.  We can look forward to a pretty definitive verdict on this one due to the fact that it is playing out in court and not in the layers of government administration.   Perhaps the oddity of this story lies in the fact that the future relevance applies much more to Sanders, who likely harbors future political aspirations, than it does to Clinton, who needs to simply just…go…away.

The Obama Administration’s Unmasking Practices and Security Leaks.  This one is going to take a while to finalize; if it ever is.  But the implications stemming from this potential scandal go much further than any of the others we discuss today.  If ideologues and amateur professionals like Ben Rhodes and Susan Rice are able to arbitrarily (and perhaps illegally) unmask U.S. citizens from the results of intelligence surveillance and then selectively leak them to friendly media for political purposes, then we have a situation that makes Watergate look like a schoolyard marbles game.  As has been stated many times by many people, absolute power corrupts absolutely.  If proven to be true, the actions alleged in this abuse of power episode must result in somebody, somewhere, being prosecuted for crimes.  Liberty requires the absence of unwarranted government intrusion into our personal lives.  The retort that the intrusion might have occurred for specific and allegedly justified purposes does not alter the fact that our government must respect the privacy of its citizens.  The inescapable truth is that our government (regardless of majority Party) cannot be trusted to be given the keys to our private lives, no matter what the justification is.  Does this call into question the balance between security and citizen privacy?  Of course it does.  Freedom comes with a price and sometimes that price entails risks.  Those risks are the price we pay for our way of life and the liberties we enjoy.  The mere fact that the Obama Administration may have abused the power of citizen surveillance for purely political purposes makes the dual case that those guilty of this abuse should pay the maximum price and that as stated before, our government simply does not have the credibility or the integrity to enjoy such empowerment.  When the smoke clears on this one, someone should be receiving their meals through the door.

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your friends.

Federal Appeal of Trump Travel Restrictions.  For me personally (given up front that I am a rank amateur legal observer), the bizarre political twisting of the Federal Judiciary began with the SCOTUS decision on Obamacare when they determined that the tax that was passed through Congress as not a tax was in fact a tax.  If words have no meaning in the law itself, how can there be any order to our society?  The most recent example of this political contamination of our Judiciary is the recent Federal Appeals Court (Ninth Circuit in the West, Fourth Circuit in the East) rulings on President Trump’s travel restrictions. Not only are these restrictions remarkably similar to similar restrictions under Obama; not only are they clearly within the legal authority of the Chief Executive; and not only are they clearly warranted in light of recent terrorist activities (i.e. Manchester)…they are simply common sense steps to take in the crazy world that we find ourselves living in these days.  Both Courts split on their travel restriction opinions down party lines with the minority issuing very adamant dissensions.  Specifically, the dissent recently issued by the losing minority in the Fourth Circuit goes a tremendous way towards exploding the idiotic rationale used by the majority in a transparent attempt to further a political agenda through legal means.  Read the dissent here http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/448047/whats-stake-court-cases-about-travel-ban .  These cases are no doubt headed to the Supreme Court and whether you are Democrat or Republican, agree or disagree with the travel restrictions; we should all hope that the SCOTUS will restore some semblance of legal order to this most recent adventure in judiciary madness run amuck.

The ultimate decider: Real Results.  Let’s face it: Presidents receive far too much credit when times are good and far too much blame when times are bad.  This is not to say that they can’t on occasion display extraordinary leadership and have a disproportionate influence on certain issues.  But by and large, our lives are far more influenced by the laws that are passed by Congress and the enforcement of those laws by the Judiciary.  I will acknowledge that the overt and growing influence of Executive Actions have been distorting this democratic principle over the last few decades; but our country still remains a nation of laws and compliance with those laws.  Therefore, it is patently fair and proper that the ultimate judge, both historically and politically, of a President is the state of the nation under his tenure.  Life is not always fair, and the same might be said for presidential politics.  Some Presidents get breaks in the makeup of Congress, the ebb and flow of domestic economic cycles, and the arbitrary nature of foreign policy and global events.  Stuff happens and oftentimes stuff takes precedence over the best laid plans. That being said…it is reasonable (and equitable) to assume that Donald Trump’s effectiveness as President will be based on how this country fares under his tutelage.  Should we consider how unfairly the media has treated his early days in office with negativity and the lack of a traditional Presidential honeymoon?  Should we take into account the pitiful state of domestic and foreign policy that was left to him by his predecessor?  Should we factor in that the Federal Judiciary has decided to engage in legal and political jujitsu in an attempt to foil his initiatives? What about the fact that the Republicans, his party, control both Houses of Congress?  What about the fact that federal tax revenues are at an all-time and historical high?  Should he be credited with the advantage of Executive Action latitude being at the highest point in memory; giving him a relatively free hand to act in many areas free of Congressional input?  The simple answer to all these questions is: No.  Oh, we can read about it and talk about it and think about it; as we should.  We can take it all into consideration.  After all, the ingredients have a huge impact on the quality of the cake.  But the final score is what goes in the record books.  How does the cake taste?  You were hired to do a job: do the damn job.

At the end of the day, when the smoke clears entirely, when the debits and credits are tallied and the paycheck lies on the table beside all the bills to be paid…reality and the quality of life will render its verdict on the Trump Presidency.  So, watch and see how the AHCA plays out and how it impacts health care.  Can real tax reform work its way through Congress and free up the economic engine of America?  Will responsible, compassionate, common sense immigration reform begin to be implemented?  Will some type of infrastructure bill create some good paying jobs across our nation and help to restore our transportation system to a better condition?  Will someone…anyone…in Congress find a way to restore some semblance of fiscal responsibility into our federal budget?  These are the issues that will determine the success or failure of Trump.  In the sands of time, the reasons why they did or did not happen will be lost.  Once the air is cleared and the noise dies down, reality will gavel a verdict and all the other distractions will be irrelevant.  Now…just how do you think that will turn out?

Divided We Stand; the Death of Bipartisanship.

It started way back with Nixon and Watergate; it gained momentum during the Clinton years; it flirted with high speed and recklessness during the G.W. Bush Administrations; it reached a crescendo with Obama in the White House; and now it has reached the level of full blown idiocy. 

It has not only become acceptable to simply obstruct the opposing party and never offer anything in response; it has become expected to do so.  And not only are we seeing the two major political parties engaging in hyper-partisanship these days; the mainstream media has thrown aside any pretense of objectivity and gone full bore anti-Trump.  Clapper, Yates, Hillary, Perez, Schumer, Hollywood…all are in full-throated unison to block any initiative proposed by our President.  The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC and others are now running fiction as fact, quoting unnamed sources with a multitude of axes to grind, misrepresenting facts when all those present at an event say otherwise, and running front page headlines based on memos they have never seen and which are partially and selectively read to them over the phone by…once again…unnamed sources.  The venom we see from late night television is bracing, even shocking on occasion.  The Judiciary has been politically weaponized, career government employees are choosing sides based on ideological agendas, and holdover employees from previous Administrations are now expected to be undercover agents leaking all manner of propaganda and sowing seeds of dissent at every opportunity. 

Bottom line: When surveying the political landscape of America and realizing that forty-plus percent of the nation sees Republicans as territorial Neanderthals, while forty-plus percent see Democrats as anarchic Socialists; it certainly seems that we have quite possibly gone down the rabbit hole, are in total free fall, and all hope of having any semblance of a bipartisan, functioning government has disappeared.    There is no statesman on either side…no group of patriots who are willing to compromise, sacrifice, or sincerely engage in anything less than total political warfare.  And make no mistake about it:  It is war.  Just as surely as each side hurling missiles and bombs at each other, Republicans and Democrats are fully engaged in a contest to totally destroy and rule over the other.

And while we turn our heads from the constant attack memes in the media, trying to find anything that is politics-free and not driven by political correctness; the elephant in the room is this simple question: What is next?  Now that every player is locked in to a position, now that each party is openly armed and armored, now that all the folks in journalism have thrown aside their standards and selected their side; what are the implications of this unmasked hostility for our nation? 

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your friends.

The logical conclusion to be drawn from a fully polarized government is pretty simple: it is either total victory and dominance or total irrelevance and guerrilla warfare.  If Chuck Schumer and the Democrats, in league with the mainstream media and their other liberal friends, choose to continue their strategy of total opposition to anything Trumpian, then Republicans will have no other choice but to use the power available to the majority party to make the Democrats as irrelevant as possible.  The only logical alternative to this “crush or be crushed” mantra would be complete and total stalemate, gridlock, and spasms of legislative seizures; that status would be intolerable to either party in the long run.  The Democrats detonated the nuclear option on Presidential appointments.  The Republicans detonated the nuclear option on Supreme Court nominees.  The next nuclear device to drop will be targeted for simple cloture on routine legislative matters.  Once that threshold is crossed, we have entered into full blown political party autocracy.   And no matter which side of the political fence you stand on, that is not a good prescription for our nation.

If some type of miraculous wind doesn’t sweep across WDC and blow away the partisan seeds of destruction that are being sown, we are heading hell-bent towards a 2018 mid-term election that will set the course for our country either on a continued path of civics-centered chaos or will set the stage for a one-sided Republican transformation of government.   And if the latter turns out to be the case, it is simply a matter of time before the roles are reversed and we flip the script to a Democrat-authored government.  In politics, there are no truer words than “what comes around, goes around”.  Then, as our society and culture springs from one platform to another, the party that plays the minority role will inevitably become more obstinate, more disruptive, and more resentful for not having the pre-eminent position it inhabited not so long ago.  This is not a prescription for long-term success and well being; not a manner of existence that leads to a high quality of life for generation after generation. 

One must ponder the real likelihood that should our government continue to evolve in this fashion, will we not see our everyday lives trend in the same direction?  In so many respects, history has shown us that while it might not actually dictate specific behavior, our government sets an example that inevitably seeps downward into the way its citizens live, work, and play.  If you look around, you can now see that the “win at all costs and take no prisoners” mentality has permeated America.  We are badly fooling ourselves if we make the mistake of thinking that it cannot get any worse.

President Trump and the Democrats with their media allies remind me of a problem I have with my grandson…my six year old grandson.  On our occasional walks through the cattle pastures, I warn him to watch out for the fresh cow piles.  But like some kind of supernatural, organic magnetic force is at play, he’s attracted to the mess and will many times end up poking around with a stick or the toe of his boot.  He simply cannot resist the temptation.  The President and his perpetual critics have the same problem with each other that my grandson has with the cow manure; they simply cannot keep themselves from stirring it up and making it so much worse than they found it.  If there is to be any positive result from a Trump Administration, the President is going to have to talk less, speak softer, and learn to play with a winning hand.  The Democrats and the mainstream media need to crawl out of their sandboxes, shed their perpetual adolescence, realize that the election is over and was legit, and respectively assume their proper and necessary roles as the loyal (to their Country and Party principles) opposition Party and reporters (not Creators) of Facts (not Fiction).

Conservative Euphoria May Lead to Disillusion.

Like any political clique or faction, Republican Conservatives see the world through a glass darkly; they tend to evaluate realities based on their own ideals and never quite see the entire picture clearly.  This is as it should be; but the key to that particular philosophy enduring over time lies in its ability to adhere to non-negotiable principles that don’t totally exclude those who do not agree while compromising on practices that will lead to an overt influence of their thinking on everyday life.  Republican Conservatives were jubilant when Donald Trump defeated Hillary Clinton for the Presidency in 2016.  The question is: How much of that joy derived from severing the liberal path that Obama had placed this government on coupled with the defeat of his ideological successor versus the prospect of simply having a Republican President in the person of Donald Trump?  I believe that, unfortunately for those Conservative Republicans, the initial joy came from the latter; but it will be the former that fosters in huge disappointment.

Most people will hold Ronald Reagan out as the iconic Conservative.  He was a converted Democrat.  Closer to the point, he adhered to many conservative strategies, but on occasion would steer towards a moderate position.  George W. Bush looked like a Conservative, talked like a Conservative, reveled in the celebration of Conservatism, but he was a moderate …up to the point of renaming his adopted philosophy as Compassionate Conservatism.  I will always believe that the common trait that made John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan remarkable Presidents was their political courage.  Clearly, both were astute politicians and did a very effective job of reading the partisan tea leaves.  They then parlayed their reads into political successes.  But in both cases, these men were driven by personal convictions that they upheld and practiced at the peril of their political careers.  George W. Bush had a bit of this in him and, to a far lesser degree, Obama showed brief flashes of this behavior.  This form of exposing one’s true inner feelings is the way that most voters decide where to place their allegiance.  They try to read the real person behind the political mask.  Our President does not appear to be a man driven primarily by strong core convictions; but more so by pragmatic calculation seasoned with a strong dose of political consideration. 

Ronald Reagan has been so politically over-analyzed and his Presidency is sufficiently removed so as to limit the benefit of his comparison to Trump.  However, I find a comparison of Trump and Bush 43 beneficial.  Trump is a product of a New York liberal culture and society.  He was raised a Democrat and was, in fact, a practicing Democrat for most of his adult life.  And while his business experience has driven him to embrace many conservative principles in the realm of finance, his upbringing has molded him into a more moderate or even liberal stance in non-fiscal affairs.  Bush 43 is quite the opposite.  Any objective examination of his Presidency will show that he ran the fiscal affairs of our government in a very liberal fashion; spending tax dollars like a drunken sailor and piling on layer after layer of new bureaucracy.  But the way George W. Bush handled social civic matters revealed a truly conservative nature.  In the case of each man, Conservative Republicans found (and will continue to find) much to celebrate and much to disappoint. 

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your friends.

Like many people in this country who voted, Conservative Republicans rejoiced when Hillary Clinton was defeated.  A victory for her would have led this nation down a path of corruption and policy that likely would have dramatically diminished our great nation for generations to come.  If we citizens are forced to choose a President who does not fully represent our individual personal beliefs, I firmly believe that most Independents and Moderates in each party will select the candidate who bends conservative on fiscal matters and moderate on social matters.  I think that the residual conservative animus towards Bush 43 leads back to this type of logic; even though he was a faithful conservative on social issues, he wandered far off the conservative path on fiscal affairs.  So we have in Trump a fiscal agent who should satisfy the spending desires of Conservatives; but find that the motivation for those habits lies in the principles of business and not in the tenants of Conservatism. 

It is yet to be seen what type of President we will have in Donald Trump.  But from a personal standpoint, I see indications in the ongoing health care debate, tax reform discussion, immigration argument, and budget talks that lead me to believe that the moderate-to-liberal influence in President Trump’s character will be more pronounced in social aspects of governing as his Administration progresses.  And as we move further away from the joy of removing the Clintons from their perch of political influence, the reality of a not-so-conservative President Trump is going to cause a lot of heartburn in the circles of Republican Conservatism.  But even more interesting will be watching the dynamic of a growing conservative disenchantment with Trump as his migration towards a moderate social policy evolves, simultaneously enhancing his standing with non-ideological voters.   Trump appears to be heading towards a fiscally-thrift Presidency that takes either a hands-off or state’s rights approach to the hot button social issues of the day.  The very policy positions that are anathema to Conservatives could make him attractive to many Moderates.  A fiscal conservative with a libertarian social bent might disillusion the Republican Right, but that formula might very well suit the majority of American voters to a tee. 

If he can pull off the truly challenging feat of successfully getting legislation through Congress, he could be in for a long and productive tenure in the White House; assuming, of course, that his erratic personal tendencies do not implode his Presidency.  The over-riding and long-term question of consequence for the Republican Party is whether or not a fiscally-conservative President with moderate social tendencies is pure enough to satisfy the true believers?  If the answer is NO, then the Republicans may be condemned to a position of occasional rule with chronic splintering among its various factions.  If the answer is YES, then the Republicans may have found a winning political formula for future elections and Conservatives may begin to deliberately chip away at our bloated and overly intrusive federal government.

TDSF.

It is really rather ridiculous for everyone to be all up in President Trump’s “first 100 days”.  It is not ridiculous for some type of early assessment to be made on his progress as President; but it is certainly ridiculous to assign an arbitrary number such as 100 to a man that is facing the challenges he is facing.  Let’s get real…Obama left this country and this world in a colossal mess.  At the end of his tenure, our nation was like a pickup truck with the front end over the edge of a steep cliff over a deep holler.  If it wasn’t for the fact that our truck is a 4WD with posi-traction, any reasonable person would have figured we’d be heading on over into the abyss.  Even though I think a six-month point might be more reasonable to examine our President’s progress; I will render my humble opinion on his record so far.  The media do what they do; I suppose if they can do it every hundred days, they get to do it more often.

Every President in my lifetime has come into office with partisan opposition to his agenda.  However, every President in my lifetime has also come into office with some semblance of a media honeymoon…some longer than others.  Obama came into office with more political capital than any President I can recall.  He squandered it in a foolish, selfish, and stupid fashion.  It all went downhill from there.  President Trump, with all of his many flaws and the poisoned WDC political environment, has come into office with absolutely nothing but media animus and an opposition party that stands for little else than “anyone but Trump”.  Regardless of what opinion you might hold of The Donald, it is hard to deny that few, if any, incoming Presidents have faced greater domestic and global challenges, encountered a greater level of vitriolic partisan opposition, and experienced a more strained relationship with the media than has President Trump.  While any person elected President in 2016 would have faced the same geo-political challenges, one cannot help but accept that no other candidate would have been skewered (on many occasions, self-inflicted skewering) like President Trump.  I think we can all agree that had Hillary Clinton been elected President in 2016, the media embrace would have been saccharin beyond reasonable tolerance.  So…let us discuss the last few days since President Trump’s inauguration; or, to put it another way, TDSF…The Donald So Far.

Foreign Policy.  Every President comes into office shackled and cursed by their campaign rhetoric and the irresponsible remarks made in the heat of the contest to obtain the presidency; Donald Trump is no different and likely one of the more “shackled and cursed” in memory.  Fortunately, President Trump has felt no serious allegiance to many of his prior foreign policy positions.  He has initially shown a surprising willingness to adjust his actions to the realities of the planet.  Now this not akin to admitting errors in prior judgment; he has not yet achieved that capacity of humility.  He has, however, demonstrated a refreshing grasp that the global society is complex, arbitrary, and unpredictable; populated by predominantly good people and many inept or evil leaders; and subject to “on the fly” decisions of great consequence.  I will not presume, especially at this early date in his Administration, to judge the wisdom of the President’s foreign policy actions.  I will note however, that I find it refreshing to hear him reaffirm our nation’s preeminent role in world affairs.  The plain and simple fact is that the United States is uniquely qualified to take leadership positions on global issues of war and peace.  Their failure to do so leaves a vacuum that gets filled, to varying degrees, by the most opportunistic, ruthless, or ambitious; seldom by the most able or best equipped.   Obama’s denial of this plain truth was infuriating and the President’s embrace of the principle is reinvigorating.  I also find the President’s choice of foreign policy Administration officials to be sound and even more so is  his apparent willingness to give them the authority and the autonomy to make serious and consequential decisions.  The world finds itself in a very dangerous time and we can only hope and pray that God’s wisdom guides our President’s decisions in this area.  Unfortunately, the President himself is guiding his oft-times irresponsible rhetoric and tweeting regarding world affairs.  There is some benefit to having a truly unpredictable American President that forces foreign adversaries to guess about his intent; the problem is that our foreign allies face the same dilemma.  We can only hope that experience will teach this President to hold his counsel a bit closer to the vest and keep his fingers a bit further from the keyboard.  I look forward to the time when the President will openly acknowledge some of his prior misconceptions about global politics, his awesome but limited ability to influence global politics, and his fallibility in decision making that makes even his best efforts the choice of a flawed man.  There is a delicate and impossible to fully achieve balance facing America.  We must use our power and authority for global good and justice; enforcing universal tenants of morality and humanity.  At the same time, as is oftentimes said, we cannot be the world’s police; controlling the internal affairs of other nations to conform to our own visions.  Calls must made and actions must be taken when certain lines are crossed (genocide, chemical weapons, nuclear irresponsibility); but we cannot, and should not, attempt to micro-manage the perennial civil disorder that occurs on this planet.  Choosing when, where, and how to use the awesome power of the American military and financial machine is a truly intimidating task that would require of any man the Wisdom of Solomon.  So far…Trump seems to understand this concept.  It is yet to be determined whether or not he is up to the task of managing it.

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your friends.

Domestic Policy.  The two most surprising things I have found about this President (after, of the course, the mere fact that he won the election) is that he is obviously making a supreme effort to keep his campaign promises and that he appears to be showing outstanding judgment in selecting members of  his Administration.  Like him or not, the Trump you saw and heard in October of 2016 is the same man that inhabits the White House in May of 2017.  He is implementing (or attempting to implement) the policy initiatives that he ran on and that, my friends, is as it should be.   Elections have consequences and we need to have candidates that do what they say they will do if elected.  It is encouraging to see the President roll back the intrusion of Government into our private and public lives.  It is good to see him shifting power and authority back to the states and the citizens.  It is good to see his disdain (although it is at times quite incoherent) for political correctness.  In the main, he is slowly bringing the massive and monolithic ship of state to a new heading towards a more conservative and less manipulative direction.  Like all so-called conservatives who have reached the Presidency, he is finding it far easier to change policy than it is to reconcile the finances.  I would like to see a greater awareness from our President regarding the national debt and deficit; but I will acknowledge the reality that the governmental spending malady is so ingrained and so chronic that the best we can hope for is a fundamental change in approach; that being an approach that accepts the need to be deliberately moving towards greater fiscal responsibility and a better understanding of what our government needs to do and what our government can afford to do.  I fear that one of our President’s more meaningful flaws might end up being the fact that he has always been a person of privilege; he has never really wanted for anything.  Many times, folks in that position never fully appreciate the consequences of facing demands without the resources to meet them.  Let us all hope and pray our country never reaches that point.  I applaud the President’s sense of priorities.  I like his immediate addressing of health care and tax reform.  I like the fact that the complex and divisive issue of immigration reform is being held over for later, and more extended, debate.  As for the wall…nobody really cares who pays for it or exactly when it will be completed; just get started on it and show some steady progress towards getting it done.

Leadership.  The President has shown positive signs of growing into his job.  Some of his recent speeches demonstrate a new-found grasp of leadership gravitas and his words occasionally approach inspiration and stirring emotion.  One of the President’s most consequential moments came when he nominated Justice Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.  His leadership during that episode was immaculate (with a big assist going to Senator McConnell…a dime for Mitch).  I find it really surprising that he has demonstrated a relatively effective grasp regarding the separation of power between the Congress and the Executive.  Now this grasp will surely be tested as his Administration endures; but for now, he seems to have a good understanding of what he can do and what he must rely on Congress for.  I especially appreciate his patience as the Republicans in the House go through the messy “fits and starts” of legislating.  Whether we like it or not, we the people must understand that these are largely amateur, citizen politicians in the House who represent a handful of counties each.  They are by nature independent people who come to WDC with an idealized vision of how government should operate and trying to organize them must be like herding cats.  It took the Democrats two years with complete control of Congress and the Executive to pass Obamacare.   Can anyone reasonably expect (or even desire) that Republicans will come up with its successor in a few months?  I have stated over and over that Congress must return to regular rules of order and that entails complex and sometimes difficult to understand discussion and debate.  This is how government should work.  The real test is whether or not the process leads to results.  That verdict is outstanding.

As much as I hate to include the media in this assessment, I feel it is necessary to do so.  I find it instructive to read about how the recent WHCA (White House Correspondents’ Association) annual WDC dinner has become something of a “come to Jesus” moment for the press.  Many (but not all) in the journalism community have observed that the President’s refusal to attend the annual event (contrary to tradition) has forced the organization to reconsider its place in this nation’s society and culture.  The WHCA (perhaps more aptly called the Obama Admiration Society) has devolved into a glitz and celebrity-driven club of headline wannabes without any apparent allegiance to any form of journalistic principle.  They have obviously lost their way and their sense of purpose.  I do not say this because the press is predominantly anti-Trump; I say it because the press is predominantly partisan, vindictive, sophomoric, unprofessional, and untrustworthy.  If in fact this most recent breach in the media/President nexus results in a reexamination of their relationship, then it might very well be a positive development.  While the media has been childish and irresponsible to the max in their approach to the Trump Administration, Trump has also been less than classy in how he has reacted to their negativity.  It is important that our President and our media have a civil relationship; one built not on personal beliefs, but on respect for the office and unique position that each side occupies in our nation’s culture.

All told, The Donald has been a pleasant surprise to me.  He has exceeded my expectations on the quality of his appointments, his adherence to his promises made, and his ability to recognize his own Presidential limitations.  Like a promising college freshman, here is hoping that he can finish out his rookie year with continued learning, leading to increased production and efficiency in his sophomore season.  I will continue to cringe at his random bizarre tweets and his occasional rhetorical bluster.  But if in the next couple of months, our Congress manages to pass health care reform and tax reform, we have an episode of bipartisan trough-feeding (aka infrastructure legislation), and if our President can grow into his office in some meaningful ways…then this reality show television personality that rode a perfect storm into the Presidency might end up being a pretty decent leader of our nation and the free world.   

A Grudging Acknowledgement to the Only Adult in the Room.

I have oftentimes been a very vocal critic of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.  While professing a personal devotion to “Senate Traditions”, I believe he has chosen his battles in a curious fashion over his long Senate tenure; a pattern that does not seem to jibe completely with Senate tradition.  I have also found it curious how he chooses when and where to exert his not insignificant influence when policy debates are in vogue.  That might very well result from him being an experienced, studied, accomplished legislative scholar who knows how to acquire power and how to effectively use it and me being an obscure internet blogger.  But on this day, when the Senate Republicans have determined to return the Senate to normal rules of order by choosing to execute the so-called nuclear option, I see Senator McConnell assuming the role as the only adult in the room.  While essentially everyone in WDC (regardless of political standing) seems to be embracing the circus surrounding President Trump and his Media Wars, Senator McConnell has been conspicuous by his absence.  He is the big dog that has not barked. 

While he is unquestionably one of the most powerful men in our government today, he has chosen to keep his own counsel.  He does not court the media; instead appearing only on those occasions when events seem to demand the opinion of the Senate Majority Leader.  Some might say that reality itself has rendered McConnell a low profile player; but that would be a large mistake.  Mitch McConnell is not a flashy, enigmatic legislator and has seldom sought the spotlight.  While it is true that when the challenges came close to his personal set of principles, he has risen up and gone public in a big way; his typical strategy is one of patience, deliberation, and a healthy respect for the letting things play out in a natural kind of way. 

Anyone familiar with his political career would readily acknowledge that he is not one to be trifled with when it comes to campaign etiquette.  He has shown no reluctance to competing at any level necessary to win; even though he oftentimes allows his opponent to determine what that level might be.  I have witnessed his effective ruthlessness when primary-challenged and general election-challenged here in Kentucky.  When immersed in heated political conflict, or when he chooses of his own volition that it is necessary, he can morph from the bespectacled man standing to the side to an acid-tongued warrior that knows no bounds to heaping sarcasm and ridicule on his rival.  There has always been fire in his belly when he chose to ignite it; perhaps his ascending position in the U.S. Senate has persuaded him to call on it more sparingly than in the past.  Experience has taught him that our Government runs in large part through its Senate; and he who controls that Senate has significant influence on government.

While McConnell was clearly not an early or even eventual energetic Trump supporter, he nonetheless always came up with the right words when questioned about The Donald, his Administration, and his Agenda. Exhibiting a quiet confidence borne of strength and power (some might call this arrogance), McConnell has remained relatively quiet while the political universe has debated New Travel Vetting Policies, ACA Repeal/Replace, Trump Campaign/Russia Collusion, and Obama Administration Political Spying.  When these subjects were broached with the Senate Majority Leader, he assumed a low-key response by acknowledging the regular order of the Senate and how the appropriate Investigative Committee processes work.  How refreshing is it to hear someone on either political side simply stand up straight, unflinchingly state the obvious, and say… “Let’s see how it plays out”? 

But when the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch came up, that old fire from down under began to heat up.  McConnell knows first–hand how the Senate Democrats mortgaged the integrity of the “advise and consent” clause for some short-term gains back in the early 2000’s. Although both parties have dipped their feet into this cesspool of hypocrisy, it is clearly the Democrats who have pioneered the political hijacking of the Senate role in Presidential appointments.  There has been a painful, shameful, and inexorable roll towards the Supreme Court Nominee nuclear option and as sad as it is to acknowledge the futile surrender that it represents; it is a welcome occurrence that we can put the charade behind us.  Once the nomination process itself became more important than the nominee, it was damn sure time to change things around. 

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your friends.

As one who has been a life-long disciple of Senate tradition, it cannot have been an easy decision for McConnell to lead the return back to majority rule on Supreme Court nominees.  He knows far better than most that this rule change will come around to work against his party in future years and that any complaints pointed its way at that time will be hollow and specious.  The fact that it is Senator Mitch McConnell (he the long-time advocate for Senate rules of order) who has led the ignition of the nuclear option, speaks volumes to the fact that it was absolutely necessary.  It is a tragedy that the Supreme Court has become so politicized and is now considered by most voters as, at a minimum, a quasi-partisan body.  But if that is the fact, then it is also the fact that the best way to determine that body’s composition is through the ballot box.  And if we embrace that logic; then the simple majority rule for approving Supreme Court nominees is entirely appropriate and proper.

Like a Case of Arson.

There are three political/legal issues swirling about us these days that strike me as being somewhat interconnected.  Federal Judges in Hawaii and Maryland have blocked President Trump’s travel vetting policies from being implemented; that will move forward another space or two next week.  Senate and House Committees, and apparently the FBI, are looking to see if the Trump Campaign colluded with the Russians to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential race.  And finally, Senate and House Committees are trying to determine if President Trump’s tweet accusation about being “wiretapped” by Obama has any legs.  I believe I detect a common approach by the media and the Democrats to all three stories; and that approach is very similar to an arson investigation.

In any arson case, the primary concern for all concerned is to deal with the smoke and the fire and to put out the blaze in an effort to limit the damage.  Once that is accomplished, then the ashes and remains are sifted in an effort to determine the cause.  Was it organically spontaneous or was it arson?  In the three stories aforementioned, the fire is still burning. 

In the travel vetting episode, it has become pretty clear that the lifetime appointment autonomy enjoyed by Federal Judges has emboldened these two black-robed individuals to elevate their personal political philosophies to an equal or greater plane as their judicial standards.  Piecing together the stories that have been released on this matter, it seems very likely that Obama-holdover persons in the intelligence community have put together a wholly unofficial “report”, leaked that report to the mainstream media and the two Judges in question, and given them phantom bullets to put in their legal guns in an attempt to foil a new and different Trump policy initiative.  You do not have to be a lawyer to be bemused by the opinions rendered by the Judges when they stopped the implementation of the Trump initiative.  I have never before seen legal reasoning that cited campaign statements, leaked and unofficial intelligence reports, and sheer personal political opinion used to adjudicate an issue that clearly has national security implications.  This matter has taken partisan politics to a level heretofore unseen.

I remain convinced that given a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump for U.S. President, the Russians would select Hillary Clinton every time.  When you consider the infamous red reset button that Hillary presented to the Russians, the way Obama turned his head the other way when Russia invaded its neighbors to the southwest, the way SOS Clinton assisted the Russians in cornering the uranium market, the way that Obama invited the Russians back into the Middle East party and then left the affair’s arrangements in their hands, and the basic weak-kneed and spineless approach that Obama took to all US/Russia relations; why in the world would the Russians want to change the rules of a game that was going so much in their favor?  Based on the lack of evidence that has been so desperately sought for months on end, one can reasonably conclude that the Russians were simply interested in meddling in anything US and anything cyber, rather than trying to accomplish the nigh-impossible feat of actually influencing the US Presidential election.  Simply because Hillary and the DNC’s lax cyber-security allowed their files to be hacked while the Republicans were able to rebuff such intrusions, are we to assume that only Hillary and the DNC were targeted?  I think not. 

Don’t miss the next post!  Follow on Twitter @centerlineright.  If you enjoy the blog, pass it on to your friends.

And finally, is it so outrageous to think that President Trump would have his campaign organization and Administration spied upon by the Obama Administration?  Can anyone with a straight face submit that the ethical purity of the Obama folks was of such magnitude that they were above using the intelligence resources available to them to help insure the continuance of the policies that they had worked so hard on for eight years?  Remember; these are the same Obama people who politically weaponized the Department of Justice, the Internal Revenue Service, wiretapped the phones of foreign leaders (are you listening, Angela?), had their Attorney General meet with Hillary’s husband while she was under active investigation,  and maintained a literal river of strategic leaks to the mainstream media over their eight-year tenure.  If you want to be a wordsmith and adjust your standards to literal words and their meanings (a first for the Obama Administration and the mainstream media); then President Trump’s wiretap tweet was, in fact, flat out wrong. On the other hand,  if you apply a reasonable, common sense interpretation to Trump’s tweet, the clear meaning is that he is accusing the Obama Administration, with the expressed approval of Obama himself, of surveilling the operations of his campaign and new Administration during the time period pre-election through inauguration, by utilizing the intelligence resources available to them.  When you consider the Executive Action taken by Obama just days before his White House departure that dramatically broadened the accessibility to sensitive intelligence, it is hard not be believe that any subsequent improper (and perhaps illegal) leaks to the mainstream media were anticipated and, most likely, intentional.  For Obama and his ilk, it seems very poor (and inadvisable) form to be hurling dense objects from within the fragile structure that they inhabit.  I have said before that absolute power corrupts absolutely; and the Obama Administration at its close was tripping on the closest thing to absolute Executive Power corruption that I have seen in my lifetime.  There is every reason to believe that they would do everything…everything…in their power to preserve their self-formed legacy; looking at YOU, Ms. Farkas.

Now here is the tie-in back to the arson deal.  As things stand right now, the mainstream media and the Democrats are consumed with the process, not the fundamental concerns, of all three matters.   The Federal Judges want to talk about Muslim discrimination and splitting families apart; as opposed to constitutional law and authorities.  The Democrats want to talk about the meetings between Russians and Trump representatives; conveniently omitting any perspective about Clinton or Obama meetings of a similar nature.  Regarding Obama Administration possible spying on Trump folks, Congressman Schiff has his undergarments in a sufficient wad as to prevent his wife (or whoever does his laundry) from ever doing a thorough cleansing on them again.  In all three cases, all of the attention is being placed on the smoke and the fire and the heat; but that will soon pass.  Very soon, the fire will die down to embers, the smoke will dissipate, and the heat will become tolerable.  Once that occurs, attention will properly turn to hard facts, truth, and evidence.  It is a fool’s errand to predict political game outcomes in today’s partisan environment, but do not be surprised if the law does not overturn the Federal Judges and the Trump travel vetting policy is implemented.  Do not be surprised if there is no evidence found to support any type of election collusion between Russia and the Trump Campaign; that whole notion simply makes no sense.  And most critically...Do not be surprised if the mainstream media is put to the extreme test of trying to paper over one of the most serious abuses of Executive Power we have ever witnessed; that being the improper (illegal?) surveillance of an opposition political party and a duly-elected President, with a bare-knuckled and a sucker punch approach to partisan politics labeled “winning at all costs”.

The Restoration of Our Government.

I am amused by the Democrat’s and other Trump Denialist’s reactions to the Republican’s failure to pass their American Health Care Act (AHCA) House legislation.  To me, a good analogy is a basketball team ridiculing their opponent for missing a breakaway dunk…even when the opponent is up twenty with two minutes left in the game.  Has the composition of Congress (that being the House and the Senate) changed since Friday, the 24^th of March?  Has the date for the next mid-term election been moved up or is it still scheduled for the fall of 2018?  Is Donald Trump still the President of the United States?  I believe the clear answers to these questions will lead one to conclude that even though the initial Republican effort to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act (ACA) failed in a rather public and pathetic fashion, there is ample opportunity and likelihood that a more reasoned Republican effort will be executed well before the fall of 2018.  The more pertinent question that begs answering is what, if anything, have our Legislators learned from this exercise?  Let us consider a few things that we might hope have become a bit more apparent.

As I have written before, the single biggest error committed by Obama was his and his party’s insistence on passing the ACA on a strict party-line vote using extraordinary legislative chicanery.  It poisoned the political well for his entire eight-year term.  Had the Republican’s AHCA legislation passed, it would have done so in the exact fashion that the ACA was brought screaming and fighting into this world; on a party-line vote using extraordinary legislative chicanery.  To me and many other voters who reluctantly chose Trump over Clinton and helped to put Republican majorities in Congress, one of the first orders of business should have been to restore the regular order of business. 

Instead, Senators placed themselves in the middle of House debates; debate and amendments were limited in the name of expediency; terms like binary choices were bandied about; facile efforts were made to include Democrats (in spite of their recalcitrant attitudes) in the legislative mark-up; the President was inserted into the process in a premature way that diminishes the true role of Congress; and a 3-step strategy was developed that would make Solomon throw up his hands in frustration.  The Republican-controlled House of Representatives, with the blessing of our President, started down the same treacherous path as the Democrats; apparently secure in their self-image as an all-seeing, all-knowing, entity with all the damn answers.  Apparently, they prescribe to the same philosophy as their Democratic predecessors…the end justifies the means.  What is in the water in WDC that makes these people leave their senses back home in the handful of counties where their constituents reside?  Do they not understand there is established procedure and regular order for our Congress and the best way to good government is conducting business based on that regular order?  It has now become standard fare for our Congress to reverse engineer legislation.  A small handful of individuals in positions of power and authority decide what the end product should be and then the process is rigged to arrive at that predetermined conclusion.  Instead of bi-partisan legislation and organic law-making, we are witnessing bi-partisan subversion of Congressional function.

Instead of the proper House Committees and Sub-Committees authoring legislation in a deliberate and thoughtful manner based on debate, hearings, and (God Forbid!!) an open and honest exchange of ideas and principles; we are presented with the Just Say No Democrats, the Tuesday Group Republicans, the Freedom Caucus Republicans, and who knows what other organized group of legislators running their own little games and agendas on the sidelines.  Folks…there is a blueprint for exactly how the House of Representatives should operate.  I am not an expert, but I doubt that part of that blueprint is worrying about how the Senate Parliamentarian will or will not rule on a particular Senate bill.  The House is where the tea is brewed; the Senate is where it is sent to cool.  The House needs to get down to some serious brewing.

And when did we get to the point where the main consideration in the legislative process is a spinning game with the media?  Must everything first be leaked or floated or in some way presented in the media before it can be tackled by actual Representatives in the true context of the legislative process?  These men and women were selected by the people in their respective districts to work and use their best judgment to pass legislation that will best serve them and, in a broader sense, our nation.  Steve Bannon, the Koch Brothers, George Soros, and all the other PACs and influence-peddlers be damned; our legislators need to make their laws using regular order and then, once the process is completed, defend themselves to the people who elected them.  Can we find some intestinal fortitude?

Obama began retreating to the (ab)use of the Executive Order when he became frustrated with the legislative processes of the House and Senate; even when his own party was in control.  His frustration was understandable; but his over-reliance on executive actions did serious and long-term damage to our nation, our government, and the ability of our national political parties to coordinate in any reasonable fashion.  If the Republicans in the House cannot get their act together quickly, it is entirely likely that President Trump will allow that same frustration felt by his predecessor to drive him towards governance by executive action.  And whether you agree with his policies or not, that move would simply worsen the crisis our government finds itself in today.  President Trump’s potential abuse of executive power would be no less improper than was Obama’s.  Somehow, someway…someone has to restore some degree of statesmanship to our Congress. 

That someone must be President Trump and the Republican leadership in Congress.  They alone can do this because they are operating from a position of power with their majorities and can fall back to power politics if their invitation falls on deaf ears; they can afford to be magnanimous. They must restore regular order to their operations.  They must make a sincere and reasonable invitation to their fellow Democratic legislators to join in that regular order.  Once that legitimate entreaty is made and if the Democrats as a Party refuse to participate in a meaningful way, then (and only then) the Republicans should use the regular order of the House and the Senate and the Chief Executive to pass party-line legislation that makes sense for this country.  Our nation needs a smaller government, a more efficient and effective government, and a more open and transparent government; but it needs to be done the right way…not necessarily the fast way.  Congress needs to get down to business, forget about their re-election prospects, ignore the media meddling and heavy breathing, follow the established rules of order that are in place, and do the work of the people.  Republicans: Act like winners and reach out to your fellow Democrat legislators for their legitimate input.  Do not run roughshod over the minority.  Instead, make extraordinary efforts to include their ideas in the final product.  Democrats: Accept your President and the fact that the voters have put the Republicans in charge (at least temporarily) of this government; seek your opportunities to participate in the process and do so in a meaningful and constructive fashion.

For all of the things that Donald Trump is or isn’t, I believe it has become apparent that he views (in the main) political negotiations as true compromise.  For all of his partisan instincts that occasionally rear their ugly little heads, his business background has ingrained in him the reality that you never get everything you want the way you want it; the art of the deal is give and take.  The real world of corporate America has taught him this and it is part and parcel of his approach.  This makes him different than recent past presidents.  Judging from the way he has handled the AHCA process thus far, he appears to be sincerely ready to compromise on the final package in order to get something done.  Democrats need to recognize this trait in our President, recognize that he has some innate moderate-to-liberal instincts,  and work with him; not only on health care, but on all the other necessary legislation that should be addressed.