duanecbrooks

[duanecbrooks]

Be Thankful for What Trump Is Not BY ANDREW KLAVAN  I sometimes wonder: How many people are really stupid enough to believe in the insane religion of the left? Outside of our idiot intellectual elite, I mean. Outside of the knuckleheads on the New York Times op-ed page, or the buffoons who give literary awards to Ta-Nehisi Coates, or the jackasses who serve as administrators of universities. I can't believe that any substantial number of regular people are as moronic as these folks, that any substantial number really believe that, say, gender is a social construct or Islam is a religion of peace or socialism improves lives or man-made climate change threatens the existence of humanity. This week, I entertained myself for an idle hour with some leftist reactions to President Trump's withdrawal from the environmentally useless and economically harmful Paris climate accord. "A traitorous act of war against the American people," thoughtfully opined leftist billionaire Tom Steyer. "Your kids are gonna die from climate change," was the sober judgement of Vice News editor Chelsey Coombs. "The United States resigned as leader of the Free World," was the sage assessment of CNN's Fareed Zakaria. And sure, their leftist tears made a fine salty seasoning for my afternoon omelet. But still, I wonder: how many actual, common sense human beings buy into their silliness? Not many, polls suggest. A lot of people may mouth agreement, but I suspect many even of these know leftism is largely a virtue-signaling, power-grabbing scam. But the problem is, a few dopey intellectuals and their absurd little notions can have outsized power: the power of the echo chamber, the power of fashionable acceptance, the power of creating the atmosphere within the Beltway Bubble. And while Republicans frequently strut and fret about their opposition to leftist malarkey, they just as frequently acquiesce to it in the event. Witness their inability to stem the disaster of Obamacare now that they finally have the chance. Which is why this au revoir to Paris is so encouraging. By withdrawing from the accord, Trump proves he is not susceptible to the influence of the usual knuckleheads. He seems deaf to the echo chamber, indifferent to media acceptance, immune to the atmosphere. In fact, some of the very things that make Trump unappealing to gentle folk like me — his belligerence, his recklessness, his bullish and even bullying insistence on his own vision — are also what sometimes lift him above the Leftist Crazy that so addles the intelligentsia. How important is that? Very. The other day on my podcast, I interviewed free-speech hero, attorney Floyd Abrams. Abrams earned the hostility of conservatives by working for the right of the New York Times to publish the Pentagon Papers; and he earned the hostility of leftists by successfully arguing for Citizens United. Reading his excellent book The Soul of the First Amendment opened my eyes to the dangers even a few intellectual doofuses can create and (though this is clearly not the book's intention) strengthened my wary support of the president. The money portion of the interview was where I questioned Abrams about the First Amendment approach of leftist Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer as Breyer laid it out in his dissent on a campaign finance case: Abrams: What... Breyer was saying was: the First Amendment is not just an individual right, that it exists to assure that the government actually represents the views of the people by being sure that the people can speak out, etc....  But I think it's very dangerous to start talking about the First Amendment as being focused on making the government work better or be more responsive. The First Amendment is a limit on the government.... The purpose of the First Amendment is to avoid censorship by the government of views, most of all, about the government. Klavan: Right. Because otherwise the government would be deciding what was good for the government. Abrams: Absolutely. Klavan: So how many justices on the Supreme Court, do you think, are sympathetic to Breyer's argument? Abrams: Well, four of them signed on to that opinion. As to whether they all would really do so in a later case, it's hard to say... Klavan: So it's possible that if Scalia had not been replaced with a conservative, the First Amendment would've completely changed its meaning, basically. It's possible. Abrams: Well, yes, it's possible. I don't want to blow this out of proportion. This is edited for brevity, so listen to the whole thing (and read the book). But with the Supreme Court taking on the role, as it has, of super legislature, all it requires is five idiot intellectuals who believe in leftist crap for us to lose the right to speak free — which, let's face it, is inseparable from the right to live free. Because Trump is what he is — and because of what he is not — we have preserved that precious right for another day. For that alone, he deserves our thanks and support.

#the left #the New York Times Op-Ed page #ta-nehisi coates #administrators #Trump #Donald Trump #leftism #scam #republicans #paris #accord #floyd abrams #the first amendment #stephen breyer #the government #the supreme court #thanks #support

[duanecbrooks]

Down With "Controversialists"     What's on the agenda for today is the fact that--of course you're well aware of this--CNN has given the "comedian" Kathy Griffin the boot for showing a picture of herself with Trump's severed head, claiming said shot "created a violent image."         My purpose is not to any capacity stand up for Griffin--what she did did indeed, whatever you think of Trump, cross the line of taste--but to discuss her mega-swinish act in the context of what it signifies, namely the renaissance of "controversialism," the return of folks saying and doing "provocative" things solely--solely--for the sake of being "provocative." Once more, some "controversialist" opens his/her big fat yap, mouthing off "outrageously"--or, in the specific case of Griffin, doing an "outrageous" act--and not only does his/her mouthing-off--in Griffin's case, her grandstanding--get play in the media, but folks actually respond to such ranting--speaking of Griffin, such showboating--as if it means anything. In point of fact, Griffin is absolutely nothing more than the latest in a long line of such performers. Ann Coulter says this and Chelsea Whosit says that and Spike Lee says whatever and on and on and on it goes. And every time--every damned time--folks respond, whether negatively or positively, as if the fool's blather/burlesque has consequence. Can there, oh, can there be a method to this madness?                     Here's the reality. These "controversialists," of which, again, Griffin is only the latest of a long line, deserve no serious attention whatsoever. ABSOLUTELY NONE. In truth, what these creatures do, whether they're (in the main) approved of or whether they're (in the main) disapproved of is not so much enrich public discourse but debase it. They don't encourage public debate but instead encourage public snideness and tantrum-throwing. I myself have some personal experience with this. Several years ago, when Lee did his usual public race-baiting, this time of his brother black picture-maker Tyler Perry, and Perry shot back that Lee "can go to hell," I delusionally wrote and published a post praising Perry and doing my own baiting of Lee. And what was the result of Perry's and my actions? Namely: The media portrayed the Lee-Perry clash as essentially just another celebrity feud, this time between black celebrities, and proclaimed that Lee was ahead, and, later, the Grand Tetons of breast-beating-liberal guilt, The New York Times, printed an Op-Ed article which also went after Perry on racial grounds. Thus Perry's so's-your-old-man return shot to Lee and my post accomplished zero, zilch, nothing. What we should do--and, indeed, would do if we had any real and true sense of perspective--is just ignore these attention-seekers altogether, just pay them no mind (That includes ceasing printing and broadcasting their self-indulgent verbal/visual vaudeville. The key reason it is so printed and broadcast is because of the media's incessant lust after Good Quotes/A Good Visual). It was the Pulitzer Prize-winning sociopolitical columnist George Will who asserted: "What is needed is not liberalism or conservatism but reasonable discourse. Without it, we are doomed." It is these opportunistic, ever-headline-hunting "controversialists" who are arrogantly, thoughtlessly leading us down the road to doom.                 It was the former Chicago sportscaster Mike Leiderman, referencing the hiring of television sportscasters, who contended: "What [certain news directors and station managers] want is somebody who'll be a clown. They want somebody who'll be controversial. Well, anybody can be controversial by saying something stupid." It is time to end this ridiculous, sterile, and, frankly, self-demeaning practice of taking blatantly stupid remarks/actions and reaction to such remarks/actions (whatever they may be) and treating them as "controversialism."

#cnn #kathy griffin #Trump #Donald Trump #controversialism #provocative #outrageously #Ann Coulter #spike lee #public race-baiting #tyler perry #the media #black celebrities #The New York Times #george will #reasonable discourse #mike leiderman #stupid

[duanecbrooks]

Column: Will flaying Trump bring us to normalcy? John Kass  If only President Donald Trump were removed from office, would America get back to normal? You might want to think on it, now that the president is home from his impressive foreign trip to the Middle East and Europe, and is beginning to lop off political heads in his troubled and leaky White House. The Democrats and Beltway media elites are back at it, driven to skin Trump alive, either through impeachment or just to hold the flayed man aloft as their sigil for the 2018 elections. And the Republican establishment, which loathes him, eggs them on, hoping to be rid of their mad, accursed priest. But if their dreams ever came true and Trump were to be removed, either by impeachment or through the invocation of the 25th Amendment (a rhetorical fantasy of Republican #NeverTrumpers), would things slowly get back normal? No. Things would get worse. Trump, the vulgar showman, is perhaps the most (publicly) unsuitable personality to inhabit the White House in the modern era. Perhaps the only personality who would be even less suitable is Hillary Rodham Clinton and her basket of deplorables. But Trump is president now. Yes, he's been caught in repeated lies. And yes, he exudes chaos, not stability, playing the Oval Office with his ridiculous Twitter account like some teenage drama queen. As a recent Harvard University study shows, the news media have hosed him in 80 percent negative coverage in his first 100 days. Some of this, of course, is due to his own making. But much of that occurs because the Washington establishment loathes him and never thought it possible that Trump would win election. They're still bitterly angry that their wisdom was spat upon by the voters. And they refuse to come to grips with their own blindness. As much as America's media, political and economic elite insist we have a Trump problem, they're mistaken. Theirs is a three-card monte diversion, a hide-the-pea game, with fast talking and sleight of hand. Because if you step back from the carnival drama — away from the mark trying to follow the cards and the slickster chatting while hiding the pea under the shell — you might achieve some perspective. And you might see something moving along the edges of it all, something darker and menacing to the republic: It is the profound failure of the elites, scurrying to cover themselves. You might almost say we are two countries now joined only by loathing and mistrust, a nation of coastal media/political elites marked in blue, and a nation of red states in the middle. True, Clinton received about 3 million more votes than Trump. But almost 63 million people voted for the president. And forcing them to their knees in capitulation is not a prescription for unification but a prospect for disaster. Trump voters didn't create the divided nation. The elites divided it over time, through economic dislocation and abandonment of the working class, and a mad push for endless wars in which soldiers returned to find no jobs or economic future. Now America is reaping what the elites have sown. Months and months before the presidential election, I began thinking of Trump not as a cause of American disruption but a symptom of it. And as much as I don't like quoting myself, here is something from March 2016: "It's obvious the American political system is breaking down. It's been crumbling for some time now, and the establishment elite know it and they're properly frightened. Donald Trump, the vulgarian at their gates, is a symptom, not a cause. Hillary Clinton and husband Bill are both cause and effect." The establishment pushed the wars and free trade and their partners in the corporate-government matrix agreed to the sending off of capital (and jobs) to foreign lands. For all the talk of partisanship, Democrats and Republicans were the two horns on the head of the goat. And Trump voters? They were forgotten, left behind, mocked as deplorable. Would Trump the barbarian have been elected president of the United States even 10 or 20 years ago? No. He seems determined to prove he is socially unfit for the office. His rude personal style ruffles the feathers of many who see him as a pretender or a huckster. But he's not dumb. And neither are the almost 63 million people who voted for him. They've long been dismissed as stupid or unlettered or unsophisticated. They'd been written off as pathologically angry by the media that cleave to the establishment and see distrust in government as some kind of mental disorder. I grew up with these people. They don't deserve the shaming that comes their way. They were betrayed. And all they want, really, is meaningful work and to not be told they're idiotic or hateful simply because they dare support traditional values, and that a nation should shape its culture by controlling its own borders. They knew Trump was loud, they knew he was vulgar, they knew he was trouble. And they voted for him because they wanted him to make trouble. They wanted him to punch the Washington elites in the mouth, to kick them and stomp on them as they had been kicked and stomped on. They detest the ruling elites in the modern Versailles so much that they installed a character like Trump. Fixating on Trump doesn't really address this. And you might want to ask yourselves, what happens 10 years from now, with the next Trump, from the right or from the left? Because things aren't going back to normal, are they?

#Trump #Donald Trump #hillary rodham clinton #deplorables #twitter account #the news media #the elites #two countries #trump voters #the establishment #dumb #shaming #betrayed #trouble #fixating #10 years #things #normal

[duanecbrooks]

Praising "Sex Friends"     The complete and utter solidification of Teri Ann Linn as My All-Time Favorite Make-Believe Lover and the discovery of a marvelous YouTube one-two punch, as far as seeing items on said online service is concerned--namely seeing the Friends With Benefits trailer and the standout scene from the other two-gorgeous-and--intelligent-young-folks-agree-that-their-relationship-will-go-no-farther-than-having-sex-together theatrical film, No Strings Attached (in the latter, the Ashton Kutcher character's flaky-former-television-actor Dad [Kevin Kline] tells him and Natalie Portman that he and his bimbo lady, Kutcher's former girlfriend, want to have a baby and asks for Kutcher/Portman's blessing, whereupon Portman tells him: "There's really no reason for you to bring a child into this world, since you're acting like children already")--both raise these questions: Why can't there be relationships like the one that the Justin Timberlake/Mila Kunis characters and the Portman/Kutcher characters had in their pictures and the one that I in my head have with Teri in real life? What's wrong with folks agreeing to be "sex friends" and nothing else?                         I mean, consider it. The kind of relationship that the Timberlake/Kunis portrayals and the Kutcher/Portman portrayals had in their pictures came with no maudlin ties, with no sentimental obligations. They could come and go as they pleased, their relationships were honest, up-front, and were perfectly clear to both of them. Really and truly, what more could ask for, and expect, in a relationship? And it was the burlesque-queen-cum-B-film actor Liz Renay, in her best-selling memoir My First 2,000 Men, who threw down the gauntlet.                                "Men in general at least occasionally cheat on their wives...It's only                   natural, when you think about how unrealistic marriage vows really are                   ...Now, honestly, how in the hell can any human being promise to feel                   the same as he feels today for the rest of his or her life? How can you                   promise you'll love the person you love a year from now, much less ten                   or twenty or fifty years?...Love is a feeling that happens to us. We can't                   invent it or force it to happen. If love leaves us, we can't command it to                   return...You can't truly promise to love another person for any length of                   time. With so many factors that affect our feelings, how can you?"              Just so. Face it, men, wouldn't we just love to be involved, sans marriage, with the kind of mega-hot lady Malin Akerman revealed herself to be during her bedroom scenes with Ben Stiller in their classic 2000s big-screen rom-com The Heartbreak Kid ("Jackhammer me!...Fuck me like a black guy!...You're not doing it!")? Isn't there a considerable part of us that mightily envies the George Clooney of old, the guy he was before Ms. Amal came into the picture? And the pre-Annette Bening-era Warren Beatty? Doesn't a large part of us look back fondly on the "swinging singles" period, when sexuality and sex itself were free and open to us all, thoroughly and totally coming without demands or duties? Also: Just take a look at the very high level of divorce in contemporary America. Establishing "sex friends" would insure that relationships, when they end, would do so on a happy note, that the mutual regret and the mutual bitterness that are so often very much parts of divorce would not be there. The truth is--and I've touched on this before--the relationship that my heroine Robin Givens had with the womanizer extraordinaire Eddie Murphy in their iconic cinematic rom-com Boomerang is most, or at least many women's secret fantasy, just as the part where Dane Cook was "hittin' it" with all those female beauties in his huge-success picture rom-com Good Luck Chuck is many, if not most men's secret fantasy.                 It was Al Pacino who, near the end of his legendary large-screen erotic thriller Sea of Love, told his investigating-police-detective partner John Goodman: "People are work, brother. A lot of work." Having "sex friends" would bring much-needed play into the work that indeed comprises folks, would make that work much easier to bear up under.

#solidification #teri ann linn #youtube #one-two punch #Friends With Benefits #no strings attached #sex friends #portrayals #liz renay #my first 2000 men #gauntlet #love #malin akerman #ben stiller #the heartbreak kid #al pacino #Sea of Love #John Goodman

[duanecbrooks]

Trump's budget isn't the disaster you think By Douglas Holtz-Eakin Trump budget plan has taken heat for vast spending cuts, particularly to Medicaid, and assumptions about revenue and growth.   The U.S. faces serious fiscal problems. The economy is now projected to creep along at a bit less than 2% annual growth. Spending and revenues remain dangerously out of whack because of rising entitlement spending. This threatens to steadily crowd out discretionary spending on national security, basic research, education, infrastructure — the things the Founders saw as the actual responsibilities of government. Viewed from this perspective, the budget deserves mixed reviews, but not disdainful dismissal. It strongly recognizes the need for better growth, and assumes the average growth rate will rise from 1.9% annually to 2.9% over the next decade. Is that aggressive? Yes, but every president's budget is aggressive. It would require that everything -- tax reform, regulatory reform, infrastructure, education reform and more -- be enacted and work exactly as predicted. But that's how every president's budget is formulated. If Trump's budget is right, it would be an enormous improvement in the economy, but more importantly in the lives of every American. The fuss over the revenue seems misplaced. The budget has few specifics, but at the top line it shows that nominal gross domestic product averages growth of 5% per year over the budget window and revenues average 5.2%. By comparison, in the Congressional Budget Office baseline, the corresponding growth rates are 3.9 % and 4.2%. The administration has boosted its estimates by roughly a percentage point, with correspondingly faster revenue growth. By the standards of most presidents' budgets, this is a misdemeanor at best. Turning to controlling the entitlement-spending explosion, Trump deserves credit for proposing a serious Medicaid reform. Critics may not like the particulars, but nobody should argue with a straight face that the status quo is acceptable and reform per se is a bad idea. So, kudos to him. In the other direction, the budget takes Social Security and Medicare off the table. This sends the message that these programs are fine; they are not. Neither program will be financially sustainable over the long-term and seniors deserve programs they can count on and, in the case of Medicare, deliver the highest value of health care. These programs should be in the reform mix. The demerits in the budget belong with the annual discretionary accounts. The budget simply accelerates an already unappealing trend. There will be too few resources to fund the national defense needs that experts have identified and, for example, 18% cuts in the National Institutes of Health go the wrong direction on basic research. This is not to say that every non-defense discretionary program is perfect. They are not. In particular, the anti-poverty programs have failed to produce economic self-sufficiency among their beneficiaries and, as a result, have not "solved" the poverty program. But these programs should be critiqued, better alternatives developed and the budgetary costs of the improved programs incorporated into the discretionary totals. That is, change the programs on their merits. The 2018 budget sends the message that they are being cut simply in order to reach balance. It invites the portrayal of an administration callously indifferent to the quality of the programs for lower-income Americans. The 2018 budget does not get straight A's, but it is a far cry from the complete failure that critics have claimed.

#spending cuts #medicaid #fiscal problems #aggressive #the congressional budget office #Trump #Donald Trump #credit #medicaid reform #social security #medicare #demerits #programs #the 2018 budget #callously indifferent #quality #complete failure #critics

[duanecbrooks]

In Favor Of Geeks     Facts: 1) It has at last finally been cemented in my mind the format in which I'll watch My Two All-Time Favorite Narrative Television Programs, namely the 1990s Fox prime-time soap Pacific Palisades and the much-more-recent NBC interracial sitcom Truth Be Told--two series that, as I am well aware, most folks would not list as their All-Time Favorite Anythings--on YouTube (watch one show one week, the other show the next week); 2) It has come to pass that it looks to be highly unlikely that I'll be seeing the just-released Baywatch theatrical-film-reboot any time soon, as it's not playing at any picture theater that I can easily get to. And it's said facts that are a major factor in my coming to a major realization concerning myself. Namely...     I am and have been throughout my adult life a geek in the Meghan McCain tradition.             I mean it. I have and have long had a monumental sweet tooth for pictures in which gorgeous, sexy ladies either star or are prominent players and wherein the aforementioned ladies display most if not all of their gorgeous, sexy bodies--indeed, as I've disclosed to you before (and, as I recall, more than once), my All-Time Favorite Theatrical Offering is the classic 1980s theatrical-film film noir Body Heat. I have seen almost every big- and small-screen presentation that has featured my woman Robin Givens, not to mention the fact that I've hoarded away just about everything that has been written about her and just about every magazine cover that has showcased her since she came into public view--indeed, my All-Time Favorite Media, and I believe I've dealt with before also, and, again, more than once, is and has long been Heart and Soul magazine's 2010s cover article on her. Turning to TV specifically, during the 1980s I regularly savored the comedic antics of Ed O'Neill and his Married...With Children family and the campy/melodramatic antics of Joan Collins and the Dynasty Carrington family. And during the 1990s I luxuriated in the plush sexiness of Pamela Anderson and the rest of the Baywatch lifeguard femmes--this was, of course, long, long before her current incarnation as an unbearably shrill, unbearably self-righteous "activist"--and in Heather Locklear's spicy, delicious Melrose Place bitchiness. I eat up and have always eaten up Entertainment Weekly magazine's "Reunion" issues, the issues wherein the casts of much-known and much-beloved pictures and television shows are brought back together and look back upon their projects. My All-Time Favorite TV Program is the Kathie Lee/Hoda Today show. And I wholly love, love, love my computer and my DVD player.                 So there's my geekdom, standing tall and proud. The fact is, geekdom has made and continues to make formidable contributions to the celebrity/entertainment sphere and to the culture overall. Indeed, to be a Meghan McCain-esque geek is an entirely worthwhile station in life, one that is in no capacity to be scoffed at, one that is, au contraire, to be eminently cherished.                   The reasons this is true are two.                   First: To engage in geekdom is to involve the mind and the psyche thoroughly and totally, to involve oneself to the degree that all problems, all concerns, all hang-ups, all neuroses are not only successfully mashed down but are sent out the door completely. With geekdom, the brain and the senses are fully enveloped in the activity at hand, are wholly embracing of whatever media is partaken of. Thus, for that time the consumer becomes a 100-percent functioning person, his/her complete self all enwrapped in whatever form is being taken in. This, of course, means an absolutely engaged, absolutely there person, which is, naturally, good for the country as a whole. A personal example, one that, once again, I've taken up in the past and, once again, more than one time: Whenever I'm enmeshed in sexual fantasies regarding My All-Time Favorite Make-Believe Girlfriend Teri Ann Linn, my hang-ups and my neuroses and the rest of my assorted looninesses are pushed down entirely and, very often, go out the door completely. At such times I'm thoroughly, totally present, thoroughly, totally in the moment. At such times I'm fully focused upon what I'm doing and in no sense do my various crazies constrict me, which is, of course, nothing but positive concerning my well-being as a person and my inclination to contribute to society. Also: With pretend lovers it's fully not necessary to have to tolerate what is often personal female goofiness ("Space! I need SPAAAACE!").                         That's the first reason. Secondly: Geekdom ensures that we see creative folks and creative forms in their proper perspective, that we not blow them up into being more than what they actually are. As did not happen when, during the 1960s and the 1970s, Rolling Stone magazine seriously questioned rock stars regarding U.S. Vietnam policy; or when Life magazine, during an article on the veteran cinematic director Sam Peckinpah, actually expressed disappointment that Peckinpah failed to fill the role of National Sage (said magazine poutingly asserted: "One hoped that the man who has captured violence so well in his films would be able to tell us where he is leading us. But one can't look to Sam Peckinpah for any...cure [for the appallingly high degree of violence in America]. He is too wrapped up in his own complaints"); or when the longtime actor/dancer/writer Shirley MacLaine, as she herself revealed in her super-bestselling personal-essay compilation I'm Over All That And Other Confessions, got not on the Nixon "show business enemies" list but on his "political enemies" list--and that his White House had her New York apartment searched and had her telephone lines cut to ensure that she got the point; or when, after the Dixie Chicks--a singing group--did their sounding-off on then-President George W. Bush, both of my hometown newspaper The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's handkerchief-head, ever-whining black columnists, along with--hold on now--Time magazine in a cover story, seriously depicted the Chicks as gutsy freedom fighters; or Bush himself, who as President of the United States of America daily faced having to make decisions that majorly impacted the fortunes and even the lives of many, who consistently grappled with issues of monumental national and international import, actually contending that the worst moment of his presidency, the occurrence that was its lowest point was when one black rapper--repeat, one black rapper (Kanye West)--publicly badmouthed him (i:e; West's nationally televised assertion that Bush "doesn't care about black people"). And: There are the facts that this same rapper has announced that he intends to make a serious run for the presidency in 2020--and that he's been taken seriously by much of The Mainstream Media--and that, of course, our current commander-in-chief came into major public attention as a "reality-television" attention slut--which, come to think of it, largely accounted for his political success.                     It was the greatly-esteemed interviewer Dick Cavett who asked the Pulitzer Prize-winning composer/diarist Ned Rorem why it is that artistic institutions flourish so much more when conservative White Houses are in power than when liberal ones are. Rorem's answer: "Because liberals view the arts as vehicles for advocacy and propaganda, while conservatives see them as outlets for leisure and reflection, which is what the arts are [emphasis mine]." In truth, geekdom is to be applauded and cheered for serving as a reminder that creativity, while it can, yes, be intellectually stimulating and psychologically fulfilling, is at heart a leisure activity. And that that fact should at all times be kept in mind while engaging in it and/or while consuming it.

#Pacific Palisades #truth be told #Meghan McCain #Body Heat #robin givens #Heart and Soul Magazine #geekdom #teri ann linn #rolling stone magazine #rock stars #U.S. Vietnam policy #life magazine #sam peckinpah #shirley maclaine #the dixie chicks #kanye west #dick cavett #Ned Rorem

[duanecbrooks]

If Trump is innocent of collusion with Russia, what happens to the media? by Lisa Boothe  With the investigation into Russia's interference in our election underway, the mainstream media have engaged in rampant speculation about President Trump's administration. Despite any evidence of collusion or an actual crime that has taken place, publications and networks have drawn comparisons to President Richard Nixon and Watergate. They have wildly and recklessly speculated about impeachment and obstruction of justice. But no one is asking the more likely question: What happens to the media if the president is innocent? The media are already suffering from a credibility crisis. Trust in the media is at an all-time low. And according to Gallup, 55 percent of people believe the media are often inaccurate. A Harvard-Harris poll had a similar finding, showing that 65 percent of voters believe there is a lot of fake news in the mainstream media. If you watch the news or read publications like the Washington Post or New York Times, it is easy to see why Americans feel that way. Trump has already been convicted by the mainstream media. Hardly is it ever mentioned that Democratic leaders like Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Rep. Adam Schiff have both said they've seen no evidence of collusion. Trump has said he was told by former FBI Director James Comey that he is not under investigation. During a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Chairman Chuck Grassley and ranking member Feinstein corroborated that statement. Every day, a new bombshell of anonymous sources is dropped. In just the past two weeks alone, the New York Times' reporting of a third party account of Comey's memo following a February meeting with the president fueled headlines and television coverage across the country. A report that an "American official" claimed Trump called Comey a nut job to Russian officials had the same effect. The Washington Post's report, citing "two current and two former officials," that the president asked intelligence officials to deny there was any collusion with Russia also drove headlines and television coverage. Americans should be skeptical though. These publications have gotten enough wrong for readers to question the veracity of the reporting. After Comey's firing, the New York Times reported that he asked Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein for additional resources for the investigation. But that was contradicted by acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe when he testified under oath that the FBI has adequate resources. The Washington Post ran an article claiming that Rosenstein threatened to resign, but Justice Department says that was blatantly false. And contrary to the Washington Post's reports that the president asked intelligence officials to deny collusion, former CIA Director John Brennon testified this week that he never heard that from employees in the intelligence community. A new report from Harvard Kennedy School highlights the media's deeper problems. It concluded that 80 percent of the news coverage in Trump's first 100 days was negative, never dropping below 70 percent and even reaching 90 percent at its peak. One network even devoted coverage to a story that Trump gets two scoops of ice cream and everyone else gets one, as if it was an indictment of his character. We don't know what will come of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, but the media should tread carefully. They are already facing a credibility crisis -- sensationalized reporting without concrete facts will only further erode public trust in the media.

#russian interference #the mainstream media #Trump #Donald Trump #comparisons #richard nixon #watergate #credibility crisis #fake news #the washington post #The New York Times #democratic leaders #diane feinstein #adam schiff #harvard kennedy school #ice cream #robert mueller #public trust

[duanecbrooks]

It's Time To Liquidate Bond     The death of Sir Roger Moore, who is of course best known for all the agile charm, wry humor, and effortless suavity he bestowed upon us in all those James Bond pictures, at 89 of, so goes the attribution, cancer causes the mind to turn to all that agile charm, etc. he provided in said theatrical films and to the undeniable fact that, thanks largely to him, those pictures were easily among the 007 cinematic series' finest hours. It also brings into focus what has long been a basic, equally undeniable truth.             Namely...             The entire James Bond franchise has long, long outstayed its welcome and should have been discontinued long, long ago.               The reasons why this is so are myriad. First of all, there's the fact that nearly everybody associated with the Bond flicks of old--Bernard Lee (M), Desmond Llewelyn (Q), Lois Maxwell (Miss Moneypenny), the Bond series' towering production designer Sir Ken Adam, certainly, definitely the iconic Bond producers Albert "Cubby" Broccoli and Harry Saltzman, and now Moore--are dead. In point of fact, literally the only major folks from 007's salad days who are still alive are Connery, Honor Blackman (who portrayed the legendary Pussy Galore character), and that smokin'-hot--and gold-plated--blonde from Goldfinger, Shirley Eaton--and all of them are, to put it politely, well past their prime. The truth is, the Bond films have lost virtually all linkage to their glorious history--even more so with the passing of Moore--and therefore have no genuine reason to exist. Really and truly, these pictures, without any link to their classic period--and the coffin was unquestionably nailed shut due to Moore's death--have been divested of any claim to existence.                 Secondly--and this is more basic--truth be told, the 007 flicks have entirely shot their cultural wad. After all, let us not forget: James Bond came to fruition during the Kennedy era, when we honestly believed that one man could employ his wit and his charm and his good looks and his sexiness to save the day. Now, however, with the days of Camelot long, long (long) behind us--and with, frankly, the essential Bondian heroics being given a contemporary sheen due to such actors as Matt Damon and Bruce Willis--the aforementioned pictures have thoroughly, totally lost their cultural definition. It's not just that said theatrical films need a new face or some tinkering with its basic elements. The whole Bond set-up is retro. Even as escapist fare, the entire 007 concept is monumentally old hat.               Finally, allowing Bond to have run as long as he has has cheapened and tarnished the quality his pictures had in their prime. The fact is, the repetitiveness and the staleness that the essential Bond format has acquired fiercely obscures the greatness of the 007 pictures of old, of both the Connery Bonds (Goldfinger, Thunderball, et al) and the Moore Bonds (The Man With The Golden Gun, The Spy Who Loved Me, et al). Pure and simple, the entire Bond framework has been run into the ground, the character having grown as tired and as outdated as was Bobby Riggs when, during the 1970s, he foolishly stepped onto the tennis court intending to seriously play against--and to actually triumph over--Billie Jean King.                 It was Sinclair McKay, in his dynamite-selling 007 chronicle The Man With The Golden Touch: How The Bond Films Conquered The World, who asserted: "[The Bond novelist Ian] Fleming we know gave Bond his own tics and neuroses; the [007] screenwriters for the most part eliminated them. So, the man on the screen, the man we have seen doing his stuff twenty-one times over? Who exactly is he?" What James Bond is, to come right out and say it, is a man who, to riff off the classic 1960s pop ballad, has stayed too long at the fair. And it is time--indeed, past time--for Eon Productions to own up to that inescapable fact, discontinue the character, and find some other way to make money.

#sir roger moore #james bond pictures #cancer #the James Bond franchise #007 #the kennedy era #camelot #matt damon #bruce willis #repititiveness #staleness #bobby riggs #the 1970s #billie jean king #Sinclair McKay #the man with the golden touch #ian fleming #eon productions

[duanecbrooks]

Can Trump Make America Grow Again? There is a gem buried under all the allegations against President Trump : The economy is markedly improving and more people are working. As Speaker Paul Ryan recently noted, Republicans “pledged that we would repeal regulations to create jobs and get the economy moving again.” Through executive orders, regulatory rollbacks and strategic use of the Congressional Review Act, the president and Congress are delivering. The end of President Obama’s regulatory onslaught could begin the recovery Americans have heard so much about. The business community is increasingly optimistic. Every businessperson I speak with mentions the energizing effect of being able to focus on growth rather than overcoming the latest government roadblock. In April the Index of Small Business Optimism, produced by the National Federation of Independent Businesses, posted its sixth straight month of historically positive feelings, “a hot streak not seen since 1983” during the Reagan Administration. That’s backed up by the IBD/TIPP Economic Optimism Index, which “gauges how confident consumers, workers and investors are in the pace and direction of the U.S. economy.” An index above 50 indicates optimism. For May, it came in at 51.3. That’s 2.1 points above the index’s 16-year average of 49.2. It’s still early, but the economy is showing signs of real growth, too. In April the unemployment rate hit a 10-year low, while existing home sales surged to a 10-year high and U.S. industrial production registered its largest gain in three years. Last Thursday the Labor Department announced that the number of people claiming unemployment insurance benefits dropped to its lowest level since November 1988. Even more impressive, the moving four-week average for this metric dropped to 1.95 million, its lowest level since January 1973, when it was 1.92 million. That’s even more impressive than it sounds, since there are 72 million more people in the labor force today. The unemployment rate can fall for many reasons that hardly indicate economic health. People can drop out of the labor force or accept part-time jobs because they cannot find full-time work. The good news is that the unemployment rate is declining for the right reasons: More people are finding jobs, and more people are finding full-time jobs—both at an accelerated pace. From February through April, the first three full months of Mr. Trump’s presidency, the number of Americans employed increased by 628,000 and the number unemployed decreased by 472,000. By comparison, for the same three-month period in 2016, the number of Americans employed decreased by 15,000 while the number unemployed increased by 65,000. It isn’t merely that more people are working now because the population has grown. A higher percentage of Americans are working. At 60.2%, the proportion of Americans over 16 working in April was at its highest since February 2009, Mr. Obama’s first full month in office. Significantly, Americans in their prime working years are benefiting. At 78.6% in April, the percentage of those 25 to 54 employed hit its highest level since September 2008. The jobs are better, too. After three full months of the Trump administration, 956,000 more people are working full time and 321,000 fewer are working part time. For the comparable three months in 2016, 49,000 more Americans were working full time and 101,000 fewer were working part time. With more people working at better jobs, family income increased. According to the independent research firm Sentier, median household income was $59,361 in April, a 15-year high and up 2.2% from $58,060 in January. The latter figure was up 1.7% from $57,090 in June 2009, when the recession ended. In other words, median family income increased more in the first three months of the Trump presidency than during the 7½ years of the Obama recovery. It will take more than a quarter to produce the robust recovery Americans have expected since the recession ended nearly eight years ago. We need to see sustained annual economic growth in the promised 3% range before declaring victory. To reach that goal, Republicans need to pass tax and health-insurance reform, with or without Democratic support in the Senate (the nuclear option should be on the table). But the economic momentum is already there and hard to deny. The progressive left is concerned. Should Mr. Trump and Republicans succeed in getting the nation back on the path of economic growth and prosperity, something Mr. Obama was woefully unable to do, it will be decades before the left can again obfuscate economic reality. They will have a much harder time convincing Americans to subject themselves to the stagnation that big government produces. Perhaps this explains the left’s unrelenting and near-hysterical focus on any issue other than the economy. The task is to build on President Trump’s momentum. If Republicans can unite and advance his economic agenda, the only question in 2018 will be whether the American people can once again see through the fog of media hysteria as they did in 2016.

#Trump #Donald Trump #the economy #paul ryan #recovery #growth #the unemployment rate #the labor force #jobs #americans #working #obama #family income #economic growth #republicans #the left #media hysteria #2016

[duanecbrooks]

Down With Critics' Organizations     When Our Prez made his commencement speech at the Coast Guard Academy recently, a (surprisingly) little-noted part of his address went: "You can't let the critics and the naysayers get in the way of your dreams [that got considerable applause]...I guess that's why we won [the presidential campaign]." These statements bleed into Teddy Roosevelt's famous remarks concerning the basic position of the critic. To wit:                         "It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the                    strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them                    better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,                    whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly,                        who errs, who comes up short again and again and again...who spends                    himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the                    triumph of high achievement; and who at the worst, if he fails, at least                    fails while daring greatly."               And it's said contentions that themselves bleed into the following conclusion I have made, after doing a lot of intense reflection--much of which consisted of pursing my lips and rubbing my chin a lot: All critics' organizations, for theatrical films, and, in fact, for all popular media, have no business existing and should disband as quickly as possible.                   There are two reasons I have concluded this. First, for critics, no matter what they cover, to come together in formal groupings is for them to basically betray their position, or what should be their position, as independent examiners, for them to become, or at least edge close to becoming, part of the popular-media establishment they should be looking at with wholly unbiased eyes. In truth, those of us who deal in criticism, whether as professionals or as informed amateurs, should aggressively refrain from being in any capacity major players. In point of fact, we should forever and always be on the outside, like the proverbial curs with muddy feet. And we should never, ever, even in the sense of engaging in the award-giving process, operate monolithically, as it severely threatens the independence of thought that we need in order to make valid assessments. As the then-New York Times picture critic Vincent Canby, of all people, pointed out, for critics to speak as one to any degree seriously damages both the critical establishment and the art (or craft or whatever it is) of criticism itself.                 Secondly, and this is more fundamental, for critics to band together to give awards or to become major factors in the creative field in any capacity is for them to buy into the entirely false notion that they have, or are capable of having, any kind of influence. The fact of the matter is--and I've dealt with this in earlier times--most folks do not pay serious attention to critics. For them, critics are just not a factor in deciding what to partake of. Examples: During the 1970s, when the ABC television network openly threatened to cancel the master TV host/interviewer Dick Cavett if his Nielsens didn't improve, television critics across the country spoke up for him. Almost as one, they stood up on their hind legs and flatly demanded that he be kept on the air (I myself literally went out and compiled and sent to the network a petition on his behalf, something I've never done for any performer before or since). And what, you ask, was the result of all this effort? Namely: ABC the next year cut Cavett back to one week a month, the next year cut him further back to literally twice a month, and the year after that gave him the boot altogether. In short, critical support (and mine) wound up accounting for very little, if anything. Also: The cinematic musical comedies Grease and The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas were denounced/dismissed by virtually every leading theatrical-film critic. Not one picture critic of standing, not one, gave either of them a favorable review. Yet both of them went on to become huge, huge box-office hits--indeed, Grease to this day stands as the most successful cinematic musical comedy ever made. Moreover, and, again, I've dealt with this in the past, most blacks in particular pay critics, even the shrill, handkerchief-head, high-on-victimization black critics, no mind. When it comes to partaking of culture, they rely upon the recommendations of their family members, their friends, their neighbors--folks whom they know face-to-face and whom they fully trust, not any critics, who are to them--and this includes the screeching, handkerchief-head black ones--a bunch of strangers who essentially make money telling them what to do and how to feel. And finally: During his heyday, the veteran TV-sitcom producer Norman Lear declared that a controversial television program needs to have two things in order to survive: high Nielsens and favorable reviews. In point of fact--and surely Lear himself knew this perfectly well--if any show, controversial or not, has the former, then reviews, good, bad, or mixed, are completely, completely unimportant.                   It was the veteran entertainer Johnny Carson who asserted: "Criticism I can get from the corner bartender, and better besides." While this was of course a monumentally simplistic and, in fact, hot-headed kiss-off, it did in its way neatly encapsulate what the attitude of us critics, whether vocational or avocational, should be: as wholly independent journalists and analyzers who are positioned up in the higher seats of the arena, thoroughly, totally free from any influence, even that of each other, and operating with complete knowledge of our basic irrelevance.

#Trump #Donald Trump #the coast guard academy #teddy roosevelt #critic #critics' organizations #vincent canby #criticism #the 1970s #ABC #dick cavett #nielsens #Grease #The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas #norman lear #unimportant #johnny carson #irrelevance

[duanecbrooks]

Donald Trump Has Done An Amazing Job At His Most Important Job Kurt  Schlichter    Looking at it objectively, as a guy who opposed Trump until he dispatched Ted Cruz, I have to consider all the facts and ponder the evidence carefully before awarding Donald Trump the grade of A+. He has done an incredible job of doing exactly what I had hoped he would do in the off chance he defeated that naggy harridan and her corps of gender indeterminate hipsters, coastal snobs, race hustlers, aspiring libfascists, media scum, and wussy pseudo-conservatives terrified that a Hillary loss would mean people might expect them to do more than wear bow ties and go on NPR to prattle about Burke in their high-pitched, nasal voices. There can be no serious debate. Donald Trump has done a truly outstanding job of not being Hillary Clinton. His not being Hillary Clinton was and remains my sole expectation of Donald Trump’s presidency. Nothing else matters in the end; it is enough that Trump foiled Felonia von Pantsuit’s creepy scheme to subjugate forever the deplorable mass of normal people she despises. The Obamacare repeal, tax reform, plus appointees of the quality of Gorsuch, Mattis and McMaster, and his lower court appointments – the inexplicable and damn-well-better-be-corrected-if-Trump-doesn’t-want-a conservative-rebellion omission of Justice Don Willett not withstanding – are merely icing on the red velvet cake of Trump’s not-being-Hillaryhood. In fact, the only thing keeping me from giving him an A++ is that Trump has unforgivably failed to point toward his zipper and invite the liberal establishment and their panty-twisted Fredocon houseboyz to “Obstruct this!”   Now, that is not to say there have not been challenges, but we must be careful not to confuse the lies of the media and their Democrat masters, repeated by the Never Trumper geek chorus, with problems Trump himself caused. Here’s the brutal reality: No matter what Trump does, he will always be evil, awful, criminal, and/or treasonous. It doesn’t matter if he does something good. It’s doesn’t matter if Obama famously did the same thing – or worse. It doesn’t matter if it’s an outright and obvious lie. It will never stop. The soft coup plotters’ plan is to generate a constant barrage of bullSchumer designed to eventually browbeat the weak-hearted among the GOP into going along with their impeachment scheme as the first step on the road to the left retaking power and consolidating it so that we normals can never again have our voices heard. If you want to blame Trump for the phony “controversy” surrounding him, ask yourself – what actions could he take that would stop the liberal feeding frenzy? Be nicer and gentler and act like “the bigger man? Worked great for W. Puh-leeze. You fall into their trap when you buy into the characterization of Trump himself being responsible for what is an organized conspiracy to delegitimize him. They want you to think that. They want you to think that where there’s smoke there’s fire. They want you to think “Gosh, Trump has to be doing something wrong if so many of the conventionally pretty TV people and my dying morning newspaper keep saying he is.” But it isn’t true. It’s nonsense. It’s a fraud. It’s a steaming pile of Harry Reid. Ask yourself: If Trump did not collude with the Russians, what would happen? He’d deny it – Trump has. He’d hit back – Trump has. And no evidence of actual wrong doing would leak out after nearly a year of investigations – and none has, as even that wizened crone Diane Feinstein and that gold standard of stupidity Maxine Waters have been forced to admit. Now ask yourself: If Trump did collude with the Russians, what would happen? Well, we’d see a zillion leaks about the damning evidence from the intelligence community, and currently unemployed nut job James Comey would have been pressing for indictments. Those things haven’t happened. Gee, the facts are perfectly in synch with these allegations not being true, and utterly at odds with the allegations being true. Since liberals believe in science and evidence and stuff, I guess there’s only one rational, reasonable conclusion we can draw: TRUMP IS A TREASONOUS TRAITOR OF TREASON AND HE MUST BE IMPEACHED AND STRAIGHTFORWARD FROM HERE HILLARY MUST BE SWORN IN AND THAT UNICORN IN MY CLOSET KEEPS WATCHING ME, JUDGING ME! GET OUT OF MY HEAD! Just watch how Robert Mueller becomes part of the conspiracy when he comes back with nothing on the President. The left will 180 its attitude toward him even faster than it did toward Comey when that towering dork got canned. There are things Trump can do better, like getting some appointments made of loyalists who share his vision. His loyalists been shut out, and the Never Trumpers have been invited in. Apparently their high principles lasted until Election Day when they finally accepted the fact that Jeb! was never going to be president of anything except his extensive stuffed bunny collection. Allowing his friends and conservatives to get shafted is a grave error. It will haunt Trump. His embrace of enemies by giving them a chance to betray him will dishearten and drive away the loyal. For example, why are Trump and every single White House rival of Reince Priebus getting trashed by leaks to Maggie Haberman & Co. at the New York Times, but never Reince? I guess none of those disloyal anonymous leakers ever says anything bad about Reince because he’s so gosh-darned squared away. Yeah, that’s it. Or every night Reince lies in his bed on his tummy wearing a floral bathrobe with a One Direction poster on the wall, kicking his feet in the air, holding his pink rotary dial phone, exclaiming, “Hey Maggs, do I ever have some dish for you!” Trump needs to start rewarding loyalty while punishing disloyalty, do some housecleaning, and get himself a competent Chief of Staff who is focused on running the staff instead of running his mouth to the enemy. Otherwise, the President needs to simply drive on. Every day Trump stays in office is another day Hillary is not in office. And that’s a win.

#Trump #Donald Trump #ted cruz #hillary clinton #the liberal establishment #lies #the media #Democrat masters #the gop #the left #power #normals #organized conspiracy #delegitimize #diane feinstein #maxine waters #chief of staff #win

[duanecbrooks]

Spectator Sport     Now that I've fully established the format of watching my two All-Time Favorite Narrative Television Series, namely the 1990s unjustly-canceled Fox prime-time soap Pacific Palisades and the much, much more recent also-unjustly-canceled NBC interracial sitcom Truth Be Told on YouTube--I watch episodes of one program one week, episodes of the other program the next week--the time has come to let you in on what has become one of my very favorite sexual fantasies involving my All-Time Favorite Fantasy Girlfriend, namely Teri Ann Linn. As shall be made clear, said shows are relevant because the aforementioned make-believe vision involves folks from the former-mentioned show.                First, I need to set things up. One of my absolute favorite scenes from Palisades was where the male lead (the folks involved here will not be named in any capacity because nearly all the folks from said series, alas, slunk back into obscurity after the program's run), while sitting upon his bed preparing to undress for bed, happened to look out of his window and saw, across the way, one of the aforementioned program's two blonde sexpots--who, as it was revealed during Palisades's run, intended to make him one of her conquests--in her own bedroom first removing her red dress--and revealing a mega-enticing black bra-and-panties ensemble--then, upon seating herself upon her own bed, rolling down, then removing her also-black, also-super-alluring stockings. Said fellow, and we, then saw the blonde stand up, sensuously rub the back of her neck with both hands, and afterwards, with equal sensuousness, widely stretch. All of this, need I say, thoroughly, totally enthralled the aforementioned fellow, as we saw him gaze at the blonde throughout not once, not once taking his eyes off her (Interestingly, the guy wound up wholly rebuffing the blonde's advances, steadfastly staying true to his wife).                 All right. Now to my own Palisades--inspired sexual Walter Mittyism.                 It begins with the show's female lead, the daytime-soap diva Michelle Stafford--if you'll recall, one of my past fantasy lovers, not to mention, also interestingly, the wife of the guy who was engaging in said voyeurism concerning said blonde--sauntering over to a window. Looking out of it, she sees Teri and I in bed with me on top of her--and with both of our bare feet sticking out from under the sheets (which, incidentally, they are all throughout this particular make-believe scene)--and with me aggressively and happily kissing her and she being, as is always the case in these in-my-head situations, the ever-willing recipient. Cut to Michelle looking out of her window at the two of us, clearly fascinated. Back to Teri and me, the two of us still in bed, me still on top of her and still fervently and smilingly kissing her. This time I slightly shift position and there's a close-up of Teri lovingly caressing my fully-exposed back. Cut back to Michelle, still watching, here shifting her stance slightly, moving into a more comfortable (for her) standing position. Back to Teri and me, with me now shifting again, kissing her all the while, to her breasts, here enveloping her right one in my mouth, passionately sucking away. Back to Michelle, still looking, here with a slightly bemused expression upon her face. Back to Teri and me, with me now directing my attention to her left breast, here with me sucking away as fervently as before. Here Michelle silently nods her head, still wearing that bemused expression, very much into what she's witnessing. Back to Teri and me, now with me going even lower to her naval area, here caressing her naval with my tongue, and my smile clearly transmitting that I'm having a gay old time. Here Michelle brings her lips together and shakes her head, fully showing that she's intensely taken with all that she's seeing.                 In their sold-through-the-roof folks'-sexual-fantasies compilation What Turns Us On, Steven and Iris Finz wrote, at the end of their introduction to their chapter  wherein folks related their voyeuristic doings: "Perhaps the fact that almost any exposure is regarded as indecent is the reason why some of the people with whom we spoke said they derived a special kind of excitement from showing their sex organs to others, or even from being watched while having sexual intercourse." It is an astronomical delight and an astronomical turn-on to imagine myself "being watched while having sexual intercourse" with my absolute-favorite fantasy lover and by the female star of one of my two most highly-regarded episodic TV shows of all time.

#prime-time soap #Pacific Palisades #interracial sitcom #truth be told #youtube #teri ann linn #relevant #blonde #daytime-soap diva #Michelle Stafford #bare feet #recipient #fascinated #bemused expression #taken #what turns us on #steven and iris finz #sexual intercourse

[duanecbrooks]

The Delusional Press for Power of the Anti-Trump Crowd By Roger Kimball|  Over the last few years, I have several times had occasion to cite Charles Mackay’s 19th-century classic Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. The title by itself captures something essential about our situation. But the particulars of the stories Mackay tells form an engaging collage of social history quite apart from the general argument. The book offers amusing accounts of such febrile public insanity as Tulipomania 17th-century Holland, when a single tulip bulb of a rare species could be traded for the price of a mansion.   The bouts of commercial madness are as admonitory as they are hilarious—beware contemporary South Seas Bubbles! But there are some other lessons of a political, or of a political-psychological nature, that bear incisively upon our current experience circa 2017 in the United States. In the preface to the 1852 edition of his book, Mackay notes that nations, like individuals, have their “seasons of excitement and and recklessness, when they care not what they do.” We find whole communities suddenly fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly. . . . We’re there, friends. The “one object,” the single “delusion” that has caught the attention of impressionable crowd of the media is Donald Trump. It is he they pursue with excitement, recklessness, and madness. And just this last week, in the frenzy of l’affair Comey, they have reached that critical state that Elias Canetti, in his magnum opus Crowds and Power, called “the discharge,” that moment when the individuals who make up a crowd shed their individuality and begin behaving as a single entity. Canetti’s analysis of crowds is deeply idiosyncratic. But he grasped one key element of the phenomenon, summed up in the second noun of his title: The activity of the crowd is intimately bound up with the desire for and the exhibition of power. The “one object,” the single “delusion” that has caught the attention of impressionable crowd of the media is Donald Trump. It is he they pursue with excitement, recklessness, and madness. And just this last week, in the frenzy of l’affair Comey, they have reached that critical state that Elias Canetti, in his magnum opus Crowds and Power, called “the discharge,” that moment when the individuals who make up a crowd shed their individuality and begin behaving as a single entity. In its mounting hysteria, the anti-Trump frenzy exhibits both sides of the crowd phenomenon: the dissolution of individuality and the scrambling after power.   Anti-Trumpers sound more and more alike, as Max Boot, David Frum, Ross Douthat, David Brooks, Peter Wehner, Jonah Goldberg, and others grow soft and fuzzy around the edges, like Wither in C.S., Lewis’s That Hideous Strength, and seemingly merge into a single skirling voice. Trump is “unfit for office!” He is “infantile” and must step down! The 25th Amendment should be invoked to remove him from office! Can anyone distinguish among these hoarse imprecations? And more to the point, does anyone outside the commentariat pay them any heed? When you look at a smudge of organic matter under a microscope you see a bustling world of activity. To the busy hydropods on the slide, their movements seem important, definitive even. But to the world outside, it is a meaningless jumble—infectious, possibly, and therefore potentially dangerous, but intrinsically besides the point. It is the same with the hysterical anti-Trumpers. Yesterday, I had the misfortune to be stuck in an airport for some hours while waiting for a delayed plane. The entertainment provided was a feed of CNN which for the entire time went from talking head to talking head to repeat, mantra-like, the the half-dozen talking points about Trump, Russia, James Comey, Impeachment, Sources say, Obstruction of Justice, Russia, Comey, Impeachment, Abuse of Power, Russia, Trump, Russia, Secrets, National Security, Russia, Comey, Impeachment.   And so on. I had not had such a large dose of the MSM in years. It was more nauseating than amusing, but, seen from the outside it did have a certain malignant comedy.     Reality check: There has been an intelligence investigation into Russian interference with the U.S. election since at least last July. It has turned up nothing—that is to say, nada, rien, zilch—to indicate collusion between Donald Trump and “the Russians.” James Comey worked for Donald Trump. Trump probably ought to have fired him the day he was inaugurated. In any event, he was completely within his rights to fire him at any time.   The meme that Trump fired him to stop an investigation into Michael Flynn’s alleged “ties to Russia” is false. How do I know? James Comey told me. Donald Trump did not “leak” or otherwise reveal “highly classified” national security secrets to the Russian Ambassador when he met with him last week. How do I know? Trump’s National Security Advisor, H. R. McMaster told me. And on and on and on. The crowd that is the anti-Trump brigade speaks with one voice because it has become one mind.   Ross Douthat writes that we should invoke the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office because, “like a child,” he “blurts out” national security secrets to impress foreign visitors. But Trump did not tell the Russians any secrets. The whole story is ridiculous on its face. What Ross Douthat really meant was that he does not like Donald Trump, ergo he should not be President and if no legitimate grounds to impeach him can be found (they can’t) we should use Constitutional legerdemain to correct the election of 2016. And here’s where the issue of power comes in. Ross Douthat, like the other faces of the anti-Trump deity, cannot absorb the fact that the people voted contrary to his wishes. It is he, Ross Douthat, and people like him, who should decide who gets to be President. Not the ill-informed, unwashed multitudes who voted for Donald Trump. Their efforts are nothing less an attempt to reverse or repeal the results of last year’s Presidential election. Donald Trump should acknowledge and publicize that fact.   The media, having descended into its crowd posture, cannot countenance any Trumpian success. He has to fail, because in their group-think world, Trump’s success entails their eclipse. Although he is not moving with the dispatch or thoroughness that some of would like, Donald Trump represents an existential threat to the swamp dwellers in Washington and their enablers in the media. Hence their hysteria, and their unanimity. If he succeeds, Trump will render them not just irrelevant but powerless. And although you would never glean this from the monolithic, hysterical anti-Trump eructation that is the mainstream media’s reporting on Trump, he is actually having notable successes on many fronts. Not every front, mind you, but on many fronts. There is the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch and nomination of many federal judges; there is Trump’s energy policy, which has made the United States the world’s premier energy producer; there is his battle against onerous and counter-productive regulation, an ongoing project; there is his dismantling of Obamacare, another ongoing project; his tax-plan, which if enacted will be a gigantic spur to growth; there are his foreign-policy initiatives, which, with a bit of luck, will come to be seen as brilliant statesmanlike forays on the model of Nixon’s initiatives in Russia and China. I could extend the list. But here’s the point: it wouldn’t matter what Trump accomplished. The media, having descended into its crowd posture, cannot countenance any Trumpian success. He has to fail, because in their group-think world, Trump’s success entails their eclipse. They are not necessarily wrong about that, by the way. But their dishonesty, compacted with their hysteria and cynical bid for power, is a disfiguring testimony to the loss of political sanity.   Some people think that the anti-Trump cohort is winning because that is all they hear or read about. Every time they turn on CNN or open The New York Times it is the same story.   But the unanimity is illusory. It is a tiny fraternity shouting at you as it talks to itself. It really is a form of insanity, sad to witness, but dangerous if left unchecked.

#charles mackay #classic #extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds #holland #tulip bulb #2017 #the united states #the media #trump #Donald Trump #individuality #single entity #the 25th amendment #crowd posture #successes #insanity #dangerous #unchecked

[duanecbrooks]

The Demise of the Female Star     To check out the latest Vanity Fair is to see, on the cover, the highly-touted actor Brie Larson, whom said publication's cover also highly touts--the cover reads, referencing her: "An Oscar and Kong Were Only The Start for Hollywood's Most Independent Young Star." The article itself also aggressively pushes her, terming her "one of Hollywood's busiest and most indefatigable actresses" and, as is to be expected concerning a cover-making subject, quite positive throughout regarding her.     However, news flash...after seeing Brie Larson in several projects, this longtime picture-goer and--as a counselor I see has termed me, "entertainment buff"--has not seen anything, not one single thing about Larson that is anything to, as the saying goes, write home about. And that fact raises the following question, namely...     What the hell ever happened to the really and truly majestic female stars, the kind of female actors who sincerely tower over the crowd of other female actors and over us, the cinema-going public?                     It's a many-pronged issue. After all, think back to when you saw Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman and Sandra Bullock in Speed and Nicole Kidman in Dead Calm and Demi Moore in Ghost and Cameron Diaz in There's Something About Mary and Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct and my heroine Robin Givens in Boomerang--and much, much later, Reese Witherspoon in Sweet Home Alabama. In every case you knew, repeat, knew that you were witnessing the emergence of a star. I ask you: What females have you seen upon the big screen these days that incite that kind of feeling, who bring about that sort of assurance that you're viewing a major star in the making? In point of fact, there are almost none. Going beyond Larson's monumental inadequacy, tell the truth: Despite her Oscar victory, when you see Jennifer Lawrence on the big screen, do you get from her, really and truly, that she's any kind of cinematic supernova, that she's an honest picture diva who shines mega-brightly and who easily towers over not only her sister female actors but over us cinema-goers as well? Of course you don't. In truth, whenever you see Jennifer Lawrence in a theatrical film, you feel that you're watching, at best, a modestly talented, modestly appealing bimbo who happened to luck into getting a dynamic agent (This, of course, leaves out the Jennifer Lawrence who is such a vivacious, engaging sprite on award shows and on television talk shows). And Lawrence--and, for the matter, Larson--are by far not the only modern-day female large-screen performers who encourage indifference/disdain. There are many, many other female picture actors who occasion disbelief concerning their status, who have you wondering just how the hell they achieved the position they have. Emma Stone (yet another entirely undeserving Academy Award-winner) is too monotonous and too insubstantial to make you believe that she deserves to be headlining theatrical films. Dakota Johnson has some talent and some charm but in the end she comes off as much too mousy and much too distant to make us want to take her to our hearts as a star. Mila Kunis is much too giddy and much too little-girlish to inspire any confidence that her current stardom will endure. Kristen Wiig is just plain too wispy, too lacking in actual substance, honestly, to hold our attention. And Melissa McCarthy, for all her pulsating energy and her intense comedic-acting skill, is in the final analysis much too coarse and, yes, much too elephantine to attain the kind of glowing, larger-than-life quality that a woman cinematic star needs. Indeed, to survey today's line-up of female picture leads with a clear eye reveals that only the agreeably slender valkyrie (she stands at 5'7") Paula Patton, who has charmed and aroused us in such theatrical films as Jumping The Broom and Baggage Claim, and Anna Kendrick, that dark-haired, dark-eyed fireball who has done likewise in such flicks as Drinking Buddies and Get A Job, have the charisma, the charm, and the flexibility to make you believe in their exalted status.                 How, I know you're wondering, did we get to this sad, sad state of affairs?                 Three reasons.                 .Demographics--It is, of course, well-known that our cultural leaders--those in charge of various media, those who bankroll various media--are and have long been passionately after the attention and the patronage of The MTV Generation, as, so the conventional wisdom has it, they're the ones with not only the most money but the ones who are the most reachable in terms of tastes and attitudes. Thus those who hold sway over providing different media, including pictures, tailor their product to suit them, or what they believe will suit them. In regard to theatrical films, what the result of this has been and still is is a series of lite pictures that feature lite woman performers, females who almost completely lack the sexiness, the charisma, the overall cojones of the already-established stars. Such a condition can't help but produce a group of pasty-faced, weak-kneed second-and-third-raters when it comes to woman cinematic performance.                     .Television--These days, with so many lady picture performers turning to TV, appearing not just on talk shows but actually doing acting roles--ironically, it was Julia Roberts who started this deluge by being the first cinema star in modern times to do an actual narrative-television-series performing guest appearance (on, as you surely recall, Friends)--their luster dims. By willfully participating in a medium where, let us fully acknowledge it, the goal is not to educate or to uplift or even to entertain but to sell cars and breakfast cereal and underarm deodorant, our female big-screen stars have freely cheapened themselves, have openly lessened their status. It was Variety that pointed out that TV tends to cut everything down to its own small size. Major women cinema stars, alas, are not excepted.     .The proliferation of celebrity/entertainment media--Take a look at any newsstand or the magazine section of any bookstore. Magazines which cover the celebrity/entertainment scene exclusively abound. As do television programs that center on said scene. As do websites that center on same. Indeed, there's been an entire TV network, namely E! Entertainment Television, that is devoted entirely--entirely--to the celebrity/entertainment arena. With all of this media that spotlights on-camera performers, leading female picture actors' glow tends to be significantly dimmed, tends to become measurably smaller in both size and wattage. Indeed, all that media exposure, all that journalistic coverage can't help but lessen women cinema stars' sheen, inevitably leading to beguilingly mysterious lady big-screen leads becoming all too well-known and thus becoming majorly smaller.                   In the classic 1950s-set 1980s large-screen comedy My Favorite Year, it was Peter O'Toole's cinematic idol Alan Swann who famously declared: "I am not an actor! I am a movie star!" In these times, as far as women are concerned, there are almost no movie stars. And our cinema, and our culture in general, have suffered accordingly.

#vanity fair #cover #brie larson #female stars #female actors #the cinema-going public #paula patton #anna kendrick #demographics #the mtv generation #television #julia roberts #friends #celebrity/entertainment media #E! Entertainment Television #classic #my favorite year #movie stars

[duanecbrooks]

Adriana Cohen: The media has lost its marbles Just five months in, 2017 is going down in history as the year that gave us the worst media bias America has ever witnessed. It’s worse than slanted, it’s flat-out rigged against our president and he knows it. Yesterday at the Coast Guard Academy commencement ceremony, President Trump said, “Look at the way I have been treated lately, especially by the media. No politician in history, and I say this with great surety, has been treated worse or more unfairly.” The days of honest, ethical journalism guided by facts, not political motives, have been replaced by agenda-driven activism by political operatives masquerading as mainstream media journalists. Each and every week, they have manufactured a continual cycle of “fake news” crises about the Trump administration for the sole purpose of smearing the Republican leader so that Democrats can take back power in the midterms and 2020. Hopefully voters are savvy enough to see through the daily smear campaign against our president by The Washington Post, The New York Times, the Huffington Post, the New York Daily News, the AP and scores of other left-leaning media outlets whose reporters wake up every morning with one goal: take down Trump. Democratic leaders, CNN and other outlets have been pushing the false narrative that the Trump administration may have colluded with the Kremlin to steal the election from Hillary Clinton. If there was any evidence to support that, rest assured it would have been leaked by now. There’s no there there. No evidence has been produced to suggest anyone committed a crime, let alone colluded with anyone. Just this week the media lost its marbles over the notion Trump may have shared intelligence with Russian officials in a recent White House visit. Never mind that there is no proof Trump divulged anything inappropriate, or that the media didn’t give a hoot when Obama did it last summer. Democrats get a pass. Four dead Americans in Benghazi? The media yawned. Targeting of conservatives by the IRS during the Obama administration? The media snored. Colluding with the Iranians in secret deals, with massive money transfers and releasing dangerous actors? That they considered a triumph of diplomacy. But if Trump orders two scoops of ice cream, he’s Dr. Evil and CNN devotes multiple segments to it.   Each and every day the words “impeachment” and “Watergate” are floated by Democrats and anti-Trump media based on trumped-up, distorted information. Every week, they declare a new constitutional crisis. But Trump won the election despite that toxic media environment. Voters aren’t buying it anymore.

#2017 #media bias #america #the coast guard academy #commencement ceremony #Trump #Donald Trump #journalism #activism #fake news #democrats #midterms #2020 #ice cream #cnn #impeachment #watergate #voters

[duanecbrooks]

The Case Against Celebrity Writers     If you've followed the network-television late-night talk shows--as well as Ellen Degeneres's talk program and The View and the latter program's various spin-offs (The Talk, The Real)--during their runs you've likely noticed a factor that makes them significantly different from past talk series. That factor is...none of these shows, not one, have ever featured writers as guests. And by "writers," I mean folks who make their living from the written word alone. All, all the guests on these programs have been what could easily be called on-camera performers--actors, singers, comedians, politicians (especially presidential candidates) and the like. None of said shows--none of them--have ever featured guests who are solely writers.             And that, I say, has been intensely beneficial for both the writing profession and for the cultural arena as a whole. Because the plain truth is...the overwhelming majority of the evidence says that it is greatly harmful for writers to be celebrities.                 Here comes elaboration.           First of all, think back, if you will, to the celebrated poet Maya Angelou's passing. While it garnered major attention--the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette put the story of her death on its front page accomplished by a sizable picture of her, the greatly soothing Good Morning America earth-mother host Robin Roberts publicly accepted a literary award that was named for Angelou--tell me this: Can you name a single poem, a single work of writing that Angelou did? Of course you can't. And therein lies the problem. The fact is, hardly any of us can or, more to the point, want to quote any of Angelou's writing right off the bat. Indeed, the truth is that she became more famous than any of her literary output. Much more of us remember her appearances on Oprah than any work of poetry she'd ever done. That cannot and, in truth, does not bode well for her standing as a poet. And Angelou is by far not the only literary person in that boat. Tell the truth: When you think of such "writers" as Norman Mailer and Truman Capote and Gore Vidal and--to genuinely scrape the bottom--Rex Reed, what comes to mind first, their "literary output" or their many, many, many television-talk-show appearances? The answer is, of course, the latter. It is, let us face up to it, their identities as TV personalities, not their "writing," that stick in our memories. And Angelou, with her myriad of Oprah guest shots, has joined this fiercely dubious company (And, in point of fact, there are many folks who don't recall her in any capacity. Recently, while getting a haircut at this black barbershop that I have long frequented, one of its black male clientele freely mistook her for the Touched By An Angel matriarchal figure Della Reese).                   Also: Writers becoming celebrities negatively impacted the writers themselves, caused them to morph into being cartoons. In point of fact, whenever we think of such "literary" figures as Mailer and Capote and Vidal and--to again touch rock bottom--Reed, what come to mind are well-dressed, intelligent fools spewing forth "outrageous" and "outspoken" and "provocative" opinions on television talk programs (e.g. Capote flatly asserting that actors are stupid; Vidal coming forth with cutesy-wutesy put-downs of whoever was president at the time and of past presidents and of TV itself). And it was the critic John Simon, along with Reed, who especially allowed himself to fall victim to this syndrome. Due to their vast multitudes of television-talk-show guest shots, they became caricatures, walking/talking comic-book versions of the "informed" and "intelligent" and "witty" critic. And Mailer/Capote/Vidal/Reed further debased themselves, and the art of writing, by presuming to be theatrical-film actors. Even Angelou demeaned herself, and her art, by taking on a role in a big-screener. And Simon kept on cheapening himself, along with the art of writing, by first indulging in a televised screeching match with the veteran stand-up comedian Mort Sahl, then by appearing, albeit as himself, in an episode of the 1970s TV sitcom The Odd Couple. To sum up, it is entirely a good thing that the entire development of writers becoming "names" stopped or, at least, has considerably diminished. As has already been borne out (I trust), it severely distracted attention from the writers' output, where it should in actuality have been, majorly pushing it into the background and thus turned the aforementioned writers' themselves into grandstanding jackanapeses, behaving in ways that were wholly beneath them and thus significantly degrading the art of writing itself.               It was Clarence Page, one of this country's (many, alas) handkerchief-head, ever-whiny, ever-race-card-playing black columnists who, during an appearance on the Today show, asserted: "If you're not on television, you don't exist." It is a good, good occurrence that writers stopped prostituting themselves and fiercely lessening their art by disengaging themselves from the cult of celebrity, even if it meant denying themselves an "existence."

#late-night talk shows #ellen degeneres #The View #spinoffs #writers #the written word #celebrities #maya angelou #the pittsburgh post-gazette #Robin Roberts #writing #tv personalities #oprah #black barbershop #della reese #john simon #clarence page #the today show

[duanecbrooks]

Trump will likely win reelection in 2020 Musa al-Gharbi Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology, Columbia University Most Americans don’t like Trump. Trump will most likely be reelected in 2020. How can both of these statements be true? Here’s how: Even when people are unhappy with a state of affairs, they are usually disinclined to change it. In my area of research, the cognitive and behavioral sciences, this is known as the “default effect.” Software and entertainment companies exploit this tendency to empower programs to collect as much data as possible from consumers, or to keep us glued to our seats for “one more episode” of a streaming show. Overall, only 5 percent of users ever change these settings, despite widespread concerns about how companies might be using collected information or manipulating people’s choices. The default effect also powerfully shapes U.S. politics. Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected to four consecutive terms as president of the United States, serving from the Great Depression to World War II. To prevent future leaders from possibly holding and consolidating power indefinitely, the 22nd Amendment was passed, limiting subsequent officeholders to a maximum of two terms. Eleven presidents have been elected since then. Eight of these administrations won a renewed mandate: Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Even the three single-term aberrations largely underscore the incumbency norm. Had Ford won in 1976, it would have marked three consecutive terms for the GOP. If George H.W. Bush had won in 1992, it would have meant four consecutive Republican terms. Since 1932, only once has a party held the White House for less than eight years: the administration of Democrat Jimmy Carter from 1976 to 1980. Therefore, it’s a big deal that Trump is now the default in American politics. Simply by virtue of this, he is likely to be reelected. Trump won his first term despite record low approval ratings, triumphing over the marginally less unpopular Hillary Clinton. He will probably be able to repeat this feat if necessary. The president continues to enjoy staunch support from the voters who put him in the White House. He has raised millions of dollars in small donations for reelection, pulling in twice as much money as Barack Obama in his first 100 days. And he’s already putting that money to use running ads in key states that trumpet his achievements and criticize political rivals. Although most don’t like or trust Trump, polls show he seems to be meeting or exceeding Americans’ expectations so far. In fact, an ABC News/ Washington Post survey suggests that if the election had been held again in late April, Trump would have not only won the Electoral College, but the popular vote as well – despite his declining approval rating. To further underscore this point, consider congressional reelection patterns. Since World War II, the incumbency rate has been about 80 percent for the House of Representatives and 73 percent for the Senate. Going into the 2016 election, Congress’ approval rating was at an abysmal 15 percent. Yet their incumbency rate was actually higher than usual: 97 percent in the House and 98 percent in the Senate. As a function of the default effect, the particular seats which happen to be open this cycle, and Republican dominance of state governments which has allowed them to draw key congressional districts in their favor – it will be extremely difficult for Democrats to gain even a simple majority in the Senate in 2018. The House? Even less likely. Trump … or who? Due to the default effect, what matters most is not how the public feels about the incumbent, but how they feel about the most likely alternative. Carter didn’t just have low approval ratings, he also had to square off against Ronald Reagan. “The Gipper” was well-known, relatable and media-savvy. Although the Washington establishment largely wrote off his platform with derisive terms like “voodoo economics,” the American public found him to be a visionary and inspirational leader – awarding him two consecutive landslide victories. Trump’s opposition is in much worse shape. The Democratic Party has been hemorrhaging voters for the better part of a decade. Democrats are viewed as being more “out of touch” with average Americans than Trump or the Republicans. Yet key players in the DNC still resist making substantive changes to the party’s platform and strategy. Hence it remains unclear how Democrats will broaden their coalition, or even prevent its continued erosion. Trump is not likely to follow in Carter’s footsteps. Other modern precedents seem more plausible. For instance, Truman had an approval rating of around 39 percent going into the 1948 election, yet managed to beat challenger Thomas Dewey by more than two million in the popular vote, and 114 in the Electoral College. The president had been holding raucous rallies in key states and districts, growing ever-larger as the race neared its end. However, the media disregarded these displays of support because his base was not well-captured in polls. As a result, his victory came as a total surprise to virtually everyone. Sound familiar? One could also look to Trump’s harbinger, Richard Nixon. Throughout Nixon’s tenure as president, he was loathed by the media. Temperamentally, he was paranoid, narcissistic and often petty. Nonetheless, Nixon was reelected in 1972 by one of the largest margins in U.S. history – winning the popular vote by more than 22 percentage points and the Electoral College by a spread of over 500. Of course, Nixon ultimately resigned under threat of impeachment. But not before he radically reshaped the Supreme Court, pushing it dramatically rightward for more than a generation. Trump is already well on his way in this regard. And like Nixon, Trump is unlikely to be impeached until his second term, if at all. Impeachment would require a majority in the House. Removing Trump from office would require at least a two-thirds vote in the Senate as well. Nixon faced impeachment because, even after his landslide reelection, Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress. Clinton was impeached in 1998 by a Republican-controlled House, but was acquitted in the Senate because the GOP controlled only 55 seats. Without massive Republican defections, Democrats will not be in a position to impeach Trump, let alone achieve the two-thirds majority required in the Senate to actually remove him from the Oval Office. The 2018 elections will not change this reality. In other words, we can count on Trump surviving his first term – and likely winning a second. Consider the example of George W. Bush, who, like Trump, assumed the presidency after losing the popular vote but taking the Electoral College. His tenure in office diverged wildly from his campaign commitments. He was prone to embarrassing gaffes. He was widely panned as ignorant and unqualified. Forced to rely heavily upon his ill-chosen advisors, he presided over some of the biggest foreign policy blunders in recent American history. Many of his actions in office were legally dubious as well. Yet he won reelection in 2004 by a healthy 3.5 million votes – in part because the Democrats nominated John Kerry to replace him. Without question, Kerry was well-informed and highly qualified. He was not, however, particularly charismatic. His cautious, pragmatic approach to politics made him seem weak and indecisive compared to Bush. His long tenure in Washington exacerbated this problem, providing his opponents with plenty of “flip-flops” to highlight – suggesting he lacked firm convictions, resolve or vision. If Democrats think they will sweep the 2020 general election simply by nominating another “grownup,” then they’re almost certainly going to have another losing ticket. For Trump to be the next Jimmy Carter, it won’t be enough to count on his administration to fail. Democrats will also have to produce their own Ronald Reagan to depose him. So far, the prospects don’t look great.

#Trump #Donald Trump #2020 #default effect #change #u.s. politics #the 22nd amendment #officeholders #two terms #incumbency #1932 #default #voters #the white house #the democrats #john kerry #ronald reagan #prospects