Janis Kliphardt (Emery)

Trump Is the GOP’s National Emergency

THE NEW YORKER

The New Republican Strategy for Dealing with the Emergency That Is Trump: Pray

By Susan B. Glasser

February 14, 2019

President Trump has already begun the process of memorializing his epic defeat as a victory  FINISH THE WALL  and has dragged congressional Republicans into a whole new fight.

At around 11 A.M. on Wednesday, a weary-looking Senator Mitch McConnell came to the Senate floor. “It’s time to get this done,” the Majority Leader said. McConnell, of course, was talking about the deal that his negotiators had reached with Democrats to pass a bill that would keep the U.S. government from shutting down once again—over President Trump’s demand for money to fund his proposed border wall. As always, there remained one big problem: whether Trump himself would go along with it. Soon after the deal was announced, John Cornyn, a Republican senator from Texas, flew back with the President to Washington from El Paso, on Air Force One, on Tuesday. He and others urged Trump to accept it and move on, but Cornyn was nowhere near sure that it would happen. “My hope is he recognizes this is an incremental win,” the senator told Politico. “We’ll hold our breath.”

No one these days, not even the loyal Republican guard on Capitol Hill, can predict what Trump, increasingly cornered by the results of a midterm election that handed Democrats control of the House of Representatives, will do or say. There is no Team Trump from the President’s point of view, only a leader and his followers, yet the entire Trump Presidency is an extended reminder of the fact that it’s awfully hard to follow if you don’t know where the leader wants you to go. “I would have preferred we not had the shutdown,” Steve Scalise, the Republican Whip in the House, said Thursday morning, without knowing if there might be another. When CNN caught up with his G.O.P. colleague Richard Shelby, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who cut the deal, Shelby was unsure of what Trump would do, as well. “I pray” that he will sign the spending bill, Shelby said. At around that same time, the Republican Chuck Grassley was on the Senate floor, asking the entire chamber to join in seeking divine intervention with Trump. “Let’s all pray that the President will have the wisdom to sign the bill, so that the government doesn’t shut down,” he said, as Washington waited, once again, on its capricious President.

So it’s finally come to this: only God can stop Trump, as members of his own party are admitting that they’ve basically given up trying. Sure enough, a few hours after Grassley spoke, McConnell returned to the Senate floor and announced that the President would sign the bill but also declare a national emergency in order to fund the wall. The whole episode served only to underscore the plight of congressional Republicans under Trump: holding their breath and praying that Trump doesn’t humiliate them even more than he already has with the shutdown drama; praying that something worse doesn’t happen, such as a Mueller report that forces them to publicly choose between their President and their country; praying that the Democrats will somehow overplay their hand so badly that it changes the subject in next year’s elections from Trump and all his divisiveness. “That soft, shuffling sound you hear is congressional Republicans stepping away from President Trump,” the political commentator John Harwood wrote, in his CNBC column on Tuesday. In the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, the lead editorial begged Trump to declare “border victory” and go home. “The bipartisan deal is his only good way out of this budget box canyon,” the paper said. Underscoring the point, the editors ran an op-ed on the page across from the editorial headlined “Trump’s wall crumbles under the law of diminishing returns.” The piece argued that Trump is in such trouble now because he “promised to be a dealmaker, not a conviction politician,” and he just doesn’t have deals to brag about.

Watching Republicans publicly lobby their guy to give in this week was an extraordinary tutorial in their challenge of trying to manage an unmanageable President. They had to convince Trump that a loss was a win, albeit, as Cornyn put it, a highly “incremental” one. Even for Trump, this was a dubious argument. Still, Trump has one political skill that is useful to his allies in a situation like this: the desire, and ability, to create an alternate reality when the actual reality does not suffice. The facts here are terrible for the President, as they have been since late December, when Trump reneged on the previous deal reached by congressional negotiators and, essentially, unilaterally shut down a large part of the federal government. Thirty-five days later, that shutdown ended ignominiously for the President, when too many members of his own party had had enough. The two-week delay that Trump bought himself at the time also has now ended without a victory. Instead, the compromise agreed to on the Hill allows for $1.375 billion in border-security funding—far less than what was on offer in a deal Trump rejected last year. And, in another loss, those funds can only be used to construct fifty-five miles of new border barriers of the type the government has been building since well before Trump became President. In other words: no wall.

For any other politician, this would be a humiliating loss, which is the reason why Republicans on Capitol Hill were so uncertain, right up until the last minute, whether the President would sign it. Trump, however, has already begun the process of memorializing his epic defeat as a victory, and will claim that his emergency declaration is more than sufficient grounds to move money around from elsewhere in the federal budget to accomplish his border plans. Even if the courts shoot him down on that one, it still probably won’t matter to the President, who is likely to brag that he has won, anyway. On Monday, in fact, he held a campaign rally in El Paso underneath a banner that urged, “Finish the Wall!” Never mind that the wall is not even begun, and likely never will be; never mind that Mexico, despite the President’s oft-repeated promise, is not going to pay for it; never mind the details of the congressional compromise. Trump’s self-protective alternate-reality machine found a way around the facts. “The wall is very, very on its way,” he said on Wednesday. “We are building as we speak.” He added that the nonexistent wall, which is not being finished or even built, would, in fact, be harder than Mount Everest to climb, which instantly became one of those Trump-era tweets that you’re not sure is a joke or something the President of the United States actually said.

Given that this came only a couple of hours after the Washington Post reported that Trump recently installed a “room-sized ‘golf simulator’ ” in the White House, at a cost of roughly fifty thousand dollars, so that he can play a full eighteen holes without leaving the property, it seemed like a moment to remember how tenuous the line between parody and political reality has become in Trump’s Washington. At the very least, it helps explain why the President has so infrequently left the White House this winter.

Meanwhile, not everyone has been taking a vacation from reality, and the nature of the Democratic threat to Trump from the newly empowered House leaders is becoming clearer. This week, two House committees, Intelligence and Judiciary, signalled an aggressive approach to investigating Trump—without waiting for the report of the special counsel, Robert Mueller. House Democrats “plan a vast probe of Trump and Russia—with a heavy focus on money-laundering,” as Mike Allen declared in his Axios morning newsletter, reporting from a briefing, which we both attended, with a House Democrat. Trump “is not in a position to draw red lines” and block Democrats from looking into his finances, the member told a roomful of reporters. The House Democrats’ investigation could include the financial dealings of Trump and his family not only with Russian interests but also with Saudis and other Gulf states. On the House Judiciary Committee, the new chairman this week hired two well-known Democratic lawyers who have publicly led the calls for an obstruction-of-justice investigation of Trump, which could lead to his impeachment.

A new conventional wisdom seems to have formed in recent weeks that the Mueller investigation is all but over, that it won’t be the knockout blow to the President many Democrats had anticipated, or that it may become the subject of an enormous fight with the Trump Justice Department over even transmitting its conclusions to Congress. Impeachment, while supported by the Party’s base, is unlikely to happen—or so this line of reasoning has it. But this week’s developments suggest that another course is possible: emboldened Democrats are neither waiting for Mueller nor limited to whatever it is that Mueller finds. The investigations of Trump are happening, and for now, at least, they are more real than his wall.

Stewart Myrent

​Janis, thank you for the op-ed from the Wall Street Journal - I thought it was very cogently written & well-thought out.  Maybe there's hope for this country - perhaps the country can go back to the days when America was last great.  I'm thinking as far back as 2015, but I'm not sure.  Or is it too late for that?  Steve, although in my last post, I congratulated you on your quick response to my Nazi question & mildly criticized Paul, for not answering a question of mine, I'm sorry, but I have to bring this up.  If you will recall, a few days ago, I asked the first of several times, for an explanation of the picture of you & (I presume your grandkids, or kids [?]), with the moustaches.  I have to say, that, considering your obvious reluctance to address this matter, I am growing even more suspicious about the authenticity of those moustaches.  I'm sure you were hoping that I would forget all about this, but you can disavow yourself of that notion.  I am still curious about your response & I am still waiting for an answer. 

Paul Richard Hain

Stewart,

Kathy’s husband Pete is a man to be admired.  They each had their professions.  When she lost her job, he was there for her providing moral support and love.  She told Pete about her desire to be a donor. Though he may not have known it, at that moment, he shouldered new responsibility. He would be with her through the testing phase and then by her side when she explained her desire to be a donor to the rest of her family.

 The weight on his shoulders was just beginning.  Liver donor surgeries done in the United States had been 100% successful until 6 months before our surgeries.  A liver donor in Colorado suddenly died in recovery. The loss was terrible.  They could not find a reason for the death.  All transplant hospitals reviewed every detail of their surgery procedures. All living donor operations were halted for a time awaiting some finding that would explain what happened.  That never happened.  Finally, the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) and Health and Human Services (HHS) changed the age eligibility from 18-60 years to 21-55, thus limiting the potential number of donors.  Living donor surgeries restarted very cautiously.  Pete and Kathy were fully aware of this, raising the concerns for her own health and recovery.  Pete was going to be her caregiver helping with her every need.  It should be a few weeks.  Now, it could be permanent or worse, death.  That was my greatest fear.  What if she got harmed? Or, worse, death?  Those thoughts stayed with me until I knew she was fine after surgery.

Kathy and I had separate medical teams.  It is medically ethical to do it that way.  So, her team leader, Dr. Baker chose to recommend for one last time that Kathy should not go through with the surgery.  My reaction was that I understood what was happening.  My doctors had told me her doctors would try to discourage her.  It was a moment of life or death for me.  I knew what was at stake.  I also had many months previously to learn how to accept my fate.  I was pretty sure Kathy would not change her mind.  Our pre-transplant dinner four days earlier was ample time and discussion to know how resolute she, Pete and her Mom and Dad were to see this through to conclusion.

Kathy and Pete's confidence never waivered. They were united. Their optimism and good humor actually helped us all look forward to the surgeries with confidence.  As far as I can tell, there is only one glaring area of disagreement in their marriage: Pete is a Green Bay Packers fan and Kathy is for, ‘Da Bears. But, they both agree that the University of Wisconsin Badgers are the best college football team.

Kathy and Pete moved into a larger home for their growing family. With grandparents nearby to babysit, Kathy is now doing some part-time HR work.  Pete moved to a new position as the Director of Development for the UW School of Medicine.  

Each of us draws our own conclusions about how all these events came to pass.  From childhood friendships, two women desiring to help me survive fifteen years later, to the remarkable events in Pete and Kathy’s lives that resulted in such an incredible story.  We are made to wonder about this.  Reach your own conclusions.  You are probably right!  Wouldn’t it be great if more stories like this happened more often?

Stewart Myrent

​Paul, thank you so much for your most recent response to my queries.  I have to say that with each additional detail that you have added to your story, it grows increasingly amazing to me that you wound up with as perfect an ending, as was possible.  The fact that your doctors were telling you that her doctors were telling her not to do it, had to be totally disheartening.  I was relatively surprised to hear that, prior to 6 mos. before your surgery, the liver transplants from live donors was 100% successful in the U.S.  I didn't think anything was 100% successful.  I am, of course, totally blown away by your background story of Kathy & Pete.  I don't have to tell you what exceptional people they are.  It sounds like, because of Pete's job, they have moved back to Madison.  One last question: who are the two people whose photo has replaced the white Standard poodle?  Steve, relative to the moustache question: you have learned well from your conservative teachers, grasshopper - if the answer is uncomfortable, do not answer the question directly, but deflect & put the onus on the questioner.  I promise I will stop asking about the moustaches.  This is the 3rd time I've posted today - never done that before - I think there's something wrong with me.

Janis Kliphardt (Emery)

Random acts of kindness are fundamental to becoming who we can be - they encourage us to move beyond the transactional nature of our world and to develop the kinder side of our nature.  We won't live long enough for random acts of kindness to bring health to our country and gun safety to our communities. 

Paul Richard Hain

Stewart,

There are so many hurdles to jump involving medical ethics, that I was somewhat hardened to yet another potential "deal breaker" when they told me that finding a willing donor might be undone by her seperate medical team trying to talk her out of it.  Other conditions they told me about finding a living donor included: there can be no direct or indirect compensation by me or my representative to her or her representative.  Also, a stranger could not be a donor.  They had to be a family member or a friend of mine or my family's. (They interview the candidate, and if there is not a match about relationship, the hospital will not test the person).  The hospital also goes through a scary list of surgical related risks that are quite broad.  I was told about all these disqualifiers.  
By that time, I was so sick that my reaction was dull, resigned to whatever happened would happen.  So many health complications from PSC were mounting up on me that I really had no reaction to more bad news. . . Only faith and a fading hope.

Living donor surgeries where exhaustively tested on fetal pigs and cadavers.  HHS and UNOS would not approve the procedure until it was perfected.  Northwestern Memorial Hospital where our surgeries were done has top-shelf surgeons and hepatologists that were involved in perfecting the procedure.  Kathy's surgeon, Dr. Baker, developed the "small incision" technique done on Kathy.  Dr. Baker has very small hands.  The normal removal of the part of the liver routinely involved a 10-inch incision with the risk of a large blood loss.  She developed a process involving a 5-inch incision into which she would squeeze her hands and a cauterizing scalpel she helped invent.  With the help of orthoscopes, MRI, UltrtaSound and CT Scan data, she rolled the liver incision point as close as possible to the small incision and then dissected the piece, cauterizing the remaining side as the procedure took place.  There was very little blood loss to Kathy.  This method also heals quicker than the standard method.

We were told of the death of the donor in Colorado when Dr. Baker was talking to both of us outside the operating room.  The shock and fear that produced would be more than enough to cause people with less resolve to call it quits.  Dr. Baker said UNOS/HHS were satisfied that the procedure was safe, but that nothing is perfect in medical science.  Kathy never blinked. I felt like circumstance had brought both of us to this moment and that we had to proceed.  I knew if something went wrong with me, I would go to sleep and never wake up.  I did not fear that.  I feared going to sleep and waking up to find out something did not go right with Kathy.

The new picture is of my grand daughter, Luci and my daughter Heather.  You know Heather's role.  Luci was just 18 months old at the time of surgery sitting with our families in the waiting room to learn the outcomes.  Of course, they were all good.

Stewart Myrent

​Paul, thanks again for another informative post.  I am starting to realize that I, and probably most people, know next to nothing about the whole organ donor process.  The donor can not be a stranger?  I am sure there's some ethical dilemma involved with that part of the process, but I'm not sure I understand why, unless they're assuming that a stranger's motivation could only be financial, which you already pointed out, is a no-no.  And thanks for telling me (us) about Heather & Luci.  I'm guessing Luci must be about 8 1/2 now.  My, how time flies when you're having fun.  Steve, obviously, things are getting stranger, but I have a feeling that it's not nearly as crazy as it's going to get.  (And I mean REAL soon.)  Relative to you not thinking you'd ever agree with Ann Coulter, about anything, in this case she made it really easy for you.  (Which is why I don't trust her motivation for her recent comments).  The older I get, the more I believe that, anytime you think that you'll NEVER see something, all of a sudden, there is that very thing, right in front of you.  YIKES!  (I can't believe I just saw that!)

Janis Kliphardt (Emery)

Just a 10 minute drive from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School a beautiful 35 foot high wooden temple stands out among government buildings and city traffic in Coral Springs.  The towering work of art named The Temple of Time officially opened on Valentine’s Day, the one-year mark of the MSD massacre.  It’s meant to be a haven for those still grieving in the brokenhearted community.  Artist David Best, of California, built his first temple 19 years ago in Nevada.  He has since created more than a dozen temples from Nepal to Ireland.  

After some time has passed, traditionally the temples have been set ablaze in a ceremonial fire.  Though many in the MSD community wish otherwise, The Temple in memory of those slain will meet the same fate in May - the purpose of burning the temple to the ground is to cast off the pain and sorrrow.  

More than 500 volunteers, most of them local, worked together to erect the temple - since Valentine’s Day mourners have been writing messages of hope and love throughout the wooden temple.

Janis Kliphardt (Emery)

Women have mental illness too,

yet 98% of mass shootings are committed by men -

This isn’t about mental illness,

it’s about violent men and their easy access to killing machines.

Paul Richard Hain

Stewart, yes indeed, strangers could not be donors because it was presumed money was being exchanged, a violation of the rules.  Something good happened, though. Three years ago, the hospital was being contacted by people with no affiliation to those needing an organ transplant, that remarkably want to donate an organ to help strangers!  The hospital began keeping records of those making the offer.  If the stranger did not know the recipient, there could not be an exchange of money. They began a philanthropic donor list  of volunteers.  Over the years, the list grew.  They had to be qualified physically and psychologically.  They now draw donors from the list for transplantation.

Including this program and persons who have indicated on their driver's license that they are a donor, there are 121,000 patients waiting for an organ everyday.  About 17-20 die waiting each day.

Donald Henry Kuehn

Stewart Myrent

​Don, thanks so much for the view of Trump from the other side of 'the pond'.  It was not only hilarious, but made a lot of sense, even if you are barely paying attention.  But. I feel as though MY skirts are getting dirty, just by being from the same country as you-know-who.  Please relay to the British - this is not my fault.

Janis Kliphardt (Emery)

Trump is a malignant force.  

“Everything (he) touches dies.” (Republican Rick Wilson wrote the book.)

Have you ever seen Trump smile? ever heard him laugh?

Jack Edmund Bookwalter

Stewart Myrent

​Jack, very nice to hear from you & I really liked your riposte, "No dumber than Brexit.", when queried by those limeys, as to how we could elect a president Trump.  I do agree that the whole Brexit fiasco, is as stupid as us having a Trump for president - but, go figure.  I'm pretty sure that the Brexit vote was driven by uninformed, nationalistic & jingoistic motivations (fear of 'the other'), fairly similar to what we had here, in the last presidential election.  However, if you would have blamed our situation on the Electoral College, they would have no understanding of it.  But, I'm pretty sure that the limeys, would be as hard-put to understand the Electoral College, as we are, to understand the Brexit vote.  Janis, as much as you are hoping that Congress will do the right thing, relative to the gun laws in this country, I wouldn't hold my breath, as the Democrats are as complicit in this BS, as the Republicans.  If that weren't the case, sensible gun laws would have been put in place long ago.

Stewart Myrent

Just saw a thing on the ongoing Munich Security Conference, where vice-president Pence opened his speech with greetings from the 45th president, Donald Trump.  And was met with stony silence (he was expecting applause - his notes showed a pause, for applause).  At this same conference, Angela Merkel, criticized Trump for threatening to charge tariffs on German autos made in the U.S., labelling them 'security risks'.  After pointing out the absurdity of that reasoning, she received almost universal approbation & applause.  The reason that the applause was 'almost' universal, was that one person did not join in the approbation & applause - Ivanka Trump was sitting in the audience & was the one person who did not enjoy Merkel's speech.  Thought it was interesting.

Janis Kliphardt (Emery)

“Let us cross the river of our divides...” --Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), candidate for Democratic Presidential nomination.  She’s real, she’s a truth teller - she doesn’t pander.  She wants the country to reach high expectations.  She has strength and courage, she’s honest and direct... and she has a sense of humor.  

“We need more than aspirational, we need serious action,” says Klobuchar.

Stewart Myrent

​Janis, I don't know much about Amy Klobucher (D-MN), but, as you know, I am hoping that our next president will be a woman, as I had hoped that our current president would be a woman.  I have no idea if she would be a good president, or not.  (I can't imagine that she would be worse than the current occupant of the Oval Office, as our commander-in-chief).  But Janis, you said, "...she doesn't pander."  Janis, please, I don't think I've ever seen a politician who doesn't pander.  That's how you get elected - by pandering to your audience.  I think, perhaps, that you just don't realize that Amy has been pandering directly to you - in fact, I think that you are part of her 'target audience'.  But, don't get me wrong, I don't mind that she's pandering - I think that if she's going to have a real shot at the presidency, she's gonna have to hone those pandering skills.  Janis, it may not seem like it, but she's pandering.

Janis Kliphardt (Emery)

The difference between people who support Trump and people who do not is more than political.  

Consider conservatives who oppose Trump: George Will, Jennifer Rubin, Peter Wehner, Bill Kristol, the late Charles Krauthammer, Ralph Peters, Max Boot, Stuart Stevens, Christine Todd Whitman, Bill Weld, John Kasich, Evan McMullin, Richard Painter, David Frum, Michael Gerson, Bret Stephens, Rick Wilson, Mike Murphy, Nicolle Wallace, Rick Tyler, Steve Schmidt, Erick Erickson...

David St. Pierre Bantz

There are now at least 10 announced candidates (including 4 women) for the Democratic nomination for President and others who may announce soon:

Andrew Yang Nov 6
Elizabeth Warren Feb 9
Tulsi Gabbard Jan 11
Julian Castro Jan 12
Kirsten Gillibrand Jan 15
Kamala Harris Jan 21
Pete Buttigieg Jan 23
Cory Booker Feb 1
Amy Klobuchar Feb 10
Bernie Sanders Feb 18
Joe Biden ?
Beto O'Rourke 
Michael Bloomberg ?
Sherrod Brown ?

With that large a field, potential supporters are likely to triage, in particular, identifying traits that make some candidates a poor choice so as to focus on others. For me, hoping for a constructive alternative that speaks to key needs and opportunities for change - such as re-invigorating civil democratic governance, affordable healthcare for all, economic gains for all rather than only plutocrats, addressing climate disruption/collapse - self-professed middle of the road candidates rule themselves out by foreclosing substantial progress needed and accepting the destructive and false framing of plutocrats and authoritarians. Moreover, that moderate, compromising, make only small changes approach is an implausible strategy to defeat the incument; "things are pretty good, just need tweaking by me" failed in 2016 and will fail worse in 2020, IMHO.

If a politician says we "cannot afford" basic health care, because that may require collective spending using taxes, but is unwilling to consider the human and financial costs of inefficient and ineffective U.S. healthcare system based on fee-for-service and insurance bureaucrats making life and death decisions, then that politician will not address let alone solve the U.S. health care crisis but will be working for the continued large profits of insurance and pharmaceutical industries at the expense of our health.

If a politician says we "cannot take strong action" to provide potable water or reduce climate-altering methane and CO2 because that would disrupt profitable fossil fuel and chemical industries, then that politician is collaborating in the destruction of human and animal life on earth for the sake of next year's profits (and campaign donations).

If a politician bemoans low voter turn-out, foreign espionage undermining our elections, and the corrosive effects of anonymous PACs turning campaigns into brawls,  but is unwilling to throttle use of money (because "money is speech") or the roles of PACs and Corporation (becaue "corporations are people too") then that politician is part of the degradation of representative democracy to government by and for plutocrats.

Amy Klobuchar has sneeringly dismissed the progressive suggestions of other candidates and used the "we can't afford" mantra, smugly assuring us that she "has to tell the truth" while fully adopting the false framing that has sustained reactionary and inhumane policies of the far right plutocrats in charge today.  As if that weren't enough, she has essentially acknowledged charges by former employees that she is an abusive boss who has created a toxic work environment in which her staff are publicly shamed and humiliated ("I have high standards" she retorts). I've had more than I can bear of that sort of egotistical and authoritarian "leadership" in the current administration. Democrats can do better and if they don't, they will not inspire the work needed to win against an incumbent who is a genius at revving up resentment and false fears.

Stewart Myrent

Just saw something that alarmed me.  President Trump just called the NY Times, "a true enemy of the people."  Now, I get that the president probably hates the NY Times, as their reporting on the misdeeds of the president & his entire entourage of people of questionable character (not to mention enumerating his lies), are contributing to the vexatious & disconcerted feelings this president is experiencing, relative to said newspaper.  But to refer to a long-established & highly regarded daily newspaper, like the NY Times (very much unlike, say, The National Enquirer), as "a true enemy of the people.", to me, smacks of bulls---, chicanery, & despotism, that is scarily, reminiscent of Nazism in the 1930's & every other autocratic government in history.  The 1st Amendment of the U.S Constitution guarantees free speech for all of us, but also guarantees free speech to the press.  When will the U.S. Congress finally have had enough?  What will it take to hold accountable, a president who has openly flouted so many of our laws, violated so many Constitutional standards (not the least of which, the emoluments clause), and who seems to feel that he is above the law?  Is that one of the perks of being president, that you are above the law?  I kind of get it, if it's a speeding ticket - not so much, if it's the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitutuion.  So, for all you conservative thinkers out there & all you Congresspeople, what will it take to realize that the president is not all there & is extremely BAD for this country, in just about every possible way?

Stewart Myrent

I forgot to mention in my previous post, that I saw Trump on TV yesterday, saying that the wall he's gonna build, will be more difficult to scale than Mt. Everest.  I am NOT making this up!  I've never scaled Mt. Everest & I have never scaled any border wall, be it very tall, or very short, but if I have a choice, I'm picking the border wall (regardless of height) every single time, over trying to scale Mt. Everest.  I have certainly heard of hyperbole, but after a while, it just seems more like lies & deception.  But, some of the stuff he says, and does, make absolutely no sense to me, and I consider myself a sane. rational person.  Which is why I am starting to wonder, is our president nuts?  He certainly seems to be a crazy person, to me, but I am neither a clinical psychologist, nor psychiatrist, however, I am starting to feel that I am, perhaps, as good a judge as any, to discern aberrant behavior & speech.  Once again, what will it take for Congress to assert their equal branch powers, to constrain him?

Janis Kliphardt (Emery)

I appreciate feedback from any and all about Amy Klobuchar.  

I have a lot of family in Minnesota deeply rooted in the Democratic Farmer Labor Party.  They are all very liberal - and they love Amy Klobuchar.  Whatever it is she brings to the table - and accomplishes - passes muster with them.  She wins elections throughout Minnesota with large margins - she doesn’t seem captive to any one political group.  I am interested in the fact that Amy Klobuchar and Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown, Michael Bennet, and Jeff Merkley voted with the veto proof majority for the budget deal to keep the government open.  Other presidential candidates and hopefuls of both parties voted against the budget deal - what’s that about?***

No Democratic candidate yet has my support - I am listening to all the candidates and will vote for the nominee of the Democratic Party.  I understand the disappointment with Amy Klobuchar falling short of progressive goals saying, “We need more than aspirational, we need serious action.”  

First and foremost, I want to free the country of Donald Trump.  

As to a toxic work environment, I’m not for Zero-tolerance.  I will listen to staff who put their name to charges of Amy Klobuchar’s authoritarian “leadership” style.  What I have seen for myself is her demeanor questioning Brett Kavanaugh - far more adept than what I saw from Kamala Harris or Cory Booker.

Amy Klobuchar has a sense of humor - we’ve learned the hard way what a plus a sense of humor is for leaders.

***U.S. Senate Nays on Roll Call Vote 116th Congress - 1st Session

On the Conference Report to accompany H.J. Res.31) 

Vote Number: 26             Vote Date: February 14, 2019 

Booker (D-NJ); Braun (R-IN); Cotton (R-AR); Cruz (R-TX); Gillibrand (D-NY); Harris (D-CA); Hawley (R-MO); Inhofe (R-OK); Lee (R-UT); Markey (D-MA); Paul (R-KY); Rubio (R-FL); Sasse (R-NE); Scott (R-SC); Toomey (R-PA); Warren (D-MA)                                                                                                                                        

***

Burr (R-NC) did not vote on the bill.

Janis Kliphardt (Emery)

Opinions  

A very British lesson for the American left

The Washington Post

By E.J. Dionne Jr.

February 20, 2019

Does the bolt of eight members of Parliament from the British Labour Party out of frustration with its left-wing leader, Jeremy Corbyn, have anything to teach Democrats in the United States?

There’s a case for saying no, because Corbyn is well to the left of anyone bidding to lead the Democratic Party. That would include Sen. Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist who announced Tuesday that he’s again seeking the presidency. The independent from Vermont is a lefty for sure, but his worldview is rooted in less radical forms of socialism than Corbyn’s, and his foreign policy views are somewhat more conventional than the Labour leader’s.

Competing with Sanders for support from the democratic left is Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). She proudly insists that she’s a capitalist, a boast that would make Corbyn shudder.

Moreover, a core beef of the center-left British rebels has to do with Corbyn’s handling of Brexit, an issue that — mercifully — the United States does not have to deal with.

Most Labour Party moderates, and the vast majority of its members, want their leadership to push hard for a second referendum to reverse the country’s narrow 2016 decision to leave the European Union. But Corbyn is well known to be, at best, ambivalent about membership in the E.U. (he opposed it in the past as a capitalist club) and has, up to now, not made a second referendum central to his strategy.

Corbyn’s critics like to say he’s had a “bad Brexit,” by which they mean that he has failed to take advantage of Prime Minister Theresa May’s chaotic performance. Her complex approach to leaving the E.U. has suffered one parliamentary defeat after another and split her Conservative Party.

Indeed, the revolt of the pro-Europe center broadened on Wednesday when three Conservative MPs quit their own party to join the new Independent Group.

Yet Corbyn-led Labour has not opened anything like the large advantage in the polls that an opposition ought to have in these circumstances.

A particular flash point is Corbyn’s lack of real energy or clarity in confronting an outbreak of left-wing anti-Semitism. This was the prime motivation behind MP Luciana Berger’s decision to leave the party. Berger, who is Jewish, has been treated barbarously by some on the “Brocialist” left.

“I cannot remain in a party that I have come to the sickening conclusion is institutionally anti-Semitic,” Berger said. On Tuesday, an eighth Labour parliamentarian, Joan Ryan, joined the flight, citing a “culture of anti-Jewish racism” in the party she has belonged to for four decades.

So why should Democrats in the United States care about any of this?

Begin with the fact that Labour and the Democrats have historically had a lot in common as reformist center-left parties. President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were close allies in creating a middle-of-the-road politics that sought to accommodate the left to the market rhythms of the Reagan and Thatcher eras. Blair’s “New Labour” in the mid-1990s echoed Clinton’s “New Democrats” from a few years earlier.

But the “neo-liberalism” the left associates with Clinton and Blair came under fierce progressive assault after the 2008 economic implosion for being too financier-friendly, insufficiently attentive to rising inequality and too confident in the benefits of free trade and deregulation. The backlash in Britain was particularly vigorous in response to Blair’s strong support for President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

Again, whatever Republicans may claim, Democrats are a long way from embracing Corbynism. But the bitterness of the growing divide between the left and center-left in Britain is a warning of how debilitating intra-progressive strife could become in Congress and in the 2020 primaries.

Given that the defeat of President Trump is the absolutely necessary first step toward a more humane politics, more moderate and more adventurous Democrats can ill afford to concentrate their fire on each other. The stakes are too high for self-indulgent sectarianism.

And differences in approach over how to guarantee everyone health coverage or how to fight climate change are less important than agreeing that both problems are urgent and need solving. Remembering that your opponents would prefer to do nothing at all on these issues is a good way to put such disagreements into perspective.

It’s an irony of recent Labour Party history that both Blair and Corbyn invoked a commitment to stand up for “the many, not the few” as the battle cry of their very different campaigns. Nothing makes the privileged few happier than a left that becomes too maximalist to win, and then tears itself apart.

Frances Garfield (Brown)

Hi Janis. I enjoy reading your messages everyday. Keep up the interesting letters and I find out who is good and who is not! Besides reading the Chicago Tribune, hearing the news, I find out so much information about Trump, and the lies he says and believes. It is important to get rid of him soon!

-fran