SPP Vol.690 & Old Time Froggy Botttom Cafe

Hello again painting fans.

This week I will be starting a new painting.  I am putting aside the Gothic style house for the moment.  I will come back to it.  I will be painting the back of an old double-turreted Victorian seen in Virginia.  The photo that I am using is seen directly below.  I’ll be using my usual acrylic paints on a 8×10 inch canvas.

I started with a pencil grid on both a print of the photo and the canvas.  In this way I was able to transfer the elements to the canvas in an accurate pencil sketch.  I’ve overpainted the lines of my sketch.

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

I’ll have more progress to show you next week. See you then.

Earlier paintings in this series can be seen here.

Rubio’s Hard Line on Birthright Citizenship

When Donald Trump descended the escalator in Trump Tower in June 2015 and announced his candidacy for president, I was amazed to see his initial pitch which singled out Mexico for scorn.

“They’re sending us not the right people,” he said, adding: “The US has become a dumping ground for everyone else’s problems.

“They’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing their problems,” he said. “They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some I assume are good people but I speak to border guards and they tell us what we are getting.”

He promised that as President Trump, one of his first actions would be to build a “great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico pay for that wall”.

It seemed pretty disconnected from reality. The only example I could think of involving a foreign nation dumping undesirable people on our shores was Fidel Castro’s Cuba. As the Miami Herald memorialized back in 2016, the Mariel boatlift took place between April and September 1980. Here’s a taste of how that went:

For all, Mariel was an unforgettable experience.

“It simply changed my life,” said [Lula] Rodríguez, now doing consulting work on corporate communications in Miami.

She says that the plight of many Mariel refugees remains seared in her memory and that the exodus made her realize just how terrible the Castro regime was.

“I saw people who were taken from mental hospitals, ” Rodríguez recalled in a recent interview. “Many of them were dazed. They asked questions like ‘when is the doctor going to see me?’ They were not even aware that they were in another country. That’s when I realized the monstrosity of Fidel Castro.”

…When [Cesar] Odio arrived at Artime, a crowd had gathered outside — mostly relatives of the arriving refugees. The large number of relatives calmed his fears that the refugee wave would swamp city resources.

But Odio’s initial optimism faded when he saw some of the passengers on the first boats.

“It was an example of what Fidel Castro was sending us, ” Odio said. “Criminals and crazies, who had no families here. I began to worry.”

Despite this, the criminal element in the exodus has been badly exaggerated, and thirty-six years later the boat lift is not seen as any kind of disaster for the country.

On balance, Odio and other former officials said, Miami and Miami-Dade benefited from Mariel because the majority of the refugees went on to become successful citizens.

“Mariel was very bad in the beginning, but it was very good in the end, ” Ferre summed up. “The vast majority of these people were honest, decent, hard working, industrious people . . . who are now doctors, bankers, entrepreneurs and who really uplifted the community.”

Now, Marco Rubio did not come to America on the Mariel boat lift. He was born in Miami in 1971. His parents had emigrated to this country in 1956, and not in response to Castro’s 1959 revolution as Rubio has often suggested. His mom and dad were not naturalized as American citizens until 1975, so Marco would most definitely be considered a candidate for non-citizenship if the 14th Amendment were modified to eliminate birthright citizenship. Of course, Cuba was always in a special category because this country officially welcomed anyone who could escape the island. In every other respect, though, Rubio is in the same category as anyone else who was born here to foreigners or guests.

Yet, he doesn’t seem to have any self-awareness about this:

That Tweet is Senator Rubio’s response to President Trump’s announcement that he intends to do away with birthright citizenship and the response from legal scholars that this would be unconstitutional. Conservatives are arguing that the 14th Amendment was only intended to assure citizenship to slaves and not to every Juan, Ricardo and Enrique who wades across the Rio Grande. So, under this novel theory, a true “originalist” understanding of the 14th Amendment would make it permissible to deny American-born babies automatic citizenship.

You might remember that the Mariel boat lift was depicted in the movie Scarface.

Tony Montana manages to leave Cuba during the Mariel exodus of 1980. He finds himself in a Florida refugee camp but his friend Manny has a way out for them: undertake a contract killing and arrangements will be made to get a green card. He’s soon working for drug dealer Frank Lopez and shows his mettle when a deal with Colombian drug dealers goes bad.

You probably don’t know that Marco Rubio’s brother-in-law was a key figure in one of the largest cocaine smuggling and distribution gangs in the country’s history. In fact, this gang was a model for Scarface and also informed plot lines in the 1980’s television show Miami Vice.

In 1985, Marco Rubio spent part of his early summer living in a small house facing a tepid canal just north of Bird Road in West Kendall. Cages full of squawking macaws filled the acre yard. And a major drug ring stored kilos of cocaine in a spare bedroom, sliced it into bricks, and packed it inside cigarette cases to smuggle around the United States.

Florida’s future junior senator was 14 years old when he lived for a short time in the house, which belonged to his brother-in-law, the coke ring’s frontman. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with having a drug-dealing relative. Ever since Univision outed his brother-in-law’s ties to the drug trade in 2011, Rubio has steadfastly sworn that neither he nor his parents knew anything about the criminal gang.

But previously unreported testimony — taken from a review of more than 700 pages of federal court records — casts doubt on his story. The revelation comes as Rubio faces a tight reelection bid in which his honesty has become a major issue. The former Florida House speaker has already been caught lying about his family’s past. And he recently spent months campaigning for president while promising voters he wouldn’t run again for Senate, then reneged.

The testimony, part of a 1987 federal case against Rubio’s brother-in law, makes clear the West Kendall residence, where Rubio also worked for months after moving out, was an important hub for the $75 million cocaine operation. Two law enforcement officials who worked on the Cocaine Cowboys-era case say they doubt anyone could have lived and worked there regularly without catching a hint of what was up.

“For anyone to argue that teens or adults living at this time in Miami didn’t know their family members were in the coke business is total horseshit,” says Michael Fisten, a former Miami-Dade homicide detective who’s writing a book about the case. “My own brother was involved in the dope business, and I knew it immediately.”

I actually wrote all about this in a 2015 New Year’s Eve post called Marco Rubio’s Miami Vice Problem. Among the highlights is the time Rubio’s brother-in-law was involved in killing an informant who was working for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. They chopped up his body with a chainsaw and lit in on fire. Not to worry, though. In 2002, while serving as the Majority Whip in the Florida House of Representatives, Rubio urged state regulators to grant a real estate license to his brother-in-law who had just completed his 11  1/2  year prison sentence.

“I have known Mr. Cicilia for over 25 years,” Rubio wrote in a July 1, 2002, letter to an official in the Real Estate Division of the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation. “I recommend him for licensure without reservation. If I can be of further assistance on this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.”

Naturally, Rubio didn’t mention in the letter that that he was married to his Mr. Cicilia’s sister, or that he had once lived with the notorious cocaine kingpin while he was at the height of his powers.

It just seems to me like Marco Rubio is uniquely unqualified to take a hardline on immigration because other countries don’t send us their best. After all, if Trump knew his history, what would he say?

The Caravan and the Troops. A Perfect Electoral Storm For Trump?

I hope not.

If a Caravan/U.S. forces confrontation goes down before Tuesday…in Trump’s own words, rocks for bullets, bullets for rocks…and is covered by the slavering media as the clickbait to end all clickbait, this election will fail to even begin to displace Trumpism. The zombified “base” of Trump’s support will dutifully clomp, clomp, clomp right out of their grave-like houses and vote in perfect, rotten unison.

If anyone in a position of some kind of real power who opposes Trump…U.S. spooks, especially…can somehow effect a slowdown in this confrontation until after this election, maybe something good will come of it.

If not?

Trump’s luck will hold.

Once again.

Sigh…

Watch.

AG

P.S. If Trump stays in power, the U.S. will become a totally militarized state on the Israeli model, with South/Central Americans taking the place of the Palestinians as the excuse for militarization. And if that is successfully accomplished, the next internal targets will be all people of color.

Bet on it.

And then?

And then all bets are off.

A new twist on an old, old story:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out–because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out– because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

It’s happening.

Now.

Right before our eyes.
P.P.S. Oaguabonita generously…well, maybe not so generously, but certainly with a gloat in its eye…informed me that I had the caravan’s timeline wrong. I answered as nicely as possible given the unending attacks on me personally and on my positions from the Group of…what? Four? Five?…NeoCentrists in residence on this blog.


My point, however, stands.


The constantly accelerating numbers of troops being sent to the Mexican Border are the first stones in a domestic military edifice that will rise ever more quickly as long as Trump stays in power.


Fascism 101.


Watch.

A Fox & Friends Host for UN Ambassador

When Fox & Friends host Heather Nauert was appointed as the Spokesperson for the Department of State, there was groaning from all corners. The career diplomats saw her as completely unqualified as she had no political, governmental or foreign policy experience whatsoever. The incoming Secretary of State Rex Tillerson perceived her as little more than a spy for the White House and shut her out so completely that she seriously considered resigning from the position.

Under Tillerson, the daily State Department briefing was eliminated, replaced with two briefings per week. By all accounts, Nauert worked hard to get up to speed on the international topics she was hired to discuss, but she still struggled to stay conversant.

“She presents herself very well, the camera loves her, she looks great when she briefs, she’s very poised,” the senior department official said of Nauert. “On the substance, it’s been a very tough road. She requires a lot of hand-holding, and getting her up to speed on the issues requires us having to brief her over and over, often on the same issues because she doesn’t absorb the information well.”

Her fortunes improved immediately when President Trump fired Tillerson at the end of March 2018. Along with Tillerson, Trump also cashiered Steve Goldstein, the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. He then gave that position to Nauert without replacing her as the Department’s spokesperson.

Some foreign policy experts and former State Department officials argue Nauert is ill-prepared to lead US efforts to thwart ISIS propaganda and Russian disinformation, guide state-run media on the Broadcasting Board of Governors, and oversee some 275 US embassies and consulates around the world. They say she simply doesn’t have the bandwidth to handle these significant responsibilities on top of her job as spokeswoman.

“Even on an acting basis, having Heather run a billion-dollar strategic communications operation is a massive mismatch of skills and of the kind of strategy that we need as a country,” said Brett Bruen, the former White House director of global engagement under former President Barack Obama, adding that her selection as under-secretary is “reflective of a deep distrust that the White House has of diplomats.”

Tara Sonenshine, a former under-secretary for public diplomacy and public affairs under Obama, said it’s nearly impossible to be both spokesperson and under-secretary simultaneously, given the travel demands and differing nature of the roles.

“I’m not sure how one could physically do all of it, unless you have incredibly strong people and you can be in two places at once,” she said.

Nauert first came to prominence during the Lewinsky scandal when she was introduced as one of a phalanx of blond critics of Bill Clinton along with Barbara Olson, Kellyanne Conway, and Ann Coulter. She caught the eye of the executive producer of Fox News Bill Shine. When Shine accepted a job as Trump’s White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications after being forced out at Fox News in the sexual harassment scandal, speculation arose that Nauert would replace Sarah Huckabee Sanders as the administration’s press secretary.

What happened instead is appalling. Trump has decided to make her the next Ambassador to the United Nations.

President Donald Trump has told advisers that Heather Nauert, the State Department spokeswoman, is his leading choice to become US ambassador to the United Nations and he could offer the post as soon as this week, two sources familiar with his pick told CNN.

If named Nauert, who met with Trump Monday, would leave her role at the State Department to take over from Nikki Haley, who surprised White House officials last month when she announced her decision to step down at the end of the year.

If nominated and confirmed, she will join a list that includes Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., Adlai Stevenson, George H.W. Bush, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Andrew Young, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke.

Trump turned to Nauert after Dina Powell took her name out of contention. It’s worth looking at the contrast in the two women’s preparation for the job of UN ambassador.

Nauert is trained in communications and journalism, having gained degrees in those fields from the Mount Vernon College for Women and Columbia University. She spent her pre-government career as a correspondent and on-air pontificator.

Powell, who is fluent in Arabic, worked as a legislative assistant while earning a degree from the University of Texas at Austin. She then did an internship with U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and landed a permanent job working for Republican House Majority Leader Dick Armey. After that, she became the Director of Congressional Affairs for the Republican National Committee and then entered the Bush administration as Deputy Assistant to the President for Presidential Personnel. Her work on foreign policy began in 2005 when she took the job of Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural Affairs. During the Trump administration, she has filled the roles of Senior Advisor to the President for Entrepreneurship, Economic Growth and the Empowerment of Women and Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategy. In the latter position, she has attended both the Principals and Deputies Committee meetings of the National Security Council.

There’s an enormous contrast here, obviously, and Powell and Nauert do not belong in the same universe as applicants.

Nauert has been serving as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs in an acting or interim capacity, largely because it might have been hard to get her confirmed to the position.

While some believe Nauert will fill the under-secretary role temporarily, she may face difficulty being confirmed by the Senate if she’s nominated for the position. [Sarah Huckabee] Sanders said she wouldn’t be surprised if Nauert was nominated, but that Trump would “lean on the recommendation and the preference of the secretary and allow him to make that determination.”

“Nobody wants to hold her if she gets sent up here, but there’s a very real chance that somebody will because there are broad doubts about her qualifications,” said a senior Republican Senate staffer, who requested anonymity to avoid jeopardizing relations with State. The staffer claimed that Nauert was put in the job largely to assuage concerns about high-level vacancies at the department.

No doubt, Nauert has gained some valuable experience during her two years at the State Department–she’s not starting at zero anymore–but it’s ludicrous to think that she’s the best or even a minimally acceptable choice for a cabinet-level position as ambassador to the United Nations.

She is not prepared and does not have the fluency of foreign affairs she needs to do the job and adequately represent to the United States on the world stage. She doesn’t even know basic historical facts, which became evident in June when she said that invasion of Normandy was some kind of predicate for the strong relationship our country has with Germany.

Honestly, I thought Nikky Haley was grossly underprepared for the job of UN Secretary and that she had only been chosen to create an opening for a Trumpist to take over the governor’s mansion in South Carolina. But Haley’s credentials far exceeded Nauert’s. It might be that the only credential that matters right now is that the person be willing to take the job knowing that Trump’s presidency is headed for the choppiest of waters as soon as the midterm elections are over.

I don’t want to go too far in disrespecting Heather Nauert. She has some smarts and some talent and a little bit of relevant experience, and I respect that she’s willing to serve her country. She’s more than just a Fox & Friends host.

But she’s still a Fox & Friends host.  If the Senate confirms her, they will be doing everyone a disservice, including Ms. Nauert.

Glimmers of hope?

Theresa May has survived numerous threats to her leadership to fight another day after a reasonably well received Tory party conference speech and UK Budget. The mood music on both sides of the Brexit negotiations appears to be that a deal can still be done in late November or early December at the latest. The adults have entered the negotiating room and remaining differences are being chipped away. A formula of words will be found to paper over the cracks and arrive at some sort of an agreement.

The markets will breath a sigh of relief and Sterling will rise. Much of he media will hype the achievement of a deal almost regardless of the content. Dire warnings of the consequences of “no deal” have had their effect of dampening expectations and only the churlish will point out how far short the deal falls from the Brexiteer claims of “the easiest deal in history” achieved because “they need us more than we need them”.

My skepticism over the prospects of a substantial deal has always centered on May’s ability to get any such deal through parliament. Have expectations been reduced enough to make the deal palatable? Are Brexiteers sufficiently desperate to agree any deal so long as it gets the UK out of the EU? Will Remainers vote for  deal so obviously worse than full membership because it avoids the nightmare “no deal” scenario? Can the DUP ever be appeased?
Certainly there has been a lot of “expectations management” going on. The UK government’s publication of 80+ “technical papers” on the preparations required for a no deal Brexit have concentrated minds wonderfully. Every day there are more dire warnings of the economic, logistical, and personal impact of a no-deal Brexit and the UK economy has already under-performed it’s peers by 2% of GDP since the referendum.

But the UK also brought a lot of economic momentum into the A.50 negotiation period and growth, employment, earnings and tax revenues have remained in positive territory. Leading indicators of reduced world growth, trade wars, and political instability may cut little ice when compared with the promise of an “end to austerity” and increased funding for the NHS. Never mind that there are still have several Billion more in cuts to welfare benefits in the pipeline, and government expenditure on services other than the NHS is stagnant, at best. The really poor vote less, and tend not to vote Tory in any case.

So how much will all of this matter? My baseline scenario is still that Tory hopes of substantial Labour dissident support for a Brexit deal are illusory and that the deal will fail to pass Parliament. May will then face a leadership challenge which she could lose despite retaining majority support among Tory MPs. The Tory membership have the final say and many of these are to the right of Atilla the Hun. There are a huge number of potential alternative candidates, but my guess is that Boris Johnson is still the favourite to succeed despite reports that his star has waned. The ghost of Churchill is too heavily engraved on the Tory soul, and BoJo has modeled his entire career on the wartime leader.

Boris Johnson will then fetch up in Berlin, Paris and Brussels with demands for “a better deal for Britain” failing which he will claim to embrace a no deal Brexit. Normally the EU would be keen to give a newly elected leader the cover of at least cosmetic changes to the deal so he can claim it as a victory, but I doubt that would be the case with Johnson. Politics will have moved on in Brussels as well as London, and no one will be keen to re-open a deal so painstakingly, and painfully negotiated.

Instead the EU27 will have been methodically preparing for a no deal Brexit while Johnson bluffs and blusters on. It is just possible that the EU27 will offer Johnson his preferred Canada +++ style trade deal in the political declaration in return for his agreeing to throw the DUP under a bus and effectively retain N. Ireland within the Single Market and Customs Union. If the DUP vote it down he can call a general election as a proxy for a referendum on his new deal.

If Corbyn is smart he will make negotiating better access for Britain to the Single Market and Customs Union the central plank of his campaign, and offer to hold a second referendum on the outcome of the negotiations where voters will be given the choice of Remaining or Brexiting on whatever terms he can negotiate. Giving voters a second choice will help him to retain the support of both Brexiteers and Remainers within his party. The rationale will be that you call one vote for industrial action, and then a second on whether to accept the results of the negotiations.

I would expect Corbyn, possibly with the support of the Scots Nationalists and Plaid Cymru, to be successful in forming the next government, and proceeding to seek an extension of the A.50 negotiating period in order to give time for renewed negotiations and a second referendum to take place. I would expect the EU27 to be heartily sick of the whole process by then, but the promise of a second referendum containing an option to Remain may be sufficient to achieve the required unanimous agreement of the EU Council.

Naturally, not being dependent on the DUP and being in favour of a united Ireland in any case, Corbyn will have no difficulty in allowing N. Ireland to remain within the Single Market and Customs Union. His main focus will be to try and get as many of the same benefits for the UK while regaining some increased Independence from Brussels in key Labour priority areas like state aid for companies, public ownership of utilities, and increased taxation for multi-nationals. A very different kind of post-Brexit deal to that sought by the Tories.

But there will be great public shock and anger when UK public opinion discovers that the EU price tag for giving access to the Single Market – a la Norway – is not all that much different than the net cost of full EU membership at the moment. But at that stage it will be too late – the no deal option will have been taken off the table. The second referendum will offer only two options: Remain or accept the Brexit terms as negotiated by Corbyn. Many in the UK will be tempted to vote for Brexit anyway, as anti-EU feeling will have been increased by perceived EU intransigence, and in the belief that better terms can always be negotiated later.

But then the EU27 will also need to box clever if they want the UK to vote Remain in the second referendum. Rather than simply giving UK voters a choice between Brexit and continued membership of the EU status quo as it currently is, the EU should seek to transform the debate by issuing a political declaration – akin to the political declaration on the future relationship between the UK and the EU27 accompanying the Brexit agreement – setting out their plans to reform the EU in the future.

The EU has been in constant evolution in any case, and many EU members and Commission Directorates will have plans for future reforms/developments/extensions of competencies and services in any case. The challenge would be to bundle these into a coherent document outlining a vision for what the EU will look like in the future, and getting it passed, in principle, by a weighted majority on the Council.

For many UK voters, voting to Remain in a second referendum would feel like a humiliation, even if they voted Remain in the first referendum. It would signal a loss of confidence in being able to make their own way in the world. A failure of negotiation, and a failure to stand on their own two feet. Asking them to go back on a previous decision would simply be rubbing it in.

What the EU27 would have to do is to transform this narrative of failure into one of a new opportunity to be part of a changed EU more in tune with UK sensibilities. People would not be asked to vote for the pre-A.50 status quo, but for an opportunity to be part of a change process within the EU in the future. It would almost be like voting to re-join a changed EU, with the Brexit debate being given some credit for acting as a catalyst for this change.

It matters little in the short term how substantive those “reforms” of the EU eventually turn out to be. The key point will be to give voters an opportunity to change their minds in changed circumstances without feeling that they have been humiliated into doing so. Corbyn will have very different priorities for a EU membership in the future in any case. It remains to be seen how receptive an EU increasingly dominated by centre right and far right parties will be to his ideas for reforms. My guess is not very, and in many instances that will be a pity.

But elections have consequences, and those consequences are not confined to the UK. My hope would be that the whole Brexit episode will be a salutary lesson to all extreme nationalists hoping to hijack the political agenda in their home states in order to leverage sectional advantage against the common good.  Just as Brexit could transform the political climate in both the UK and EU, and generally not in a good way, a failure of Brexit could refocus minds on the benefits of working together to address common challenges.

Brexit has been a monumental distraction to the challenges presented by global climate change, migration patterns, growing inequality, government austerity, and a failure of the public good to trump private greed. It has sought to harness the forces of national chauvinism, disaster capitalism, and political narcissism in the service of national elites “taking back control” in order to leverage their interests against the common good more effectively. So far it is too early to say when and if that tide can be turned. The November mid-terms in the USA will give us more information on this. But defeating the forces behind Brexit has to be a priority for any progressive political agenda.

The scenario painted above contains too many “ifs” and “buts” to be the most likely scenario. It is probably less likely than a no deal Brexit with disastrous consequences. However we must hope for the best, even as we prepare for the worst.  The main thing is that it is still possible to imagine a better alternative future. There is still a glimmer of hope.

Goading the Democrats Off Message

I’ve noted before that the Senate Republicans saw Brett Kavanaugh’s controversial confirmation to the Supreme Court as a way of protecting their majority even though they knew it would simultaenously hurt their party’s chances of holding onto the House. How it hurt and how it helped depends on which constituency you are looking at, but nowhere was it more helpful than in statewide elections in red states. One of those states is Ohio, where the Democrats are trying to take over the governor’s mansion and get Sherrod Brown reelected to the Senate. The reason Kavanaugh worked for the GOP in Ohio is because a lot of the Obama-Trump Democrats just simply do not care about issues like the #MeToo movement.

David Betras, the chairman of the Mahoning County Democratic Party, said liberal social causes “can’t be a centerplate issue’’ for Ohio Democrats, and preached a focus on pocketbook fare instead. “Most voters,” he said, “don’t give a whit one way or the other” about the former. (He did not say “whit.”)

You can see some of the Kavanaugh effect in Tennessee, too.

In Tennessee, Republican Marsha Blackburn has overtaken former Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen. In the new poll, 49% back Blackburn, 45% Bredesen. That reflects a reversal since a mid-September CNN poll found Bredesen with a five-point edge over Blackburn.

Men and independents are now less apt to say they support Bredesen, with the Democrat’s backing among men dropping from 42% in September to 36% now. Among independents, Bredesen has gone from 54% support in September to 47% now.

It’s not just that these voters lack a sympathetic ear for women who claim to be victims of sexual assault. They also tend to have little patience for complaints about racism or police misconduct, and they’re sympathetic to the president’s hardline stance on immigration.  That’s why Trump is running a nakedly racist advertisement at the close of the campaign.

Robert Verbruggen at the National Review makes an implausible case that the president’s ad isn’t an appeal to racism at all, but he’s probably not wrong when he says this, “I wonder if part of the thinking behind the ad was to goad liberals into making racism accusations that the GOP base would find ridiculous.”

I’d only dispute that we’re talking strictly about the GOP base. Trump is trying to hold onto the voters he poached from Obama, but many of them have been coming home to the Democrats, especially in the Midwest. If Trump can goad the Democrats into getting off message and talking about “social issues” rather than bread-and-butter stuff like health care and jobs, then he’s going to do better holding onto his Democratic voters.

The problem is that this kind of politics only works on a narrow band of voters, and it does real damage with a broader set of people who will decide the House elections.  Going full racist at the close here might help the Republicans beat Phil Bredesen in Tennessee or win the governor’s race in Ohio, but it’s making it just a little more difficult for countless Republican candidates who are already endangered.

And when Paul Ryan complains about it, Trump just tells him to screw himself.

The Democrats have to be smart about this. They can’t act like Pavlovian dogs and respond exactly how they’re expected to respond. If they stay on message, Trump’s last-second gambit may well fail, and we definitely don’t want to see this kind of politics rewarded.

Trump On the Ropes – Last Minute Attack Ad with LIES

See also my previous diary – Digital Media and the Rise of Populist Right-Wing.

After getting a ferocious beating in the corner where it hurts, Trump and his PAC of dogs are intent on using the principle to quickly change the news headlines. Managing his own Twitter account, DT once again pushes the fear for immigrants narrative … quite sickening and will white America fall for his bull shit in the election box for the mid-terms … “Promises Kept”. Even Wall Street has taken a beating this month with the expectation the monetary policy to keep the economy afloat before the high corporate debt and higher interest rates starts to bite next year and leads to a downturn and major recession in 2020. DT and his Republican henchmen buying time … the mid-term election are just in time! Democrats GO – GOTV.

Trump’s new election ad draws severe condemnation – midterms live | The Guardian |

The House Republicans’ PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund, launched a $200,000 last minute ad campaign to protect New York Rep. John Katko from a Democratic challenger, the Syracuse Post Standard reported.

Katko is one of several Republicans in New York who Democrats have hopes to knock off. They also include indicted Rep. Chris Collins, Hudson Valley Rep. John Faso, and Staten Island Rep. Dan Donovan.

The GOP group’s ad attacks Democrat Dana Balter for her support for a single-payer healthcare system, also known as Medicare for All.

The PAC is the latest political group to begin spending heavily in the Syracuse race, a possible sign the election may be more competitive than public polls have shown, the Post Standard reports.  

How Debt Could Blow Up the Trump Economy | Fortune – March 2018 |
The Makings of a 2020 Recession and Financial Crisis | The Independent – Sept. 2018 |

Latest setbacks for the Trump administration …

Khashoggi murder hits old ally Saudi King Salman as Iran timeline moves forward  
Bombs and a Murder: Trump and MBS Share Even More Than You Think | Tikun Olam |
The slippery slope from Charlottesville to Pittsburgh | Ynet News Israel – OpEd |

[Update-1]

Migrants from EU boosting the German economy: study | DW |

[Update-2]

Latina Republican known as ‘Maria Elvira’ battles Donna Shalala for Fla. congressional seat | NBC News |

Right-wing rhetoric of an extremist …

Trump reveals plans for asylum crackdown at border and ‘massive cities of tents’ | The Guardian |

Bolton: U.S. will no longer appease ‘Troika of Tyranny’ in Latin America | Miami Herald |

Bolton delivered the aggressive speech to Cuban and Venezuelan expats at the Freedom Tower in Miami, while announcing that President Donald Trump had signed a new executive order that will allow sanctions against Venezuela’s gold industry, which Bolton said the Venezuelan government has used to finance criminal operations. The order gives the administration authority to target other sectors.

Michael McCarthy, founder of Caracas Wire, a consulting group on Venezuela that regularly speaks with the Trump administration, said the order provides “strategic ambiguity” to target the oil sector later.

Bolton paid particular attention to Cuba’s role in Venezuela, stating that many in the audience have personally suffered “unspeakable horrors” by their homeland governments. They fought back and now their descendants can live the American Dream, he said.

Harkening back to President George W. Bush’s “axis of evil,” Bolton’s attacks on the three nations reflect an increasing aggression toward leftist autocrats that Trump has touched on during international speeches to the United Nations and other international forums.

Trump’s supporters, who have long argued for a stronger position against Latin America, will likely praise the aggressive tone, but it may also heighten existing concerns that the United States is reviving a narrative promoted by leftist governments that the U.S. is the imperialist bully bent on punishing Latin American governments that don’t do its bidding.

Bolton praise for new president of Brazil: the Latino Trump …

Casa Branca promete combater ‘troica da tirania’ nas Américas e elogia Bolsonaro | Globo |
Con 189 votos la ONU aprueba resolución que exige levantar bloqueo a Cuba | El Mundo |

END OF UPDATE-2

The GOP Lost the Health Care Debate

Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie has a theory for why Republicans are under a lot of pressure in the suburbs.

“In some of these competitive House seats in suburban areas, the pre-existing condition issue is one that’s really cutting. And the Republicans to this point, I think, have been pretty ineffective in terms of making their case on why they weren’t going after the pre-existing condition coverage and that we’re going to maintain it. I think you’re being drowned out by the amount of money that Democrats are spending on the issue.”

I kind of love that formulation: “pretty ineffective in terms of making their case.”

The issue itself really isn’t very complicated. No one will sell you fire insurance after your house has already burned down. You can’t get an insurance company to repair your car if you don’t purchase collision coverage until after you’re in an accident. So why would a health insurance company give you an affordable policy after you’ve been diagnosed with diabetes or cancer?

If you’re guaranteed to cost them more than you’ll ever pay in premiums, then they’re not going to insure you, and if you represent a substantial risk, your premiums are going to be astronomical. This is what happens when you use a for-profit industry to address a human right to health care. So, if you tell these companies that they have to give insurance to everybody and you cap how much they can charge, that’s going to bankrupt the entire industry. The only way to make it work is to make young and healthy people buy coverage, too, and then to offer substantial subsidies to make those policies affordable. As a group, the young people will pay much more in premiums than they consume in health care, which basically makes it possible to make a profit even while insuring people who are already sick.

This is the model for Obamacare, and any effort to repeal the law by making it optional to have health insurance will torpedo the entire concept. Your options are to make the Affordable Care Act work, abandon the insurance model of health care completely, or go back to the way things were when millions were denied coverage and access because of cost or preexisting conditions.

The Republicans refuse to take any of those three positions, which makes it very hard to be effective in making their case for anything. They oppose a national health care system and they oppose a mandate that requires people to have insurance. By default, their position is that what we had before is preferable to what we have now, but that’s so unpopular that they’re not willing to admit it. But they voted to undermine and repeal Obamacare several dozens of times and then failed to pass any kind of replacement when they had the chance. Now they’re out on the campaign trail saying that they’re no threat to people’s health care even though they have no plan at all that would make it possible for a corporation to insure sick people without going broke.

Normally, the Republicans are pretty good at obfuscating and they can finesse situations like this by confusing people about the details, but they have spent their time focusing on baseless conspiracy theories rather than health care policy, leaving the entire playing field on the issue to the Democrats.

Public opinion polling has shown consistently that health care is at the top of the voters’ concerns this year, but the GOP is talking about George Soros and Central American rapists who have smallpox and leprosy. Apparently, Chris Christie has recognized that this was a mistake and that you can’t fool people about preexisting conditions unless you put in at least a little effort.