Willie Brown: Rooting for a Rematch

Party elder Willie Brown thinks the strongest Democratic Presidential candidate in 2020 would be Hillary Clinton:

Clinton is the only candidate short of Barack Obama who has the brains, the battle-tested brawn and the national presence to take out Trump. And Obama can’t run.

Bernie Sanders was fading even before his heart started acting up. Joe Biden has become Trump’s main talking point in the whole Ukraine-China impeachment mess, which hardly helps him. And he wasn’t exactly running away with it before that.

Elizabeth Warren has a following, but it’s not that much broader than Sanders’. If he drops out, she might pick up some of his votes. But there’s the big question of whether she appeals to anyone besides the furthest left element of the Democratic Party.

Depression over the current field was swirling through my head the other day when I popped into the office of my friend Steven Kay and saw that famous picture of Muhammad Ali standing victorious over Sonny Liston hanging on the wall.

That’s when the light went on: “Rematch!”

Think about it. Hillary is still the smartest of the bunch. She’s also better known than any of the candidates, so she doesn’t need a lot of money.

Most of all, she can take a punch. Heck, she can take a 2-by-4 over the head and stay standing.

Willie Brown's assessment of the field makes sense. But will Mrs. Clinton still excite enough Democrats in the swing states to tip the election? (Blowout victories in California and New York don't count more than close ones.) It seems to this observer that other candidates would do a better job with younger voters. But what do I know--I'm neither young nor a Democrat.

Not On My Reading List Until 2020, Maybe

Time says that one of the must-read books for January is the memoir by freshman Senator Kamala Harris.

Oh, please. The Time reviewer's political motivations are transparently obvious. Kamala Harris' book is the first one of the eleven listed (in case you're a reader who drops out after 4-5 paragraphs). This "review" is pure public relations: [bold added[

Her memoir highlights her dedication to public service, detailing her journey as a prosecutor out of law school to becoming District Attorney of San Francisco to her rise to the U.S. Senate. Democratic Sen. Harris’ passion for helping others is on full display in The Truths We Hold, where she shares her insights on leadership, problem solving and the power of speaking your truth.

But Time is just echoing what the newspaper of record is trying to do. Law professor and blogger Ann Althouse believes the New York Times is writing disparaging articles on other Democratic candidates on "the path the NYT would like to clear for — let's be honest — Kamala Harris?"

Politicians are always trying to recreate the past. Democrats constantly refer to JFK, who brought "Camelot" to Washington. Republicans compare their leaders to Ronald Reagan, whom they view as the greatest Republican President since Lincoln.

IMHO, one of the reasons Hillary Clinton was nominated was to restore the glory days of her husband's administration, but Hillary did not have Bill's charisma or political skills.

And Kamala, though attractive and black, so far has not shown that she's anywhere close to being Barack. I suppose, if she wins the Democratic nomination, I'll be picking up her book. So 2020, maybe.

Dropped From Sight

In this week's version of "it's the end of America as we know it" President Trump will soon nominate another Supreme Court Justice. Anthony Kennedy retired last week, kicking off a nomination firestorm that will dominate headlines into fall.

For perspective I pulled up the 2018 Time covers to see if the overturning of Roe v. Wade (a threatened occurrence, BTW, with every Supreme Court nomination by a Republican President since 1987) would be more outrageous than any of the other things that Donald J. Trump was responsible for this year.

There were several weeks of #MeToo coverage that recounted numerous incidents of sexism, sexual harassment, and sexual assault that predated not only President Trump but also the 21st century. Yes, let's shame or prosecute the people responsible, but at least give President Trump indirect credit. #MeToo would never have happened under President Hillary Clinton, with big-time supporter Harvey Weinstein yukking it up with the Big He in the Lincoln bedroom.

Then there are President Trump's inflammatory speeches and tweets directed at Kim Jong Un. Time's February mushroom cloud (which indeed would have been worse than anything going on with the Supreme Court) was superseded by the June cover that showed the two leaders talking amiably.

And what happened to those determined, angry kids who want gun restrictions? I agree that stopping school shootings has to be a national priority. Despite the polarization, surely we can reach common ground on mental illness, rapid-fire technology, and background checks. Or was it all a voter registration drive for Democrats?

Then there are the pictures of border families and crying kids who seem to elicit powerful emotions from people on all sides of the illegal immigration issue. Here's where over two decades of screening grant requests has hardened my heart. Everyone who wants money knows that crying babies trump nearly all rational consideration. OK, reunite the border families, but you still have to deliberate over the adults, some of whom are using their children to catch a break. Note: in California alone there are over 50,000 children separated from their parents by Child Protective Services, undoubtedly for good reason. Over 20,000 are age 5 or younger; I'll bet some of them cried when they were taken away, but their pictures aren't on the cover of Time. I do get it, CPS good, border patrol bad. Indeed, I have to work on my hardened heart.

Other observations: 1) the portraits of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and a sexual-predator felon are both cast in shadow. I wonder what Time's editorial position is on these guys. 2) Pictures or representations of President Trump appear on four covers, only one of which is non-hostile. If Time were a person, I'd advise it to get therapy for its obsession. 3) What happened to Russia-Russia-Russia and the anytime-now impeachment of Donald Trump? 4) What happened to the tariff wars that will plunge the world into the next Great Depression? (I'm actually worried about this one and wonder why they're not using this to undermine the President's support from business.)

Now that I've done the half-year in review I feel a lot better. These "crises" must not have been so important after all because they've dropped from sight.

The Economist: Korean Peace Will Be Kim's Doing

Peace is threatening to break out on the Korean peninsula, and the Economist credits....Kim Jong Un. [Bold added for laudatory phrases]

Kim Jong Un and South Korean President Moon Jae-in
(South China Morning Post)

Even six months ago, no one imagined Mr Kim capable of leading a diplomatic dance that has drawn in not just South Korea but America and China. He is proving to be an adept young dictator....

Yet right after the test, and little remarked, Mr Kim declared the fulfilment of a sacred national goal, the completion of a “state nuclear force”. The flurry of launches suddenly ceased. Mr Trump claims that his sanctions and threats brought Mr Kim to the table. But since that declaration it is Mr Kim who has set the diplomatic tempo and selected the mood music—literally so, when he invited K-pop bands from South Korea to Pyongyang, his capital...

Given such canniness, a reassessment of the rest of Mr Kim’s rule is overdue....Mr Kim, says Andrei Lankov of Kookmin University in Seoul, is a deft dictator: “smart, calculating and cruel—yet not sadistic for the hell of it.” (That must be scant comfort for all the innocent prisoners being beaten with hammers in his gulag.)...

he needs the summits, and to keep Mr Moon, Mr Trump and Mr Xi dancing. It is unclear how the dance will end. But what is certain is that he will have rehearsed the steps more carefully than they have. After all, Mr Kim has more at stake.

He executed his girlfriend by machine gun in 2013.
That Kim!

The Economist contends that Mr. Kim had been planning rapprochement ever since he came to power in 2011. The assassinations and purges (he executed five government officials with an antiaircraft gun) were just, we suppose, necessary steps on the road to peace.

Had Barack Obama known what a good guy Kim Jong Un was, he and Secretary of State Clinton could have negotiated peace in 2013, which would probably have cinched the 2016 election for Mrs. Clinton.

Added bonus: she would have gotten a Nobel Prize, too. Coulda, woulda, shoulda....

We Are Wiser and More Believable Now

Sen. Gillebrand (NY Daily News)

Senator Kirsten Gillebrand (D-NY), a staunch long-time supporter of both Clintons, now says President Clinton should have resigned 20 years ago during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

The comment drew immediate fire from Philippe Reines, a top aide to Mrs. Clinton, who was first lady at the time of the affair. “Over 20 yrs you took the Clintons’ endorsements, money, and seat. Hypocrite,” he wrote on Twitter. “Interesting strategy for 2020 primaries. Best of luck.”

After decades of silence, Democrats are finding it advantageous to denounce sex-abuse and sex-crimes committed by members of their own party (during this period there's been no such reticence about pillorying Republicans), though it means throwing the Big He and She under the bus.

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.--Groucho Marx

Something Memorable

Last week your humble blogger listed Kate McKinnon's SNL opening as an example of comedians' Freakoutrage over the election, but that categorization was unjustified. Her performance was inspired, though it certainly was a deviation from the sharp comedy that typically leads off the show. The subdued applause reflected the audience's confounded expectation.

Dressed in her Hillary outfit, Kate McKinnon sang excerpts from Hallelujah, one of Leonard Cohen's (d. 11/7/2016) most famous songs. As she warbled "And even though it all went wrong, I'll stand before the Lord of Song with nothing on my tongue but Hallelujah" Kate's Hillary turned into a tragic figure, her lifelong quest turned to ashes partly through her own human weakness.

Christians are instructed to say "Hallelujah (Praise the Lord-PTL)" in bad times as well as good. Hillary Clinton, the lifelong Methodist, knows this, though people with only a popcorn understanding of Christianity typically don't understand how one can PTL in the midst of tragedy. For a moment SNL cast off its clown outfit and produced something memorable.

Old Humor

Some Gahan Wilson cartoons are seared...SEARED!...in my brain.

Here's one from 1970 that could refer to this week's election.

(Image from Oakland Museum)

The Discomfiture of the Elites

To no one's surprise the Economist endorsed Hillary Clinton last week: [bold added]

The choice is not hard. The campaign has provided daily evidence that Mr Trump would be a terrible president. He has exploited America’s simmering racial tensions (see article). His experience, temperament and character make him horribly unsuited to being the head of state.[snip]

This presidential election matters more than most because of the sheer recklessness [electing Trump] of that scheme. It draws upon the belief that the complexity of Washington is smoke and mirrors designed to bamboozle the ordinary citizen; and that the more you know, the less you can be trusted. To hope that any good can come from Mr Trump’s wrecking job reflects a narcissistic belief that compromise in politics is a dirty word and a foolhardy confidence that, after a spell of chaos and demolition, you can magically unite the nation and fix what is wrong.

Wow, they really didn't like Donald Trump. If the Economist is trying to sway an undecided voter, or even one who is leaning to Mr. Trump, sneering condescension and value-laden adjectives (terrible, unsuited, narcissistic) directed toward Trump supporters aren't the way to do it. On the other hand, if one is merely engaging in virtue-signaling to its presumed Oxbridge/Ivy readership, then the writers did a fine job.

Though I didn't vote for him, the discomfiture of the elites about the election results has been a wholly unexpected pleasure.

In its post-mortem the Economist displays a glimmer of self-awareness:

ordinary Americans...repudiate the media—including this newspaper—for being patronising, partisan and as out of touch and elitist as the politicians....The election of Mr Trump is a rebuff to all liberals, including this newspaper.

However, they still expect Donald Trump to fail:

We are deeply sceptical that he will make a good president—because of his policies, his temperament and the demands of political office.

Baby steps. Baby steps.

Better Than What They Paid For

Big Bank stocks' increase in less than two days: Citigroup +7.82%, J.P. Morgan Chase +9.68%,
Bank of America +10.91%, Goldman Sachs +11.60%, Wells Fargo +13.78%

Hillary Clinton was the friend of Wall Street, but the election of Donald Trump, coupled with the Republican retention of both houses of Congress, has powered financial stocks higher probably beyond bankers' wildest hopes if their candidate had won. One reason could be the President-elect's desire to streamline cumbersome Dodd-Frank regulations:

House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas) last year laid out a blueprint for replacing Dodd​-Frank​, and ​ many observers view ​that ​as a starting point. It is built around a trade-off: Banks can free themselves from various regulations, such as tough stress testing, so long as they maintain capital equal to at least 10% of total assets and high ratings from the regulator.

Republicans should temper their enthusiasm for helping the banks. Sure, get rid of red tape that slows everything down and maybe loosen capital requirements slightly, but be very cautious about letting the financial gunslingers roam free. [bold added]

[Republicans] also risk losing support if they push too far, according to lobbyists and congressional aides.

For instance, some Republicans are split over the idea of removing Title II of Dodd-​Frank, which gives financial regulators authority to take over and unwind huge financial firms as a way of avoiding future bailouts. On the other hand, ​Republicans might need to pick up some Democratic votes to move the bill through the Senate, and that party is almost sure to oppose major changes to core Dodd-Frank provisions, such as the Volcker ​rule barring banks from some forms of proprietary trading.

The wounds from the 2008 financial crisis that ruined millions are still fresh, and folks, your allegiance is to the people who elected you, not the Wall Street elite who will throw you over the side if they can get a better deal from the other guys.

Unexpectedly Reflective

Though he must have been tempted, Stephen Colbert foregoes his bash-the-Republicans shtick in favor of quiet reflection. The election is over, so normal people should get back to their lives.

If this is the real Stephen Colbert, I should tune in more often.

No, I Didn't Vote for Him

Whether Donald Trump wins or loses, I'm leading with that titular sentence whenever someone wants to discuss the election.

I live in one of the coastal counties of deep blue California, where people think it's acceptable to declare, without being asked, the unacceptability of the Republican nominee. Just this week I listened to two such declarations from people I must deal with on a regular basis.

Knowing that it's more important to be against the disgusting, evil, racist, sexist Republican than it was to be for the Democrat, I didn't vote for him (or her for that matter) so that I wouldn't be lying to anyone about my vote.

No, I'm not going as far as Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams did in June [bold added]:

So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety. Trump supporters don’t have any bad feelings about patriotic Americans such as myself, so I’ll be safe from that crowd. But Clinton supporters have convinced me – and here I am being 100% serious – that my safety is at risk if I am seen as supportive of Trump. So I’m taking the safe way out and endorsing Hillary Clinton for president.

As I have often said, I have no psychic powers and I don’t know which candidate would be the best president. But I do know which outcome is most likely to get me killed by my fellow citizens. So for safety reason, I’m on team Clinton.

(Scott Adams subsequently changed his endorsement twice, by the way. You'll have to search his blog, dear reader, for more details because I would not want to be responsible if anything happened to him.)

A nanosecond after the polls closed, California was placed in the Clinton column. My vote didn't matter in the Presidential race at all, but it will be very useful during the next four years because I won't have to defend any of President Trump's actions to an outraged person.

What if California became a swing state and I was forced to pick one or the other? As the politicians say, I don't answer hypothetical questions.

November, Full of Portent, Begins

a person should say "rabbit, rabbit, white rabbit", "rabbit, rabbit, rabbit", "rabbit, rabbit" or simply "white rabbits" upon waking on the first day of each new month, and on doing so will receive good luck for the duration of that month.

It's been over four years since I uttered "rabbit, rabbit" on the first of the month---and I'm not particularly superstitious---but the end times may be near and we're going to need a lotta luck.

There's a realistic chance that a loudmouth businessman with no political experience is going to be the next President. It shows how bad things are that I am considering voting for him.

Italy, the center of Western Christendom, has been hit by a wave of earthquakes.

"David Levy, an artificial-intelligence expert and author of “Love and Sex with Robots,” believes humans will be having sex with interactive robots within the next year or so, falling in love with them after that and marrying them by 2050."

There's a realistic chance that (11/2 Update!) the Cubs will win the World Series.

An "Enlightening Election", But Keep Your Perspective

Discussions often end up by calling the other side "Hitler" (Godwin's Law)

Time columnist Joel Stein thinks that the disgust that many feel over the 2016 Presidential campaign is misplaced. Discussions over defense, tax, health care, etc. policies may be calm and rational, but they're also boring. [bold added]

this time we’re addressing core issues that divide us: racism, sexual assault, Islamophobia, immigration, elitism, anti-Semitism, authoritarianism and whether to require drug tests before political debates.

(Okay, the last was an amusing aside.) Joel Stein says that historian Douglas Brinkley agrees with him:

“This has been a hellbroth of stew that’s been tacky and tawdry, but the reason a lot is coming out is because we’ve been avoiding the big conversations,” he said when I called to talk about the election. Now, he said, we’re discussing what our culture should be like, how unfiltered we want to be, if we want to engage other countries and whether our institutions are trustworthy.

Therapists say that airing our differences is healthy, but experience shows that's not always true. Long-time married couples know that it's often better to back down or remain silent than to risk breaking the relationship.

Speak your mind if you must, but do so in a manner that doesn't inflame people who disagree. After Election Day you will have to go back to working with some colleagues who voted for the other person. Your vote really didn't matter, but your job, marriage, and friendships do.

A Lout and a Liar

Archbishop Charles Chaput

The Philadelphia Archbishop's take on the election: [bold added]

a friend describes the choice facing voters in November this way: A vulgar, boorish lout and disrespecter of women, with a serious impulse control problem; or a scheming, robotic liar with a lifelong appetite for power and an entourage riddled with anti-Catholic bigots.

Comments:

1) Hey, nobody's perfect.

2) What happened to hate the sin, love the sinner? (In other words she's a liar is a greater condemnation than she lies.)

3) It wasn't me, I'm only quoting a "friend."

4) Can't wait till it's over.

No Vision

One of the strange aspects of this political season is that the economy, jobs, and government deficits are afterthoughts in the national conversation. The most likely reason--aside from the pull of talking about emotional topics and celebrity personalities--is that the candidates and their experts don't really know what to do. The usual tools, i.e., government spending, tax cuts, low interest rates, haven't worked. Like peace in the Middle East, economic growth has proved elusive no matter who's been in charge.

Some say that this is a return to the old normal. The long post-World War II boom was super-normal, the result of a special confluence of factors: [bold added]

The workforce everywhere became vastly more educated. As millions of laborers shifted from tending sheep and hoeing potatoes to working in factories and construction sites, they could create far more economic value. New motorways boosted productivity in the transportation sector by letting truck drivers cover longer distances with larger vehicles. Faster ground transportation made it practical, in turn, for farms and factories to expand to sell not just locally but regionally or nationally, abandoning craft methods in favor of machinery that could produce more goods at lower cost. Six rounds of tariff reductions brought a massive increase in cross-border trade, putting even stronger competitive pressure on manufacturers to become more efficient.

The initial wave of technology adoption created jobs, but now technology is inexorably grinding them away.

What some economists now call “secular stagnation” might better be termed “ordinary performance.”

The advent of genius machines will render unnecessary the skills of two-thirds of the workforce. In other words, Average is Over:

America is dividing itself in two. At the top will be 10% to 15% of high achievers, the "Tiger Mother" kids if you like, whose self-motivation and mastery of technology will allow them to roar away into the future. Then there will be everyone else, slouching into an underfunded future of lower economic expectations, shantytowns and an endless diet of beans.

For the record, your humble blogger does not subscribe to this bleak vision. Seemingly under our noses a new space age is dawning.

Humanity may currently be viewed as superfluous, redundant, and inferior (to intelligent machines), but as they migrate to the stars 7-10 billion human beings are each unique, irreplaceable, and valuable in an infinite universe. Cheers!

Shooting the NBC Messenger--But They Do Deserve It

At the 2nd debate (ABC News)

Donald Trump has a snowball's chance of being the next President; I suppose that's still a probability greater than zero, so we'll have to wait until November 8th to be absolutely sure. He has only himself to blame for the lack of discipline, the ad hominem attacks, etc. etc. But the nail in his coffin was last week's release of a vulgar 2005 video soundtrack, recorded long before he ran for President and ironically while he was still a Democrat.

NBC sat on the video for 11 years. Clearly they knew what they had; the content was explosive and could fatally wound his candidacy. If NBC News purported to be any kind of news organization, it would have published this information when Mr. Trump began campaigning, long before Mr. Trump had won the nomination. He wouldn't have gotten far, and the Republicans would have fielded a much more credible, seasoned Presidential nominee.

Mrs. Clinton might have still beaten Jeb Bush, John Kasich, Ted Cruz, Scott Walker, or any candidate other than Donald Trump, but the country is measurably poorer for not only having a choice of a better Republican nominee but also a more enlightened discussion about the future. For not having this opportunity I do blame NBC. Such gamesmanship would be expected from political partisans but not from a news organization. I guess they really are Democratic operatives with bylines.

[Addendum: Wall Street Journal -- NBC Plays Defense After Trump Recording Surfaces.
The focus in the WSJ article is the impact on the career of Today host Billy Bush, Mr. Trump's interlocutor on the controversial recording. Sounds like a misdirect to me--the real consequence was the torpedoing of the whole GOP nominating process.]

The Debate of the Century, Until October 9th

Like boxers, they shook hands and came out fighting (ABC image)

Everyone's weighed in on the debate of the century, so I suppose I should, too:

1) Sorry, Donald, but Hillary "won" the debate. She was cooler, more articulate, and better organized.

2) I don't like the finger-wagging and interrupting. I want to hear speakers finish their thoughts. Why can't opponents wait their turn? This goes for the moderator as well, especially the moderator.

3) Dealing with rudeness is a specialized skill that has nothing to do with being a good President. Otherwise stand-up comedians would be the best Presidents.

4) I also don't like addressing the candidates as "Donald" or "Hillary"---preferring Madame Senator, Madame Secretary, or even just plain Mister--but I suppose first-name familiarity is the modern way.

5) The debate didn't change my mind about who to vote for; I suspect not too many people "flipped" or many undecideds finally decided. Whether standard debate metrics apply to these slices of the electorate we won't know until November 8th.

6) Correction to (5) above: it's not who will you vote for, but who will you vote against.

7) The next debate of the century is scheduled for October 9th. Given their ages when they would take office (HC-69, DT-70), we probably should pay attention to the Vice Presidential debate on October 4th (both VP candidates are under 60).

Willie Brown: No Fat Lady Yet

(Image from SFGate)

Veteran politician and observer Willie Brown says not to count Donald Trump out of the Presidential race:

What we’ve seen up until now, including the Donald’s missteps, misspeaks and mistakes, is the political equivalent of spring training.

Within the next two weeks, you are going to see a wholly different campaign. Former Fox News chief Roger Ailes will handle Trump in the same fashion he made a conservative TV network the force it is today....

Trump will spend the fourth quarter hammering away on those two issues: change and trust. The uglier he can make the campaign, the more undecided voters voters will be inclined to cast protest votes with third-party candidates.

In a strong one-on-one race, protest votes are meaningless. But if the public isn’t strong on either candidate, those protest votes could lead to a plurality in key states and allow Trump to win them with his 40 percent.

Hillary's the favorite, but the Donald still has a path to victory. We don't know who's going to win, but it's a safe bet that it's going to be interesting....and ugly.

The Most Important Issue

For what it's worth, Barron's predicts a Democratic Senate and a Republican House after the November elections. A split Congress will ensure that the new President, whoever it turns out to be, will have to compromise with the opposition.

There’s opportunity for either Clinton or Trump to find areas for compromise with Congress, including a tax holiday on the foreign profits of U.S. companies and a bump up in the “carried interest” rate that private-equity firms and hedge funds pay on their profits. And regardless of who is elected, it’s unlikely we will have higher individual tax rates. At the same time, the legislative gridlock that has characterized most of the Obama administration should loosen a bit with either candidate in the White House.

Barron's doesn't mention the ramifications of the election on the Supreme Court, which currently has an unfilled seat due to the death of Justice Scalia on February 13th. If both the Presidency and Senate are in Democratic hands, as Barron's predicts, the Supreme Court is very likely to take a leftward tilt (some will say more leftward) for many years.

Immigration, trade, guns, and terrorism may command the headlines, but the direction of the Supreme Court may be the important issue of the campaign.

Off the Reservation

The Chronicle editorial board demands that Hillary Clinton honor her promise to debate Bernie Sanders before the California primary: [bold added]

Californians deserve more than a succession of rallies, photo opportunities and fundraisers from a major presidential candidate. They deserve a chance to fully compare and contrast the two remaining candidates on everything from the federal reach on state issues such as water and high-speed rail to their differing visions of the role of a global superpower.

Exit polls throughout the primary season have shown that questions about Clinton’s “honesty” and “trustworthiness” remain her biggest challenges as she prepares for a general election against a billionaire saddled with daunting negatives of his own. Her broken promise to debate in California is not going to assuage those concerns among skeptical voters who just might be tempted to send a message to Clinton on her final glide path to the nomination.

But the Chronicle doesn't stop there. With statements like the following, it might have its press credential revoked in Washington and Sacramento:

The Chronicle had been prepared to partner on the California debate with Fox News, which proved superior to other networks in instilling substance and control into primary debates.

Praise for Fox? Criticism of Hillary? Nice little paper we have in San Francisco. I'd hate to see anything happen to it.