Playing Us All for Suckers

As can be seen in the video (at 1:53)  below, Jim Cramer tells CNN's Erin Burnett, once a colleague of Cramer at CNBC

What bothered me, Erin, was they really did- over and over again- the Presidentsaid- listen, it's going to be reciprocal. If you do it, we do it. And that was going to be so good.. And I really believed in it. And I feel like a sucker becausse I am not a free trader and I do not believe in free trade and I was just as tough, if not tougher, than his people but they screwed it up and they really did- they made it a totally ill-advised way and I was very let down as someone who truly believes that free trade is awful for the American working person. This is what they came up with?

Tariffs today, no tariffs tomorrow, modified tariffs tomorrow; slamming allies and letting Russia off the hook; motivation seemingly borne out of vindictiveness. As Cramer argues, tariffs imposed properly can help balance the god of "free trade" and its half-century+ of hollowing out America's industrial base. The holy grail of free trade was characterized by the story of American steel manufacturing, in which, as Joshua Zeitz explains in Politico  

The example of American steel manufacturing is telling. American steel firms, such as those in Youngstown, had once been an engine of national economic power. But they had been slow to invest and modernize, and foreign competitors adopted new technologies that made their steel production faster and more efficient. Compounding the problem, federal policy inadvertently strengthened foreign steel production. Following World War II, American assistance helped rebuild efficient steel facilities in Europe and Japan while allowing these countries to impose high tariffs on U.S. steel. At the same time, American companies invested in modern plants abroad rather than upgrading their domestic operations, resulting in increased import penetration in the U.S. market. Furthermore, conglomerate ownership of steel companies like Youngstown Sheet & Tube led to profits being siphoned off to finance non-steel ventures, further weakening the industry’s competitive position. The result was a wave of plant closures and job losses, as seen in once-prosperous Youngstown, where over 50,000 steel jobs vanished within half a decade.

"All of this," Zeitz recalls, "led to the anomaly known as stagflation," a combination of high inflation and slow growth, which contributed considerably to the downfall of the Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter presidencies. This begs the question which the reporter (emphasis his) asks: Why would anyone elect to do this?"

Zeitz notes "Trump maintains that, contrary to what most economists believe, it will reinvigorate American industry in his nationalist vision."

Trump's argument- not the only one he has made to justify his tariff regime- comports with the overall vision of Cramer and myself. But this may not be the President's primary motivation. While Trump was plotting his comeback to the presidency:

 

Donald Trump was not saying that the system was rigged or that Joe Biden was corrupt. He was saying that the USA was at that time rigged and corrupt- and evil. Admittedly, he was contending this when he was out of office. Not so when at a Cabinet meeting on February 26, 2025, President Trump would declare "this country has gotten bloated and fat and disgusting." He also called Joe Biden "the worst President in the history of our country" and "a disgrace." This was on- wait for it-

             

It's too easy to snicker that this President wants to outdo Joe Biden. Yet, when a man calls his own country "evil" and "disgusting," that may be exactly what he's trying to do.

The President's punitive trade policies reflect contempt for nearly all nations, and he has exhibited a special disdain for Canada, Greenland, and Denmark. His disregard for human life in Gaza is startling, though no more so than for individuals in the undeveloped world who will be ravaged unto death from starvation or disease because he has ended the US Agency for International Development.

Nonetheless, much of the contempt has been saved for Americans ourselves. We've all heard about the Administration summarily disabling the departments of Treasury, Education, and Health and Human Services and the Federal Election Commission; attacking the C.I.A. and the F.B.I.; shaking down major law firms; harming transsexuals and other beneficiaries of diversity, equity, and inclusion; gutting the Social Security Administration; and so much more.

The depth and breadth of Donald Trump's attacks on virtually anything which helps Americans should prompt us to consider the possibility that the President is assaulting more than the specific individuals, institutions, or groups which he believes have victimized him. He may harbor a special hostility toward foreigners. However, he also may be targeting Americans, as in all Americans regardless of circumstances.

The latest example of unparalleled scorn- at least as of this writing- came on Thursday. Over the last several years, Trump has called deceased American servicemen "losers"- on another occasion "suckers"- and because of rain skipped a ceremony at Alsne-Marne American Cemetery to honor American servicemen killed in France during World War I. Now he has missed 

the dignified transfer for four U.S. soldiers who were killed in Lithuania during a training accident as the president, who was forced to abort his helicopter after a wheel malfunction that same day, was seen playing golf at his Trump National Doral Miami golf course for a LIV Golf event.

Lithuania's president held a ceremony honoring the fallen soldiers who fatally 'drowned' after their tank disappeared on a training mission about a week ago. Lithuanian, Polish and U.S. soldiers and rescue teams searched through forests and swamps at the Gen. Silvestras Žukauskas training ground in Pabradė, which is about 6 miles west of the country's border with Belarus.

And yet we are to believe that the guy who believes that the United States of America is "evil" and "disgusting" is only trying to do right, as he sees it, by his country. This may be Donald J. Trump's biggest con ever.

Share |

If Only This Were a Movie

"If." And if a cat were a dog, it could bark.

Geraldo Rivera: "The family did visit Japan... we did not see a single American car on the road in Tokyo — not a Caddy, not a Buick, not a Ford, not a Chevy... I have an innate sense that there's something unfair going on... if they are screwing us, we got to tax them." pic.twitter.com/awkaHEQaVS

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 3, 2025

The positive comes in the form of Rivera's qualification with "if."  He argues "if these numbers are correct, so if some fraction of them, you know, if the trend is, if there is not an essential lie being told here, and if we are getting screwed by these foreign producers, then.... "

What are the odds that a chart blessed by Donald Trump will have an underlying accuracy? Donald Trump? Really? As with most of the President's assertions, the dishonesty should be treated with something well beyond skepticism. Journalist and The Guardian financial editor Nils Pratley explains

....  analysts noted the simplistic- or plain perverse- formula behind the administration's tariff arithmetic. It seems to have taken a country's trade deficit in goods with US, divided it by its exports to the US and called the resulting number a trade barrier that deserves a "reciprocal" US tariff. The underlying logic, it would appear, is that every country should always have a perfect trade balance with the US- never mind the impossibility of achieving that outcome, and never mind that the tariffs don't affect trade in services.

Also, Geraldo Rivera: not an economist. "If they are screwing us, we got to tax them." However, tariffs are federal taxes,, set by Congress,  as aa "percentage of the price a buyer pays a foreign seller." They are "applied to  goods at the border" and are collected by customs and Border Protection agents at the 328 ports of entry across the USA. We are not taxing them; the US government is taxing domestic buyers, which are then inclined to pass most of the additional cost on to consumers.

"Screwing us?" Yes, someone is screwing us. But the screwing is being done by the guy who at a Cabinet meeting said the country is "bloated, fat, and disgusting" and is taking his revenge upon that country and the people, immigrants or otherwise, within it. The call is not coming from foreign countries. The call is coming from inside the house.

Share |

Outspent and Victorious

Republicans, even the one who steps away from Donald Trump, can be very slick.

Ingraham: Why did the Republicans lose that judicial race in Wisconsin?

Miller: You got to remember, candidates do matter. In this case, we did not have a particularly good one. Democrats also have a ton of out-of-state money that came in pic.twitter.com/mczSlQwOQN

— Acyn (@Acyn) April 2, 2025

Democrats did raise a lot of money from out-of-state. However 

With ideological control of the court again at stake, the race shattered the record set just two years ago. Through today, WisPolitics had tracked $107 million in overall spending through independent expenditure filings with the state, data from AdImpact, information from media buyers and sources with knowledge of the efforts. That includes $58.2 million by Schimel and those supporting him and $48.8 million by Crawford and those backing her.

The spending was dominated by big donors. George Soros donated $2 million to the state Dem Party, while Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker chipped in $1.5 million. The party then poured $11.4 million into Crawford’s campaign.

On the GOP side, Beloit billionaire Diane Hendricks has given $3.6 million to the state Republican Party since Jan. 1, while Illinois businesswoman Liz Uihlein kicked in $2.2 million, and her husband Dick Uihlein gave the party another $1.7 million. It transferred $9.5 million to Schimel’s campaign.

Still, no donor was more influential than Musk, who appeared in Green Bay over the weekend.

The billionaire business owner and top aide to Trump plus two aligned PACs put in more than  $24 million, according to the WisPolitics tally. That includes $12.6 million by America PAC and another nearly $8.7 million by Building America’s Future PAC.

Musk personally gave the state GOP $3 million. And the $24.3 million doesn't include what America PAC handed out to registered voters who signed a petition opposing "activist judges." Those who did that- and provided personal information the PAC could use for GOTV efforts- received $100 per person.. The PAC offered other incentives as part of its turn out the vote efforts, including three $1 million awards to people who signed the online petition.

In the land of Trump- with which Jason Miller no longer is directly involved- Miller is nowhere near the most vial nor most dishonest. He's not even the most vial Trump acolyte named Miller because that honor clearly goes to Stephen.  But complaining about spending by Democrats when Elon Musk is on the other side is a little rich.

Share |

Simply One Step in the Inevitable Direction

NBC News reported Sunday

President Donald Trump did not rule out the possibility of seeking a third term in the White House, which is prohibited by the Constitution under the 22nd Amendment, saying in an exclusive interview with NBC News that there were methods for doing so and clarifying that he was “not joking.”

“A lot of people want me to do it,” Trump said in a Sunday-morning phone call with NBC News, referring to his allies. “But, I mean, I basically tell them we have a long way to go, you know, it’s very early in the administration.”

“I’m focused on the current,” Trump added, in some of his most extensive comments to date about serving a third term.

Coyly

When asked whether he wanted another term, the president responded, “I like working.”

“I’m not joking,” Trump said, when asked to clarify. “But I’m not — it is far too early to think about it.”

When asked whether he has been presented with plans to allow him to seek a third term, Trump said, “There are methods which you could do it.”

NBC News asked about a possible scenario in which Vice President JD Vance would run for office and then pass the role to Trump. Trump responded that “that’s one” method.

“But there are others, too,” Trump added.

Asked to share another method, Trump simply responded “no.”

Not joking and not diverting attention from anything else. This is floating an idea to see if it flies. There are at least four ways Trump can possibly occupy the Oval Office sometime beyond January 20, 2022. While more sanguine than I am of keeping King Trump from doing so, Chris Cillizza (video below) explains

There is clearly a will for it. He wants this to happen. He is making very clear that he wants it to happen. He talked about this in his first term. He's talked about it now in his second term. It's moved from "oh, I'm joking" to "I am not joking" and, you know, this is a step in that direction.

   

This is a step in that direction. If Trump waited, till, say, December of 2027 to declare his intention to hang on to the presidency or return to it, it might come as a shock to the public and the mainstream media. Therefore, he has decided to normalize the possibility. At this point, it sounds preposterous to many people but as he consolidates power and periodically raises the possibility of a third term, the notion will become more mainstream, hence more acceptable.

There won't be a constitutional amendment erasing the limit of the number of times an individual can be elected to the presidency. A Vance-Trump ticket is an option. Alternatively, martial law may be declared or Trump will cling to power by initiating a war or claiming one is under way. National emergency. If he has no other choice, he will refuse to leave office or force a confrontation with the U.S. Supreme Court. If he loses there, his rallying cry will be: you and whose army?

The Overton Window will continue, perhaps subtly, to shift. Whatever route he eventually takes, the President, Bannon, and others will periodically float the idea that Trump will serve one or more additional terms.. Donald J. Trump may not survive the remainder of this term, but will not give up power willingly otherwise.

Share |

National Security Threat

Calling all blackmailers.

With proper credit given to the source of the report, The Guardian on Saturday noted

The wife of the US defense secretary Pete Hegseth attended two meetings with foreign defense officials during which sensitive information was discussed, according to a new report from the Wall Street Journal.

The Journal’s report on Hegseth arrived late on Friday as he faced scrutiny for detailing plans of a military strike in a group chat on Signal, made public by a journalist at the Atlantic who had been added to the chat. Multiple Democrats have called for his resignation while a bipartisan group of senators sent a letter to the defense department calling for an inquiry into the group chat.

Hegseth’s wife, Jennifer Hegseth, has been present at two meetings where sensitive information was discussed, according to the Journal, citing multiple people who were present at the meetings or have knowledge of her presence at them.

The first meeting reportedly was a high-level discussion at the Pentagon with top UK military officials, including the UK secretary of defense, John Healey, that took place in early March, a day after the US announced it would stop sharing military intelligence with Ukraine.

The second reportedly took place in Brussels in mid-February at Nato headquarters during a meeting of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, a forum of about 50 nations meant to help coordinate military support for Ukraine as it tries to fight off the invasion Russia launched in 2022.

A defense secretary has the discretion to invite anyone to meetings with foreign counterparts, but officials cited by the Journal said that those attending these types of meetings usually have high-level security clearances. While the spouses of defense officials sometimes receive low-level security clearances, it is unclear whether Hegseth’s wife has any clearance.

Advice to Hegseth: stay on your wife's good side. She now has plenty to blackmail you- and the country- with.  If she gets angry with you or decides to brag to a friend about the information she has, it might get to Xi Jinping or Vladimir Putin faster than you can say "Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein- Perfect Together." Also, Mrs. Hegseth's mere presence makes our nation out to be a laughingstock among our allies..... even more than President Trump has already done.

Earlier in the week, we learned of the national security breach in which Atlantic editor Jeffrey Goldberg was inadvertently included in a Signal group text chat of timing and weapons details for an impending American attack upon Houthis in Yemen. Fox News' Laura Ingraham interviewed the National Security Advisor, central to the scandal, and asked (at 1:19 of the 5/26 Comedy Channel video below) how someone unknown could have gotten into the conversation. 

Mike Waltz replied "I mean, I'm sure everybody out there has had a contact where you- it said one person and then a different phone number." Daily Show host Ronny Chieng comments "no one's ever had- no one's ever had that, all right? People don't have a contact with a phone number for, like, a different person- unless they're having an affair."

 

An affair? Well, that's intriguing, especially because now there comes an interesting, prurient, though unreliable report from something called "WIOZ." Wikipedia says World Is One News

is an Indian-English language news channel headquartered in Noida, India. As of March 2025, Media Bias Fact Check rated WION "Mixed" for factual reporting due to a lack of sourcing "in most articles and the promotion of misinformation regarding Covid-19." It has faced scrutiny from multiple foreign countries over its coverage and in 2022 was blocked from YouTube before being reinstated.

So, I don't know. However, WION maintains

On X, Dan Cohen, the founder of Uncaptured News, claimed that Waltz follows what he describes as a "gay pornographic account".

Posting a series of screenshots, Cohen alleged that Waltz "married to @JuliaNesheiwat since 2021 – follows a gay pornography account."

Also read | Who is Jeffrey Goldberg? The journalist accidentally sent classified Yemen war plan

The screenshots show Mike Waltz's official X account @michaelgwaltz among the followers of account 'Big D**k Bottom'.

Cohen in his post stated that while "Waltz and Nusheiwat’s personal lives are their own," it is "well-known that secret sexual improprieties can be used to compromise political figures, and Waltz is in one of the most powerful and sensitive positions in the US government."

"The question must be asked: Does Waltz’s apparent secret lust for black male make him susceptible to blackmail?," he added.

 It very much would, if true. Perhaps it is a hoax.

Apparently, in the meeting there were nineteen individuals, including the J.G., Goldberg. Yet, for some bizarre reason, no one (as far as I can tell) in politics or the media writ large has inquired as to why no one of the 18 (all except Goldberg himself) asked who this unknown "J.G." was.

Perhaps everyone was intimidated, finding it awkward to ask about the identity of the mystery man or woman, believing they were expected to know, and were loathe to reveal their ignorance. Or (less likely) there was a widespread suspicion that Waltz knew who it was, whether it was a professional or personal contact of his.

After the news broke, Fox News' Laura Ingraham can be seen asking Waltz at 1:20 of the 5/26 Comedy Channel video below how someone unknown could have gotten onto the group chat. Waltz replied "I mean, I'm sure everybody out there has had a contact where you- it said one person and then a different phone number." In response, Daily Show host Ronny Chieng commented "no one's ever had- no one's ever had that, all right? People don't have a contact with a phone number for, like, a different person- unless they're having an affair."

An affair? Well, that's interesting. A little funny, and possibly not a joke. No one evinced any curiosity about this unknown individual and Waltz certainly did not know that it was a journalist. Conceivably, though, Waltz feared it may have been someone he personally knew, in which case he would not want to say who it was and would be understandably confident that the individual wouldn't reveal anything publicly. 

If it is for real, we probably won't find out about it. The media is unlikely to touch it unless one of the two political parties brings it up. The Republican Party won't mention it, for obvious reasons. The Democratic Party won't bring it up because it wouldn't want to be seen casting aspersions on something gay and black.

In the unlikely event that Mike Waltz knew who it was, it presented a national security risk. If he (and everyone else) did not know who it was, it presented a national security risk. In either case, the National Security Advisor screwed up. 

So did the Defense Secretary, he who welcomes his wife in on national security secrets, and who should have not presented plans without being certain the venue was completely secure. Also participating was President Trump's untouchable Chief of Staff, Susie Wiles, who has overall responsibility for staff operations. Somewhere, Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, and who knows who else are having a good laugh at our expense.

Share |

It Could Be Done

Evidently, anyone could earn a law degree at Fordham University in the 1990's. Last week, Steve Bannon told Chris Cuomo (at 1:36 of the video below) on the latter's show on NewsNation

...and President Trump, I'm a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028. So I've already endorsed President Trump. A man like this comes along once every century if we're lucky. We've got him now. He's on fire and uh, I' a huge supporter, want to see him again in 2028.

Cuomo, who got his Juris Doctor degree from the Bronx institution in 1995, replied "... and you know he's term-limited. how do you think he gets another term?"

 

 Afterward, Cuomo brought on regulars Bill O'Reilly and Stephen A. Smith to argue about the possibility of Trump serving as President after January, 2029. O'Reilly remarked "O.K., so that's a fantasy and I don't really consider those kinds of things. It's not going to happen, never will happen, not worth my time or your time." Smith responded

Respectfully, Bill O'Reilly, it doesn't matter whether it's not going to happen. It matters that people on the right who preached for decades upon decades about following the Constitution suddenly come on national television and they say there's nothing wrong with circumventing it. That's the issue.

The Twenty-Second Amendment says it, O.K.? It explicitly states in the Constitution that for the presidency, there will be a two-term limit. No person can serve more than two terms. They know this. They're the same people that spent decades and decades telling us "the Constitution, the Constitution, the Constitution, we're going to follow the Constitution. But now that they've got a guy in office that they swear by, suddenly the rules don't apply.

So I understand what you're saying when you say it's not going to happen. But to dismiss it and act lie it means absolutely nothing, well, I got news for you. The election ain't till 208, o.k., and there's going to be a hell of a lot, a hell of a lot of millions of American citizens, that people on the right who are supporters of Trump, have absolutely no problem echoing and articulating and parroting that kind of speech that Steve Bannon just threw out there. I'm very alarmed by it and I don't even think it's going to happen myself. But the gall, the audacity for him to come on national television and say such a thing. I think it's incredibly alarming.

 

Credit "Stephen A.," as he likes to be called for condemning the GOP for its hypocrisy because for decades many Republicans would claim that they were "constitutionalists" or "strict constitutionalists." And suggestions by Bannon, the President, and others that Trump may run for a third term are alarming, though perhaps they may eventually wake Democrats up to the possibility that Trump may still be in the White House after 1/20/29. 

Nonetheless, he's wrong (as is Cuomo) about the 22nd Amendment, Section 1 of which reads (with relevant portion here placed in asterisks)

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

This Amendment is commonly misunderstood. According to The Independent, "the 22nd amendment of the constitution limits any one person to a maximum of two four-year terms as president." A Newsweek reporter writes that "Bannon has already said Trump should run for a third term in 2028, though the 22nd Amendment bans any one individual from serving more than two terms." Peter Nicholas of NBC News writes "yet others believe that if the Constitution is somehow amended to permit a third term..." and thereby strongly implies that the Constitution would have to be amended to allow that third term.

But it wouldn't. Neither the 22nd Amendment, nor anything else in the document, precludes a third (or fourth or fifth or sixth) term for a President. It precludes election to a third term. Presumably, the authors of the Amendment assumed that no tyrant would become President and if he did, he would get the hint.

Lindsey Choo of Forbes is the rare reporter or pundit who clearly appears to have read the Amendment and not assumed that which isn't present. She notes

The 22nd Amendment specifically bars anybody from being “elected” president more than twice, so some experts think Trump could serve in a temporary presidential role under specific circumstances, such as if he were to become vice president and ascend to the presidency.

Such an ascension would occur if Donald Trump in 2027 or 2028 conditioned his support for a candidate in the GOP primary upon his or her agreement to place Trump on the ticket. If the ticket were victorious, the winning presidential candidate presumably would resign shortly after taking the oath of office. For added effect of the best Nielsen numbers ever for an inauguration, the news could leak that the winning candidate would announce his/her resignation during the acceptance speech. Trump would find the attentions and the ratings absolutely orgasmic.

The Ukrainian parliament has postponed elections until Russia's war against Ukraine ends. President Trump might reasonably (albeit dishonestly) claim in 2028 that the nation is at war, whether in the wake of a missile strike against Iran, fentanyl or immigrants crossing the border, or European leaders defying him on any matter. There also is a legitimate possibility that President Trump would declare a different national emergency or martial law for some reason or another. The man's creativity is virtually endless. 

Alternatively, Donald Trump, 78 years old as of now, may die before the next Republican National Convention. Or maybe he will decide voluntarily to give up the presidency on January 20, 2029. When pigs fly.

Share |

Leadership Myth(s)

Crudely, tastelessly, and without redeeming social merit, Representative Jasmine Crockett of Texas' 10th Congressional District

mocked her state’s governor during a weekend appearance, referring to Greg Abbott — who uses a wheelchair — as “Gov. Hot Wheels” while speaking at a banquet in Los Angeles.

“You all know we got Gov. Hot Wheels down there. Come on, now,” Crockett, a Dallas Democrat, said about Abbott, a Republican, while addressing the Human Rights Campaign event. “And the only thing hot about him is that he is a hot-ass mess, honey.”

Abbott was paralyzed in 1984 after a tree fell on him while he was running. The accident severely damaged Abbott’s spinal cord. Abbott, now 67, was elected in 2014.

The day before Crockett's remark, according to CBS News

An estimated 34,000 people gathered Friday evening at Civic Center Park in Denver to hear Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York push a number of progressive policies.

Just hours later, they spoke before a crowd of about 11,000 at the University of Northern Colorado in Greeley.

The two stops for the progressive leaders in Colorado were part of what they dubbed the "Fighting Oligarchy Tour."

The figure of 34,000 is not objective because apparently it originated with a tweet by Ocasio-Cortez herself. Still, a lot. A heck of a lot, a number Donald Trump circa 2016 would have been happy about. And then, there is Scott Jennings, a regular on CBS NewsNight (Usually) with Abby Phillip

Jasmine Crockett will learn no lessons from the “Hot Wheels” episode because the Left’s angry mobs eat this stuff up. Trust me: the unquestioned head of the Democratic Party thinks is a winning vector. pic.twitter.com/egtZIbPyDV

— Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) March 26, 202

"I don't know how the Democrats," Jennings says, "came to appoint Jasmine Crockett as the unquestioned leader of your Party But thank God...."

Let's not play the How About Game. Of course, we remember Donald Trump when he mocked a disabled reporter.

   

:

But that happened several years ago, and we know that if Donald Trump were videotaped shooting someone in the back on 5th Avenue, most of his supporters would respond with something akin to "it was a Democrat and he stuck his tongue out at the greatest President ever."

However, this is 2025. Now, strategist Jennings is a CNN contributor and may end up running for the GOP nomination to succeed Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell, who is retiring and for whom Jennings once worked. 

It is not up to Scott Jennings to anoint someone as leader of the Democratic Party. Nor is it necessary for there to be one leader for the entire Party at this time. Hakeem Jeffries is the leader in the House of Representatives and Chuck Schumer, whatever his worth, in the Senate. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are now the de factor leaders of the activist wing of the Party, to whatever extent there is an activist wing and it has leadership.

After Mitt Romney followed in John McCain's footsteps by losing a presidential race to Barack Obama, the Republican National Committee launched an "autopsy," the "Growth and Opportunity Project." It cited the need for the rudderless GOP to become more inclusive, including welcoming racial minorities and immigrants. Four years later, the Party nominated for President a reality television star who filled a vacuum by condemning immigrants because "they're bringing drugs, they're bringing crime, they're rapists." He won the election and the Republican Party lost fewer seats in the Senate and the House of Representatives than expected. 

So much for the importance of leadership the year after a presidential election.

In the wake of the Signal fiasco, the lies are coming fast and furious from the Trump Administration, with some officials acting as if trying to undo Donald Trump in mendacity. Scott Jennings is a serious Republican operative who may become something even more prominent and significant. His guile must not go unchallenged, and the Democratic Party must not go undefended. 

Share |