Donald Trump: The TV Boomer President. The Hill Newspaper. 5/2/20

Donald Trump: The Boomer TV president

Shortly after he was reelected president in 2012, Barack Obama had a small group of Democratic operatives in to the Roosevelt Room to thank us. We had provided some counsel and had appeared regularly on cable TV news to boost his campaign. After he expressed his appreciation, he admitted that he didn’t watch that much of the “talking head” shows and might not be seeing us on TV in the future. I replied: “Not unless we are on ESPN,” which drew a laugh from the president, who was known to check in on sports reports at the end of a long day.

What a change to Donald Trump. With him, it is all about TV.

By all accounts since the start of his presidency Trump has spent most of his mornings watching TV news and later into the evening. This, according to the New York Times, is especially true during the pandemic. Trump awakes early and watches cable news (usually a heavy dose of FOX) until coming down to work around noon. Previous reports from The Hill and other sources indicate Trump consumes up to eight hours of TV a day, and his leaked schedules show that 60 percent of his time is devoted to “executive time” — read: no meetings or briefings or scheduled calls.

Even Trump’s former Press Secretary Sarah Sanders responded that Trump “has a different leadership style than his predecessors.” That is putting it mildly. Of course, many of his tweets are blasted out during his “executive time,” responding to what he has seen on television. As many have said, that seems to be his governing style.

Most presidents read briefing memos, read intelligence reports, read history, heck, even read books. But Donald Trump likes his TV time. There is little indication that he reads much at all and certainly doesn’t seem to take a daily briefing book of the next day’s activities home to the executive mansion at night after work as most modern presidents have done.

I have had a theory for some time that baby boomers, as the first generation to grow up with television in the ‘50s and ‘60s, have a peculiar approach to politics. We consumed a rather large amount of traditional half-hour and some hour-long shows. No cable. No internet. No social media. Just ABC, CBS and NBC.

What we saw when we watched Lassie, Father Knows Best, Leave It to Beaver, Gunsmoke, I Love Lucy, Perry Mason, Bonanza etc., was a very simple formula: The main characters were introduced in the first 5-10 minutes, the problem/dilemma was laid out, and the main characters set out to solve the problem and tidy everything up before the hour or half hour was done. Actually, with advertising, it took 24 minutes, or 48 minutes for an hour-long program, to make everything right.

The effect of this early period of television on most of us growing up in post-World War II America was to convince us that problems were easy to solve, that our lives were pretty simple, and that life really was Ozzie and Harriet.

Politicians began to fit in to that television modus operandi and make promises that emphasized how they could easily and simply solve our problems. Pass some laws, and the problem of civil rights would be solved; take on the Communists in Vietnam, and the dominoes would not fall in Southeast Asia; declare a War on Poverty, and it would end.

Donald Trump seems to buy into the simplicity of what he sees on television, just as he probably did growing up in the ‘50s and ‘60s. He is now an addict to the cable news shows and their short sound bites — and he refuses to consider nuance and complexity and fact-based analysis. Why else would he suggest magic cures like hydroxychloroquine, injecting or ingesting disinfectant or that Covid-19 would just miraculously go away? Why would he say after one meeting that he had fallen in love with Kim Jung Un? Why would he agree with Vladimir Putin that Russia didn’t interfere in our elections when his entire intelligence community said otherwise?

For Donald Trump it has always been about television — from his days as a New York celebrity to his 14 seasons on The Apprentice to the daily briefings on the coronavirus and the attack game he plays with the press. It is all about the cameras and the rallies and the insatiable appetite he has for being a TV personality. He learned it as a boomer consumer of television growing up, and sadly, it is all he knows.

Many of us who hardly watched an episode of The Apprentice over all those years didn’t comprehend the impact of television on Trump’s rise. Our mistake. Now many realize that what was a big part of his political persona is coming back to haunt him.

At the end of the day, the emperor has no clothes. P. T. Barnum has nothing to sell.

It is not all about TV. It is about substance. It is about governing. It is about empathy for others. It is about more than manufactured enemies and casting blame and baseless attacks. At the end of the day, it is about choosing a leader who truly leads rather than just playing one on TV.

Peter Fenn is a long-time Democratic political strategist who served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was a top aide to Sen. Frank Church and was the first director of Democrats for the 80s, founded by Pamela Harriman. He also co-founded the Center for Responsive Politics/Open Secrets. Follow him on Twitter @peterhfenn.

Note to Candidates(especially Donald Trump): Cancel your Rallies!

Note to candidates (especially Donald Trump): Cancel your rallies!

PETER FENN 4/1/2020

Hello? Earth calling Donald TrumpBernie Sanders and Joe Biden. It is time to cancel your political rallies for the foreseeable future. Especially you, Mr. Trump.

After playing golf this past Saturday and Sunday and going to political rallies and fundraisers, have you considered that might not exactly sit well with a worried nation? You are the President of the United States — You should act like it.

And about wearing that red Keep America Great hat on your visit to the Center for Disease Control, rethink that. This is not a PR crisis, it’s a health crisis. It’s simply not a campaign event.

As for the general optics of large public rallies with thousands of people crammed into stadiums and standing cheek to jowl behind the candidates —  regardless of party, it’s not good. I know political candidates love that visual of the cheering throng all lined up with their signs and colorful tee shirts, inches from each other, but really… Think about it. Meetings large and small — gatherings like South by Southwest and large trade shows — all have been canceled. People are scared to travel or go to church or to the mall. It seems tone deaf for candidates to continue to invite people into situations that could prove physically dangerous, even fatal.

Both former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) canceled their election night rallies on Tuesday, after Ohio’s Republican Governor Mike DeWine declared a state of emergency and urged people not to hold large events. Biden announced that a rally scheduled for Thursday in Tampa would also be canceled and that he would give a speech on the coronavirus crisis.

But not Donald Trump. Instead, he announced — just hours after Biden and Sanders canceled their rallies — a “Catholics for Trump” rally in Milwaukee, Wis., on March 19.

What is it that Trump doesn’t understand? He apparently is planning to attend the Republican Jewish Congress in Las Vegas on Friday to speak at a political rally. Instead of working on the coronavirus crisis?

CNN reports that Rush Limbaugh has accused Democrats of wanting Trump to stop holding rallies “not because of public safety, not because of public health” but to hurt the president. And this guy was given the Medal of Freedom.

Democrats should take the lead in canceling big rallies and structuring different events that show their concern for the issues confronting the country. Putting together more controlled discussions with smaller groups, people who are not sick, who are not jammed together, would be smart.

This is now a matter of leadership and common sense.

Big boisterous rallies with cheering crowds aren’t conveying a helpful message. Candidates should carefully consider whether viewers and voters think such rallies at this point are smart or whether — as is more likely — that they reveal candidates and their advisors to be woefully out of touch.

Trump can’t seem to get out of the box that “everything is about him,” and he loves his rallies. But this one isn’t about him. It’s about the country, its safety and its future.

So, let’s get with the program and cease and desist.

Stop organizing huge public events that may prove dangerous to the lives of those who attend. Let’s show that this is about the people of this country, not about some political visual.

Peter Fenn is a long-time Democratic political strategist who served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was a top aide to Sen. Frank Church and was the first director of Democrats for the 80s, founded by Pamela Harriman. He also co-founded the Center for Responsive Politics/Open Secrets. Follow him on Twitter @peterhfenn.

Are The Democrats Jumping Off The Cliff? — The Hill Newspaper 8/8/2019

Are the Democrats jumping off the cliff?

The Democratic debates have been the political version of “The Bachelorette” — and just as painful to watch.

Put aside the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) format CNN in particular adopted of sensational voiceovers, over-the-top music, videos and treating it all like a caged match, the gotcha-questioning is designed not to truly explore issues but to drive a wedge between the candidates in the most trivial of ways.

Even more disturbing is how the candidates have taken the bait and gone so far as to criticize and condemn President Barack Obama, a man with a popularity rating greater than 90 per cent among Democrats in virtually all polls. Why in God’s name would these candidates, no matter how liberal, decide it was wise to rip into the former president?

It also surprises me that the DNC would structure these debates to ensure that internecine warfare comes to the forefront, starting in July and lasting all the way until the Iowa caucuses.  Sure, the networks want gladiator TV and the ratings that go along with it so they can sell advertising. After all, Trump made millions for them in the last election with his rantings and ravings and ratings. But for the DNC to structure so many debates, with so many candidates, guaranteeing so much infighting, was a mistake.

Democrats have taken their focus off the devastating possibility that Donald Trump could win the next election. They have failed to make the concrete arguments about his policies, his performance and his outright destruction of American values and ideals. Instead, they have set their sights on each other. Establishing differences, yes, but creating made-for-TV ads for the opposition, not a good idea!

Plus, setting up the possibility of an easy message comparison is not smart. I’ve been doing political consulting for over 30 years, and I can tell you that if the 2020 campaign is viewed as Freedom vs Socialism, we Democrats are in deep trouble. Furthermore, giveaways vs personal responsibility is not a winning argument either.

We are in danger of falling into the following traps, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory:

  1. Health Care, prescription drugs, the Affordable Care Act and the public option are winners for Democrats — but abolishing private insurance plans is NOT.
  2. The Trump-McConnell Tax Bill giving 83 percent of the benefits to the top 1 percent is a loser for Republicans; a fair tax system that changes that and makes the very wealthy pay more is a winner for Democrats — but raising taxes on the middle class to pay for a myriad of programs is NOT.
  3. College loan reform is a winner for Democrats — but forgiving $1.5 trillion in debt, particularly for the wealthy, is NOT.
  4. Support for funding for college and trade school, like the Obama plan, is a winner for Democrats — but free college for all is NOT.
  5. Better pay for teachers and more support for public schools is a winner for Democrats — but a federal raise of $13,500 for every teacher, costing $315 billion (the Kamala Harris plan) is NOT.
  6. Comprehensive immigration reform, stopping the separation of families at the border, and expanding asylum programs is a winner for Democrats — but decriminalizing immigration and promising free health care is NOT.

It is so important for Democrats to focus on pragmatic, rational solutions that resonate with the American people, not box ourselves in to proposals that we know will be rejected in November of 2020. We cannot play into Donald Trump’s hands.

Democrats must be the party of the $15 an hour minimum wage, the party that protects Social Security and Medicare, the party that ensures civil rights for all Americans and that invests in 21st century infrastructure.

Think about it: Trump and the Republicans’ radical, unreasonable and venomous policies on a woman’s right to choose, stronger gun laws, global warming, income inequality, and race and hate and division and fear — that is not where the American people are — Democrats offer a clear alternative. These provide a progressive path to victory.

And how about foreign affairs: coddling tyrants and dictators while dissing our allies, a truly harmful trade policy, chaos abroad and chaos in our defense and foreign policy establishment at home — Trump has no clue what he is doing.

So, why should Democrats nominate a candidate who offers proposals that are anathema to the majority of American voters? Why propose an agenda that has no chance of passing and will not lead to Democrats expanding their majority in the House and, hopefully, taking back the Senate, and sending Mitch McConnell packing?

From now on, these debates had better highlight the differences and the stakes with Trump, not become a circular firing squad that nominates the candidate least likely to win a general election. Democrats have a real chance to turn America around. Let’s not blow it.

Peter Fenn is a long-time Democratic political strategist who served on the Senate Intelligence Committee, was a top aide to Sen. Frank Church and was the first director of Democrats for the 80s, founded by Pamela Harriman. He also co-founded the Center for Responsive Politics/Open Secrets. Follow him on Twitter @peterhfenn.

It Just May be Joe Biden’s Time–10 Reasons . The Hill Newspaper


It is Joe Biden’s time — 10 reasons

It is Joe Biden's time — 10 reasons
© Getty Images

I will never forget, as a young man in my early 20s, having a conversation with my mentor and later boss, Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho) after his campaign visit to Delaware to campaign for a 29-year-old Senate candidate named Joe Biden. Few gave Biden a chance to win against a seasoned and respected senior senator, J. Caleb Boggs.

The polls had Biden way behind, and 1972 was anything but a good year for Democrats. But Frank Church saw something very special in Joe Biden and he said to me: “I think that kid Biden can do it, he is an amazing candidate and he’s connecting with voters.” When the votes were counted, Joe Biden won with just over 3,000 votes.

As most Americans know, Biden and his family were preparing to come to Washington when his wife and young daughter were killed in a tragic car accident, that also left his other two sons injured and in the hospital. Biden seriously considered not taking his seat, but Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.) and others consoled him and urged him to be sworn in and take the office.

Frank Church helped Biden through his grief and provided his experienced Chief of Staff and Press Secretary to help the new senator. Public service has been Joe Biden’s life ever since. When I worked for Church, I became close to Biden’s top aide Ted Kaufman (later Senator), who helped guide us through the hard election of 1980, and even Church’s run for President in 1976.

All this to say, there is a lot of history over many decades.

In my view, Joe Biden’s time is now. Here are the reasons:

  1. He speaks the common language of what Senator Sherrod Brown calls “the dignity of work.” With Brown not running, Joe Biden talks the talk of the scrappy, Catholic kid from Scranton, Pa. He learned the ups and downs of an American family in the 20th century and his working-class roots are ingrained in him.
  2. Biden is genuine, he speaks his mind, what you see is what you get. He may go on a little long, he may misspeak, he may occasionally go over the top… but any criticism of Uncle Joe for that pales in comparison to what we have in the White House now. Hard to imagine over 6,000 lies from Joe Biden in just two years!
  3. Biden is a steady hand on the tiller when we need a captain who can navigate the foreign policy seas that are guaranteed to get much choppier with Trump on top. He is trusted abroad, respected by our allies and enemies alike, and knows the lay of the land and the history behind it. Again, a clear contrast not only with Trump but also the group of other Democrats seeking the nomination.
  4. He is a solid progressive, but his issue positions won’t alienate large sections of the American electorate. The “socialist” label will never stick to him. He has a record of over 40 years in office that can be nitpicked, but Joe Biden is mainstream in the best sense of the word — middle America mainstream.
  5. Democrats want to win the presidency more than all else. They understand that another four years of Trump isn’t just another term, it’s exponential in its harm to the country. Just as the election of 2018 showed what Democrats could do, even when the economy was relatively stable, 2020 is the ultimate battle. Even if some of the more liberal elements of our party would rather Biden adopt more radical policy positions, nothing is more important than nominating a ticket than can, and will, win in November.
  6. The states that Democrats lost, or nearly lost, in 2016 — Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Florida, Minnesota, New Hampshire — are states where Biden will be strong and do well as the Democratic nominee. He will play much better, to be honest, than Hillary did in 2016 or other “coastal” candidates will in 2020.
  7. The fact that Biden knows how to negotiate with the other side is a plus, not a minus. The fact that he was able to prevent a government shutdown by negotiating with Republicans illustrates that Biden is trusted by his former colleagues on the Hill and has earned their respect. He has been there, he has sat across the table from strong personalities. He knows how to do it. He is competent and with an incompetent P. T. Barnum in the White House the contrast could not be more clear.
  8. He may be older than others running, and he may not be a new face, but he is in better shape than Trump, and he knows how to campaign. He will be out there as a Happy Warrior, as they used to describe Hubert Humphrey — a candidate who dives into the crowd.
  9. The role of the vice president doesn’t hurt, it helps. Not only has he been there in the White House, but when you consider that we have had six vice presidents as nominees for president in the last 60 years, that is impressive. (Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, Walter Mondale, George H.W. Bush. and Al Gore).
  10. Joe Biden is a fighter. He is passionate and strong and skilled. And, more important, he knows how to wage a political fight without going over the top, without making rookie mistakes, without taking the bait. He may very well be the most experienced and deft opponent that Trump could face. He has been through it all and his political instincts are well honed.

There is no question that Joe Biden has been a fixture in American politics for a very long time. He is a known quantity — maybe just what America needs right now. That’s why it may just be Joe Biden’s time.


Crisis at the Border…..due to Donald Trump

As Donald Trump was putting the final touches on his State of the Union speech last week, a group of us were at the Arizona/Mexican border in Nogales.  What we saw and heard was disturbing.


Not only did we witness a large wall of steel slats but, as The Washington Post reported, (  a string of concertina wire designed to intimidate and maim those who came close. This lethal razor wire was at the top of the 18-foot fence when we visited, by the time of Trump’s speech U.S. troops had deployed up to six rows of the wire from street level all the way up.


Mayor Arturo Garino told the Post that “they can’t say they are putting something up to protect us, they’re putting up something that’s lethal all the way to the ground.”  There wasn’t any discussion with the City Council, the Mayor, the police chief, the fire chief or any local officials before the troops’ action.


When we arrived at the border, as members of the Board of the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, we were prepared to see the spot were a 16 year old boy, Jose Antonio Elena Rodriguez, was shot 10 times by a border agent for throwing rocks up a steep embankment, separated by the steel wall. When we saw the scene it was clear that the agent was not seriously threatened, large rocks could hardly make it up the hill, plus the steel slats separated the two.


Tensions are high now with the over 6,500 newly deployed troops and National Guard Forces stationed along the border, in addition to the over 70 miles of concertina wire put up, with another 160 miles slated to be erected, according to the Defense Department. (


When I was last in Nogales in the 1980s the border was full of activity between the U.S. and Mexico.  The two cities with the same name were known for a border crossing that encouraged commerce and mutual respect.  Now, all that has changed.  As Mayor Garino puts it, first we have 400,000 people divided by a wall and now we have concertina wire, intimidating and deadly.


The crisis in Nogales, and along the border, is a result of President Trump’s actions and rhetoric.  He fans the flames of distrust and prejudice and creates fear and loathing and division.


The result is that the border agent who killed 16 year old Antonio was acquitted of manslaughter while four young people with No More Deaths were convicted of leaving water and food in the desert for migrants.  For over a decade the humanitarian organization No More Deaths has been active and only recently, since 2017 they told us, have the arrests and harassment escalated to an unbearable level.


According to the Washington Post, there have been over 3,000 deaths in the last 20 years in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge on the Arizona border.  These are people and families looking for a better life, fleeing gangs and violence, not, as President Trump often states, drug dealers and criminals.  Smuggling of drugs goes mainly through points of entry, as the arrest in Nogales last week of 254 pounds of fentanyl and 395 pounds of meth on a truck clearly shows.  Instead of stringing concertina wire from the ground up threatening animals and children maybe we ought to continue to focus on the border crossings and the real smugglers.


Never mind that Donald Trump spent nearly fifteen minutes of his State of the Union speech on the border, while his intelligence chiefs spent exactly none while discussing national security threats in a Hill briefing.  The real take away from the past two years is that President Trump has done nothing to attempt to solve the problem of immigration. One could argue that from the moment he got off that golden escalator to announce for President he has done everything in his power to demagogue the issue and demonize people.


It is time for Congress, Democrats and Republicans, and the Administration to once again search for solutions, not sow discord.


The basic concern now should revolve around comprehensive immigration reform:  providing a path to citizenship that is earned, taking care of the dreamers who were brought here when they were young, reforming and revitalizing our asylum process so those fleeing can be vetted and their cases heard expeditiously.   Border security must be dealt with, but Congress and the Administration must have the courage and the conviction to seek long term solutions to the problem.


In concert with Central American countries, the United States should be creating a Marshall-type Plan similar to what we had for Europe after World War II.  By focusing on the critical need to stabilize these countries politically and economically — creating jobs, expanding education, reducing corruption — we should provide proposals and funding with a consortium of nations including especially Mexico, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Guatemala that will help solve the problem. After all, shouldn’t we be leading this cooperative effort, not forging division and distrust with our southern neighbors? Isn’t it time to focus on the notion of a multinational, cooperative approach? America needs to show these nations that they matter, they are our allies and we are all in this together.


From all we saw in our visit to Nogales it is clear that the “crisis at the border” is a humanitarian one that can only be solved with compassion and cooperation, not declaring war on others or having troops erect concertina wire and walls as the Soviets did across Eastern Europe.   Sadly, Donald Trump seems intent on exploiting immigration for his own political gain.


Two Very Different Green Books

The very impressive and moving film, “Green Book”, has won the Golden Globe Award for Best Picture, Movie or Comedy, and just won the Producers Guild of America Award for Best Picture.  It is nominated for Best Picture again at the Academy Awards.


It is the story of a tough-talking Italian bouncer from the Bronx who joins a sophisticated, world-class, African-American pianist on a concert tour, far from their native New York in 1962.  They head to the Deep South during the height of the civil rights struggle.


But the title, “Green Book”, refers to what began as a 15-page pamphlet in 1936 and grew to a comprehensive volume by the 1960s.  It contained critical information for Blacks travelling throughout the country, but especially in the South —  what restaurants they could eat in, what hotels and motels they could stay in, what gas stations were welcoming, what jazz clubs to go to and what towns to avoid, what curfews were in place, and what roads were safe to take.  It was invaluable as Americans hit the road for vacations and many Blacks traveled back and forth between the South and their new homes in the Midwest and Northeast.


Last spring, even before we knew of the movie, my wife and I went to the exhibit at the New York Museum of Art and Design entitled “Unpacking the Green Book: Travel and Segregation in Jim Crow America.”


As someone who has spent decades in politics in Washington, the only Green Book I was vaguely familiar with was the book with the felt, emerald cover —  The Social List of Washington, D.C.  As a Senate aide I noticed it back in the 1970s as a resource for offices to contact members of the diplomatic corps, other members of congress, the administration, the wealthy and the socially prominent.  In short, something way different from the “other” Green Book.


What we learned from the exhibit in New York was that the Green Book was published by a local postal worker, Victor Hugo Green.  It began with a guide to the local metro area, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut and expanded across the country and even abroad. In its 30 years, (1936-1967), it became indispensable and was called “The Negro Travelers’ Green Book.”  It is featured in the film and used by Don Shirley, the musician, and Tony Vallelonga, the driver and bodyguard.


Ann Hornaday, the film critic for the Washington Post, wrote: “The great success of ‘Green Book’ lies in its modesty and the straightforward way it recognizes seismic change in the incremental turning of a human heart.”


The emerald, felt-covered Washington Green Book is anything but modest.


This Green Book, or social register, has been published by the same family since 1930.  It is a highly secretive process to be admitted to the Green Book. Very exclusive, I guess.  Who is in and who is out used to be a source of speculation.  When former Washington Post great Ben Bradlee was dropped, he sarcastically replied, “what a cruel, cruel blow.”  When former White House Chief of Staff Hamilton Jordan was told he was left out he replied something to the effect he would have to pick up the pieces of his shattered life and move on.


The web site says: “The Green Book remains the preeminent list of Washington’s society and arbiter of social precedence in the Metropolitan Area.  Selection to the book is by invitation only.”


By the way, according to the Washington Times (10/15/2005), it was not until 1971, forty years after it started publishing, that the first African American couple was included in the D.C. Green Book., Mr. and Mrs. Churchill Willoughby.


A tale of two Green Books  —  I think I prefer the Victor Hugo Green version.


Campaign 2018: This Year it Wasn’t “THE ECONOMY. STUPID!”

Some of my great Democratic friends were disappointed in the election results and some are walking around with big smiles on their faces.  For the former, my guess is that they were caught up in both “irrational exuberance” and a burning desire to see voters reject Donald Trump in all his forms – especially longing for a big Senate win and sweeping the table. For those who see the silver lining, they came in with reduced expectations of the election, especially after 2016, and they were happy with Democrats regaining control of the House of Representatives, picking up seven governorships and around 400 state legislative seats, despite the losses in the Senate.

After all, gaining what now looks like 40 House seats is an extraordinary feat not seen for the Democrats since the 1974 Watergate class.  Republicans had exceeded that number in both 1994 and 2010., when they won 54 and 63 House seats, respectively. And the defeat in the Presidential election of 2016 was a wound that would not heal.

But even to call the mid-term election of 2018 a “mixed bag” for the Democrats would ignore the elephant in the room.

When have we ever seen such a shift when the economy was doing so well  —  unemployment under 4%, growth rates up, consumer confidence the highest since 2000?  When has the party in power gotten so clobbered with the economy humming and more and more voters seeing the jobless numbers dropping and the stock market rising?

Let’s look at the history of elections when the economy was doing well or doing badly.

When unemployment was hitting close to 10% in 1982 during Reagan and also 10% under Obama, the off-year House losses were 26 under Reagan and 63 with Obama. When the economy was booming in 1998 under Clinton, his party actually gained seats in the off year, despite his personal scandals. And that unusual Republican defeat led to Speaker Newt Gingrich’s resignation.

In Presidential elections, John Kennedy won in an economy coming off the 1958 recession, Ronald Reagan won in a landslide in 1980 with a miserable economy of high inflation, negative growth and high interest rates and unemployment. Bill Clinton won in 1992 with the campaign mantra of “It’s the economy, stupid” after a recession, a tax increase that Bush promised never to implement and concern about the job market. And, of course, Obama won in 2008 mainly due to the greatest recession since the Depression of the 1930s.

All elections are not won or lost on the economy, of course. Candidates matter. A. domestic crisis like Watergate mattered.  Foreign policy can matter – Vietnam, the Iran hostage crisis, even Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban Missile crisis in 1962 helped Democrats in that off year.  But there is no question that the economy and people’s feelings about their personal situation matter a great deal.

That is why this election was such an outlier.  If Trump had not been the pariah he was to so many Americans, his party would not have suffered the loses it did with such a strong economy.  One can argue just how much credit Trump deserved for the job growth, the bump in the gross domestic product, and the boost in consumer confidence. Many point out that much of the good economy was a direct result of Obama’s policies, yet Trump is in office and he benefits from the positive numbers, regardless of whether he caused them.

A more traditional Republican president would have been able to ride a positive economy to a much different result. Trump made a sow’s ear out of a silk purse!

So the bottom line is that Election 2018 was far more about the revulsion and rejection of Donald Trump’s Presidency and a lot less about the state of the economy.  In that sense, this was a very unusual and abnormal election —  not unlike Trump himself.


McCain and Trump—What a Contrast!

This is a Facebook post from the week of John McCain’s funeral  —


t is hard to imagine a more stark contrast than we are witnessing in American politics, indeed American life, with John McCain and Donald Trump this past week. In over two hundred years our nation has experienced heroes and certainly villains, but the passing of a decent, committed, devoted American whose values and actions exemplified the very best of our nation who is now vilified by a man who has disgraced that nation and those values should serve as a lesson for years and decades to come for all of us. How have we reached such a point that many of our fellow citizens don’t see the contrast between these two men and what defines America? Let us hope that this aberration lasts a very short time and we return to a democracy where honor and decency and civility prevail.

John McCain was the Naval liaison in the late 1970s and worked closely with us in Senator Frank Church’s office. He even met his wife Cindy while on a trip to China with Church on a stopover in Hawaii. Over the years he demonstrated a deep and unwavering desire to battle for his country, to truly put America first. Many of us disagreed with him on many issues but never, ever questioned his patriotism or his heroism. As he is laid to rest with tributes and honors well deserved, let us not fail to draw the real lesson of his life and draw the real meaning of the contrast with the meaningless life of Donald Trump.

Watch Out for the “Trump Economy”

Trump’s Destruction of the U.S. Economy


Let’s face it.  Few people really like Donald Trump.  His supporters even complain about his tweets, his super-ego, his treatment of others, particularly women, African Americans and Hispanics.  They don’t like his chaos in the White House, his over 2,000 lies and his incessant name-calling. For most, the words Trump and President don’t really deserve to be in the same sentence, let alone one followed by the other. The latest New York Times poll of historians and political experts ranks him dead last, below James Buchanan, after just one year in office.  This is truly terrifying.



So why is he still “in the game?”


What you hear from his supporters is that he is a “business guy” who is good for the economy. What you hear from Trump is that he inherited a “mess” but look what has happened since he took over!


Actually, the economy he inherited from Barack Obama has propped him up.  Most presidents who preside over good economic times reap the benefits politically. It was, of course, President Obama who inherited a mess – a collapse that spiked bankruptcies and unemployment levels and nearly led to the collapse of the auto industry.  Falling housing prices, our financial institutions going under, international chaos that nearly led to a full-blown depression.  Obama’s leadership brought the car out of the ditch and back on the road to where we are today.


But, ever since Trump started his campaign, he had been preaching doom and gloom culminating in his “American Carnage” speech at his inauguration.  Up until a few months ago he had been bragging about the stock market rise in 2017 (less than Obama’s by the way), the low unemployment, the rise in consumer confidence.


So where are we headed now? That is the real question.  Trump’s taking credit for the exalted stock market looks pretty absurd, as it is now headed downward.  His tariffs on steel and aluminum coupled with Gary Cohn’s resignation has dealt a further blow to the stock market and the international economy.  Even if one argues that NAFTA and other trade agreements have hurt the U.S. it is hard to justify Trump’s policy of targeting our friends and letting our adversaries (China) off the hook.  And starting a trade war is definitely not, as he maintains, a good thing.  So, he has taken a stable economy and upended it with his latest policies.


Also, for those of us who adamantly opposed the tax give away to the wealthiest Americans we are going to see these impacts with huge deficits, cuts in Social Security, Medicare and the social safety net.  Plus, who will pay for it  —  the middle class, of course. How can we justify a $1.5 trillion tax cut when we know that the top 1% will get 82% of the benefits?  And it will blow a hole in our deficits.  Republicans know this and they, once again, will rely on the Democrats to fix the problem down the road.  As we did with the Reagan policies and the Bush tax cuts, when Bill Clinton grew the economy that led to budget surpluses.


The point is that Trump’s impetuous policies on taxes, spending, and trade will remove whatever economic benefit he inherited from President Obama.  So what will he be left with to prop him up?  Not much.  The real question is when will these policies come home to roost – by November 2018?  November 2020?  My sense is that those who bought in to Trump’s salesmanship and promises will be sorely disappointed sooner rather than later.  He has no leeway with the “likability” factor and once his misguided economic policies take hold the emperor will have no clothes.

Trump on Immigration: Not Only Immoral, But Economically Dangerous

n Immoral Immigration Plan

Trump’s immigration proposal is unethical and economically short-sighted.


By Peter Fenn, Opinion Contributor | Jan. 26, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.

An Immoral Immigration Plan

The debate on immigration is, in many ways, a false one. The fear and loathing created by Trump and his allies does not comport with reality. Rapists are not pouring across our borders, gangs are not taking over our cities and towns, Americans’ jobs are not being overwhelmingly supplanted by immigrants. To create such a narrative is not new to the United States – witness the anti-Irish hysteria of the mid 19th century, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and prejudice against Italians, Germans and Poles over the years.

For the so-called pro-life, pro-family party, it is hard to comprehend that Trump and his conservative Republican colleagues want to tear apart families, spend billions persecuting productive, honest immigrants, and banish dreamers, parents and their relatives. Not only is this policy inhumane but economically counterproductive when immigrants are contributing so much to America.

Let’s look first at the Dreamers, the 800,000 people brought here as children who are now between 16 and 35-years old. The vast majority, 97 percent, are employed or in school. Over 900 currently serve in our military. They are also police officers, firefighters and our teachers. According to a letter signed by 600 of our top CEOs, deportation of the Dreamers would cost our economy $460 billion.

Not only is this a serious detriment to our communities, to the talent pool that is thriving, but it is unnecessarily cruel. Most of these Dreamers have no connection to the country they came from as young children and identify totally as Americans. This should not even be an issue for debate in our Congress or used as some sort of bargaining chip by President Trump – we should not put these people in a political vice where their lives and future get squeezed, due to no fault of their own.

So it is about morality as well as about America’s economic well-being. It is about being honorable and it is about being pragmatic. It is about bringing out the best in our country and adhering to our values.

In a larger sense, the debate over immigration is about setting a course that acknowledges that prejudice against people due to their color, ethnic and religious backgrounds or country of origin simply does not make logical sense. It should be about establishing a policy that creates a system of immigration and a path to citizenship that works for our country. Certainly, it means controlling and securing our borders as well as setting reasonable quotas, but what we don’t need is a panic that divides us, results in draconian policies and has such a high economic and human cost.

We need to get back on the track of comprehensive immigration reform that solves the problem, not exacerbates it. This takes leadership from the White House and, most important, bipartisanship in Congress. It also takes grassroots support and pressure.

Once we accept the contributions of immigrants to our economy that job should be a lot easier. The success of immigrant entrepreneurs is widespread and growing. According to CBS News immigrants have started twice as many businesses as those born in the U.S., and one-third of companies that went public (2006-2012) had at least one immigrant founder. Furthermore, over half of the 87 private companies worth over $1 billion have immigrant founders. Seventy-six percent of new patents involve immigrants. Most important, according to the George W. Bush Institute, “when immigrants enter the labor force they increase the productive capacity of the economy and raise the GDP. Their incomes rise, but so do those of natives. It’s a phenomenon dubbed the ‘immigration surplus’.”

This, actually, is the history of immigration, a rising tide that lifts all boats. Now that unemployment is low, illegal immigration has slowed dramatically (both Obama and Trump pointed to historically low numbers!), serious criminals are being caught and deported, it is time to face up to a path to citizenship similar to what was proposed in the McCain-Kennedy bill in 2005.

What a tribute to two great senators it would be if our country could move forward and break through with serious legislation. It is long past time.