PMC Commentary

After the trickle, Trump's indictments will become a cascade - drowning his presidential hopes

As prosecutors — municipal, state and federal — delve into Trump's machinations to upend the 2020 election, foment an insurrection, conceal and destroy classified documents, obstruct justice, interfere in Georgia's election, pay hush money to a porn actress and deceive campaign oversight authorities, the Times reports that Special Counsel Jack Smith is expanding his investigation of the former president and his political aides for violating federal wire fraud statutes.

Initially, Smith was looking only at Trump's super PAC, Save America, for having swindled contributors by saying it was raising funds to fight election fraud, even though PAC administrators had been told there was none. Smith has now broadened his investigation to include "a joint fund-raising committee made up of staff members from the 2020 Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee, among others." 

Like virtually all of Trump's crimes, his $250 million fundraising scheme via wire fraud should, in a rational courtroom, be a slam dunk for prosecutors. He was informed repeatedly that no election fraud occurred. His own attorney general, Bill Barr, told him so. His communications staff produced a report refuting claims of Dominion's vote-flipping.

His campaign team hired Simpatico Software Systems to investigate claims of fraud; it reported back, saying it "found no substantive fraud sufficient to overturn an election result." Trump's campaign team then hired another firm, the Berkeley Research Group, to investigate. It confirmed Simpatico's findings.  

As well, the public record is rife with Trump advisers who've said they told him that he had lost the election fair and square. And in his rare moments of lucidity, he conceded such. For his attorneys to file into court and claim the Donald was blinkered about what he has always done best — con suckers out of their money — would be as laughable as his other, anticipated defense: that his wire fraud was merely free speech. 

As last week proceeded, Trump, no doubt, developed yet another headache. "The former VPOTUS just testified in a criminal investigation of his former POTUS," and "that is basically breathtaking," said former U.S. attorney Harry Litman. Tweeted erstwhile federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner: "Take it from this old prosecutor — Pence's testimony is sharply incriminating of Trump & moves the needle further in the direction of a Trump indictment." And former federal prosecutor Andrew Weissmann said there was "very little reason" for prosecutors "to dawdle" after Pence's testimony. "Expect decisions soon from Jack Smith," wrote Weissmann.

There will, of course, always be a solid, impenetrable core of fanatics who say all the criminal charges against Trump are politically motivated and wholly without merit. This delusional bubble accounts, probably, for about 20% of the electorate. These yahoos would vote for Trump as he sat weaving baskets or molding license plates in Atlanta's federal penitentiary.

But among Trump's current base of roughly another 20%, profound doubts about his electability will arise. The notion of a multi-indicted presidential nominee will sink many a partisan heart. This crowd will also recognize that the quality of so many criminal indictments is not strain’d; it droppeth as an ungentle torrent from earnest, dispassionate prosecutors. This is when Ron DeSantis' star will again peep over the horizon.    

How Trump will find time to campaign — as he suffers through countless depositions and battles reams of pre-trial motions — is another question. To date, his lawyers have been able to run interference for the former president. But that will change as indictments come down and face-to-face, Trump-interrogator appointments become unavoidable.   

This summer, one suspects, we'll witness a multi-indictment pile-up on Trump's front lawn. And he'll be trapped behind the wreckage, all alone. 

Tucker Carlson & a third-party run; the final dagger in Trump's black heart

Thursday morning, after Tucker Carlson's Wednesday night video irruption, I speculated that the very former Fox News host would turn his baby blues to the U.S. presidency. "His digressive allusions to a disagreeable 'one-party state' of the two parties cause one to ponder if he's pondering a third-party run for the White House," I wrote. "Tucker jumped from denouncing 'American media' to remonstrating against the tyranny of singular political 'orthodoxy'.... Our political leaders refuse to discuss 'war, civil liberties, emerging science, demographic change, corporate power, [and] natural resources,' said Tucker. 

"In all that," I continued, "I hear some tub-thumping. Mr. Carlson would be one very unhappy man if he's thrown from national prominence — which a mere one-hour slot on Newsmax would guarantee."

Tucker's pubescent visage on a Newsmax screen remains, to me, unimaginable. The only real beneficiary of such a pairing would be the fourth-rate cable network. Fox stretches its reality-altering tentacles into virtually every American home, but not Newsmax. And so Tucker's rhetorical contaminations would be numerically straitjacketed; his move to the network would be even less than unsatisfyingly lateral. It would be soul-suckingly demoting.

No, this is the moment for Tucker to spread his demonic wings and ascend to Earth's terra firma, where as a presidential candidate he can do even greater damage to the body politic's mental health while serving a heavenly cause: destroying the one, last chance for Donald Trump's reelection. Yes, a third-party run for the White House — Tucker's blessed, ruinous siphoning of votes from the presidential R column in at least one or two swing states.

New York Times Magazine writer and Carlson biographer Jason Zengerle appears to agree:

"There’s always the chance that he could run for office. That’s a prospect that Mr. Carlson has long pooh-poohed.... But one of his friends recalls a family member discussing the possibility of Mr. Carlson running for president as far back as 2012....

"[His video] showed how he had already incorporated his firing into the apocalyptic worldview he’s so successfully promulgated these last few years. Fox News was now part of 'the elite consensus' Mr. Carlson seeks to overturn. And in this moment of unraveling, when hostility toward and distrust of institutions and elites is at an all-time high, it’s not hard to imagine a good segment of Americans following along with this logic. In their minds, Fox will now join Wall Street and big tech, globalists and the deep state, the Republican establishment and the woke as something that must be opposed. And in a world in which an increasing number of Americans are already fracturing into their own realities, Mr. Carlson will stand, for many of them, as the one person who’s independent and courageous and powerful enough to tell them the truth."

In the pool of flaky presidential candidates, there is always room for more. But not, of course, at the top of the same ticket. And there, in the R column, Trump is gradually taking hold, though Ron DeSantis remains a plausible contender. Tucker's odds of sidelining either would be fantastically slim. He'd be out of the running after Iowa, and therefore out of the public eye. That won't do.

Plus, as the very former Fox News host said Wednesday night: "Both political parties and their donors have reached consensus on what benefits them" and they've colluded to "shut down any conversation about it. Suddenly the United States looks like a one-party state." We gather that Tucker has had enough of the Republican Party, which, as he knows full well, is not the same as the Democratic Party — but he says it is because his audience believes it, because he says it is. (Nonvoters also cling to this fallacy, for it gives them the perfect excuse to stay home on Election Day.) 

And so we anticipate another Tucker Carlson video, this one announcing his plucky, self-sacrificing run for the White House on the newly formed National Cracker ticket.  

Which will spell the end of Trump.

Why is it always Biden who's in a debt-limit jam?

Reporting like this on Republicans' latest chaos creation makes one wonder if it's just the reporter's idle, and rather off-bubble, thinking: "This week’s vote by House Republicans to couple deep spending cuts with an agreement to raise the debt limit for one year has put President Biden on the defensive."

Four paragraphs later, Times reporter Jim Tankersley writes that Biden "will need to determine if he is prepared to sign any debt limit increase that is attached to conditions demanded by House conservatives."

That, too, is a most peculiar line. Because for months President Biden has asserted there is no way, no how that he will sign a debt limit increase attached to House conservatives' conditions.

So what is there for Mr. Biden "to determine"? It's been determined, time and again — publicly, aggressively, and assiduously. Thus it is House conservatives who should be "on the defensive." 

Tankersley goes on to acknowledge that "Biden has long maintained that he would not negotiate spending cuts or other efforts to reduce the federal debt as part of discussions over raising the nation’s debt limit." The president has long maintained such because doing otherwise would put us at unremitting risk of national hostage-taking by nihilistic wingnuts.

Biden has been explicit, he's been forceful, and he's been vastly repetitive in vowing he'll never negotiate a debt-ceiling lift. He'll discuss a budget with House conservatives, but he won't pay ransom to meet the U.S.'s preestablished, bipartisan, fiscal obligations. He could not have been any clearer.  

Biden said it again to reporters on Wednesday: "I’m happy to meet with [Speaker] McCarthy, but not on whether or not the debt limit gets extended. That’s not negotiable." Perhaps I'm a naif, but to me, "That's not negotiable" means he won't negotiate it. His not, coming before "negotiable," strongly favors my interpretation. But some reporters appear to possess an alternative.      

Given President Biden's unshakable predetermination and long-standing avowals, is it not McCarthy's hijackers, blackmailers and arboreal nutjobs who are on "the defensive"?   

It is not they who would need to defend spending reductions over a decade that "would include $500 billion for veterans’ health care, $300 billion from scientific and other research and $100 billion from the early childhood education program Head Start"? As well as a "near-total reversal of Mr. Biden’s signature law meant to fight climate change." 

For reasons on which I'm not entirely clear, reporters seem to take House conservatives' word at face value, but not the president's.

Although "some" conservatives are "chagrined" that there is "no scenario in which the president would sign the bill that barely cleared the chamber on Wednesday," reports Tankersley, one of them —Freedom Caucus member Ralph Norman of South Carolina — flatly said he's "not interested in anything coming back, anything but what we voted on."

From the Times reporter there is no further word, no interpretation, no exegesis on this Holy Right-Wing Scripture. Mr. Norman said what he meant. Period.

Yet Biden, despite all he has said, must now "determine" how to proceed, according to Tankersley.

Ron DeSantis has never met a questioner he didn't hate

Is Ron really sure he wants to do this? Run for the White House?

I ask because yesterday, at the Simon Wiesenthal Center's Museum of Tolerance in Jerusalem, he displayed no tolerance at all for press inquiries, a rather customary part of any presidential campaign.

NOT. READY. FOR. PRIME. TIME.
Desantis melts down today outside the protective bubble of his carefully controlled, scripted FL events. pic.twitter.com/wV4t760Y1d

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) April 27, 2023

What was it that DeSantis claimed was in-credible "bs"? Precisely what he confirmed to CBS News just five years ago.

Desantis recently denied to Piers Morgan that he had anything to do with force feeding detainees at Guantanamo. Democracy Now found an old interview of him where he admitted recommending it for hunger strikers, then interviewed detainee who said Desantis was watching & laughing. pic.twitter.com/QUG1gjfHyL

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) April 9, 2023

If in each of the next 557 days Gov. DeSantis becomes as emotionally rattled and visibly upset as he was yesterday — encountering just one probative question — the poor man will be a quivering shell of dyspeptic, psychoneurotic manhood.  

Ukrainian forces are being overwhelmed by heavy Russian munitions

Based on interviews with Ukrainian soldiers in the Donetsk province's small, strategic town of Vuhledar, it appears the defenders are at a significant disadvantage in heavy munitions, as well as in adequate training for some of the Western equipment they do have.   

Said a private to The NY Times: "I don’t know where the Russians are getting so much artillery. And there are also tanks, helicopters and jets. The guys can’t get in and out of their positions, the firing is so heavy."

The private was envious of the Russians' arsenal, saying "[they] have tanks, they have BMPs and BTRs" — armored fighting vehicles. "We can’t go up against them with rifles. We need heavy equipment on the ground and support in the air," which Russian fighter jets are dominating.

The battles in and around Vuhledar differ in Russian manpower from those of Bakhmut, which lies about 90 miles away to the north-northeast. These troops are what the Times calls "some of Russia’s best-trained forces, including naval infantry troops from Russia’s Far East."  

Yet, much like the Wagner Group's conscripted convicts fighting in Bakhmut, "[These forces] are charged up to go forward regardless of the fact that there are minuses," said a Ukrainian company commander.

He added: "We’re losing in numbers and losing perhaps in a number of areas because of our weaponry. I’m not going to say that everything is going well.... We lost our best people — those who died and those who were taken out of the fight because of injuries."

Still, he said, even though "there are more of them..., we’re stronger." Neither he nor the Times elaborated, but one assumes he meant in morale.

In addition to a menacing lack of advanced, Western munitions, those that have been supplied are unfamiliar to Ukrainian troops. They are "learning that making full use of new weapons takes time," observed the Times.

Said a sergeant who alone was training his comrades in the use of U.S.-made, Mk-19 grenade launchers: "At the time it entered into service with the Ukrainian armed forces, there were no instructors who could explain how to work it. The manuals were only in English and in the Ukrainian military few speak English."

Consequently — and understandably — there was a problem: the soldiers "were having trouble figuring out how to use" the grenade launchers. "And it was not going well," added the Times.

In sum, and with respect to Ukraine's imminent counteroffensive, "The Kremlin’s forces still have a big numerical advantage in heavy weapons, including aircraft and armored vehicles, the Russians have built defensive positions, and the Ukrainians are still learning how to use some of their new gear.... Ukrainian troops know that as much as they need the new weaponry, it is no guarantee of success."

As nothing is in war. But the Ukrainians have consistently outfought and outthought the Russian enemy, which, along with superior morale, could once again upend Vladimir Putin's best-laid plans to repel President Zelensky's counteroffensive.  

Ouch. A US GDP of 1%. And it'll probably get worse - for workers.

The Wall Street Journal:

"U.S. economic growth decelerated to a 1.1% annual rate in the first quarter.... Many economists expect the economy to cool even more as the year progresses, with the possibility of a U.S. recession later this year."

Said economist Jan Groen: "The consumer is holding up well despite inflation and a Fed that has been tightening its stance pretty aggressively." This will cause tighter credit, which in turn will "bite" consumers, added Groen.  

I'm skeptical that even the braking of a 1% GDP will decelerate Jay Powell's enthusiasm for another rate hike. Even though the Fed is tasked with full employment as well as the stabilization of inflation (which has lessened to 4.2%, while wages grew at 5.1%), the chairman seems determined to throw a couple million Americans out of work.

It could get worse. Here's Sen. Elizabeth Warren, addressing Powell in a Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee hearing:

"History suggests that the Fed has a terrible track record of containing modest increases in the unemployment rate, once the economy starts shedding jobs, it's kind of like a runaway train, it is really hard to stop. In fact, in 11 out of the 12 times that the unemployment rate increased by a full percentage point within one year, unemployment went on to rise another full percentage point on top of that. If that's what happens this time, we would be looking at at least 3.5 million people who would lose their jobs."

That or something close to it, Powell believes, would sufficiently "cool" the economy. But he's is an old private equity guy — the Carlyle Group — the kind of man who is bothered not by the financial struggles imposed by unemployment.

After all, eliminating jobs is the whole point of private equity: just blacken the corporation's balance sheet by slashing the workforce, then dump the skeletal but profitable company on the market. Human beings are a dismissible variable.

I hope I'm being unfairly harsh toward Mr. Powell.      

Donald Trump's Very Serious Presidential Campaign

This 26-second video positively discredits all the nattering naysayers who've been claiming that Trump intends to run an unthoughtful, unserious presidential campaign — an electioneering crusade full of lies, deceit and distortions. Well ... pish-posh!

Trump says Democrats “believe in abortion on demand in the 9th month of pregnancy. Even executing babies after birth! Beyond birth, executing the baby!” pic.twitter.com/TvRhvpFAgr

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) April 23, 2023

After viewing this, I dashed off an irate email to my newly elected Democratic congresswoman, Nikki Budzinski, for whom I voted. I had no idea this — which Trump, thank God, zeroes in on — was what she meant when she campaigned on women's rights.

Boy did I ever light into her. And to think that I would have remained ignorant of it had it not been for Twitter and, of course, the Very Serious Mr. Trump.   

The one basic "fact of Trump" that the Carroll jury must consider

Today the defendant's attorney, Joseph Tacopina, wlll have another crack at the plaintiff, former magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll, who has accused Trump of raping her almost three decades ago. 

"The whole attack lasted just a few minutes, but it would stay with her forever," said Carroll's attorney, Shawn Crowley, in her opening statement to the jury. Ms. Carroll, she added,  just wants "to clear her name, to pursue justice
  and to get her life back."

Trump’s lawyer "followed with an aggressive attack on Ms. Carroll, contending that her account was untrue and accusing her of exploiting her story for personal gain," reports the Times.

But here's the thing. Without judging either side's argument made in court, who would deny that Donald Trump is perfectly capable of such brutish, criminal behavior? In fact, inclined toward such behavior?

His lifelong pattern of abusing people, casting human decency aside and disregarding mere laws is the fundamental totality of Trump's sociopathic personality.  

Thus in this she-says, he-says dispute, does the entire case not come down to that indisputably straightforward, Trump-psyche formula? 

The upside-down world of Tucker Carlson's video, which is practically a presidential announcement

The New York Times, the Associated Press and National Public Radio are taking legal action to have Tucker Carlson's redacted text messages released. But Fox News' board of directors and top executives were also in the dark about the "highly offensive" and "often racist" redactions until the literal eve of Dominion's defamation trial against the network. Fox's attorneys had withheld the content from the brass. Thus only at the eleventh hour did "the board and some senior executives" learn about "their details for the first time," reports the Times.

It was a "startling discovery." Network executives were already nonplussed by the "unaccountable" host's ludicrous conspiracy theories and advertiser boycotts. The previously unseen text messages pushed them over the edge. What's more, Fox News is still facing a defamation suit brought by Smartmatic, as well as a discrimination suit by Carlson's former producer, Abby Grossberg. Tucker and his texts became too much of a liability. 

But, according to Carlson's video message released last night, his termination was all due to his being a valiant truth-teller. "When honest people say what’s true, calmly and without embarrassment, they become powerful," says Tucker — too powerful, it seems, for "the liars who have been trying to silence them." 

Good evening pic.twitter.com/SPrsYKWKCE

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) April 27, 2023

Tucker's video is but another exercise in what Tucker does best: bamboozling the rubes. "When was the last time you heard a legitimate debate about any" of the really important issues? he asks. "Debates like that are not permitted in American media," he answers. Indeed, the conspiracy — yes, another one — is larger than ever: "Both political parties and their donors have reached consensus on what benefits them" and they've colluded to "shut down any conversation about it. Suddenly the United States looks like a one-party state." The high poohbahs are "afraid" of what "honest people" have to say. But take heart, says Tucker. Their censorship tactics "won't work." Because he is still around.  

His digressive allusions to a disagreeable "one-party state" of the two parties cause one to ponder if he's pondering a third-party run for the White House. For with nary a segue, Tucker jumped from denouncing "American media" to remonstrating against the tyranny of singular political "orthodoxy," which, he added, is "unbelievably stupid" and "completely irrelevant." Our political leaders refuse to discuss "war, civil liberties, emerging science, demographic change, corporate power, [and] natural resources," said Tucker. 

In all that, I hear some tub-thumping. Mr. Carlson would be one very unhappy man if he's thrown from national prominence — which a mere one-hour slot on Newsmax would guarantee. Ah, but what of a presidential run? Now that's the ticket. Perhaps all the networks (except Fox, I imagine) would cover his racist, rabble-rousing Bund rallies as they covered the Donald's in 2016.

For the next year and a half, Tucker would have a shiny new toy to play with.  

Once again, Ron DeSantis cuts Ukraine loose; with him as president, Putin could have his way

Behold. After 14 months of Russia-Ukraine bloodletting — the most geopolitically complex, costliest European ground war in both lives and treasure since the 1940s — Gov. Ron DeSantis, who wishes to have the final, presidential say on U.S. foreign policy, comes up with this, while visiting Japan: 

"You don't want to end up in like a [WW I] Verdun situation, where you just have mass casualties, mass expense and end up with a stalemate. It's in everybody's interest to try to get to a place where we can have a cease-fire....

"The Europeans really need to do more. I mean, this is their continent. The U.S. has provided security for them. And yes, Poland – there's some that are doing stuff, and that should be appreciated. But Germany, they're not doing anything."

There is only one person in whose interest it would be to "have a cease-fire." Vladimir Putin. Not only would it illegitimately solidify Putin's control over sovereign Ukrainian territory, but such a lull would also allow Russian forces to catch their breath and, most beneficial to Putin's aims, rearm. If carried out the Russian army would be most appreciative of DeSantis's recommendation, especially coming on the eve of a planned counteroffensive by President Zelensky's armed forces.

"Representatives for DeSantis did not immediately clarify what conditions he would consider acceptable for a cease-fire," reports The Washington Post. The reason for his mental lacuna is simple: He has no idea what these "acceptable conditions" would be, because they don't exist. He's had 14 months for this to occur to him. Had he given his recommendation any real thought, he would have dispensed with it. He hasn't bothered.   

DeSantis is also clueless as to what the U.S.'s NATO partners have contributed to Ukraine's defense. He says Germany is "doing nothing." In reality, reports the Council on Foreign Relations, Chancellor Scholz's government "has committed €1.20 billion, or $1.16 billion, in military aid to Ukraine, ranking third behind the United Kingdom and Poland in terms of spending." 

What's clear from DeSantis's remarks is that as a presidential candidate he intends to dive into foreign policy complexities as deeply as Donald Trump always has. Which is to say, he means to skip like a flat pebble across a shimmering pond. Trump's "solution" to the Russia-Ukraine war is that both sides "sit down and work out some kind of an agreement." Were this possible, they probably would not be fighting a war. And again, there is nothing to "agree" upon except the impossible: that Putin remove his troops from all of Ukraine.

Trump has also been explicit in taking a pro-Russia position — no surprise. He has said he could have negotiated with Russia and "made a deal to take over something — you know, there are certain areas that are Russian-speaking areas." By that linguistic logic, large swaths of the Southwest U.S. should be returned to Mexico.

Our allies around the globe are — this probably understates matters — paralyzed with fear and loathing at what America's presidential election might render: Trump or DeSantis. Either would be a foreign policy catastrophe for the civilized world. Said foreign-affairs analyst Bruce Klingner about Japan and South Korea, "They are concerned about an isolationist U.S. president who can continue or resume the previous president’s threats to withdraw troops" from their security zones.

The same would apply to Europe, just as a bloodthirsty autocrat has sociopathically invaded one democratic neighbor and intends to execute similar treatment for others. A free, pluralistic Europe is grievously endangered, and yet neither Donald Trump nor Ron DeSantis comprehends even the most basic rudiments of the authoritarian threat.       

In 2024, the Electoral College favors the Democrat (for a change)

In a NY Times piece headlined "Biden Faces Headwinds, but Democrats See Reasons for Optimism," among the reasons are possibly Trump (which speaks for itself) and the supremely offputting Republican House. Yet because American presidential elections are trapped in the year 1787, there's really just one reason for Biden and Democrats to be optimistic. And it is this:   

At the outset of the 2024 campaign, two-thirds of the Upper Midwestern "Blue Wall" that Mr. Trump shattered in 2016 and Mr. Biden rebuilt in 2020 appear to favor the Democrats.

As partisanship intensifies in Democratic and Republican states, battlegrounds like Florida, Ohio and Iowa have moved firmly toward Republicans, but other battlegrounds like Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire look reliably Democratic.

That has elevated just a handful of states as potentially decisive next year: Wisconsin, the third brick in the “Blue Wall”; Georgia, once reliably Republican; Arizona; and Pennsylvania, especially if the political winds shift in the Republicans’ favor. If Mr. Biden can lock down Pennsylvania, he would need to win only one of the other big battlegrounds — Wisconsin, Georgia or Arizona — to get the necessary Electoral College votes in 2024.

The bold is mine and the emphasis should rattle the opposition, because the odds of Biden carrying Pennsylvania and at least one of those following three states are rather favorable. We also now know where Biden will spend the next 559 days.

It's a sad commentary on this representative democracy of perhaps 160 million voters that its 2024 presidential election is to be decided by only 40,000 or 50,000 voters in a couple of states, even though Biden might carry the nation by millions.

If, however, he wins the Electoral College Vote alone, much entertainment will be provided by Republican meltdowns on the undemocratic unfairness of it all.  

Of course Democrats relied on the Blue Wall in 2016, too. On the other hand, Republicans have, since then, made great strides in the art of mess-kit pooping. Said Anne Caprara, who worked for Hillary Clinton’s super PAC in 2016, "For the first time in my career, I think Republicans have painted themselves into a terrible position. They’re losing and they can’t seem to see that."

Trump dumps all over his (current) home state

On occasion, The Wall Street Journal editorial board runs a piece that even Trump-haters can love. Such serendipity occurred yesterday, when the yacht boys observed:

"He’s a New Yorker by birth and branding, but President Trump officially moved to Florida in 2019, a decision that made financial sense. Manhattan residents now face a top income tax of 14.8%, plus a top estate tax of 16%. Florida has neither. But as the 2024 primaries near, Mr. Trump has suddenly decided it’s in his interest to claim that Florida is really a high-tax hellhole."

The claim comes in a Trump campaign statement titled "The Real Ron DeSantis Playbook," which, never to be outdone in hyperbole, promptly declares that the governor's "record is one of misery and despair. He has left a wake of destruction all across Florida."

DeSantis has raised taxes by "more than $1.5 billion," says Trump, who then bashes the state's cost of living, hefty home prices and 38th rank in energy affordability. The campaign statement goes on to imply that if you're a teacher, a doctor or a cop, you'd be better off living in one of Donald's shithole countries.

The WSJ's editorial board was, of course, incensed by all this, counter-declaring that "Florida is a model of successful GOP governance." But while passing no judgment on the accuracy of either assessment — Trump's or the Journal's — what I found so enjoyable about the editors' takedown was their observation that Trump, to prove his various points, included links to "left-leaning studies" and progressive websites, such as the Florida Policy Institute and Oxfam.

The editors were particularly puzzled by his choice of ESPN to comment on the state's quality of life, sort of: "Florida is the Worst State in The Nation To Die [In]," wrote the sports network. Inquired the editorial board, not unreasonably: "Is Mr. Trump in the habit of taking policy advice from ESPN? Or was some intern told to do a Google search for this amateur hit job?" 

The board made its case for DeSantis the Wizard; he has created a subtropical paradise because, because, because, because, because. Because of the wonderful things he does. And "Republicans should be arguing they can do the same for" — I would say to — "the country if voters put them in charge of Washington. Instead Mr. Trump is borrowing lefty tropes and sources and making the same kinds of attacks on Florida that President Biden would."

Alas, concluded the editors, Trump "is proving again that he has no fixed policy principles." But "the funniest part about Mr. Trump’s effort to claim Florida is a dump? He still lives there." 

And if there's a God in heaven, he'll still be living there in 2025.

It pays to have friends

Sheer insanity: the increasingly oppressive university atmosphere

From an acquisitions editor at the State University of New York, forwarded by a University of Chicago professor of philosophy whom I follow on Twitter. Notes the editor: "A worrying pattern. This nonsense might seriously be the thing that breaks me."

Titled "A second senior professor reports an experience with Oxford University Press," the text of a post reads:

"I have now heard from one other philosopher who had a trade book (not about transgender issues) rejected from [Oxford University Press] after consultation 'with my editorial and marketing colleagues.' Despite 'the manuscript [being] readable, accessible, lively, and interesting in a way that a book for a non-academic readership needs to be,' the worry was about the 'controversy and sensitivity.'"

So university presses — purveyors of free thought, we once supposed — are now rejecting manuscripts because they're controversial? Because they might hurt someone's feelings? 

Although I'm academically credentialed to teach American political and cultural history at the college/university level, I have never done so. Pedagogic conformity — the required kowtowing (if one wants to keep one's job) to the era's prevailing idealisms — always made me wary. I would have never survived the ivoried blackboard jungle and its demands on one's independence of mind.

(Even as a grad student I was advised by my major adviser to stop wearing a particular, "mascot" t-shirt [deemed "political incorrect"] in the presence of the grad school's adviser; the message being, I could soon find myself on the street, kicked out of the PhD program.)  

I believe I made the right choice. A poorer one, financially speaking, but one more intellectually accommodating.   

Trump's statement on "near great" President Biden's announcement

We're back to American carnage.

"You could take the five worst presidents in American history, and put them together, and they would not have done the damage Joe Biden has done to our Nation in just a few short years. Not even close," laughably mused Trump yesterday as he polished his possibly rusting absurdity skills.    

In his dreary statement on the successful incumbent's reelection announcement, Trump treated us to "Joe Biden’s socialist spending calamity" ... American families "being decimated" by (5%) inflation ... "Banks are failing" ...  "Our currency is crashing" ... "Real wages" are falling ... we've "surrendered our energy independence" ...  "the price of gasoline just hit a 5-month high" ... "the Southern Border has been abolished" ... "millions of illegal aliens have been released into our communities" ... "They’re coming in from mental institutions and prisons" ... "Our cities have been overrun with homelessness, drug addicts, and violent criminals" ... "law enforcement is weaponized against law-abiding conservatives" ... "Our children are being indoctrinated and mutilated by left-wing freaks and zealots" ... and "the senior ranks of our military have gone completely woke."

Yes, dear electorate and gentle reader, it's another uplifting presidential campaign from Donald J. Trump — the master of cheer. 

None of his wholly debunkable garbage, however, could even hope to compete with his stunning duplicity about "Biden [having] totally humiliated our Nation on the world stage—starting with the Afghanistan disaster, perhaps the most embarrassing event in the history of our country."

It was of course Trump who caused Afghanistan's implosion well before Biden again stepped into the White House. His administration had cut the Afghan government out of negotiations with the Taliban, thus absenting any central authority in that sorry country once the U.S. pulled out.

Even worse, the Trump administration agreed — on the Afghan government's unwilling behalf — to the release of 5,000 imprisoned Taliban fighters, whose antiAmerican enterprise then became the strongest ever. That came back to bite the U.S., especially its 13 murdered servicemembers.      

Trump added that "Joe Biden has led us to the very brink of World War III." Next line, my favorite:  "They say Trump was right about everything." And the next: "Well, I’m not predicting World War III, but I will say this: we’re very close and they’re only talking about nuclear weapons." Say what? Only nuclear weapons?

Trump got one thing right, anyway: "There has never been a greater contrast between two successive administrations in all of American history." 

But Trump's statement was mostly a pledge to run nothing but an altogether negative campaign. Aside from a few platitudes — "We will rescue our economy," "We will prevent World War III from happening," etc. — there was not one idea, not one policy, not one glimmer of joyfulness anywhere in it.

To wit: "I promise you this: when I stand on that debate stage and compare our records, it will be Radical Democrats’ worst nightmare because there’s never been a record as bad as they have."

Notwithstanding Joe's head-scratching disapproval ratings, I suspect that in future presidential rankings he'll be placed somewhere in the "near great" category. His record of accomplishments  — and in only one term — both foreign and domestic, is astounding. Particularly when you factor in all his headwinds. The only question is: Will he ably communicate that record to the electorate?