Morning Fog

Syria? We Know Why

How inane that the media are engaging themselves in huge speculation about why Dopey Donny suddenly decided to attack a Syrian airbase when it contravenes everything he has said on Syria over the past year.

Is it a shift in policy? Is it a suddenly changed Trump who now is worried about human rights in Syria while willfully fomenting civil rights deniers here at home? Did just want to outman his macho pal Putin? Was it that Ivanka told him he should?

What claptrap!

Regardless of whether Assad really deserves some comeuppance (definitely he does), that is no concern of Trump's. The reason, if it may be called "reason" at all, is clear:  Trump is collossally image-conscious. He is the fellow who just said no President has ever had a better starting 13 weeks (even better by the way, his 13 weeks were accomplished in only 11 actual weeks!).

So, WHY? Like George Bush, Trump knows that when his administration's approval rating is in the toilet, there is no better way to garner public approval than to start a nice little military action. For his base "base," it helps that the action happens to be targeted against scruffy ol' Moslems.

Oddly, no journalist of any stripe seems prepared even to mention this simple truth.

 

 

 

Confirmation - Of Our Worst Fears

I don't think the Dems should be filibustering to keep Neil Gorsuch off the Supreme Court.  It's a lost cause, with some obvious negative consequences.  The most serious is the institutionalization of the "nuclear option," which can't be walked back, and which is not in the interest (that some may yet cheriish) of good government. Further, if they fight the good fight and lose in the end, it exposes them as weak; and the effort simply provides Trump the opportunity once again to play to his base by claiming that the Democrats are against everything he is striving to do. 

Which brings up the Republicans. They, of course, are the party that was dead set against everything Obama was trying to do (even though he won both the electoral AND the popular vote) and who cynically broke with tradition and common sense, withholding even a hearing on Obama's Supreme Court candidate. Democrats are justifiably miffed about that, so it's not at all surprising at least some of them feel the need to express their anger through resistance, however futile it may be.

If any politicians on either side of the fence are really thinking about the public good, or restoring a sense of communality in our political life, we might suppose they'd come to an understanding.  The Republicans allow the Democrats to rant for a day or two and don't rush to use the nuclear option. (After nearly a year, what's the hurry now?) The Democrats for their part accept, if not forgive, Mitch McConnell's abuse of power; they hold the rant to a day or two but stand down from the full-blown filibuster.

I feel pretty sure it won't happen that way, so we are likely to see this process further poisoning the political atmosphere. On the other hand, I suspect the first party to start backing away from extreme and damaging partisanship (in this case that would be the Democrats) could see a bump in public respect.