Morning Fog

Central American Caravans And Anonymous Op-eds - Who Benefits?

One of my occasional interlocutors forwarded me something the other day about the Honduran "caravan" making its way toward the U.S., claiming that it seemed clearly "orchestrated."

I must say, I agree! This manifestation has a lot of the earmarks of a put-up job. Thousands gathering, supposedly in reaction to the terrible conditions in their own country, and deciding to march to the U.S., managing to keep themselves together, get themselves fed, and so forth. It just doesn't seem totally spontaneous. 

Of course, the next thought has to be, "orchestrated by whom?" The Trump fan's answer, apparently is "George Soros." That's purely ridiculous. What has Soros or any "liberal" to gain from creating a horde that would obviously fire up the xenophobe contingent? Of course, Donald Trump would like to interpret it that way, but no...

If we look at who might have the power/connections/resources to instigate such a movement in a small central American country, and more important, who benefits, there is only one answer. Well, two answers, really:  Vladimir Putin to instigate it, and Donald Trump - the guy who is in office now with Russian support - to benefit from it. Did Trump request it, or did Putin decide on his own? We may never know. But it's perfect:  It will clearly fan the fires of the anti-immigration right wing, help to further exacerbate divisions here in the U.S., and allow Trump to bluster and play the strong man as he motivates his political base.

While we're talking about "who benefits," by the way, let's go back to that now-famous op-ed piece in September, the anonymously written one in the New York Times by someone representing him (her?)self as a member of the White House inner circle, claiming that people inside the Administration are deliberately sabotaging Trump's work. That sort of interference should be taken very seriously. No matter what we think of Trump, it should (and does) appall us all. We've seen hints of such things in non-anonymous utterances, i.e. that some in DJT's inner circle don't take him seriously, consider him an idiot.  

But if we consider who might author such a piece, it makes little sense to believe it's some Democrat in Republican clothing. What benefit would a person conducting such sabotage gain from publicizing it, boasting that he's keeping Trump from doing his worst? So that Trump could put a stop to it?  Nope, sorry, we're Americans and we are (or used to be) good at smelling a rat. Who benefits? The biggest rat.  We already knew the White House was a shambles; but the op-ed enabled Trump to pretend to be the injured party.  So who was the author? Not the Russians this time, I doubt they would get the nuances of White House politics quite so perfectly.  Someone in the administration, possibly, or … someone very close to it.  My money is on Rudy Giuliani.

In both cases, we - and I think, much of the media - are being played.

 

 

Sensible, Thinking Persons

"... every sensible, fair-minded person was surely thinking ... [that]  the hearings that brought both Kavanaugh and Ford to tears were driven by a partisan quest for power without regard for the human collateral damage."

That's a quote from a recent column by Kathleen Parker on the Kavanaugh hearings.

Now, I don't often agree with K.P., who is one of those many rightist pundits whose every utterance is guided by partisanship. But here I confess I think she's entirely correct.

Partisan quest for power? Spot on! Ms. Parker's beloved Republicans have, for three decades, engaged in a "partisan quest for power," a quest that grew ever more reckless, and culminated in "Senator" Mitch McConnell's racist-based refusal to cooperate in any way with the president the people elected in a landslide. 

Of course the nomination of a justice has long been partially political, and Democrats have played the game too. But with McConnell, the party realized that what it clearly was losing through elections -- an electoral mandate -- could be achieved by dominating the Supreme Court instead.  Sooo much easier to have a select group just rule your views as the law of the land, than to have to win elections from a bunch of ingrates who just couldn't see how going backwards was a positive thing. 

Thus was born the uber-bitter extreme politicization of the Supreme Court nomination process that has wrecked at least two lives (but not Mitch's). It's brave of Kathleen to admit it. Will her life also be wrecked for having done so?