P.M. Carpenter

A night at Republicans' operatic circus, and Trump goes full Mussolini

The GOP presidential debate indeed resembled a Marx Brothers movie, but seemed even more like A Night to Remember, the 1958 British film on the RMS Titanic disaster. Cable's cancelation and providential intervention prevented my viewing it, thus here I rely on press reports foisted on the poor schmucks forced to cover it.  

The debate's most telling summary came from one of its participants, Ron DeSantis, who told Sean Hannity afterward: "If I was at home watching that, I would have changed the channel." The NY Times trio assigned to barf up an article on "that" seemed to agree, calling it a "meandering and at times indecipherable debate" — "120 minutes of cross-talk, unanswered questions, prepackaged comebacks and nary a word mentioning the heavy favorite’s legal jeopardy."

One would think that when the absent-from-stage, leading Republican candidate is facing 91 criminal counts wrapped in two state and two federal indictments, at least one of his competitors might want to mention this. It sounds kinda germane, even important. Yet not only did no "debate" participants bring up the subject, neither did the moderators, Fox Business Network host Stuart Varney and Fox News host Dana Perino. (I'll cut Perino some slack. She may not have known about Trump's indictments, having once confessed she didn't know what the Cuban Missile Crisis was.) 

Silence, however, was perhaps the better part of valor. When the show's contestants did speak, one wished they hadn't. Or so I read. Chris Christie had three years to think of a bone-piercing epithet for Trump, and the best he could come up with was "Donald Duck." Vivek Ramaswamy was last month's Wunderkind for "[drawing] outsize attention by shredding his opponents with personal attacks," while last night he transfigured into a Miss Manners Supermaam "who was chastising his competitors for attacking one another."

Credit, though, to Nikki Haley, who in one exchange with Vacuous Vivek revealed to the nation: "Every time I hear you, I feel a little bit dumber." For my money, that topped the "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" dig from Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle. Speaking of that exceedingly rare phenomenon, Republican honesty, the Times also reported that a Mike Pence super PAC (yes, there is one) sent a pre-debate memo to donors that read: "This race needs to be shaken up, and soon." Remarked the Times: "The race seemed barely stirred." Nevertheless, it plunged tumultuously into historical oblivion. 

Yet historically memorable, for sure, was Donald Trump's evening performance — even if most of the viewing electorate, or the press, for that matter, didn't quite grasp  its sinister implications. Speaking in support of unions at a nonunion factory, he unveiled a gauzy Weltanschauung for his second term — something of a clarification of his National Socialist, or Italian Fascist, intentions.

In a word — Corporatism, a governing ideology loosely embraced by Adolf Hitler and, more explicitly, Benito Mussolini. Conceptually, under corporatism a nation's economy is directed by industry, labor and government whose representatives settle conflicts through negotiation. But of course within the larger structure of an autocracy — not all corporatist societies have been autocratic — the reigning authoritarian has the last, enforceable word.

As The Washington Post described what in effect was Trump's eulogy for a market economy, he "portray[ed] the next election as a choice between certain doom for the auto industry or utopian-sounding industrial growth built on trade restrictions, fossil fuels and even expropriation of foreign assets." It's to be expected that a demagogue who "projects" his opposition as a collection of communists and fascists should sound very much like both.

History's fascistic experiments with corporatism were, shall we say, less than ideal, as is any government experiment based on coercion masquerading as a kind of special-interest pluralism. Germany's "utopia" lasted 12 brutal years; Italy's suffered through more than 20. Their economies certainly cannot be compared to that of contemporary America's, but the conceptual approach would be the same. Last night, Trump characterized it as "a vision for a revival of economic nationalism."  

Addressing a friendly audience nationalistically chanting USA! USA!, Trump swaddled the new, coming economy in his familiar fabrics of racism, xenophobia, expertise-bashing and historical revisionism. "The Wall Street predators [Jewish bankers], the Chinese cheaters [the Yellow Peril] and the corrupt politicians [informed, experienced lawmakers] have hurt you [the noble common man]. I will make you better.

"For years, foreign nations have looted and plundered your hopes [Versaille Treaty], your dreams and your heritage [the honorable Confederacy ], and now they’re going to pay for what they have stolen [retribution for Versailles] and what they have done to you, my friends. We’re going to take their money. We’re going to take their factories [Stalinist fascism]. We’re going to rebuild the industrial bedrock of this country" — as envisioned, via Blut und Boden, blood and soil.

"It will be fueled by American energy. It will be sourced by American suppliers. It will be sculpted from American iron, aluminum and steel, and it will be built by highly skilled American hands and high wage American labor [in happy cooperation with industrial leaders and government trade policymakers]." And naturally with all the swiftness of the Führer principle and every revolutionary fascist movement, "We’ll do it first day in office." (By 2018, nearly 1,800 factories had vanished since Trump's first day in office. Thousands of manufacturing jobs were then erased during his final year because of his gross mismanagement of the covid crisis. Not falsche Nachrichten.)

Subtlety and nuance are scarcely Trump's forte, but his speechwriter excels at both. Imbued in his rhetoric last night were numerous signals of a coming New Order, mere twists on a couple old ones. As his noncompetitors were about to gouge and dig at each other while ignoring the gravely ominous signals he has already sent, he went about the business of outlining an authoritarian approach to the nation's economy in the guise of cordial, subordinate partnerships.

Be happy in your work! ... or else.     

The neglected many

Much weighty commentary is being heaved on a New York judge's staggeringly expected ruling that Trump has been running a fraudulent enterprise. The judge also ruled that snow is white, the pope is Catholic, and Albert Einstein was really smart.

But let's think of the children.

Astonishing, dumbfounding polling results

The Atlantic's Tom Nichols wrote yesterday that "the immediate problem America faces is that it no longer has a center-right party that represents traditional conservatism, or even respects basic constitutional principles such as the rule of law."

Well, yes and no. According to the latest NBC News poll (B+), the immediate problem America faces is that it no longer has an electorate that understands what "traditional conservatism" is, and it sure as hell fails to grasp which party respects basic constitutional principles such as the rule of law.

Hie thee to the 5th and 7th lines of the poll's findings. We'll get to the third in a moment.

Respecting the rule of law is a fundament of "protecting our constitutional rights." Turning the proposition around, all rights are based in law. There is no distinction. And yet the party that has consistently opposed the rule of law — including its majority support of a presidential candidate who believes the Constitution should, from time to time, be set aside — leads the constitutionally respectful party by 8 points, 43%-35%.  

"Protecting democracy" serves our constitutional right of self-governance. Here the party that has acted unfaithfully is tied, 37%-36%, with the party that carries both democracy's name and its principles.   

Ventured one of the pollsters: "[The] thing that is maybe not expected is these phrases: 'protecting our constitutional rights' and 'protecting democracy.' These are things where overall the electorate thinks Republicans are more focused and would do a better job than Democrats." 

"Maybe not expected." Translation: We were flattened with near disbelief when we learned the electorate is insanely, cretinously assbackward in assessing which party is faithful to the U.S. Constitution and American democracy and which is approaching the National Socialist stage of 1933.

And "dealing with the economy." By an eye-popping margin of 21 points, 49%-28%, the electorate sides with the party that has bought us economic destruction twice since 2007; the party that still hustles the "traditionally conservative," widely discredited trickle-down slop that does immense injury to the middle class, line #3. 

The electorate isn't merely out to lunch. It's on another planet. 

Biden's age? Another number - 3 - has his campaign more worried.

Although President Biden's age has been the main topic of public discussion about his reelection efforts, the White House has another, more worrying concern:

Whether it's the academic Cornel West [or] a yet-to-be-named standard-bearer for the group "No Labels"..., third-party hopefuls have become the chief internal worry in Biden world, according to more than a half-dozen people who are in regular contact with the White House.

"It’s pretty f---ing concerning," said a person familiar with White House discussions about the matter....

The problem is also twofold for Biden.... On one political flank, he faces a well-funded effort by the No Labels group to attract moderate voters. On the other side, West could cut into his base — with both Black voters and some liberal white voters — even if only a little bit.

The history of Green Party nominees vs. the Democrat is not a happy one. Jill Stein drained critical votes from Hillary Clinton, and the Floridian damage Ralph Nader did to Al Gore still hurts — especially the families who lost loved ones in Iraq, where Gore would have never taken them. Now West is threatening a repeat of the 2016 and 2000 calamities.

Nader, however, is refusing to double down on his folly. He opposes West's Green Party run, since Trump is the only alternative to Biden. (Really, Ralph? You're only 23 years slow on the uptake.)  

On a second front, as of mid-August No Labels had won ballot access in North Carolina, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,  Colorado, Florida, Nevada, Oregon, South Dakota and Utah. Several of these states could go either way.

No Labels has yet to "nominate" a presidential contender, and it says "it would stand down if there’s no clear path to victory next year." But the group has a nasty habit of claiming clear paths where there aren't any. And there's the danger of Sen. Joe Manchin wanting to stay "relevant," given that his senatorial reelection prospects in West Virginia are bleak.  

As for West, he says "We do what we have to do to serve poor and working people!" How electing a George W. or reelecting a Trump serves anyone outside plutocracy's circles is an eternal mystery of ultraprogressivise presidential campaigns.

A prediction about McCarthy

From NBC News (while its still broadcasting):

"Kevin McCarthy faces an unenviable choice this week: keep his job as speaker, or team up with Democrats to keep the government from shutting down.

"Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., and other conservative hard-liners are threatening to overthrow McCarthy, R-Calif., if he works with Democrats to pass a short-term, stopgap measure to keep the government open."

(What I'm about to write presupposes that Kevin McCarthy has a rationality gene buried somewhere, and still struggling to survive, in his Bakersfield DNA. If I have misdiagnosed his genome, strike this.)  

Should the speaker refuse to work with the Dems and the government shuts down and remains shut down for some ungodly length of time, which, for sure, would stiffen Matt and make Marge moist, the odds of his losing the speakership would be roughly the same as if he strikes a deal with the loathsome opposition.

Empirically, voters have blamed the GOP for its shutdowns, which if repeated (and there is little reason to believe it would not) would likely cost Kevin his majority in the House and therefore his job. Hence a shutdown is for the speaker as dangerous as the lunatic hard right.

First he'll attempt caving into the loonies with individual votes on appropriation bills for the departments of Defense, State, Homeland Security and Agriculture. Each bill harbors severe budget cuts, which McCarthy hopes will pacify the loonies enough they'll then support a CR, so that the slashing game can go on.  

The prospect for this tactic is gloomy. Thus McCarthy will need to make a snap decision before the government's funding expires this weekend.

I'm betting he decides to hook up with the Democrats. In addition to forestalling a ruinous shutdown, at some point he must also demonstrate that he's not a wholly owned subsidiary of the far right's Nihilism Inc. This time is as good as any. In fact, it's ideal.

But, see: parenthetical caveat.     

***

Here are just some of the cuts with which McCarthy is so far appeasing the hard right:

"Cutting housing subsidies for the poor by 33 percent as soaring rents drive a national affordability crisis. Forcing more than 1 million women and children onto the waitlist of a nutritional assistance program for poor mothers with young children. Reducing federal spending on home heating assistance for low-income families by more than 70 percent with energy prices high heading into the winter months." (WaPo)

A Borowitz satire that turned real

This actually happened — the accidental fact, that is.

Sunday, Fox News' Brian Kilmeade asked, to his regret, former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko about former Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin's allegation that then-Vice President Biden had him fired "because I was investigating Burisma."

Is that why Shokin got fired? asked Kilmeade. Said Poroshenko, "This is a completely crazy person. There is something wrong with him."  

Poroshenko went on to essentially ask Fox News to stop using Shokin — who "plays a very dirty game" — as an election-interfering weapon against our sitting president, since it "undermines" America's "bipartisan support" for Ukraine. 

The Kilmeade-Poroshenko comedy clash starts at 03:30.

In N.H., Haley jumps into 2nd place, DeSantis sinks, and Trump has troubles

A Saint Anselm College poll of likely voters in New Hampshire's Republican presidential primary shows Trump, unsurprisingly, in the lead, with 45% of the vote. Perhaps surprising (perhaps not) is that Nikki Haley has overshadowed Ron DeSantis; she rings in with 15%, while the Florida governor stands at only 11% — all of one point ahead of the widely Republican-detested Chris Christie.

DeSantis has dropped nearly 20 points since March. The more he campaigns, the farther behind he becomes — a whole new approach to retail politics.

Furthermore, only 11% or 12% of voters with a favorable or unfavorable opinion of Trump — take your pick — choose DeSantis, "suggesting that he doesn’t appeal to either group strongly enough to have maintained his early status as Trump’s strongest challenger," write the pollsters.

The other significant finding abut Haley is that "she has room to grow her support," since she is generally liked. "She carries a 37-point net positive favorability (65%-28%), second only to South Carolina Senator Tim Scott (+51%)." Scott is liked but dull as hell.

The survey's overall good news for Trump is that the field is fractured, thus preventing any one candidate to reap the total anti-Trump vote. The overall bad news for Trump is also that the field is fractured.  

Observes the executive director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, Neil Levesque: "A fractured field means the eventual Republican nominee will have to work to consolidate their support against President Joe Biden." Only three-fourths of those surveyed said they would vote for Trump against Biden.

Adds Levesque: "This reflects a deep polarization in the primary electorate between supporters and detractors of Trump." And the polarization is likely to exacerbate as Trump perp walks from courtroom to courtroom and continues blathering about wanting to execute a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.   

Even in GOP bizarro world, there are limits.

The debaters will blow it, again

Qualifying for tomorrow night's internecine playdate are Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy, Mike Pence, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Chris Christie and, somehow, Doug Burgum. 

Naturally, the sanest of GOP presidential candidates, former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson, failed to make the cut.

Trump will be rabidly foaming and counterprogramming at a rabid Michigan rally.

Only four candidates have so far qualified for November's debate in Miami, though only three of the losers will appear: DeSantis, Ramaswamy and Haley. Trump has checked out of all future GOP debates.

Producer and author David Rothkopf notes that the most relevant questions will not be asked at tomorrow night's debate: "Do you support a president who threatens his critics with death? Do you support a president who seeks to silence freedom of speech in America? Isn’t it long past time to acknowledge the threat Donald Trump represents?" 

Call them unasked rhetorical questions which, if asked, would go unanswered. The irony is that an honest answer to any of the three questions would likely put the interlocutor in a leading position for the GOP presidential nomination in 2028.

Beginning in 2025, after Trump just as likely blows up the party in'24, an internal scramble will commence to distance the GOP far from Trumpism. Next year will be the third major blow to the Republican Party: the partisan disasters of 2020, 2022 and President Biden's reelection.

The neofascistic fringe will never give up. But Republicans who prefer winning elections to strutting ultra-authoritarian ideology will pull in the reins. And this year's candidate who in 2028 can honestly say that he or she warned against Trumpian excesses back in '24 will be sitting pretty.        

What they'll do instead is disingenuously claim they warned against Trump and his ism. Because they're cowards.

Who doesn't love this stuff?

A few of the winners and runners-up in this year’s Astronomy Photographer of the Year competition, run by Royal Observatory Greenwich.

Trump announces he would shut down NBC/MSNBC News

Although the term Lügenpresse (lying press) originated in World War I and was used to to attack enemy propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, a demagogue second only to Hitler in the Nationalsozialistische regime, rebranded the word as a blanket condemnation of unfriendly journalists as well as anyone opposed to der Wille des Volkes ("the will of the people"). That was defined exclusively by the fascists — empowered by 37.3% of the democratic vote.  

The word vanished along with the Thousand Year Reich's 12-year run, except in Radical Left, Marxist, Fascist, Communist East Germany, which used Lügenpresse to describe journalistic and governmental organs of the West, especially those of the United States. Today, the latter's leading demagogues have Americanized Lügenpresse as "the lamestream media" and converted der Wille des Volkes into der Feind des Volkes, or "the enemy of the people." In either language, the intent is the same: the Nazification of government and suppression of a free press.      

And last night, Donald Trump made clear his Nazified intentions:

They are almost all dishonest and corrupt, but Comcast, with its one-side and vicious coverage by NBC NEWS, and in particular MSNBC, often and correctly referred to as MSDNC (Democrat National Committee!), should be investigated for its “Country Threatening Treason.” Their endless coverage of the now fully debunked SCAM known as Russia, Russia, Russia, and much else, is one big Campaign Contribution to the Radical Left Democrat Party. I say up front, openly, and proudly, that when I WIN the Presidency of the United States, they and others of the LameStream Media will be thoroughly scrutinized for their knowingly dishonest and corrupt coverage of people, things, and events. Why should NBC, or any other of the corrupt & dishonest media companies, be entitled to use the very valuable Airwaves of the USA, FREE? They are a true threat to Democracy and are, in fact, THE ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE! The Fake News Media should pay a big price for what they have done to our once great Country! 

Elsewhere in Der Führer's rag, Trump added other modest proposals to that of forcefully shuttering a major American news outlet, such as, "Senate Democrats should all resign based on Senator Bob Menendez!" 

The GOP's leading presidential candidate was, however, graciously bipartisan in his yearnings: "It’s time Republicans learned how to fight! Are you listening Mitch McConnell, the weakest, dumbest, and most conflicted 'Leader' in U.S. Senate history?" (McConnell would likely be the GOP's top man in the Senate. Am I presumptuous in foreseeing a rather troubled working relationship here? Less so, though, what with all the Democrats having resigned.)   

Also last night, Trump suggested to his Partei a new twist on Hitler's Reichstag legislation of 1933: a Disabling Act. "Our Country is being systematically destroyed by the Radical Left Marxists, Fascists and Thugs - THE DEMOCRATS. UNLESS YOU GET EVERYTHING, SHUT IT DOWN!" 

I shouldn't make light of the goon, for his chief proposal of last night could be wickedly doable. With an impotent if not helpful Congress; an ultraconservative Supreme Court which, if suddenly disagreeable, he could nevertheless ignore; and a freshly staffed government of nothing but Trumpian loyalists, one can see how this fascistic thug could make real trouble for First Amendment and Fifth Estate. 

Every four years we're told that this is the most important election of our lifetime. That's to be amended in 2024: it's the most important election in the free and democratic life of the United States.   

The scariest poll yet, for Biden - and us

Let's just rip off the bandaid and get it over with; let us not bury the lede. A Washington Post-ABC News poll, conducted Sept. 15-20, has Trump leading Biden by 10 points among registered voters, 52% to 42%.

Seldom do pollsters say of their own polling: Never mind, our findings are "probably an outlier." But that's what the Post-ABC folks are saying, notwithstanding that their polling operation is rated "A" by FiveThirtyEight; and in May, the same operation found Trump leading by 6 points. 49% to 43%. The Post writes that "Trump’s lead in this survey is significantly at odds with other public polls" — except its own in the spring?   

Still, it's only one poll, we may dismiss or embrace it as we like. One additional factor in its defense, however, is its finding of "3 in 5 Democrats" preferring a presidential nominee other than Biden, which indeed comports with other surveys. (If an alternative to Biden were to step forward, we could know how seriously Democrats hold the preceding view. As it is — i.e., with no named competitor — there is "no consensus on who that should be.") 

Another "figure on par with other recent polls" is the president's overall approval rating. It has that familiar ring of 37%. And only 30% approve of how he's handling the economy, in which inflation has been cut in half, in fact more than half, and the unemployment rate is less than 4%.

Keep in mind that pollsters asked how the economy is performing; they did not ask respondents how they see their own financial situation. Their answer: "roughly 3 in 4 Americans say the economy is not so good or poor." Fifty-seven percent say that about the excellent unemployment rate.

I asked my own question four days ago: "Is not contempt the proper attitude to hold about voters who are so willingly blind to economic reality that they believe President Biden deserves no credit for its smooth, positive workings?" 

You want more out-of-touchness? Try this: "The poll also asked people whether, looking back, [they] approve or disapprove of the way Trump handled the job of being president. The result was 48 percent saying they approve ... [which] is 10 points better than when he left office." Ignorance mixed with severe memory loss is a frightening electoral combination.  

Here's another brain-twister. Trump, as you know, is facing four indictments and 91 criminal counts. In other words, there's solid evidence of, shall we say, his wrongdoing. There is no such evidence regarding Biden and his impeachment proceedings. Nevertheless, while 53% of Americans say Trump is being held accountable, 58% say that of Biden. What's more, 40% say Trump is being "unfairly victimized," while fewer, 32%, say the same of Biden. 

The finding that perhaps makes the Post-ABC pollsters most suspicious of their own poll stems from the likely prospect of a government shutdown next week. They asked respondents whom they would blame: 40% say Biden/Democrats and 33% say congressional Republicans. Notes the Post: "That finding is at odds with previous Post-ABC polls taken over many years at times when the government was partially shut down due to spending disputes."

The pollsters also gathered rather weird, seemingly out-of-balance statistics in the demographic-breakdown department; for example on gendered support for Trump or Biden (in this poll, way more "male" for Trump than usual); in age ranges (Trump leads significantly, and strangely, among the 18-35 group); and among nonWhite voters (Biden's share is questionably less).

The great fear among the rational demographic is, of course, that the Post-ABC poll is more of a camel's nose than an outlier. Is it especially, genuinely odd that Trump could hold a 10% lead over Biden when three-quarters of Americans — the vast number of whom are voters — are so grotesquely ill-informed they believe the economy is "not so good or poor"? There's nothing "outlying" about that statistic, hence one wonders about the others' authenticity.

In brief, is this poll merely the first of many to show Trump with an outside-the-margin-of-error lead? Even more briefly, are voters that nuts?       

What House militants won't admit: they detest democracy

In a NY Times interview with far-right Representative Bob Good — who hobnobs ideologically with the likes of Florida's Matt Gaetz, South Carolina's Ralph Norman, North Carolina's Dan Bishop, Georgia's Marjorie Taylor Greene, Colorado's Lauren Boebert and Arizona's Andy Biggs — the House member from Virginia offers that "Most of what we do as a Congress is totally unjustified."

Good's perception of an unjustifiable Congress amounts to about 515 elected pols who keep the government running; Good himself being among what the Times' Carl Hulse calls "20 or so emboldened conservatives in the House." They, in Good's opinion, are justified. All others are the nation's real villains, for the very reason that they do keep the government running.   

Remarks George Washington University's political historian Matt Dallek: "We have seen for the past decade this kind of rump faction of far-right Republicans who obviously don’t believe in government." Obviously. But it's worse than that. These far-right Republicans don't believe in American democracy.

They occupy less than 4% of all congressional seats, yet it's their perverted conviction that their "governing" ideals should rule. Less than 4% of a 535-member body rises not even to the level of a faction. These "20 or so emboldened conservatives" are more of a clique of misfits, malcontents and ideologues on goof weed.

And yet, they do rule — in part because the House speaker is uninterested in allowing the majority to rule, which would be all 212 Democrats aligned with the majority of the majority, or 201 Republicans; in part because the self-interested House speaker is unwilling to risk his job; and in part because Trump is spearheading from the wings this vile experiment in antidemocratic government — his ideal.   

As Mr. Hulse puts it: "The right-wing rebels have styled themselves in the mold of former President Donald J. Trump, who made norm-shattering behavior a virtue among the Republican base and an asset for many lawmakers, who now fear primary elections much more than general ones." There's no true democracy in their gerrymandered districts, so why should there be in Washington, D.C.? 

"They have [also] styled themselves as a wrecking crew aimed at the nation’s institutions on a variety of fronts," adds Hulse. They "see themselves as courageously doing the people’s work." But "the people" they have in mind are only the primary-voting extremists back home — a local minority within a national minority beyond whom U.S. representatives should give some consideration.

On the left, or what Republicans mistakenly call the "far left," even A.O.C., Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have come to realize they're part of a larger system to which they must make concessions. Such is the pluralism of a functioning representative democracy. The Bob Goods of the GOP believe in neither.       

What we're witnessing in Congress today — a lilliputian cohort of nihilistic, authoritarian jackassery — is but a preview of what we'll get from the White House in 2025, should we invite a Trumpian catastrophe. What we're witnessing, in short, is a powerful warning in miniature.      

Trump's critical mass of manic psychosis

Last night, the leading GOP candidate for the U.S. presidency wrote unambiguously that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff deserved execution.

Mark Milley, who led perhaps the most embarrassing moment in American history with his grossly incompetent implementation of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, costing many lives, leaving behind hundreds of American citizens, and handing over BILLIONS of dollars of the finest military equipment ever made, will be leaving the military next week. This will be a time for all citizens of the USA to celebrate! This guy turned out to be a Woke train wreck who, if the Fake News reporting is correct, was actually dealing with China to give them a heads up on the thinking of the President of the United States. This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH! A war between China and the United States could have been the result of this treasonous act. To be continued!!!

Question to follow. Trump dodged military service by feigning a debilitating case of "bone spurs," and here he calls for the execution of a "treasonous" four-star general who's been awarded the Legion of Merit, a Bronze Star, the Army Distinguished Service Medal and other honors too numerous to list in this space. How could anyone support such a foul, fetid, guttersniping poltroon for the presidency of the United States?    

Trump's seething malevolence didn't stop there. He was in remarkable psychological form yesterday; his bile ranneth over — at himself: 

* [Projection Alert!] Crooked [Joe Biden] can’t put two sentences together.... He is a [Projection Alert!] Manchurian Candidate.

* Republicans in Congress can and must defund all aspects of Crooked Joe Biden's [Projection Alert!] weaponized Government.... This is also the last chance to defund these [Projection Alert!] political prosecutions.

* The [Projection Alert!] real Howard Stern is a weak, pathetic, and disloyal guy.... [Projection Alert!] Just a broken weirdo, unattractive both inside and out, trying like hell to be relevant! 

This orangutanish buffoon's abnormally severe personality disorders would be a psychiatrist's dream, although he or she might soon whither from diagnostic exhaustion. The greater pertinence, however, goes back to my earlier question: How could anyone politically support this diseased, undisguised vulgarian?      

Our man in New Jersey

Many Americans complain there's no difference between the two major parties. But their dismissal of the parties' individuality is a prima facie laugher,  easily refuted.

Republicans' primordial drive is to upend democracy and impose a dictatorship of incompetence. However when Democrats depart from The Benevolent Work of the People, they do it the old-fashioned way. That is to say, their corruption is of the traditional sort — good old graft. Simply put, Republicans wish to defile the country at large, while Democrats think only of themselves.

Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey is, of course, only the latest example of Democratic debauchery. He went big. Reading about his plunder is like reading about Tony Soprano, also of New Jersey: nearly $500,000 in cash "stuffed throughout the house in envelopes" and in the senator's coat pockets, more than $100,000 in gold bars and a $60,000 gifted Mercedes-Benz. Menendez also has two exercise machines at home, neither of which, it is plain to see,  does he use. 

Senator Bob went traditional, yea, even biblical, in yet another way — he was the sordid tool of a wily woman, oh she was wily; he played Adam to Nadine's Eve. Ms. Menendez, a.k.a. Ms. Arslanian, was downright giddy about her matchup with Bob and materially insatiable. By her husband's hook and crook she managed to secure a mafia-like "low-or-no-show" job at an Egyptian meat company, and then complained whenever she wasn't paid.  

In addition, Nadine founded the "consulting" firm of Strategic International Business Consultants LLC, which federal prosecutors say was merely a conduit for "tens of thousands of dollars in bribe payments." Furthermore, the meat company's owner paid "about $23,000 to Ms. Menendez to help her stay current on her mortgage while she was in foreclosure proceedings."

Mr. Menendez, meanwhile, was engaged in international nefariousness on top of his more mundane domestic corruption. You don't get a half-million bucks in bribes for doing nothing. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee he greased the sale of arms to disreputable Egypt and attempted to "interfere with criminal investigations into [Nadine's benefactor's] web of business associates." 

As for the allegations against Senator Bob, he responded in a truly Democratic way. He played a race card. "It is not lost on me how quickly some are rushing to judge a Latino and push him out of his seat," he declared in a Friday night statement. 

Incidentally, not that banana-republic Republicans will ever acknowledge this, but so much for that awfully partisan two-tiered system of justice they're always bitching about.

Anyway, next time someone foolishly complains to you that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans, just whip out a copy of this post.   

A comprehensive look at the coming government shutdown

From the miserable likes of the House's Gaetzes and Greenes, these will be the sadistic results of their operatic theatrics for the Trumpian home folk, as itemized by The Washington Post:   

* Millions of federal employees and active military service members will stop receiving paychecks — but many will be forced to report to work anyway.

* Some national parks may close, museums could shutter and airports nationwide might see new disruptions and delays.

*  The most pivotal federal aid programs — including those assisting the victims of the deadly wildfires in Maui — could struggle to provide urgently needed support.

* Older Americans might not be able to obtain new Medicare cards or address some other issues with their benefits until federal funding resumes.

* Some federal inspections that ensure food safety and prevent the release of hazardous chemicals in drinking water would be halted.

* Federal research toward cancer cures and other innovative therapies would cease.

* Some passport offices would close if they are located in affected government buildings, potentially snarling some Americans’ plans for international travel.

* With each passing day, Washington would further deplete federal safety-net programs that carry over their unused money from past years.

* The government may not be able to provide some poor families with child care, nutrition assistance, housing vouchers or college financial aid.

* Roughly 10,000 children would lose access to child care starting in October as a result of disruptions to Head Start.... Some of these child care centers likely would shutter.

* Federal agencies in recent days have signaled that they may have to dial back [support for food stamps and other nutrition aid] after October. Food-and-vegetable benefit for women, infants and children known as WIC may only be able to sustain its operations for a few days.

* The U.S. would slow down its efforts to inspect workplaces for safety hazards.

* The government would not be able to process new applications for loans to cash-starved small businesses.

The upside for Republicans?

"[A shutdown] could ultimately deliver [a blow] to an economy that has teetered for more than a year on the precipice of recession."