Years ago I had a distant relative, now deceased, who suffered from grandiose delusions. In his younger years, it seemed like it was merely a case of a grossly inflated ego (he was convinced of his own superior intelligence). As he got older, that morphed into a belief that he was the object of every woman's desire (trust me, he wasn't). Eventually, he had a full psychotic break, replete with delusions of his own divinity.

Sound familiar?

Never, ever in my wildest dreams did I imagine such a person would occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. One might think Trump voters would begin to question their own political judgment, but . . . I'm not exactly holding my breath for that to happen!

I absolutely love this op-ed from the New York Times!

I am supporting Elizabeth Warren, and that is unlikely to change anytime soon. But I wanted to express my appreciation for the way Pete Buttigieg handled himself in the Fox News town hall. Butiigieg answered every question that was put to him in a straightforward manner that wasn't at all cagey. What's more, he deftly evaded every rhetorical trap Chris Wallace tried to snare him with.

On a very loaded question about late-term abortions, Buttigieg beautifully flipped the paradigm. He said (and I am paraphrasing here, not directly quoting): "We're getting all hung up on where to draw the line, but in doing so, we're missing the crucial question of who gets to draw the line. I trust women to draw the line." It was the best possible response anyone could have given to that very loaded question.

When Wallace tried to trap him into a rivalry with Warren over his decision to appear in a Fox News town hall, he said (and I quote): "A lot of people in my party were critical of me doing this, and I get where that’s coming from, especially when you see what goes on with some of the opinion hosts on this network. I mean when you’ve got Tucker Carlson saying that immigrants make America dirty. When you’ve got Laura Ingraham comparing detention centers with children in cages to summer camps,” there is a reason why anybody has to swallow hard and think twice before participating in this media ecosystem.”

That answer was a stroke of brilliance, in that while being confident in his own decision to appear in a Fox News-hosted event, he managed at the same time to validate Elizabeth Warren's decision not to do so. I came away feeling glad that Elizabeth Warren made the decision she did, and equally glad that Mayor Pete made the decision he made.

Whatever happens in 2020, I predict that Mayor Pete has a very bright future in national politics! (Oh, and I think he'd make an ideal running mate for Elizabeth Warren!)

. . . really need to take another look.

Democrats who have bought into the idea that Elizabeth Warren is "unelectable" really need to take another look. In terms of laying out a clear and coherent policy agenda, she is miles ahead of any of the other candidates. A number of candidates have now joined her stance against appearing in any events hosted by Fox News, but it was Elizabeth Warren who led the way, and made such a compelling case.

She is leading the way in her development of economic policies. One of those policies, a plan to reach out to small business owners to get them to understand that their interests and those of giant corporations are fundamentally different (see The Atlantic, "Elizabeth Warren Has a Theory About Corporate Power" ), is a real innovation for a Democratic candidate. And in response to the outrageous abortion laws just passed in Georgia and Alabama, she has come out with a bold plan to protect a woman's right to choose.

This is what leadership looks like, folks.

. . . because if they don't, the bar for presidential conduct will have been forever lowered, and House Democrats will have been just as responsible for that lowering as Trump himself.

Although I have seen suggestions by some that the action by Covington Catholic High School is a violation of the Church's tax exempt status, I don't believe that is the case. Tax exempt status allows such organizations to engage in political advocacy for or against issues or causes; they just can't advocate for specific candidates.

BUT . . .

The question this brings to mind for me is this: Is it appropriate for a school run by a religious organization to enlist minors (il.e., the students in its charge) as pawns or footsoldiers for the religious oragnization's sociopolitical advocacy? Some will say sending these kids to the demonstration was about teaching the kids civic engagement. But if that's the case, I would ask, what about any students who may quietly disagree with the school's (and the church's) position on the issue in question (abortion, in this case)? Are such students permitted to civically engage the issue on their own terms, free from any fear of academic sanction or disciplinary action by school authorities? if not, then these students are not being taught about civic engagement, but are being used -- indeed, exploited -- by the Roman Catholic Church for its own purposes.

But then, the Roman Catholic Church is rather expert in exploiting children, so . . .

I posted this initially as a response to David Brooks' column in The New York Times today, a column melodramatically titled, "How We Destroy Lives Today."



I think there are a lot of very well-meaning people who have been hoodwinked by a clever right-wing spin machine!

Paul Krugman's latest NY Times column, "The G.O.P. Goes Full Authoritarian." is an absolute must-read. I posted the comment below to it. I was pleased that the editors chose it as an editors' pick, but what was even more gratifying and encouraging was the overwhelming positive reader response.



Here is a link to the comment: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/10/opinion/trump-gop-authoritarian-states-power-grab.html?action=click&contentCollection=opinion&contentPlacement=7&module=package&pgtype=sectionfront®ion=rank&rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fopinion&version=highlights#commentsContainer&permid=29697431