The Hannity loop ...

That’s what I call hitting the same talking points every night. 

Sean Hannity’s a smart guy. But his nightly tirades are redundant.  I tune out after the first couple of minutes.  I know exactly what he’s going to say, because it’s the same every night. 

There’s the “Clinton-bought-and-paid-for-dirty-dossier” full of “Russian lies” used to get a “FISA Court warrant to spy on the Trump campaign.” There’s the “two-tired system of justice” that allowed Hillary to “destroy 33,000 subpoenaed e-mails,” “bleach-bit hard drives” and get away with it.  There are the “FBI lovebirds,” “Mueller’s witch hunt,” “Andrew Weissman, Mueller’s pit bull,” “the most important election in our lifetime” and more.  

It’s the same talk track all the time.  Worse, it’s the same adjectives, the same phrases, the same plea to “buckle up” for “breaking news” that isn’t.  You can only cry wolf so many times.

The truth of the matter is that Hannity isn’t going to change anybody’s mind.  Any more than Rachel Maddow will, or Adam Schiff. Everybody’s pretty much made up their mind.

Those who hate Trump will continue to hate him. Those who support Trump no matter what will still support Trump.  Those who think Hillary should have won – or think she actually did – won’t change.  Those who think Hillary belongs in jail will always think that. Those who think Trump should be forced from office won’t change their views, either.  

That’s why I find so many of the opinion shows a complete waste of time. They only preach to the converted.  Which would be okay, I guess, but the sermon never changes. It’s almost word for word something you’ve already heard them say a hundred times. 

Then there’s the unrelenting hype. 

Carl Bernstein claims proof of Trump’s payments to an aging pornstar and a Playboy model – before he became President – is “bigger than Watergate.” Seriously, Carl?  For those too young to remember, Watergate refers to when a sitting Republican President authorized the illegal break-in of the campaign offices of his Democrat opponent. Then he tried to cover it up. He had to resign.

That’s authorizing breaking and entering, which is clearly a felony by anyone’s standards.  By a sitting President.  I don’t think we’re on the same level as that, Carl. 

And if paying off women with whom someone had sex to buy their silence during a Presidential campaign was such a big crime, why didn’t Bill Clinton face charges?  When Clinton had his lawyer pay $850,000 to Paula Jones, I don’t remember the FBI raiding his lawyer’s office.

But that was different, I suppose.  How, I don’t know.  Neither do they.  The hype goes on.    

Every talking head claims that whatever they’ve “just” found is “the smoking gun.” Hannity claims he has proof the “deep state” has conspired to protect Hillary while persecuting Trump and anyone who ever worked for Trump.  The left-leaning media always claim they have proof that Trump lied about – well – just about everything and is possibly mentally unstable. 

The problem is, every “bombshell” revelation on either side usually turns out to be no more than a mouse fart.

Maybe there is a “deep state.” I’ve never trusted government bureaucrats, and especially the people running our intelligence agencies.  Too often they’ve been caught in whopping big lies, and then trying to cover those up with other lies. Can you say Iran/Contra? WMD? Snowden?    

Do I think they tried to keep Trump from being elected? Not all, but some clearly did – not necessarily because they favored Clinton, but perhaps because Trump came from outside the predictable establishment pool; he was a wild card.  They hate unpredictability.  Did some continue their efforts after Trump was elected?  Why yes they did. 

But is any of that news anymore? Not really.   

Look, Trump has many character flaws. 

Trump’s certainly a horndog but everyone knew that, too, including Melania even before she married him.  No surprise there. He joins a long list of modern-era Presidents who were also philandering weasels:  FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, and Bill Clinton, to name but a few.  I can't begin to list the members of Congress who’ve been caught doing the same – the list is too long. 

Is he mentally unstable? Huh?  Does he have a temper? Yep. Does he lash out at people that piss him off?  You bet. Does he stretch the truth? Sure. Does he sometimes tell a bald-faced lie?  Yes. Is he egotistical? Of course. That’s all old news. It was all known when he was campaigning.  Voters knew and still elected him.

Nobody is surprised he hasn’t changed. Nor should they be. It’s who he is.     

Now the economy’s booming, unemployment is down, there are more jobs than people to fill them, and wages are going up, so do any of his other personal flaws really matter?

I may not like him personally, but I’m pretty happy with what he’s accomplished, domestically and internationally. Do I wish he’d learn to STFU more? Absolutely.     

As repetitive the talking points are from Hannity and his ilk every night about the deep-state and media collusion to force Trump from office, the left-leaning media’s talking points are just as predictable and redundant. They never vary, except in the order in which these are presented.    

According to them, Trump has committed crimes – although the evidence for that is specious at best, and some of the “crimes” technically aren’t actually crimes. He’s also committed treason by being friendly to Putin, even though he’s slapped the harshest sanctions on Russia causing the ruble to tumble.  He uses ICE like a Gestapo. He hates all immigrants. He’s a tool of white supremacists. He’s paid off women he had sex with to silence them. 

It’s the same stuff every night. They’re caught in their own version of the Hannity loop.     

Does anyone think anybody is still listening to the opinion shows to make up their mind? Does anyone think anybody is persuaded? On either side?

I don’t think so. It’s just endless reruns. 

I’d rather watch just about anything else. 

Divided realities ...

Somewhere, someone is writing the mirror image of this piece. Making the same points I will.  They’ll be baffled why the other side can be so blind to the facts.   

I’m certain of that. 

The only difference is that they’ll be writing from the point of view of a liberal progressive. 

We’ll be saying essentially the same thing: conservatives and liberals can be looking at exactly the same events, viewing the exact same set of facts, and see entirely different things.

It’s as if one side sees an animal and calls it a dog while the other side calls it a cat.  Then both sides vehemently defend their respective opinions and claim the other side is delusional. If on closer inspection the animal is neither, each side will continue to argue that it’s more dog-like or cat-like rather than admit they were wrong.

This happens every day in our current political environment. 

Trump and Republicans passed tax cuts that put more money in the pockets of working Americans, as well as corporations and the rich.  There’s no denying they all got a substantial tax break, including the rich. There’s no denying that some businesses – not all – paid out bonuses to their employees because of those tax breaks. And that many working Americans also saw more take home pay. The tax cuts have been cited as one of the reasons the economy is booming and there are more jobs. 

Why do a significant number of Americans think the tax cuts were a bad idea? There are more jobs, wages are going up, unemployment is going down, and people have more money to spend. Why do they now think lowering taxes was a terrible idea? 

How can this possibly be? People are upset because they have more money?  Because they now have a job, or even a better-paying job?  Are they upset because they didn’t get more? 

Or is it because they’ve been convinced they should be upset, simply because Trump and the Republicans did it.  That’s my guess. 

If the Democrats and the left had lowered taxes, and delivered the same results, would the same people still be opposed?  Probably not.  Republicans and the right probably would, citing the increase in the deficit, but mostly because Democrats and the left did it.         

Much – perhaps too much – has been written about how divided we are as a nation. That’s been used a rationale, an excuse, really, for the heightened rhetoric on both sides.  Both sides blame the other for this.  Democrats and the left blame Trump and Republicans.  Republicans and the right blame Democrats and the left.

Both claim the other is promoting violence against the other.  Both claim the other is destroying democracy and the rule of law.  Both claim the other is made up of liars, con artists, and leaders out of touch with mainstream Americans.   Both claim the other wants authoritarian rule and is trampling everyone’s rights under the Constitution. 

Both accuse the other of trying to stifle free speech.     

Both sides have consciously chosen which media to follow, which only reinforce and harden their views. Democrats and the left only trust CNN, MSNBC, and the mostly liberal big-city newspapers.  Republicans and the right only trust Fox News and the Wall Street Journal.

That way, each can hear what they want to hear.

Democrats and the left can be told Trump is a monster, a wannabe dictator, an awful human being, and someone who is clearly a racist, a homophobe, a misogynist and an embarrassment for all Americans.  Trump clearly hates all immigrants, especially those of color, is possibly a Russian agent, and only won the last election by deceit and collusion with Russians.  He wants to discredit our intelligence agencies, stamp out free speech, shut down dissent, and destroy anybody in the media who questions him.  He wants to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who will immediately overturn Roe v. Wade. He also wants to stop the Mueller probe because it’s close to proving his collusion with Russians and his obstruction of justice, which should lead to his long-overdue impeachment.   

The Republicans and the right can be told that the Democrats and the left are crazies who hate America, want to flood the country with illegal immigrants to create a new pool of voters, are soft on crime, and want to turn the country into a socialist nightmare like Venezuela.  Democrats and the left have allies in the corrupt “deep state” who have been working to bring Trump down, even before his election.  With wishy-washy Republican never-Trumpers, they’ve all been working overtime to slow down Trump’s agenda to secure our borders, reduce crime, and bring jobs back to America.  Mueller’s probe is a witch hunt, a waste of taxpayer money, and an attempt to bring down a lawfully elected President by Democrats who still can’t accept he is President.  

Both claim they’ve seen proof of their respective sets of allegations. Or at least enough evidence to point to a high probability these are true.  They must be true, then.     

The big media operations are happy to play along.  Controversy – even invented controversy – is good for ratings.  So the media keep stoking the fires for their audiences.  Conservative Fox and WSJ on one side; the liberal leaning media on the other.

Facts are shaped and presented differently to each audience to create a storyline they want to hear. Delivered often enough, that becomes the reality for each of their respective audiences.    

Trump says he wants better relations with Russia. The other side says that’s because he’s afraid of something Putin and the Russians have on him. 

Trump tells NATO members they have to pay more for their own defense and the European head of NATO thanks him. The other side says he bullied our allies and made them question why they should support the U.S. 

Trump wants to curtail illegal immigration.  The other side claims he wants to end all immigration, including legal immigration, because he’s a racist beholden to white supremacists. 

Trump says ICE is focused on removing violent criminal illegals such as MS-13 gang members. The other side says he’s using ICE to terrorize otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants.

Trump says he wants to stop catch-and-release programs at our borders. The other side says he’s violating the human rights of families simply seeking asylum and putting them at risk. 

Trump is the first President in memory to not have a pet dog in the White House. The other side says that’s proof that he’s so mean and evil he even hates dogs.      

It goes on and on.  There’s no way to discuss anything if both sides cling to their own reality.  

One side sees a dog. The other a cat. 

Even though they know it’s neither. 

Here in Florida – as elsewhere – it’s all about Trump …

I can’t think of another time when one person has so dominated everything. 

Everything is about, or somehow related to, Trump.

At least that’s how it feels. 

What’s he said, what’s he done, what’s he thinking, what might he do … it never ends. 

Turn on the TV and there’s always somebody opining on Trump, someone once on his staff or campaign, someone on his current staff, someone he likes, someone he despises, someone in his family, some place he is, someplace he’s going to be, something he’s tweeted, something he should have said, or whatever.  If there’s a way to bring Trump into a discussion, it will happen.

We’re entering primary season here in Florida and once again Trump seems to be the most important thing. Republicans fight over who is really a Trump supporter and who isn’t, regardless of which office they’re running for. They accuse each other of falsely claiming support for Trump because their opponent voted against things Trump wants, or once was a “card-carrying” Democrat. They all promise to support Trump’s agenda should they be elected.

For the Republican gubernatorial nomination Ron DeSantis has been endorsed by Trump. Many of DeSantis’ early ads focused on that exclusively, including one that closed by saying he was “endorsed by the big man himself.” But DeSantis’ opponent – Adam Putnam, current Commissioner of Agriculture – has been endorsed by Pam Bondi, current Florida Attorney General, who did an ad saying she worked hard to get Trump elected and supports Adam Putnam for governor. 

Putnam and DeSantis both claim fealty to Trump. Both claim they will work hard to support his policies on immigration, deporting illegal alien criminals, and opposing sanctuary cities.  I’m not sure what that actually means to most of my fellow Floridians, since state governors don’t have much authority over any of these.  But it sounds tough; I guess that’s what they’re going for. 

Democrats running in our primaries blame Trump for everything and invoke Schindler’s List-style images, and even references to the Holocaust, to portray him as the personification of evil.  They all promise to stop Trump, or at least stand up to him. 

Again, I’m not sure how that would work, since Florida’s governor won’t have any authority to do that – the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution means Federal law always trumps state law. 

But that’s not stopped the Democrat gubernatorial candidates from telling everyone how much tougher they’d be than their opponents in supporting abortion rights, Planned Parenthood, amnesty for DACA recipients, and of course, gun control. The usual talking points. 

One male candidate has even brought back the war-on-women theme saying he needs to be elected “for the women.” He’s also said he will stop the state from paying millions (for additional security?) every time Trump comes to his Florida resort.  Pretty much every one of his own campaign ads talks about how he will stand up to Trump.   It’s Trump this, Trump that, to the point even the left-leaning Palm Beach Post mocked him for it.

Unfortunately for him, his opponents have old video of him talking about Trump as a “great guy” and how much he likes Trump. And that’s running. 

Again, it’s Trump, Trump, Trump.   

The real action is yet to come.  That’s the battle for the next Senator from Florida between Republican Rick Scott, current governor of Florida, and Democrat Bill Nelson, current U.S. Senator from Florida.  Both will win their primaries hands-down so they’ll face off in the general.

Scott’s done a pretty good job as governor by all accounts.  But there’s more.  He’s said he will support legislation to set term limits in Congress – something I haven’t heard from any politician in ages. That’s a breathtaking move in my book. He’s also in favor of making Congress work year-round, five days a week, 12 months a year; another bold move. And if Congress allows the government to shut down, they shouldn’t get paid, according to Scott.  His campaign theme is: “Let’s get to work.”

Bill Nelson has been in office since the 70s. Before then he was an astronaut.  As far as anyone can tell, including leading newspapers in the state, he’s not really accomplished much of anything since then. The best that could be said about him is that he’s voted reliably with the Democrats for decades and never rocked the boat.  Nor introduced anything of note, apparently. 

He looks old, he sounds old, and is the epitome of a career politician.  To say he’s fighting for his political life is an understatement, given the public mood about career politicians.

Scott’s campaign theme, "let's get to work," is a direct attack on career politicians in general, and a less-than-subtle dig at Nelson.  

To counter Scott, Nelson’s campaign has focused on Scott’s refusal to accept Federal funding to expand Medicaid and CHIP under the Affordable Care Act. Nelson knows full well why Scott did that, as did many other Republican governors.

The Federal money came with big strings: after a few years Federal subsidies would stop and the state would have to pick up the full cost of expanding coverage to millions. However, the way Nelson’s supporters are portraying it, Scott decided to refuse the money which would have helped millions of low-income families and instead passed tax cuts in Florida to reward corporations and his rich friends, "just like him" one ad states.    

Scott has a bunch of pretty radical ideas to shake up the status quo in DC, as I’ve said. Nelson claims he’s helped Floridians by protecting Social Security, without a lot of details how he did that.

To me, Scott has ideas; Nelson doesn’t.  And I like Scott’s ideas. 

Right now Scott is leading Nelson in the most recent polls. He’s doing that without playing the Trump card too much, which is smart in a state like this.  Scott’s got Florida’s booming economy to run on, and he deserves some credit for that. 

It’s Scott’s to lose if things hold up. 

However, if this continues I expect Nelson to make a desperate move to jump the shark tank.  And how will he do that?

Just a guess, but I suspect it will involve something to do with Trump. 

It’s always all about Trump.     

Robbing Peter to pay Paul ...

It works until Peter doesn’t have any more to take, but Paul still needs more.  Or to use a more common analogy, opening a new credit card to pay off your other credit cards. 

You can only do it so long.  

That seems a good way to start a discussion of Democratic Socialism.

Unless you’ve been in a coma, you’ve seen a lot of Democrats proudly proclaiming themselves Democratic Socialists. I suppose that’s what happens when being a liberal or a progressive simply isn’t enough – you need something new to excite voters.

I first put the phrase “Democratic Socialist” in the same category as jumbo shrimp, baby grand piano, and other non sequiturs. Now I realize people are taking it seriously. 

I don’t know why.  Then again, claiming to be a Republican or Democrat doesn’t mean anything anymore, either. These are also labels without any real meaning.

Bernie Sanders deserves a lot of credit for the Democratic Socialist movement. He was stumping for socialism long before many of the new adherents were born. Perhaps even before their parents and grandparents were born.  He honeymooned in the Soviet Union and has always had a great deal of heart for socialist countries. 

I imagine he still has a Che Guevara t-shirt somewhere. 

As best as I can determine, the core belief of Democratic Socialists is fairly similar to communism – the means of production (and wealth) should be collectively and socially owned for the benefit of the people; in essence, the collective – not individuals or private businesses – would control and allocate all resources.  That’s a precursor to a state-planned and managed economic system, in contrast to capitalism which is considered a failed economic system that always rewards the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and doesn’t act in the best interests of society.    

Appending Democratic to this is meant to imply that there would still be popularly elected leaders and political parties.  Ordinary people, through their elected representatives, would also have a greater role in deciding how private companies operate and for what purpose.   

That sounds to me like a new way of saying dictatorship of the proletariat, but I could be missing something. I don’t think so.  I’m not sure how that would work, except that like communism perhaps it’s just a necessary interim step to gain popular support for seizing control of everything.  I can’t see how anyone elected to do this would be willing to give up such power once they have it. 

Call me skeptical of human nature, but totalitarian regimes don’t willingly give up control.

And that’s what would be created if Democratic Socialists have their way. They may not understand today how their movement will likely evolve if it succeeds, but they should. Perhaps they have an overly optimistic view of how communal ideologies work in the real world.     

Maybe they should read Lord of the Flies again. Or Animal Farm. 

Right now, most of the positions offered by Democratic Socialist wannabes concern free stuff.  Free universal healthcare. Free maternity and paternity leave.  Free college education.  Forgiveness of student debt.  On and on. 

Left aside is how to pay for all this.  Surprised? 

Maybe Democratic Socialists think they’ll be able to run private businesses better and more efficiently than those wicked, evil, greedy owners running them today. Maybe they think when there’s a comprehensive welfare state here people will still continue to work hard – not to better themselves and their families financially – but for the benefit of their fellow citizens. Maybe they think the reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere else in the world is that nobody has executed it as thoroughly as they need to. 

Maybe they’ve forgotten what Maggie Thatcher said when she remarked that socialism is a great system until you run out of other people’s money.  

Maybe they are overlooking Venezuela’s socialist experiment, which turned one of the richest nations in this hemisphere in an economic and social nightmare.

Or maybe they don’t care.

Or maybe they’ve considered Venezuela and have stocked up on toilet paper already.  

I know I will. Just in case.