monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Biography does not predict success in office. It never has. And yet we’re all drawn to it. We love personal stories of heroism, sacrifice, challenges overcome, outstanding virtue. That said, we should also recognize that a compelling back story may be necessary, but it is not a sufficient condition for political greatness. Which brings me to John McCain.

The rationale behind his political career was always his personal story: son and grandson of admirals, Annapolis, naval aviator and finally long-term prisoner of war. Military service, especially under the extreme duress of combat and imprisonment, is certainly noble. But surely we can agree that not everyone who has sacrificed for his (or her) country would make a great statesman. Aristotle describes the primary virtue needed for statesmen as prudence, what might be better described as practical wisdom. Yet prudence is a word that has rarely, if ever, been invoked in relation to Senator McCain. What we heard instead were terms like maverick, honorable, heroic — and it’s these charismatic qualities that afforded Mr. McCain a large degree of latitude when he chose to oppose his own party.

Throughout Mr. McCain’s long political career, he was the Republican most beloved by Democrats. The reason is simple: They often agreed, especially when it came to sticking a thumb in the eye of Republicans and undermining conservative priorities. His service to the country as an aviator and a prisoner of war deserves nothing but praise and commendation. Such devotion to the country cannot be emulated too often. But Mr. McCain’s political legacy is more complicated. When discussing it, we must not conflate his military service or even his personal sacrifice with political wisdom or effectiveness.

In fact, John McCain’s career is an example of the danger of electing — and re-electing — politicians based on their personal story rather than on demonstrated political accomplishments. Throughout his political life Senator McCain either misunderstood or disagreed with the principles that animate the party whose members he relied upon for electoral success. He ended up staying in office with votes from a coalition of Republicans afraid that abandoning him would mean electing a Democrat and Democrats who saw him as an ally. I speak as a lifetime Arizona Republican who has heard fellow conservatives justify voting for Mr. McCain in just such terms for decades. His 2016 re-election is a case in point. To win his narrowest victory, he patched together 53.7 percent of the vote (down from 58.7 percent in 2010) by winning 16 percent of Democrats and 50 percent of independents.

Arizona Republicans like me who were McCain supporters in the early 90s became more circumspect as it became clear that the rock-ribbed conservative candidate who toured the state searching for votes in 2010 by promising to “complete the dang fence” and repeal Obamacare was a different person from the senator who actively opposed President Trump’s border wall and cast the deciding vote against reforming Obamacare — despite also running campaign ads in 2016 claiming that “John McCain is leading the fight to stop Obamacare.”

What I found truly objectionable was that legitimate criticism of Mr. McCain’s politics and policies here in Arizona was countered by the reply that he was a war hero. While that should earn someone personal respect, even deference, it should not be used as a weapon to silence dissent.

During his long political career, Mr. McCain maintained a very high profile as one of the most quoted Republican senators and most sought-after television guests. Yet he left virtually no legislative mark. The one major piece of legislation which he underwrote was the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that, in directing money away from political parties and into independent expenditure groups, had precisely the opposite effect from what was intended. Likewise, he was a relentless proponent of military spending, but there is no significant national security legislation that exists because of Mr. McCain. Yet his fingerprints are clear on some signal Republican failures. This was often characterized as “independence.”

Mr. McCain built a brand around being an un-Republican and the media lavished praise on him for that. He clearly relished the role of an outsider who would tell it like it is. But was that really who he was? Or was he just another senator with presidential aspirations and a flare for fraternal invective?

Of course, Mr. McCain was not the first or the last politician to use his military service as a prophylactic against criticism. But that’s dangerous. No politician should be beyond the reach of public criticism regardless of prior service to the country. The issues at stake are too important. What’s worse is that this sense of invulnerability encourages the self-regard to which many politicians are already prone.

Much responsibility lies with voters, who must not allow themselves to be hypnotized by a compelling biography. Mr. McCain was out of step with his Republican constituents on virtually every major issue of the past generation, including Obamacare, immigration and foreign policy, where Mr. McCain had long supported military intervention around the globe — a policy that has cost our nation dearly.

In the senate, Mr. McCain was the Democrats’ near-perfect instrument for hectoring Republicans. He relished his role as a gadfly, and Democrats were eager to encourage him because doing so made the Republican conference less united and less effective. Of course, the paeans to Mr. McCain ended briefly when he ran for president against Barack Obama.

Then, for a few key months in 2008, previously solicitous media outlets began running hostile stories about him. A common theme was Mr. McCain’s angry outbursts. Typical of the genre was a story at Alternet describing Mr. McCain as “someone who should never be near the red button” and another in The Washington Post, “McCain: A Question of Temperament.” The Post story was filled with quotes like this one from former Senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican: “His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him.” The Boston Globe brought out Senator Thad Cochran, who said that the thought of a McCain presidency, sent “a cold chill down my spine.”

The formula was simple: when he was a foil against Senate Republicans, he was a straight-talking American hero; when he was running for president against Mr. Obama, he was a dangerous madman. It didn’t help that his behavior in the 2008 election was quirky to the point of being erratic. Remember that at one point during the financial crisis he unilaterally suspended his campaign and flew back to Washington, and then began campaigning again a few days later having done nothing noteworthy. It demonstrated for the nation the sort of impulsiveness Arizonans had grown used to. It was supposed to be a grand gesture that demonstrated that he was above politics and therefore more worthy of the presidency than his opponent. It actually demonstrated self-indulgence and a lack of political maturity. As a result, when he faced Mr. Obama and his substantial political talents, he lost the Electoral College by 2 to 1.

In some sense, McCain’s biography — and the overheated rhetoric it encouraged in discussions of his political persona — deprived him of agency. He often seemed to be playing a role created for him by others. Even his work on campaign finance reform with Russ Feingold seemed to lack a guiding principle. It was more a form of penance for his implication in the pay-to-play Keating Five scandal. He became a symbol when what Arizona needed was a legislator.

Part of Mr. McCain’s legacy, which is yet to be fully understood, should serve as a warning to us. We can honor John McCain the man while having reservations about his political career. Among the things for which he will be remembered are his service to the country in the United States Navy, his advocacy for a strong military, his opposition to torture, the Keating Five scandal, two unsuccessful presidential runs, his yearslong feud with conservatives in his own party and the vote that killed Obamacare reform. It’s a mixed bag. So let’s honor the good and noble in Mr. McCain’s life while not being afraid to be point out — and even carry on — legitimate political disagreements.

Here's a better question; if things are so bad, why is Obama trying to take credit?

Here's a question: Why does Milo Yiannopoulos constantly try to be a spokesman for the people who, if he wasn't such an alt-right fave, would beat him up on the street for being homosexual?

In fact, John McCain’s career is an example of the danger of electing — and re-electing — politicians based on their personal story rather than on demonstrated political accomplishments.

Kavanaugh will push the court much further right. Everything we know about him points to a man who is fierce and unapologetic in his partisanship and relentless in advancing his ideology. His confirmation will be the equivalent of handing the court over to the Heritage Foundation and the legal staff of Koch Industries.

...If the Trump era produces a backlash so strong that a Democratic president and Congress pass breakthrough economic and social policies, conservatives will count on their court majority to block, dismantle or disable progressive initiatives. And short of impeachments or court-packing, there will be nothing officials elected by the people will be able to do about it.

This is a fight about democracy itself. Right now, democracy is in danger of losing.

Another Problem for Trump: A 2020 Primary Challenge Is Growing More Likely

WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump issues a steady stream of praise for Kim Jong Un in interviews and on Twitter, a steady stream of evidence that North Korea is still making nuclear weapons has pushed his administration to take a much more aggressive stance toward Pyongyang.

The newest intelligence shows Kim's regime has escalated efforts to conceal its nuclear activity, according to three senior U.S. officials. During the three months since the historic Singapore summit and Trump's proclamation that North Korea intends to denuclearize, North Korea has built structures to obscure the entrance to at least one warhead storage facility, according to the officials.

The U.S. has also observed North Korean workers moving warheads out of the facility, the officials said, though they would not speculate on where the warheads went.

One former senior U.S. official said North Korea frequently moves equipment around to hinder foreign intelligence gathering. "They're trying to move them around so our sensors are confused," the official said.

U.S. intelligence assesses North Korea could produce five to eight new nuclear weapons in 2018, according to three current and former senior U.S. officials. That pace is virtually identical to their assessment of the regime's production of about six per year prior to the Trump-Kim summit.

Bruce W. Bennett, a senior international/defense researcher at the RAND Corporation and an expert in Northeast Asia military affairs, agrees with that assessment of the pace of production.

"Since the beginning of 2018, Kim has surrendered and dismantled no nuclear weapons, but has likely built five to nine new nuclear weapons. So he has not frozen his nuclear program and he has certainly not been denuclearizing; instead, he has been nuclearizing."

The Trump administration has launched what it calls a "maximum pressure" campaign against North Korea in response.

'We will get it done together!'

Public rhetoric, meanwhile, has a different tone. After his June meeting with Kim in Singapore Trump said, "There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea."

Trump tweeted a "thank you" to Kim on Thursday for proclaiming his "unwavering faith" after a South Korean official reported Kim wanted to denuclearize before the end of Trump's first term. The South Korean official said Kim emphasized "that he has never said anything negative about President Trump."

Quote:

Donald J Trump
@realDonaldTrump

Kim Jong Un of North Korea proclaims “unwavering faith in President Trump.” Thank you to Chairman Kim. We will get it done together!

"We will get it done together!," tweeted Trump.

Friday morning, Fox News aired a taped interview with Trump in which he insisted, "Kim Jong un said very nice things. He said we want to get denuclearization during the Trump administration."

On Sunday, North Korea held its annual Foundation Day military parade to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the nation on Sept. 9. In past years, the Kim regime has used the parade to show off missiles and new technology.

This year, however, North Korea did not display any ICBMs. On Twitter, President Trump said "experts" were heralding the absence as a sign of the Kim regime's "commitment to denuclearization." He thanked Kim and called the lack of missiles a "very positive statement."

"We will both prove everyone wrong! There is nothing like good dialogue from two people that like each other!"

Quote:

Donald J Trump
@realDonaldTrump

North Korea has just staged their parade, celebrating 70th anniversary of founding, without the customary display of nuclear missiles. Theme was peace and economic development. “Experts believe that North Korea cut out the nuclear missiles to show President Trump......

Quote:

Donald J Trump
@realDonaldTrump

..its commitment to denuclearize.”
@FoxNews
This is a big and very positive statement from North Korea. Thank you To Chairman Kim. We will both prove everyone wrong! There is nothing like good dialogue from two people that like each other! Much better than before I took office.

A spokesperson for the National Security Council said, however, that President Trump is personally directing the pressure campaign against North Korea. "The president closely directs every aspect of the administration's DPRK policy including the negotiations and the pressure campaign. He is clear-eyed about the challenges and sees this as a unique and fleeting opportunity to use diplomacy to achieve our objectives."

But North Korea's recent actions have challenged the Trump team's pressure campaign, and now the administration is looking for ways to bolster it.

The first sign of the shift will be at sea, officials said, where an international maritime coalition will step up its efforts to expose ships and nations that are evading sanctions with illegal transfers of goods between ships at sea, according to three senior U.S. officials.

Resistance at work?

Nobody’s Heroes
Bob Woodward’s new book presents Trump staffers as our last line of defense. We’re doomed.

Nearly 300 pages into Bob Woodward’s new book, Fear: Trump in the White House, a West Wing aide named Zach Fuentes cautions fellow staffers. With depressingly familiar words, Fuentes informs his colleagues, “He’s not a detail guy. Never put more than one page in front of him. Even if he’ll glance at it, he’s not going to read the whole thing. Make sure you underline or put in bold the main points … you’ll have 30 seconds to talk to him. If you haven’t grabbed his attention, he won’t focus.” Some subjects, such as the military, do engage him, but the overwhelming picture is worrying and dire. Still, one could finish this passage and feel at least slightly relieved that people like Fuentes are aware of the reigning deficiencies in the White House, and doing their best to mitigate them.

Fuentes is merely an assistant to John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, but Kelly and James Mattis, the secretary of defense, are presented throughout Woodward’s book as being cognizant of the president’s extreme limitations and authoritarian instincts, and rather boldly willing to push back against their boss. This is why it’s probably worth mentioning that Fuentes wasn’t talking about Donald Trump; no, he was talking about John Kelly. And Woodward’s book—which arrived at around the same time as the already infamous, still-currently anonymous New York Times op-ed about the men and women in the executive branch supposedly working to protect America from Donald Trump—is as much a portrait of the craven, ineffective, and counterproductive group of “adults” surrounding Trump as it is a more predictable look into the president’s shortcomings. It’s not entirely clear how aware Woodward is of what he has revealed about the people he’s quoting at length. (Sources tend to come off well in his books.) But intentionally or not, Fear will make plain to the last optimist that, just as Republicans in Congress are unlikely to save us, neither are the relative grown-ups in the Trump administration...