In the last week, John McCain has made millions of Americans proud, sad, angry and elated. Perhaps more than anything, he has made us feel confused.

But let’s revel in the glory of the moment when McCain the Maverick took to the floor of the U.S. Senate and with one thumb down, he said more than he might have previously said in thirty years in the Senate. For a man who frequently communicates with his middle finger, his emphatic “thumbs down” provided a new kind of digital wave to say to Mitch McConnell what millions of Americans have wanted to say ever since McConnell first took the floor to dis Barack Obama in 2009. Anthony Scaramucci could learn a lot about politeness from John McCain.

Earlier in the week, McCain may have given one of the best recent speeches the Senate has heard in years. It got bonus points for being only fifteen minutes. McCain showed again that he can inspire with a combination of reason, concern and humor.

I hope we can again rely on humility, on our need to cooperate, on our dependence on each other, to learn how to trust each other again, and by so, doing better serve the people who elected us. Stop listening to the bombastic loud mouths on the radio and television and the Internet. To hell with them. They don’t want anything done for the public good. Our incapacity is their livelihood. Let’s trust each other. Let’s return to regular order. We’ve been spinning our wheels on too many important issues because we keep trying to find a way to win without help from across the aisle.

But just before that speech, McCain quixotically and yet predictably voted like a Republican. He supported the measure to permit debate on the Senate floor of Republican proposals to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. Unless he knew what he was going to do two days later, he deliberately put at risk the health care of more than twenty million Americans.

Had McCain voted no on the bill, the only way in which the Senate could have considered the proposed health care changes would have been to “return to regular order,” precisely what he urged his colleagues to do in his speech. He single-handedly had a chance to make it happen. But he didn’t.

And yet two days later, he put the final (at least for a few days) nail in the coffin of Republican plans to strip health care coverage from America’s neediest patients. It’s hard to figure out John McCain. Just ask Jon Stewart who tried for years to pull McCain into the liberal tent.

McCain confuses many because he is such a nice guy. Not all Republicans are mean and not all Democrats are nice, but the Democratic Party is a much nicer home for someone with a pleasant disposition salted with a healthy dose of irony.

We’ve seen the movie before. In the 1990s, Colin Powell starred in it. It’s something that is difficult for liberals to figure out. Why isn’t that nice person in our club?

John McCain has always been a mystery, to almost everyone. Now faced with brain cancer, maybe he will pull a Lee Atwater and disown some of the mean things that he did as a Republican. But I wouldn’t bet on it. Let’s just appreciate the moment.

The post McCain is most of all — confusing appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Like many progressives, I have repeatedly had my share of disappointments with Arizona Senator John McCain. It’s hard not to like him because he’s self-deprecating, witty, rebellious, and about as “common” as anyone with over half-dozen houses can be.

Then there’s the elephant in the room. It’s the “hero” thing. That word may be the most overused one in the English language. In an era when we know how difficult it is to psychologically analyze anyone’s motives for anything, a word like hero is truly hard to define.

But to quote Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart on pornography, “I know it when I see it.” Despite the false analysis of Donald Trump, if anyone is a hero, it’s John McCain who survived six years in a North Vietnamese prison camp and refused early release ahead of other prisoners who had been held longer than him.

So, put simply, he’s the guy you want on your side. And when it comes to politics, he’s the guy who we would like to be a Democrat. Here are a few reasons why:

1. He has sponsored and supported progressive legislation. In 2002, he paired up with Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold to pass the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, providing some initial regulation to political financing. It was the law that was later ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Citizens United.When running for president in 2008, he was described as a “liberal in disguise” by the Gun Owners of America.
2. The friends he keeps. When he entered Congress, the closest friend and mentor that McCain had was fellow-Arizonan Mo Udall, one of the nation’s champion environmentalists. Udall, like McCain, could also be on the “irony channel,” seeing the absurdity of much human behavior, particularly in institutions like the U.S. Congress.McCain had also been close to Massachusetts Democratic Speaker of the House who built a series of bi-partisan bridges from Capitol Hill to the Oval Office. And as we speak about Massachusetts Democrats, Senator Ted Kennedy of and McCain were close traveling friends who might do battle during the day, but would enjoy recounting the day’s happenings later in the evening.

So here are two questions about McCain and Axelrod:

1. Why is McCain not a Democrat, and
2. Why did Axelrod, who had the luxury of an informal in-depth interview with McCain, not ask him about it?

We have decades of information as to why McCain is not a Democrat. He was raised in family steeped in military service and experience. He always been a strong proponent of military strength and has risen to the position of Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee to reflect that commitment.

His views on foreign policy have generally favored military intervention when diplomacy fails, although he is very protective of the well-being of combatants and civilians alike.

He also a fiscal conservative. But think about what he could do with these values if he was a member of the Democratic Party:

1. He could be a voice for military strength among Democrats, but also a hedge on boondoggle Pentagon spending, something he has successfully done since entering Congress.
2. He could be a supportive watchdog over expenses for entitlements and other progressive legislation. He would recognize that when the federal government is called upon to provide solutions to national problems, it should do so in a responsible and effective fashion.
3. He could support compassionate legislation which reflects the type of person that he is towards friends in and out of Congress.
4. He could be welcoming to people unlike himself, as he has done personally and in legislation he has supported for immigrants in Arizona and across the nation.

It just seems that it is a question worth asking, particularly now that McCain is an octogenarian and has acknowledged that he does not want to serve so long that he literally must be carried in and out of the Senate.

There were times in the interview where there just seemed to be a disconnect with McCain; where he sided with Republicans for no particular reason. Consider his mixed messages about Hillary Clinton:

David Axelrod:                  You got to know Hillary pretty well on that committee.

John McCain:                     Yes, very well. Very well. We traveled together. We went to Svalbard together. We did a lot of stuff together. I really enjoy her company. I really do.

David Axelrod:                  And you have a high regard for her?

John McCain:                     Oh, sure. Absolutely I have a high regard for her.

David Axelrod:                  Do you think she was treated fairly in the election?

John McCain:                     I don’t know. I think that the WikiLeaks thing was the most unusual thing I’ve observed, as you know. But I also, David, whenever you lose, I know this very, very well, you find out all the mistakes you made. When you win, you didn’t make any mistakes.

This last answer by McCain ignores all the Trump shenanigans including “Crooked Hillary” and “Lock her up.” It’s clear from above that he respects Clinton. But just couldn’t criticize Trump for his low blows, either towards Clinton or actually towards himself.

It would have been a perfect time for David Axelrod to ask McCain if he wouldn’t be more comfortable as a Democrat. But like so many who have interviewed McCain in the past, Axelrod chose to pass on that question.

I’m well-aware of the adage that one definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I plead guilty to engaging in this perhaps misguided thinking for decades. Fortunately, I’m not alone with this. Jesse Jackson reminded us to “keep hope alive.” It may be getting a little late for that with John McCain, but as far as I’m concerned, it was a good run. I would have liked a little help in 2017 from David Axelrod.

You can listen to the interview by clicking here.

You can read the transcript by clicking here –> Axelrod-McCain-2017-04-01-a

The post David Axelrod could have asked John McCain why he is not a Democrat appeared first on Occasional Planet.

How far will Trump go before it’s too late? We need to test the limits. President Donald Trump has already shown that he is comfortable taking drastic measures, foolish measures and basing decisions on false information. But what so many are concerned about, and this is what separates Trump from his Vice-President, is how dangerous he will get.

He has the nuclear code. He’s easily peeved. He does not have a good understanding of international relations. He appears to be largely blind to the consequences of his actions. How much longer can we allow him to be in this position?

There are two peaceful ways to try to curb Trump unleashed. The first is by invoking Section 4 of the 25^th Amendment:

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

That is the easiest and the quickest way to do it. However, since Trump has hand-picked his cabinet members and many of them seem to be as unprepared for their job as he is, it will require a significant improvement in the wisdom and fortitude of enough Cabinet members to invoke the amendment.

The second path, one which may be more democratic but is also lengthy and drawn out, is for the House of Representatives to open impeachment hearings and initiate the process that could lead to a conviction of Trump by the Senate, thus removing Trump from office. It would not be difficult to find “high crimes and misdemeanors” that Trump has committed, beginning with his finances.

Many would argue that it would be rash to move ahead with either of these options at this point, and I would agree. However, I would suggest that two steps need to be taken to indicate whether drastic action might be needed in the near future. These two steps are intertwined.

Some Republicans are going to have to stand up to Trump. Obviously, neither the 25^th Amendment nor impeachment and conviction can occur without Republican involvement. Once some Republicans stand up to Trump, it will be illustrative to see what he does.

For example, if there were a handful of Republicans who voted against one of his cabinet nominees, how would Trump respond to that? Would he go on a name-calling tirade? Would he try to cut off federal favors to those senators? Would he try to turn his legion of voters against them?

What would he do about submitting a replacement nominee? If we were talking about Secretary of Health and Human Services, would Trump say that there is no one else in the country who could do the job as well as Dr. Tom Price? Would he insist on resubmitting Price’s name for consideration, or would he be able to move on to someone else?

Suppose that Republican members of Congress joined with Democrats to pass a law saying that the president could not place a gag order on employees in federal agencies. Or if the House of Representative rescinded its adoption on the Holman Rule which gives the president wide leeway in firing workers in the executive branch, or short of firing, actually reducing their pay down to $1 a year.

How big would the Trump tantrum be if Congress went against his will on any of these issues? What would it tell us about his stability, or instability, in situations where Kim Jong-un or Vladimir Putin would rattle his chain?

There certainly is good cause for Republicans to immediately stand up against Trump. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham have both spoken of the need for the United States to stand strong against Russia. They both have expressed serious concerns about Secretary of State-designate Rex Tillerson’s close ties with Putin.

Surely there is someone else in the United States who could be a better Secretary of State than Tillerson. If either of these senators had constructed a “short list” of twenty possible nominees for Secretary of State, they would have had quite a few who were (a) far more capable than Tillerson, and (b) acceptable to Republicans, and perhaps even some Democrats.

McCain and others have to back Trump to the wall on non-nuclear issues to see how he responds. If he fails those tests, then serious consideration must be given to peaceful means to remove Trump from office.

The post The imperative to test Trump’s limits appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The differences in the mental gymnastics that go on inside the minds of liberals and conservatives when they are presented with new information can be quite startling. As I have previously stated in my series on “The Republican Brain,” it is important to be cautious in drawing hard and fast lines between what liberals and conservatives think and how they behave. Regarding how conservatives and liberals receive new information, we will draw stark contrasts to be illustrative; then we will qualify these positions in order to place them more into a realm of current reality.

One of the key differences is in the way  liberals and conservatives respond when they are presented with new information is how they process the introduction of new facts. It goes somewhat like this:

1. Liberals receive new facts and related information and immediately go into an analytic mode. They weigh the validity of the new information. If they find it to be false, they discard it. If they find it to be somewhat true, they file it away for further analysis. If they find it to be true, they reassess their thinking on the particular topic. If the new information is of sufficient strength, they may alter their positions on issues related to the information.
2. Conservatives receive new information and do not particularly weigh the validity of it. They process the information in light of what current views they have on the subject. Then they call upon the facts as they know them. They recall arguments that they have used in the past to construct a position which denies the validity of the new information and sustains their position as it has been and still is. This process is often called rationalization.

As Charles Mooney says in his book, The Republican Brain:

To see how it plays out in practice, consider a conservative Christian who has just heard about a new scientific discovery—a new hominid finding, say, confirming our evolutionary origins—that deeply challenges something he or she believes (“human beings were created by God”; “the book of Genesis is literally true”). What happens next, explains Stony Brook University political scientist Charles Taber, is a subconscious negative (or “affective”) response to the threatening new information—and that response, in turn, guides the type of memories and associations that are called into the conscious mind based on a network of emotionally laden associations and concepts. “They retrieve thoughts that are consistent with their previous beliefs,” says Taber, “and that will lead them to construct or build an argument and challenge to what they are hearing.”

Examples of Republicans essentially ignoring facts and context would be Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Ted Cruz regarding the regrettable incident in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. Where liberals saw it as an unfortunate occurrence which taught us the necessity of providing better funding and resources for our foreign embassies and consulates, Republicans viewed it as a way to resurrect the old saw that “liberals are soft on foreign aggression.”

As humorist Andy Borowitz recently said,

(The Borowitz Report)—A growing chorus of Republican lawmakers are demanding that President Obama take some action in Syria so that they can attack whatever action he took in Syria.

Borowitz goes on to facetiously say,

Arguing that there are a variety of options available to Mr. Obama for dealing with Syria, Sen. Graham said, “The President needs to choose one of those options so that we can immediately identify it as a catastrophic choice and demand that he be impeached.”

Decades ago when the Republican Party largely consisted of moderates, they agreed with Democrats that “partisanship ended at our nation’s shores.” Now, regardless of how well thought out a foreign initiative by President Obama is, there is a herd of Republicans who will criticize him with no basis in fact. It truly is a case of “Don’t let the facts bother me.”

In 2002, nearly half the Democrats in the Senate joined with all Republicans to buy a barrel full of untruths about Iraq including the supposed presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Democrats too can ignore or diminish the importance of facts, but it is much less frequent than with Republicans.

The post How liberals and conservatives deal differently with new information appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The contrast could not have been more apparent. On Monday, February 18, 2013, MSNBC aired a program, Hubris, about how the Bush Administration used dishonesty and deceit to lead the United States into a useless and fruitless nine-year war against Iraq. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has persistently stood by the supposed wisdom of the policy, to the point that he has relentlessly berated former friend and colleague, Defense Secretary-Nominee Chuck Hagel, for expressing reservations about the wisdom of the war.

Earlier in the day, McCain was once again criticizing the Obama Administration for what he calls a cover-up of the facts with regard to the September 11, 2012 attack on the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

There’s a fundamental problem with McCain criticizing Benghazi while standing by Iraq. The facts are simply less clear with regard to Benghazi than Iraq. What happened on a dark evening in the desert of Western Libya is difficult to piece together, particularly when the four individuals who most likely would have best known what happened were the unfortunate victims of the violence and lost their lives.

As Hubris so clearly points out, the plans to invade actually began on the afternoon of the September 11, 2001 Al Qaeda attacks on the World Trade Center and  the Pentagon. The planning carried late into 2002, when Congress overwhelmingly voted to give carte blanche powers to the Bush Administration to proceed into Iraq. It continued until the actual invasion of Iraq. That’s eighteen months in which public officials, the media, and the public could engage in critical thinking about the proposed war.

John McCain has chosen to call the Benghazi situation a cover-up, when we probably never will know with much certainty what happened that night. The most significant item that we know is that McCain and has fellow Republicans refused to provide the State Department with necessary funds to protect the consulate in Benghazi, as well as dozens of other American outposts in foreign countries.

While many other American leaders including Senators Hillary Clinton and John Kerry joined McCain in offering the blank check to President Bush in 2002, they have largely acknowledged their mistakes and proffered that they will never again be hoodwinked, as they were by the Bush Administration. No such words from Senator McCain.

Much to Senator McCain’s credit, he has a remarkable war record, which includes over five years of being held as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam during the Vietnam conflict. His bravery in protecting himself as well as his fellow prisoners is renowned. The pain and suffering that he endured is unimaginable to most people. It is for this reason that so many people are willing to cut John McCain slack in whatever he does, because of the enormous price he has paid on behalf of his country.

It takes us back to a fundamental tenet of conflict resolutions: “Be hard on the problem and soft on the person.” As nasty towards others as John McCain can be, it is frequently difficult for progressives to respond with their own nastiness because (a) progressives are simply nicer and more civil, and (b) they empathize with John McCain. The key is to be tough on the particular problems or issues; not on Senator McCain or anyone else, if possible.

For a variety of reasons, it’s very painful to hear John McCain pontificate. Maybe he should follow the steps of the current pontiff and retire early. He deserves the break, and quite frankly, we could deserve a break from the frustration that we experience in trying to figure out what’s really going on with John McCain.

The post It’s hard to criticize John McCain, but… appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The post Where’s the real Romney? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

On April 30, Florida governor Charlie Crist, a candidate for the U.S. Senate, changed his political affiliation from Republican to Independent.  This move is quite surprising, because three months previously, he had a 30% lead for the Republican nomination.

The Republican Party touts itself as a broad tent, capable of including beliefs held by a wide range of Americans.  Indeed, there was a time when that was true; Dwight Eisenhower was overwhelmingly elected in 1952 and 1956.  It wasn’t until well after World War II ended in 1945 that General Eisenhower announced that he was joining the Republican Party.  Most observers feel that if he had said that he was joining the Democratic Party, the Democrats would have won with him in 1952 and 1956.

Poor Charlie Crist may be running in the wrong era.  Perhaps more accurately, running in the wrong year.  Or perhaps he is running in the wrong country as described by E.J. Dionne in the Washington Post.  As recently as 2006 he won the governorship of Florida, and in 2008 he was in contention to be John McCain’s running mate.  The fact that McCain chose Sarah Palin over Crist foreshadowed the fate of both McCain and Crist in less than two years.

Sarah Palin has become the darling of the Tea Party, a novice party that didn’t even exist in 2008.  However her glorification of “all things conservative” and the personal characteristics that go with that line of thinking has had a viral effect among the body politic.  She has appealed to gun-lovers, tax-haters, anti-choice activists, and many others who seem to hold grudges against government or even anyone who has benefitted from government programs.

That is what got Charlie Crist into trouble.  In 2009, President Obama went to Ft. Myers, Florida to rally support for his economic stimulus package.  A considerable amount of the $787 billion would be allocated for Florida.  This was one of those moments when Obama’s “for better or for worse” commitment to bi-partisanship played some strange games.  The president felt that Governor Crist deserved to bask in the glory of the potential federal largesse, especially since much of the money that would benefit the state’s citizens would be channeled to projects through the state.  Unlike other Republican governors, Charlie Crist put the interests of the citizens of his state above his own hubris, political ambitions, or personal stubbornness.   He didn’t fight the concept of federal grants; he worked with the president to provide money to what they jointly considered to be the most worthwhile projects.

As has been a common ritual in the announcement of a large federal-state partnership, the governor made opening remarks and then introduced the president.  It was the transition that caused the problem.  As Governor Crist left the podium and President Obama approached it, they gave one another a congratulatory, non-embracing hug to recognize their appreciation for one another’s efforts.

The reaction to “the hug” was delayed.  At the time it was considered ritualistic, appropriate, and understandable.  But as the Tea Party movement gained momentum, Crist became a target of right-wing Republicans.  The fact that he would support the stimulus program; would appear on stage with the president of the United States, and would not resist a tepid hug was more than Sarah Palin, Tea Party members, and many other Republicans could take.  Crist went from the short-list of potential GOP nominees for president in 2012 to an outcast.

Concurrently, Crist’s main opponent for the Republican nomination, former Florida House speaker Marco Rubio, began showing the video as a means of questioning Crist’s GOP credentials   It’s all been downhill for Crist since then, at least within the Republican Party.  His 30% lead over Rubio evaporated; Rubio then had his own double-digit lead, and Crist was constantly on the defensive.  His promising political career was potentially doomed.

However, Crist saw that being unpopular with the GOP did not mean being unpopular with the broader electorate.  He had plenty of support; just not necessarily in the Republican Party.  So, on the last day of April, the governor threw off the shackles of the Republican Party and announced that he was running for the Senate as an independent.

No sooner did he do so than he was once again in the lead in the polls.  Actually, he had not personally become more popular, rather the group that was being polled was the wide base of Florida voters, rather than just those who were likely voters in the GOP primary.

Perhaps Crist will recover from the Tea Party attacks.  But the shadow of Sarah Palin now looms over her “queen-maker,” John McCain.  He too faces opposition in his race to retain the Republican nomination for the Senate in Arizona.  The one-time self-styled maverick went into chameleon mode.  He no longer wanted to move beyond “don’t ask-don’t tell;” he opposed meaningful federal immigration reform; he reversed himself as the leader of GOP bi-partisanship by calling the concept dead, even as President Obama reached further tothe accommodate Republicans.  Finally, he attempted to re-write history by declaring that he never was a maverick.

In the case of Florida, the remaining moderate Republicans may get the last laugh as they join independents in electing Charlie Crist in November.  But Arizona is more ominous; either the state will get a retro-McCain who may finally win Rush Limbaugh’s approval, or the Republicans will nominate someone even further to the right.

The Tea Party is barely a year old and like all third parties, it is paving its own path.  Third parties have never won a presidential election, but they have wreaked havoc for other candidates up and down both parties’ tickets.  Predicting what the impact of the Tea Party will be in 2010 and beyond is dicey.  They could successfully take over the Republican Party and win some key elections, positioning them to dictate who the GOP presidential candidate will be in 2012.  On the other hand, they could be trounced by millions of Americans who dislike extreme politics of any sort.

What’s the good news in this for progressives?  It’s that we can continue to be ourselves and let the internecine fighting among Republicans or former Republicans continue.  We sound reasonable and moderate by comparison.  We have a president who still has long coat tails and some outstanding members of Congress.  Let’s go about our business and slowly but surely advance our agenda.  Generally noise in politics is bad; the Republican Party is leading the decibel race; let’s keep it that way.

The post The perils of being a reasonable Republican appeared first on Occasional Planet.