Don’t call James Comey a Slime Ball
The View from the Middle
Many people believe that the President shouldn’t have called James Comey a “Slime Ball”, and I agree with them, but probably for different reasons. First, I do think that kind of rhetoric is below the office of the President. Trump should have allowed his surrogate attack dogs do it for him as all other Presidents have done in the past. Bill Clinton did it famously with James Carville. But this President has decided long ago to do his own dirty work which will get him praise from some and condemnation from others. The easy route would be to delegate the insults, but he has chosen the more difficult yet more transparent method of attacking his opponents himself. I would rather he delegate. My wife doesn’t agree with me.
The second reason I disagree with the “Slime Ball” label that Trump placed on Comey is because it doesn’t go far enough. James Comey is actually a narcissistic, manipulative, unethical coward and hypocrite. And I don’t come to that conclusion lightly. I have followed James Comey since his blunder in July of 2016 when he threw Hillary Clinton under the “too incompetent to manage her own email” bus, and then refused to indict her. I’ve studied his background and have read all 140+ pages of his full five-hour interview with George Stephanopoulos. Let me share with you what I have found about James Comey as result of this extensive research.
First and foremost, Jim Comey is a first-class hypocrite. It amazed me to see how he could talk out of both sides of his mouth within seconds in his interview with Stephanopoulos. Early in the interview, Comey paints himself as a courageous, “by the book” individual, challenging Vice President Cheney over a surveillance program Cheney wanted to invoke. He says the room was “thick with tension” and he feared he would be “crushed like a grape”, but he stood his ground. What a guy! Then, within minutes, he’s the Director of the FBI who folds like a cheap tent for Loretta Lynch. She asks him to call the Hillary Clinton investigation “a matter”, and he agrees even though he knows it’s improper. He tries to minimize his duplicity by saying that everyone still called it an investigation. That, however, doesn’t change his complicity in an effort that he knew to be inappropriate by FBI guidelines. Where was the tough guy who challenged Cheney? I don’t think he exists. The real James Comey is the “go along to get along” snake that capitulated to Loretta Lynch.
During this interview, Comey constantly lectured the audience about the importance of “integrity” in our government. After I stopped laughing, I looked seriously to see if I could find any level of integrity in Mr. Comey himself. What I found was just the opposite. First, he has thrown virtually everyone he has worked for or with under the bus at his convenience. We know how he needlessly trashed Hillary Clinton, and throughout the interview he managed to demean and or ridicule President Obama, Attorneys General Loretta Lynch and Jeff Sessions and of course President Trump. He seems to have a high regard only for himself, which allows him to be the sole arbiter of honor and righteousness. What a joke. A man with no character at all judging the integrity of others.
When Stephanopoulos asked, “Did Trump deserve to know that Hillary Clinton and the DNC financed the Steele Dossier”, Comey demonstrates his contempt for the audience when he said, “I don’t know the answer to that. It wasn’t necessarily my goal.” Are you kidding me, James? You are briefing the President of The United States on an unverified, sleazy dossier that was paid for by his political opponent, and you didn’t think that was relevant information to share? This proves him to be either stupid or unscrupulous, and I don’t think he’s stupid.
He also throws out unverified, disgusting accusations and covers his butt by adding, “It’s possible, I just don’t know.” He said that about the accusation in the dossier that Trump had prostitutes pee on themselves and the bed that the Obamas slept in while they were in Moscow. That reminds me of the old political saying which goes, “If you don’t have any real evidence of misconduct on your opponents, give them something to deny.” This is as sleazy as it gets. In fact, you could say that about anyone and about anything. What if Comey had said that it was “possible” that President Obama had a mountain of child pornography on his personal computer, based on some opposition research done by Trump? And then let's say that story was reported on every news network, creating a vision you just can’t “unsee”. Most of you, and particularly the Obama fans out there, would say, “That’s disgusting”. And I would agree with you. Spreading unverified tales about anyone is completely unethical and certainly NOT a sign of integrity. Yet, Comey regularly trades in that practice.
Throughout the interview, Comey harps on the importance of honesty and truth in politics, and I’m assuming life in general. I do agree with him on that. He, however, has given himself a pass on the whole “truth” thing. He has lied to Congress and the American people, and I think his lying is pathological. He also brags that his wife and children supported Hillary Clinton for President in 2016. I guess they gave her the same waver from the truth as Jim gives to himself. They must have ignored the fact that, according to ABC News, the three most commonly used words to describe Hillary Clinton in 2016 were “dishonest”, “liar”, and “untrustworthy”. If honesty was so important, they could not possibly support her. Jim’s wife did admit that she just wanted a woman to be President. I guess she could turn a blind eye to Hillary’s faults as long as her gender was right!
Two last, quick shots before I close. First, in the interview, Comey assures President Trump that the FBI is not politicized. Really? I guess James doesn’t get a newspaper or have a computer or just doesn’t hang around the water cooler at work. The list of politically biased people at the top of the FBI who have either been fired or demoted for their partisan behavior is impressive. That list includes; Andrew McCabe (Comey’s #2 guy at the FBI), Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr (don’t forget his wife Nellie who worked for Fusion GPS), James Baker (FBI General Counsel), James Rybicki (Comey’s Chief of Staff) and of course James Comey himself. Mr. Comey has to be the most unaware Director of the FBI – Ever!! Or a liar.
Second, Comey constantly paints himself as the “by the book” guy who follows procedures even when things get tough. Yet, in July of 2016, he broke from established practice by going on TV and roasting Hillary Clinton. Virtually every analyst with any experience in Justice Department practices suggested that James Comey should have done the investigation of Mrs. Clinton and then turned over his findings to the Justice Department for a decision on how to proceed. If Loretta Lynch chose not to make that call because of her foolish meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac in Phoenix, the task would have fallen to her #2, Sally Yates. Even I knew that was what James Comey should have done, but somehow the guardian of proper procedure, James Comey, ignored protocol.
Finally, I believe that James Comey has reverse engineered his motives in all of these lies and blunders to try to save himself. He creates a storyline that positions him as the victim of unscrupulous and less talented people, which includes Trump, Obama, Clinton, Lynch, Sessions and others. It was Obama, Lynch and Bill Clinton, for example, who forced his hand in July of 2016. Comey had to step in to save the FBI and the Republic as we know it. Gag me! It was Hillary, who he knew was going to win the election, who forced his hand in October. By the way, what should Hillary’s inevitable victory have to do with this decision? (He’s apolitical, remember) Thank God for the noble and brave Jim Comey for doing the right thing despite the attacks he would take personally. That’s a fantasy, a self-delusion if you will, that he would like us all to buy.
I believe that James Comey was and is a very political animal, despite of all of his claims to the contrary. I believe that he had very high (maybe even the highest) political ambitions, and his last year as Director of the FBI was designed to build his name recognition and create a noble (gag me again) reputation for him. If he could trash any possible political opponents along the way, all the better. This is consistent with his narcissistic, manipulative, unethical and cowardly nature. We can only hope that the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, sinks his dream forever so that this true hypocrite never gets a chance to do any more harm to this country.
Saturday, April 21, 2018
Thursday, April 12, 2018
Cruz Vs. Zuckerberg
Cruz vs. Zuckerberg
The View from the Middle
If you were lucky enough to miss yesterday’s Senate questioning of Mark Zuckerberg, I can only say, “Congratulations”. That’s four hours of your life you did not flush down your life toilet. What you missed was 60, 70 and yes even 80 year old Senators reading questions obviously prepared by 20 or 30 year old staffers. Half the time they couldn’t even get through the question without a bumble, and even when they did, Zuckerberg swatted them away with his technical expertise or with his, “yes, we need to do better” mantra.
Unfortunately for me, I had the time and inclination to watch the entire four hours worth of dribble, which I will not be able to get back. But since I made the commitment, let me give you the reader’s digest version of the day.
The Senators spent most of the day trying to make the point that virtually no one using Facebook actually knows what Zuckerberg’s behemoth company is tracking, storing and selling to other companies, other edge providers or even political parties. To be truthful, I didn’t even know what an “edge” provider was until yesterday. Here’s a hint for you, Facebook is an “edge” provider.
Zuckerberg shot down all of these questions by constantly suggesting that his Facebook customers are in total control of everything. They know, he suggested, everything that can and will be shared with other entities and have complete control of what that information is and who it is shared with. This, of course, is a pile of hooey, but the Senators never got through Zuckerberg’s “awe shucks” answers to get to the real issue of the privacy question. And that real issue is that Facebook needs to clearly and simply explain to their customers what is being shared and give them an easy way to “opt out” of that sharing. Zuckerberg, of course, doesn’t want any of that. He doesn’t really want his customers to understand what Facebook is storing and sharing, because that would scare the crap out of their users and he doesn’t really want to make it easy for them to opt out, because they will do so in huge numbers. That is why their explanation of services is about 300 pages long. So, no progress in the whole privacy situation. Win for Zuckerberg.
But the real story came a little more than half way through this grueling saga. Ted Cruz finally broached an even more important issue than privacy, in my opinion, and that is censorship. Zuckerberg had admitted that Facebook was going to be on the lookout for terroristic efforts, fake news and hate speech. And of course everyone said, “good for you” to that. Except me, of course, and Ted Cruz evidently.
Cruz asked exactly who is going to be defining this “fake news” and “hate speech”? The answer is – Facebook, who currently has fifteen to twenty thousand people doing this. We all, however, should be asking what the standards are for blocking people for fake news and hate speech. Cruz then gave about 20 examples where Facebook has made some questionable blocks on conservative leaning people and groups including Diamond and Silk who they have called “unsafe for the community”. Zuckerberg could give no examples of left leaning groups or people being blocked by Facebook.
Do we really want Zuckerberg defining “hate speech”, especially if Facebook has already classified Diamond and Silk as some form of it? What about “fake news”? Any real examination of the facts would suggest that “fake news” is at least bi-partisan if not a left leaning practice. I’m guessing, however, that Zuckerberg and his team of 20,000 liberal, free-speech-squelching goons will see it differently, and that should bother all of us but especially conservatives. Unfortunately, I don’t trust our bloated, corrupt, inept federal government to do it either. If any of you have any suggestions on who could do this in an honest, efficient and unbiased manner, let me know. I’ve got some time!
The View from the Middle
If you were lucky enough to miss yesterday’s Senate questioning of Mark Zuckerberg, I can only say, “Congratulations”. That’s four hours of your life you did not flush down your life toilet. What you missed was 60, 70 and yes even 80 year old Senators reading questions obviously prepared by 20 or 30 year old staffers. Half the time they couldn’t even get through the question without a bumble, and even when they did, Zuckerberg swatted them away with his technical expertise or with his, “yes, we need to do better” mantra.
Unfortunately for me, I had the time and inclination to watch the entire four hours worth of dribble, which I will not be able to get back. But since I made the commitment, let me give you the reader’s digest version of the day.
The Senators spent most of the day trying to make the point that virtually no one using Facebook actually knows what Zuckerberg’s behemoth company is tracking, storing and selling to other companies, other edge providers or even political parties. To be truthful, I didn’t even know what an “edge” provider was until yesterday. Here’s a hint for you, Facebook is an “edge” provider.
Zuckerberg shot down all of these questions by constantly suggesting that his Facebook customers are in total control of everything. They know, he suggested, everything that can and will be shared with other entities and have complete control of what that information is and who it is shared with. This, of course, is a pile of hooey, but the Senators never got through Zuckerberg’s “awe shucks” answers to get to the real issue of the privacy question. And that real issue is that Facebook needs to clearly and simply explain to their customers what is being shared and give them an easy way to “opt out” of that sharing. Zuckerberg, of course, doesn’t want any of that. He doesn’t really want his customers to understand what Facebook is storing and sharing, because that would scare the crap out of their users and he doesn’t really want to make it easy for them to opt out, because they will do so in huge numbers. That is why their explanation of services is about 300 pages long. So, no progress in the whole privacy situation. Win for Zuckerberg.
But the real story came a little more than half way through this grueling saga. Ted Cruz finally broached an even more important issue than privacy, in my opinion, and that is censorship. Zuckerberg had admitted that Facebook was going to be on the lookout for terroristic efforts, fake news and hate speech. And of course everyone said, “good for you” to that. Except me, of course, and Ted Cruz evidently.
Cruz asked exactly who is going to be defining this “fake news” and “hate speech”? The answer is – Facebook, who currently has fifteen to twenty thousand people doing this. We all, however, should be asking what the standards are for blocking people for fake news and hate speech. Cruz then gave about 20 examples where Facebook has made some questionable blocks on conservative leaning people and groups including Diamond and Silk who they have called “unsafe for the community”. Zuckerberg could give no examples of left leaning groups or people being blocked by Facebook.
Do we really want Zuckerberg defining “hate speech”, especially if Facebook has already classified Diamond and Silk as some form of it? What about “fake news”? Any real examination of the facts would suggest that “fake news” is at least bi-partisan if not a left leaning practice. I’m guessing, however, that Zuckerberg and his team of 20,000 liberal, free-speech-squelching goons will see it differently, and that should bother all of us but especially conservatives. Unfortunately, I don’t trust our bloated, corrupt, inept federal government to do it either. If any of you have any suggestions on who could do this in an honest, efficient and unbiased manner, let me know. I’ve got some time!
Wednesday, April 4, 2018
Is Trump just a "Rude" Reagan
Is Trump Just a “Rude” Reagan?
The View from the Middle
I will argue that the greatest President in my lifetime was Ronald Reagan, and I would be in good company. According to C-SPAN’s survey of Presidential historians, Reagan already ranks as the 9th best of all 44 Presidents we have had since 1789. This puts him above every President of my lifetime except John Kennedy, which Reagan should pass in the next survey if trends continue. This will put Reagan behind only the historical titans like Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and the Roosevelts.
Why do these historians rank Reagan so high? As I inspected the criteria these scholars used to rank these giants, I have to believe that the economic results of the country during his leadership had to play a big role. After extinguishing the Carter recession, Reagan lead the country to six years of phenomenal growth with annual GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth averaging 5.2%!! For Perspective the country’s average since 1929, when this measure was first utilized, has been 3.2%, and Obama’s last seven years averaged just 2.1%.
He did all of this with a strategy that included lower taxes, reduced governmental regulation and a strong military. Sound familiar to anyone? His military build-up delivered what he promised – “Peace Through Strength’. Iran immediately released their American hostages after Reagan was elected. Russia took a backseat to the US in terms of global influence and was forced to “tear down” the Berlin wall. And Muammar Gaddafi, Libyan terrorist dictator, dismantled his nuclear weapons program after Reagan put a few cruise missiles in his ear. His tough but compassionate approach lead to one of the few war-free Presidencies since 1900 (Granada doesn’t count as a war, does it?).
The Gipper also shared a cynicism of the federal government that matched that of the common person in those days. He famously said that the 10 most dangerous words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” Outside of the military, he wanted to shrink government to get it out of the way of the American citizens. He believed that personal freedom, responsibility and motivation would deliver the American dream to more people than any governmental program. Would he be trying to “drain the swamp”? Absolutely, so that Americans wouldn’t have to get bogged down in it on the road to that dream.
But most importantly he united the country behind his unapologetic, patriotic love for this country. He believed in “American Exceptionalism” and planted a positive vision for all our citizens as he declared, “It’s morning in America”. If he would have said “Let’s make America great again”, he would have done it with a twinkle in his blue, Irish eyes and a warm smile on his face. He rarely, if ever, publicly spoke poorly of others and especially not of members of his own party. Because of his respectful attitude towards even his political opponents and the authentic fondness he had for the average American, he ended his Presidency with the third highest approval rating since they created that measure, behind only FDR and (you guessed it) Bill Clinton. His average approval for all eight years of his administration was five points higher than media darling Barack Obama.
So, here’s the good news for Donald Trump. His policies are very similar if not identical to Ronald Reagan’s. He has already delivered a tax cut that is driving consumer and corporate confidence and more normal growth in our economy. He has slashed government regulations and that is encouraging business investment from around the world. Plus, he has just signed a $700 billion package for our military (while holding his nose, he says) that will not delight Russia, North Korea or Iran. This should start to give us the “strength” we need to deliver the “peace” that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are so desperately trying to prevent.
The problem for “The Donald” is that he doesn’t seem to know how, or have the desire to unite the American people as Reagan did. It’s not that he doesn’t have passionate followers. He does. But they are matched by extremely ardent opponents on the other side. We are becoming so polarized that it is almost impossible to have a respectful discussion of the issues. Now, Trump is not the only person adding to the toxic environment that has been created. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton love pouring gasoline on this ideological fire, but Donald IS the President and I believe he needs to turn down the temperature of the political rhetoric.
Immigration seems to be the perfect place to start. The path to citizenship for almost two million dreamers was a very generous offer that the country seems to support. I have recently heard the President state categorically that the wall doesn’t have to be from the Gulf to the Pacific, but only about 700 miles. That again is reasonable and something that most Americans will support. And who wants chain-migration to include someone’s twelfth cousin’s neighbor’s barber. There is room to maneuver here, and we need a leader like Reagan to bring the parties together. Come on Donald! Be a Ronald!
Post article trivia bonus – In the first paragraph of this article I stated that there have been only 44 Presidents of the US, including Donald Trump. That is not a typo. He should be wearing a baseball cap with the number “44” on it. Why? Because Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th President of the United States. He is the only President to serve two non-consecutive terms. Two terms, but just one person!! This should really be on jeopardy.
The View from the Middle
I will argue that the greatest President in my lifetime was Ronald Reagan, and I would be in good company. According to C-SPAN’s survey of Presidential historians, Reagan already ranks as the 9th best of all 44 Presidents we have had since 1789. This puts him above every President of my lifetime except John Kennedy, which Reagan should pass in the next survey if trends continue. This will put Reagan behind only the historical titans like Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and the Roosevelts.
Why do these historians rank Reagan so high? As I inspected the criteria these scholars used to rank these giants, I have to believe that the economic results of the country during his leadership had to play a big role. After extinguishing the Carter recession, Reagan lead the country to six years of phenomenal growth with annual GDP (Gross Domestic Product) growth averaging 5.2%!! For Perspective the country’s average since 1929, when this measure was first utilized, has been 3.2%, and Obama’s last seven years averaged just 2.1%.
He did all of this with a strategy that included lower taxes, reduced governmental regulation and a strong military. Sound familiar to anyone? His military build-up delivered what he promised – “Peace Through Strength’. Iran immediately released their American hostages after Reagan was elected. Russia took a backseat to the US in terms of global influence and was forced to “tear down” the Berlin wall. And Muammar Gaddafi, Libyan terrorist dictator, dismantled his nuclear weapons program after Reagan put a few cruise missiles in his ear. His tough but compassionate approach lead to one of the few war-free Presidencies since 1900 (Granada doesn’t count as a war, does it?).
The Gipper also shared a cynicism of the federal government that matched that of the common person in those days. He famously said that the 10 most dangerous words in the English language are, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you.” Outside of the military, he wanted to shrink government to get it out of the way of the American citizens. He believed that personal freedom, responsibility and motivation would deliver the American dream to more people than any governmental program. Would he be trying to “drain the swamp”? Absolutely, so that Americans wouldn’t have to get bogged down in it on the road to that dream.
But most importantly he united the country behind his unapologetic, patriotic love for this country. He believed in “American Exceptionalism” and planted a positive vision for all our citizens as he declared, “It’s morning in America”. If he would have said “Let’s make America great again”, he would have done it with a twinkle in his blue, Irish eyes and a warm smile on his face. He rarely, if ever, publicly spoke poorly of others and especially not of members of his own party. Because of his respectful attitude towards even his political opponents and the authentic fondness he had for the average American, he ended his Presidency with the third highest approval rating since they created that measure, behind only FDR and (you guessed it) Bill Clinton. His average approval for all eight years of his administration was five points higher than media darling Barack Obama.
So, here’s the good news for Donald Trump. His policies are very similar if not identical to Ronald Reagan’s. He has already delivered a tax cut that is driving consumer and corporate confidence and more normal growth in our economy. He has slashed government regulations and that is encouraging business investment from around the world. Plus, he has just signed a $700 billion package for our military (while holding his nose, he says) that will not delight Russia, North Korea or Iran. This should start to give us the “strength” we need to deliver the “peace” that Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are so desperately trying to prevent.
The problem for “The Donald” is that he doesn’t seem to know how, or have the desire to unite the American people as Reagan did. It’s not that he doesn’t have passionate followers. He does. But they are matched by extremely ardent opponents on the other side. We are becoming so polarized that it is almost impossible to have a respectful discussion of the issues. Now, Trump is not the only person adding to the toxic environment that has been created. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton love pouring gasoline on this ideological fire, but Donald IS the President and I believe he needs to turn down the temperature of the political rhetoric.
Immigration seems to be the perfect place to start. The path to citizenship for almost two million dreamers was a very generous offer that the country seems to support. I have recently heard the President state categorically that the wall doesn’t have to be from the Gulf to the Pacific, but only about 700 miles. That again is reasonable and something that most Americans will support. And who wants chain-migration to include someone’s twelfth cousin’s neighbor’s barber. There is room to maneuver here, and we need a leader like Reagan to bring the parties together. Come on Donald! Be a Ronald!
Post article trivia bonus – In the first paragraph of this article I stated that there have been only 44 Presidents of the US, including Donald Trump. That is not a typo. He should be wearing a baseball cap with the number “44” on it. Why? Because Grover Cleveland was both the 22nd and 24th President of the United States. He is the only President to serve two non-consecutive terms. Two terms, but just one person!! This should really be on jeopardy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)