Losers and Suckers

Can anyone seriously doubt that Donald Trump called World War I Marines "losers" and "suckers," as reported on Thursday by Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic? Or that he wondered aloud why anyone willingly serves in our military? And that he didn't want wounded veterans participating in a parade?

No, and here's why: 

These comments follow logically from Trump's own words.

1. Though his most well-known "loser" is probably former Senator and POW John McCain, he has also described many others this way: Bill Kristol, Chuck Todd, Jeb Bush, Karl Rove, Marco Rubio, Rihanna, Seth Meyers, Tina Brown, and a host of unnamed Twitter users.

2. He's disparaged the military before. He called James Mattis "the world's most overrated general"; he said that General John Kelly, his former chief of staff, "misses the action and just can't keep his mouth shut"; and he bullied Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman for his impeachment testimony, calling Vindman "very insubordinate" and someone who "did a lot of bad things."

3. "Suckers" is another one of Trump's words.  It's a concept he fears.  "Why is the United States always the sucker?" he said in February, opining that Europeans take us for granted. And when he announced troop withdrawals from Germany in July, he said, "We don't want to be the suckers anymore."

4. He has no understanding of military service.  As Nancy Pelosi said on Friday, "Every day Trump makes clear that he does not comprehend what it means to sacrifice for one's country--as he consistently puts his own interests ahead of our national security and those who defend it," citing his refusal to stand up to Vladimir Putin. I would add his praise for Chinese dictator Xi Jinping, his coddling of Turkey's President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and his sending troops to build the border wall.

5. Finally, why wouldn't Trump want wounded veterans in his parade? Recall his 2015 mockery of New York Times reporter Serge Kovaleski's disability, or consider Trump's derogatory comments on women's "ugly" faces.  Clearly he disdains anyone who doesn't meet his standard of appearance.

Though General Kelly could confirm The Atlantic report if he were willing to speak out, we don't really need him to.  Donald Trump's history of insults echo from one week to the next.  His language and behavior pollute the office he holds, and for this reason alone we should vote him out.

Character Matters, Mr. President

When I was an English teacher, I would tell my students never to use the word "nice."  It's banal and lifeless.  "What do you mean by nice?" I would ask.  Kind? Thoughtful? Generous? Empathic? Compassionate?  

Yes.  All of the above to define Joe Biden.

In any other election year, a discussion of a presidential candidate's niceness would seem silly.  We'd be concerned about our candidate's positions, qualifications, and experience.  And certainly these matter.  But after nearly four years of dealing with a mean president, niceness matters all the more.

What do I mean by mean?  I might more reasonably ask, Where do I begin?  Examples abound:

Vengeful: Donald Trump's endless retaliation against those who disagree with him or speak out against him.  See Alexander Vindman, the retired Army officer who testified in Trump's impeachment trial.

Scornful: Donald Trump's nasty mockery of others.  See John McCain, former U.S. senator and POW.

Threatening: Donald Trump's Mafia-like menacing.  See Minneapolis and D.C. protesters, who stood up against police brutality.

Misogynist: Donald Trump's constant need to demean women.  See Kamala Harris, U.S. senator and vice presidential candidate.

Cruel: Donald Trump's vicious assaults on those most vulnerable.  See Family Separation policy, a barbaric, inhumane treatment of children and their parents.

It will be interesting to see how the Republican Party whitewashes Trump's heinous behavior at the convention this week.  For if anything became clear during the Democratic National Convention, it was the gratitude from so many for Vice President Biden's kindness to them over the years.  From ordinary citizens to members of Congress, one after another gave examples of Biden's compassion for others.

Why does this matter?

Because, as the Declaration of Independence reminds us, "A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

Joe Biden has the character to preside over our country.  Donald Trump does not.

And The Winner Is. . .

Yesterday's hearings on the attacks in Benghazi featured many aspiring actors.  Here are my Oscar winners:

The "Pontificating Attack Dog" Award to Rand Paul for puffing himself up as he blasted Secretary Clinton.

The "Grumpy, Tired Old Man" Award to John McCain for being exactly that.

The "Diplomat With Dignity" Award to Hillary Clinton for intelligence, clarity, and grace.

The "We Know Better Than You, Little Lady" Award to most of the Republicans, especially Senator Ron Johnson, Representative Joe Wilson, and Representative Dana Rohrabacher for their obnoxious denigration of Secretary Clinton.

The "Most Overstated and Irrelevant Part of the Story" Award to Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday morning news shows, a red herring if there ever was one.

Radical Politics

Paul Ryan and Sarah Palin have something in common: they're a lot more fun and interesting--and more dangerous--than the men at the top who selected them.  Paul Ryan is now electrifying the campaign of his wooden boss in the same way that Sarah Palin did four years ago. 

It's a curious contradiction: while Republicans seem to want some kind of steadfast predictability, as seen in their selections of Mitt Romney and John McCain, they're drawn at the same time to the risky proposals of the Tea Party--but not enough to put forward such candidates for president.  It's as if they're marrying the sure and steady guy and flirting with the unreliable one.

And yet, curiouser still, is the fact that Mitt Romney in some ways hasn't been a sure and steady guy.  He gives off the appearance of a soothing "Father Knows Best" figure but without a consistent record to show what he believes.  Paul Ryan as his choice for vice president, on the other hand, has such a long record of specific policies that we know exactly what he believes.  And what he believes is a problem for women, for the elderly, for students, for workers, and for pretty much all of us--except the wealthy.

In the end, though, his presence on the ticket is a problem for Mitt Romney and the Republicans, for he highlights the party's internal conflicts and its attraction for "radical social engineering," as Newt Gingrich so aptly put it.  The wheel has turned once again: Republicans have replaced Democrats as the party of radical politics.

Muzzle Michele

Can the voters in Minnesota's 6th Congressional District please do all of us a favor and vote Michele Bachmann out of office this November?  The Congresswoman's recent attack on Huma Abedin, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's long-time assistant, is as ignorant and ill-informed as Bachmann repeatedly shows herself to be.  It's depressing that we have such mindless legislators in Washington.

At least John McCain has the sense to call out Mrs. Bachmann for her bigotry.  Going forward, she deserves to be ignored.

Responsible Republicans

When Sarah Palin chose to state her case before the country on the same day as President Obama spoke in Tucson last week, she cast herself as the de facto head of the Republican party. It was a stunning move and, from accounts across the political spectrum, it was a stunning failure. Fortunately.

As I listened to her speech that morning, I was struck by the defensive, angry tone that others have noted, and I was struck by her lack of gravitas, her lack of reflection, and her inability to move beyond herself.

Is this the Republican party at its best? I wondered. Where is the reasonable, dignified leadership that we need from this party? It's a leadership that fails to condemn the extremist wing of its own party, allowing violent rhetoric to fill the airwaves. Almost no one speaks up against the vicious lies circulated about President Obama and the anti-government hatred spewed daily.

The only incident I can recall when any Republican pushed back against the vitriol occurred in the 2008 presidential campaign. A supporter of candidate John McCain derided Barack Obama as "an Arab," to which McCain responded, "No ma'am, he's not, he's a decent family man--a citizen." (Well, sure, many Arabs are decent family men, too, but McCain at least sought to dispel the myth of Obama's citizenship.)

We need more censoring like this from our Republican leadership. Even those of us who are ardent Democrats lose out when the opposing party fails repeatedly to show wisdom and restraint. We need thoughtful, educated people at the top, proposing solutions to real, serious problems, not people who spout slogans and tout tax relief.

I hope that Sarah Palin's shallow presentation last week wakes up the sleeping giant--or rather, the sleeping elephant--of responsible Republican leadership. God knows we need it. As long as Sarah Palin and her ilk constitute the face of the Republican party, we'll remain stuck in hatred and recrimination.