“Pondering the Pundits” is an Open Thread. It is a selection of editorials and opinions from> around the news medium and the internet blogs. The intent is to provide a forum for your reactions and opinions, not just to the opinions presented, but to what ever you find important.
Thanks to ek hornbeck, click on the link and you can access all the past “Pondering the Pundits”.
Paul Krugman: The Doctrine of Trumpal Infallibility
Last week John Kelly, the White House chief of staff, tried to defend President Trump against charges that he was grossly insensitive to the widow of a U.S. soldier killed in action. In the process, Kelly accused Frederica Wilson, the member of Congress and friend of the soldier’s family who reported what Trump had said, of having behaved badly previously during the dedication of an F.B.I. building.
Video of the dedication shows, however, that Kelly’s claim was false, and that Representative Wilson’s remarks at the ceremony were entirely appropriate. So Kelly, a former general and a man of honor, admitted his error and apologized profusely.
See? I made a joke!
In reality, of course, Kelly has neither admitted error nor apologized. Instead, the White House declared that it’s unpatriotic to criticize generals — which, aside from being a deeply un-American position, is ludicrous given the many times Donald Trump has done just that.
But we are living in the age of Trumpal infallibility: We are ruled by men who never admit error, never apologize and, crucially, never learn from their mistakes. Needless to say, men who think admitting error makes you look weak just keep making bigger mistakes; delusions of infallibility eventually lead to disaster, and one can only hope that the disasters ahead don’t bring catastrophe for all of us.
Which brings me to the subject of the Federal Reserve. What?
Michelle Goldberg: Democrats Should Embrace Impeachment
Last week, Tom Steyer, the billionaire progressive donor, announced a $10 million campaign calling for President Trump’s impeachment, beginning with a television commercial running in all 50 states. Trump, the spot says, has “brought us to the brink of nuclear war, obstructed justice at the F.B.I., and in direct violation of the Constitution, he’s taken money from foreign governments and threatened to shut down news organizations that report the truth.” Appearing on screen, Steyer asks, “If that isn’t a case for impeaching and removing a dangerous president, then what has our government become?”
It’s a good question. Yet while most elected Democrats probably agree that Trump’s presidency is a nightmare, they’ve been largely reluctant to use the “I” word. The base wants impeachment — according to an August survey from the Public Religion Research Institute, 72 percent of Democrats support efforts to remove Trump from office. But inside the Beltway, calling for impeachment remains strangely taboo.
Some members of Congress are awaiting the results of the investigation being conducted by Robert Mueller, the special counsel, and the case for impeachment may become stronger when his inquiry is complete. Yet whatever Mueller discovers, we have credible reasons for impeachment right now. The Constitution dictates that presidents be impeached for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
But as the Harvard Law scholar Cass Sunstein, author of the recent book “Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide,” told me, that doesn’t mean Congress can impeach only a president who is caught breaking the law. “Crime is neither necessary nor sufficient,” said Sunstein, who emphasizes that his book is not about Trump. “If the president went on vacation in Madagascar for six months, that’s not a crime, but that’s impeachable.”
Ralph Nader: Trump’s Anti-Consumer Agenda Hurts His Voters
As a candidate, Donald Trump promised regular people, “I will be your voice,” and attacked the drug industry for “getting away with murder” in setting high prices for lifesaving medications. But as president, he has declared war on regulatory programs protecting the health, safety and economic rights of consumers. He has done so in disregard of evidence that such protections help the economy and financial well-being of the working-class voters he claims to champion.
Already his aggressive actions exceed those of the Reagan administration in returning the country to the “Let the buyer beware” days of the 1950s.
Though Mr. Trump is brazen in his opposition to consumer protections, many of his most damaging attacks are occurring in corners of the bureaucracy that receive minimal news coverage. His administration, for instance, wants to strip the elderly of their right to challenge nursing home abuses in court by allowing arbitration clauses in nursing home contracts. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has announced that it is canceling a proposed rule intended to reduce the risk of sleep apnea-related accidents among truck drivers and railway workers.
And the Environmental Protection Agency is busy weakening, repealing and under-enforcing protections, including for children, from toxic exposure. Scott Pruitt, the director, went against his agency’s scientists to jettison an imminent ban on the use of chlorpyrifos, an insecticide widely used on vegetables and fruits. Long-accumulated evidence shows that the chemical is poisoning the drinking water of farm workers and their families.
This assault began with Mr. Trump choosing agency chiefs who are tested corporate loyalists driven to undermine the lifesaving, income-protecting institutions whose laws they have sworn to uphold.
Katrina vanden Heuvel: The escalating nuclear threat finally has the public’s attention. Now what?
Nuclear anxiety is on the rise. While President Trump has denied reports that he sought a “nearly tenfold” increase in America’s nuclear arsenal, there is no disputing that the risk of a nuclear catastrophe is escalating on his watch. Trump’s decision to decertify the Iran nuclear deal recklessly imperils the landmark agreement and our security. It also damages the chances of diplomacy with North Korea, which has been ramping up its missile testing program, by signaling that the United States cannot be trusted to keep its word. And with the United States and Russia engaged in an increasingly dangerous cold war, it was reported this weekend that the Air Force is preparing to put nuclear bombers on 24-hour ready alert for the first time since 1991.
With so many causes for alarm, it was wise that the Nobel Committee awarded its Peace Prize this month to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). For too long, many leaders in the United States and around the world have failed to heed the warnings of experts about the escalating nuclear threat. As former defense secretary William J. Perry warned in 2016, “The danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold War and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger.” That people are finally paying serious attention is a positive first step. Now, if we hope to avert a calamity, it is time to consider the alternatives to our current disastrous path.
Eugene Robinson: Congress should give Trump and his generals their marching orders
The Trump administration, its foreign policy largely shaped by military men, urgently needs to tell Congress and the American people what we’re doing in Niger — and where else we’re doing it.
Like most Americans, I had no idea that roughly 800 U.S. troops were deployed in the arid, landlocked West African nation, where four soldiers were killed in an ambush on Oct. 4. Much more troubling is the fact that many key members of Congress — including Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) — were clueless as well.
“We don’t know exactly where we’re at in the world, militarily, and what we’re doing,” Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a champion of the war against terrorism, said Sunday.
President Trump, you will recall, promised during the campaign to scale back military deployments overseas. Of course, he promised a lot of things he cannot or will not deliver. But he has a duty to let Americans know to what ends U.S. military force is being used around the world — and where our troops are being sent into harm’s way. The weeklong focus on Trump’s phone call with the widow of one of the soldiers slain in Niger obscures the central question: Why were they there in the first place?
Recent Comments