May 20, 2020

Obamagate: Co-ordinating The Cover Story

May 20, 2020/ Francis Menton

When a collection of bad guys pulls off a big heist, or a murder, or another important crime, one of the critical problems they face is co-ordinating the cover story.
The cops may arrest one or more of them, and then question each suspect separately. Any cover stories must be completely consistent if they are to succeed. Inconsistencies in the cover story, even slight ones, will prompt focused questioning that could cause the whole house of cards to collapse.
But co-ordinating cover stories is not so easy. . . .
Now, assume you are attempting to pull off the most egregious abuse of government power in American political history. There must be a better way than Manafort’s to co-ordinate cover stories. Which brings me back to yesterday’s post comparing Obamagate to Watergate, and to the section of that post relating to the personal involvement of the President. . . .

May 19, 2020

Comparison Of Obamagate To The Original Watergate Scandal

May 19, 2020/ Francis Menton

The word “Obamagate” has recently become ubiquitous in the news, referring to spying by Obama administration officials on the campaign and then the transition and administration of President Trump.
The use of the “gate” suffix of course hearkens back to the scandal known as Watergate, the affair that drove President Nixon from office in 1974. Like Obamagate, the Watergate scandal was also about spying by those in power on opposition political actors.
Because of the close similarity of subject matter, it is appropriate to compare the facts of the two scandals.

May 16, 2020

May 16, 2020/ Francis Menton

One of the fallacies of progressivism that I frequently mock at this blog is the proposition that the government can operate without having to make meaningful tradeoffs of one goal or value versus another.
This fallacy appears, for example, in the illusion of infinite resources in the hands of the government. As individuals we all know that we face constrained budgets and limits on what we can do. Eat out too much, and you need to postpone getting the new TV or new car. Decide to become a lawyer, and you will need to forego becoming a doctor. Your money and your time only go so far.
But somehow it can appear that the government is so huge and has such vast resources at its command that there are no practical limits, and no need for tradeoffs. And thus we get monstrosities like the Bernie Sanders (and Joe Biden?) program for a federal government that eliminates all downsides of human life by passing out the infinite free money. Or see the latest “Heroes Act” out of the House of Representatives — $3 trillion to take care of everyone’s pain from the coronavirus response; Medicare for All, Free College, and Batteries not included (yet).
Another aspect of the no-tradeoffs-necessary fallacy is the idea that the right thing for political leaders to do in a crisis is to rely on the “experts.” . . .

May 14, 2020

May 14, 2020/ Francis Menton

As noted in my post a few days ago (“Republican Governors Are Kicking The Butts Of Democratic Governors On Covid-19 Response”), a clear dichotomy has opened up between left and right over whether and how quickly the economy should reopen, now that our pandemic is in decline.
Republicans advocate for a quicker reopening, and many Republican governors are well into implementing that. The President has also come down on the side of optimism and early reopening.
On the Democratic side, the response is something like “YOU WILL HAVE BLOOD ON YOUR HANDS!!!”
The upper right-hand corner of the front page of the New York Times is a place where in the old days you would look for the most important news of the day. These days the article occupying that spot generally has little to do with real news, but instead informs you of the official Democratic Party talking point of the day.

May 11, 2020

May 11, 2020/ Francis Menton

Have you been thinking lately that the more we learn about the Obama administration’s Russia hoax, the less sense it makes? For years now, the working hypothesis of conservative pundits has been that the narrative of Trump campaign collusion with Russia was a Deep State plot from the likes of Brennan/Comey/McCabe/Strzok to weaken and potentially remove Trump from office — a “soft coup,” if you will.
That hypothesis was always hard to understand — why would such high ranking officials take big risks with such a transparently ridiculous narrative with little chance of succeeding? — and in my view has become even less consistent with what we know as more facts have recently come out.
So what was the Russia hoax really about? Here’s my alternative hypothesis. Its origin was entirely about giving Hillary an illicit assist in winning the 2016 election.

May 08, 2020

May 08, 2020/ Francis Menton

The governors of the 50 states got handed a heavy responsibility by this virus to make decisions as to whether to impose a “lockdown” on their respective economies, and if so, how severe of one. Lock down too little, and you could face higher infection and death rates than other states, for which you would get immediate media attacks and blame; but lock down too much, and you could impose massive and potentially unnecessary economic harm on your citizens.
Universally, the so-called “expert” medical and scientific advisors counseled in favor of the most severe possible lockdowns — but then, their focus is only on preventing the deaths, and they have no particular expertise in the workings of an economy.
While the dichotomy is not perfect, in general most Democratic governors opted for early and strict versions of lockdown, and have not begun to ease their lockdowns even now; meanwhile most Republican governors imposed lockdowns later (or in at least one case, not at all), and in less severe form, and have begun loosening them earlier.
The results of the differing policies are far from final at this point, but data have begun to emerge. . . .