Blog - Elisberg Industries

Quote of the Day

6/26/2017

"I try to stay out of politics"
-- Ivanka Trump, Special Adviser to the President

Taking the job of Special Adviser to the President would seem to be quite an incredibly strange way to meet that goal.

That said, I must admit that having Ivanka Trump out of politics is nonetheless a very worthwhile goal and one I applaud her on having and do dearly hope she is able to achieve.

By the way, in the same interview on Fox & Friends, Ms. Trump said that she's not "a political savant." Interestingly, as it happens, when one is Special Adviser to President of the United States, "political savant" is actually one of the main job requirements.

Actually, it was an impressive interview all around, making this more a "Quotes of the Day." Because the First Daughter (or one of them) also said that she's “more interested in being for something than against something.” A certainly good-natured view on life, though a questionable perspective when you're in the position of advising the President of the United States. At least we can thank goodness she wasn't Special Adviser to the President during WWII when we were fighting the Germans and Hitler. Then again, I'm wondering if she holds the same interest when it comes to, let's say, Isis? Or ObamaCare? Or Obama? Or just when it's convenient for her feel-good, but tender heart? And liberals are the ones who are supposed to be the delicate snowflakes.

She's on a roll...

Of course, thanks to the interview she did make clear that she's not a historical savant either or just not basically attentive either by not remembering the famous advice from the founder of her political party, Abraham Lincoln -- "Better to be thought a fool and remain silent, than speak and remove all doubt."

Giving Trump the Boot

6/26/2017

Max Boot is an extremely thoughtful and insightful conservative analyst who is a senior fellow for the Council on Foreign Relations. I don't agree with everything he writes, but I admire that thinking and perspective he puts into his work.

He wrote an article last week the Foreign Relations website which I was going to bring up here at the time, but other news stories got in the way. It had a most-decided provocative title -- all the more so since he's generally a very low-key, even-handed writer -- though as blunt as the article is, he makes his points with highly-researched reasoning. The article is "Donald Trump is Proving Too Stupid to Be President." (The sub-heading is, "'You know, I'm, like, a smart person.' Uh-huh."

He begins the article by saying that Trump is so far from being smart "that he may not be capable of carrying out his duties as president." And Boot then goes on to give example after example.

Like Trump's exchange with a couple of Presbyterian pastors, bragging how well he did with evangelicals -- when they had to explain to him that they weren't evangelical. When he demanded to know what they were, and they answered Presbyterian," he shot back, "But you're all Christians?" The lager point isn't that they had to "reassure" him that they were -- but that Trump himself is Presbyterian.

Or the recent story where Trump tried to convince editors of The Economist that he had come up with the expression "Priming the pump." (When I initially heard this story, it was beyond cringeworthy since I couldn't imagine Trump even having the slightest idea that pumps had to be primed.)

There are more examples, and Mr. Boot goes into a analysis of the difference between "stupidity" and "ignorance," the latter of which his defenders have been trying to explain Trump's gaffes, by his being "new on the job." But as Boot points out, Trump is 71-years-old and has given no sense of learning on the job or wanting to.

As Boot writes, "The surest indication of how not smart Trump is that he thinks his inability or lack of interest in acquiring knowledge doesn’t matter. He said last year that he reaches the right decisions 'with very little knowledge other than the knowledge I [already] had, plus the words common sense, because I have a lot of common sense and I have a lot of business ability.'"

To which Max Boot asks, "How's that working out?"

His analysis jumps off from here, from his firing of James Comey to his responses toward the recent London terror attacks, and leading "code-level" top secret information to Russia, as well as starting a Twitter fight with Qatar, and pulling out of the Paris climate accord because he believes global warming is a hoax. Boot gives Trump defenders' their say -- and then explains why they're wrong.

He ends the article this way --

"The 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that if the vice president and a majority of the cabinet certify that the president is “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office,” he can be removed with the concurrence of two-thirds of both houses. That won’t happen, because Republicans are too craven to stand up to Trump. But on the merits perhaps it should. After nearly five months in office, Trump has given no indication that he possesses the mental capacity to be president."

You can read the whole thing here.

Today's Headline

6/24/2017

"UK Parliament Hit by Cyber-Attack"

Maybe it was that very same 400-pound guy who's living in his parents' basement. Dang, he's good. He's really good.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

6/23/2017

Hats off to CNN for bringing a courtroom artist into today's White House press briefing, where the Trump administration has been banning cameras.

Anything the press can do to shine a big Klieg light on the pathetic offensiveness of the Trump people blocking news access is great. The more the merrier. Perhaps at one point, John Oliver will do a similar thing with White House press briefings that his show has done with Supreme Court sessions, using dogs as stand-ins...

Last Week Tonight A Few Nights Later

6/23/2017

You may have read about John Oliver being sued (along with HBO and Time-Warner) by the very litigious Bob Murray of Murray Energy over a long segment that the comedian did on the coal industry.

Good news for you! We have it here below.

Among the issues that Mr. Murray sued were Last Week Tonight's "intentionally, falsely, and outrageously" erroneous claims that Murray had no evidence that an earthquake caused a mining disaster, and that the show ignored other evidence and used quotes out of context. It should be noted that the evidence Oliver does present is a U.S. government study that says an earthquake did not cause the mine collapse.

The show also presents an outrageously funny story on how Murray Energy was founded -- a story that the company insists is not true...though the story comes from Murray himself, and Oliver repeatedly says he too does not believe the story.

The suit contends, as well, that the show presented "meticulously planned" and "ruthless character assassination" for financial gain and to hurt his mining company.

Watching the segment, these appear to be massive hurdles to prove, though no doubt they'll provide their side or the argument. But given that Oliver and Company knew going in that Murray was highly litigious (as the host explains) and that they had even received a "cease and desist" letter before airing the piece, I suspect they were incredibly careful to get their i's dotted and t's very-well crossed, and vet the thing through corporate lawyers and then re-vet it.

Besides which, it would seem they made it more difficult to prove damages to the business and Mr. Murray himself since they sued only days after the piece appeared. Add to that the burden that, as much as Last Week Tonight presents material in a news-story way, at heart they are a satiric comedy show which, while it doesn't let them off the hook at all, does provide a much, much much higher bar to prove damage, especially against a public figure -- which Mr. Murray is through his many TV and public appearances.

HBO has released a statement standing by the program. After watching the piece, it's easy to see why.

And not only is it very strong, it's also extremely funny. And in the best tradition of Last Week Tonight, do be sure to stick around and watch to the very end.

In the News

6/22/2017

Thus far, four Republicans senators have said "No" to the TrumpCare bill in its current version -- Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz and Ron Johnson, although for different reasons. There is no word yet from Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and Rob Portman, who had been reported on the fence -- or any others, for that matter.

Sen. Paul (R-KY) said they weren't trying to kill the bill, but hoping there could be changes that would make the bill something they'd support.

There are several problems with that. The first is that the four who've thus far said "No," did so for different reasons, as I noted, so that makes fixing it far more of a challenge. Also, the easiest way to pass the bill would be before the House to vote on the Senate bill and approve it, as is -- but with so many changes required in the Senate bill for these four (and it's four just to begin with...) to accept it, that will make House passage of the exact same bill far less likely. And that means Reconciliation would be required, which is a big challenge on such a delicate bill trying to please so many different views.

And all this is before the Congressional Budget Office has weighed in to "score" the bill for its cost and how many Americans will lose health coverage.

And before the public chimes in with its reaction -- that has a starting point of only 17% of the public likes the House version of the TrumpCare bill.

Oh, Really?

6/22/2017

One of the fun sketches that Saturday Night Live would occasionally run in the past, when Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler hosted "Weekend Update" was their "Really!?! with Seth and Amy" segment. Well, as it happens the other night, Amy Poehler was a guest on Meyers' Late Night show, and to the wild and enthusiastic delight of the audience, they brought it back.

Unhealthy Thoughts

6/21/2017

I have no idea if the GOP will be able to pass their "health care" bill. It still seems dicey in the Senate which can't have as few as three defections, and then they have to reconcile the two bills with the even-more partisan House, which has an especially-conservative bill.

But after the two "wins" yesterday in special elections, I suspect Republicans will now feel emboldened that they still have this mandate with the country behind them and so will continue to play Thelma & Louise and drive cheeringly off the cliff.

(Let's quickly recap. Forget that Trump lost the popular vote by three million, though that's the starting point. The more pressing realities are two-fold. First, that the House "health care" bill only has a 17% approval. And second, as good as it is to "win" two congressional elections, a) both were in incredibly safe Republican districts which remarkably lost TWENTY POINTS in each, in just a mere seven months, and b) even had the Democrats won both, the already-big GOP House majority would have bee completely safe. So, celebrating these wins as importantly meaningful and continuing to drive recklessly because all's well is living in a Fool's Paradise, with a cliff up ahead.)

But lets say they do pass a bill, and their representatives all cheer the passage with another group hug and photo at the White House, high-fiving one another in joyous, giddy celebration. The reality, however, that they will then have to face is two-fold: The first is that what the public knows of the Republican plan is so problematic that it has only a monumentally horrific 17% approval. And secondly, the very next day after it becomes law, Republicans will immediately have to live with it as THEIR agenda. Giving literal meaning to the phrase, "The law of unintended consequences."

The thing is, even if it doesn't pass, Republicans still have to live with this. This is a bill that just a paltry 17% of Americans like -- and whether or not it passes, the GOP will have to defend it. Will have to explain to the public why they thought something so deeply disliked was a good thing.

And keep in mind, too, that that meager 17% approval comes before people are affected by it and have their health care coverage cut or lost entirely. And if that overlaps with any of the 17% who today are all for the law (many, perhaps, merely because it was "Obamacare," Obama's law...) -- something that seems likely -- even that horribly low number could drop.

As the phrase goes: Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

Georgia on My Mind

6/20/2017

I've been boggled by nearly all the coverage of the Georgia 6th Special Election for Congress. Mind you, I completely understand why both sides want to win. And why the optics of winning are so especially important.

What I don't understand is why the coverage is focusing almost entirely on those optics rather than the underlying reality.

Make no mistake, winning is the point of any race, and the goal. But this isn't like the Senate where a single seat can make a huge difference towards changing the majority power. Republicans still hold a large lead in the House, and this one election won't change that.

The optics say -- "If Democrat Jon Ossoff wins, that shows that Republicans are in serious trouble because they can't hold onto a deeply Republican seat. But if Republican Karen Handel wins, it shows that the anger against Republicans because of Trump isn't that bad, and they're okay."

Horse-pucky. The Republicans have already lost this race, and it's VERY BAD for them.

The Georgia 6th District is not a toss-up district. It's a heavily Republican District. By all reason, this should be a shoe-in for Republicans. They've held the seat for almost 40 years. And not just held it but by landslide margins. Only seven months ago, they won this very seat by TWENTY-THREE POINTS!

Read that again -- 23 points. (Republican Tom Price got 61.6% and Democrat Rodney Stooksbury only received 38.4%. Out of the 310,000 votes cast, Republicans got 72,000 more than Democrats.)

And in the final polls, Democrat Jon Ossoff was ahead.

And analysts think that it matters if Democrats win this race??? A race that doesn't come even close to changing party leadership in the House??? The Democrats have cut the margin by by 23 points! That's the reality. All we're down to today is "Get Out the Vote." Nothing more.

If Republicans happen to do a better job today getting out the vote and take blessed comfort from that, then they are living in a Fool's Paradise, and they deserve being run over by the bulldozer headed their way as they whistle a happy tune strolling obliviously down the highway.

Before Trump took office, the Georgia 6th was never a race that Democrats were planning on targeting in 2018. They didn't stand a chance of winning it. Winning it?? Good heavens, they lost it only 220 days ago by 23 points. And now, that 23 point safety net is completely gone!

Yes, I know that results also show that Trump only won the district by a few percentage points. But as much as he is driving the reactions, Trump is not running in this election -- the voters of the Georgia 6 are deciding on who they want to represent them. Jon Ossoff or Karen Handel. Who they want to be responsible for their personal issues and concerns. Whose office they can call when they haven't received their Social Security check or have bad mail service. Republicans should be thrilled that Donald Trump isn't actually on the ballot -- given that the only squeaked in seven months ago -- if he wasn't, a tsunami would like wash over the land.

As it is, things are bad enough for Republicans in the Georgia 6th. They lost a TWENTY-THREE POINT cushion in only seven months. And whatever the final results are today, that cushion loss doesn't change. It's gone. And that is horrific news for the Republican Party all over. Whether they view the results that way or not.

The Power of a Good Reminder

6/19/2017

Ivanka Trump sent out a tweet today in which she said -- "When I read about clashes around the world ... I am reminded it is within our power to build a bridge to be crossed."

I had two immediate thoughts when I read this. The first was -- Hold on, wait, you're "reminded"?? That's because it's exactly what the POPE said during the election in response to your father's cry for a dividing wall -- after which your dad then chided him! And then the POPE said it again in early February. For all I know, the POPE said it again directly to you and your father in private when you all just visited him a few weeks ago. I know that Melania isn't great at quoting her sources when speaking, but that's not a great tradition for you to follow.

And the second immediate thought I had is that Trumps should consider not tweeting. I don't mean just your dad, I mean all Trumps. Let your brothers know. Especially Eric who the other week said he didn't think Democrats "are not even people" and likes to retweet hate-spewing white supremacist site. (P.S. See your tweet above about creating "bridges"...)