"...I Don't Hate Donald Trump..."

Hate the sin. Love the sinner.

A classic fifties tune from The Essex comes to mind.

"...easier....easier said than done..."

Hate the sin. Love the sinner

Tall order under the best of circumstances.

Virtually impossible when it comes to Donald Trump.

Almost two years ago, in the course of doing my, then, weekly Sunday night talk/commentary/infotainment program on a well known mid Atlantic news/talk radio station, I found myself regularly, and unfailingly, swimming against what I feared was an insurmountable tide by being out in front of those who were, then, just beginning to warn what would happen should Trump be elected President.

While it might seem self serving at this point in the chronology of it all, my conscience is clear that I did what I could to try and make the case that very little, if any at all, good could come from putting Trump in that position. This highest office in the land, this position of power and authority and responsibility and statesmanship so complex, so intricate, so fundamentally critical to the well being of the entire nation, from sea to shining sea, that, until Donald, only 44 other men have been chosen in the 240 years America has been America.

Now, at the moment that this piece is being written, America is seven months into the four year term that the Constitution mandates and I've personally come to a place where even a hard headed fellow like me can see the futility and wasted energy involved in making any further attempts to signal a warning.

For all of the talk, historically, about "a house divided", for all of the most recent assertions that the Obama years drew a line of divisiveness like none before it, division, as manifested by the election of Donald Trump, has come down to a line drawn in the sand and the cornfield and the city streets that makes the ideological bickering of the Civil War period look like two people arguing over where to have lunch.

The era of Trump has boiled the essence of opinion and philosophy and ideology down to its most basic and primal form.

"...yew is either fer us...or yew is agin' us.."

That sentiment, by the way, more appropriately the mantra of those who did then, do now and will, likely, ever here after support, endorse and, even, admire Trump and what he has done since "solemnly swearing to faithfully execute."

As should come to no surprise to anyone who follows any of my work, either in print or on air, I don't count myself among that number.

So, if you're just joining me for the first time, either in print or on air, and you're still feeling the buzz when you slap on the Make America Great Again cap, I feel like I should be up front with you in the spirit of full disclosure.

I be agin' ya.

That said, while I, again, harbor no illusions or delusions about changing any minds, the writer/commentator in me feels motivated, if not inspired, to take a shot at sharing with those of you ding dang delighted at Donald and his ding dang super duper demagoguery, something that I'd like made very clear.

I don't hate Donald Trump.

In fact, I've even taken a few minutes to put together a little piece within the piece I like to call...

"I Don't Hate Donald Trump".

I don't hate Donald Trump...I don't know Donald Trump. Never met the man. Never met a man or a woman who has met Donald Trump.

For all I know, he may be the warmest, fuzziest, gol' darndest peach of a person, husband, dad, granddad that since Norman Rockwell first started painting poignant portraits of gol' darn peaches of persons,husbands, dads and granddads and generating a world wide "awww" factor in a whole bunch of issues of Saturday Evening Post.

Truth is you just never know the truth of what goes on behind closed doors until, and unless, you have the advantage of hanging out behind those closed doors.

So, and I only repeat myself repeatedly because this piece is for everyone who cares to read it, but is especially offered for those who think that I, and "people like me", hate Donald Trump.

I don't hate Donald Trump....

...I hate that he has made hate acceptable...even respectable....even, to many of his supporters, endorsers and devotees, a quality to be encouraged, emulated, even admired. That encouragement, of course, coming in the form of making excuses, rationalizing, justifying the hateful tone, if not the outright hateful attitude of his presentation, be that in the form of interview, speech or, God in Heaven deliver us from the curse of 140 characters or less, the tweets.

...I hate that he has diminished us, all of us, whether we be "fer" or "agin", exposing our angers and resentments and shallowness and a hundred other mere mortal failings with his near mocking disdain for the concept of calling on our better angels and, instead, employing, and relying on, his signature brand of provoking, inciting, never inspiring a crowd when inciting a mob is available as an option. And for no better reason than his own love of stirring the shit pot because that's what you do when you want, and need , to be the center of attention, the focus of the gaze of others, the elephant in any, and every, room into which you walk.

...I hate that he has broken the covenant between office seeker and voter. The unspoken agreement that has, for hundreds of years, guaranteed that while the majority of us were neither gullible nor naive and were fully cognizant that politics is a brutal business and omelets don't get made without eggs being broken, that no matter how "down and dirty" any political campaign might get  there would always be, at some point, a limit on how down and how dirty, that no matter how ugly it seemingly needed to get in order to succeed in the debate, score in the polls or even win the eventual election, there was a line, a point at which both sides knew that to cross that line meant doing damage to ourselves, and each other, damage from which we might never recover. The line, for example, in a personal relationship between passionate, even furious, verbal assault...and actual physical attack. A line that, once crossed, can never be uncrossed, undone, taken back....possibly never forgiven. Most certainly never, ever forgotten.

...I hate that he has cheapened the office of President of the United States with his stunning, and, yet sadly, foreseeable inability and/or unwillingness to even recognize, let alone embrace, the integrity and sanctity of the office itself, incapable of, again, and/or unwilling to recognize, let alone accept, that the acquisition and holding of that office is a privilege, an honor beyond sacrosanct. And that incumbent upon the occupant of that office is the duty and responsibility to put that honor ahead of all other considerations, most especially, but not limited to, personal ambition, greed, need or simple, basic inevitable human flaws and failings. 44 men before him, most especially including four who were murdered in the service of their country in that office, at least put forth best effort to wrestle with their demons while respecting the majesty of the office. More importantly, 44 men before him understood what the 45th clearly does not....the definition, and context, of the word "majesty" when it comes to being President.

...I hate that he has devalued America in the eyes of the world and the leaders of the other nations in this world, through his embarrassing and juvenile attempts to push and shove his way to the front of the line, as if he were a fifteen year old, still in the fifth grader who lacked the social skills or maturity to understand that bullying somebody out of their milk money might put a few shiny coins in your pocket in the short term but exacts a heavy price from you, and your sycophant gang of gangstas, in the long run.

...I hate that he has lowered the bar, in the level of debate, in the standard of behavior, in the caliber of conversation, in the energy expenditure necessary to engage in thoughtful, insightful, useful discourse among ourselves. In its place, illogic and insurrection, inane rationalizations for indescribably idiotic behavior, "well, he just called his Attorney General a wimp and he wants to dismantle the court system because they don't give him everything he wants...but how about when Bill was getting a blow job from Monica, huh? how about that?'

...I hate that he has either disoriented good people so badly that they don't know which end is up or he has exposed supposedly good people as possibly not such good people after all....people who abhor violence, respect women, profess Christian values, would never think for a second to ridicule those less fortunate, pay their taxes and even hold the door for both their neighbors and strangers....but who can't seem to grasp why those of us appalled by this man are appalled because he called out to rally attendees to beat the shit out of those who disagreed with him, bragged of grabbing women by the pussy, mockingly imitated a reporter with a congenital defect, had deducted more on his own taxes than you and I and our children and their children will ever make in a lifetime and, no matter how trivial it might seem, walks ten steps ahead of his wife at all times and pushes his way through a line of world leaders to make sure he's front and center in the picture about to be taken. And, still, he is defended...and supported....and enabled. What have we become?  Who are we? And what has been done with who we were?.....

...and I hate that all of this, all of it, and all of whatever is to come, comes not as a necessary, if unpleasant, waste product of turning things around, building us up, making our streets and schools safer, getting people to a doctor when they need one, weathering some grand storm or even making America great again...it all comes from the need one man has to feel better about himself than he obviously feels. It comes from what happens when a very flawed, very unhappy, very socially awkward man with no sense of history whatsoever convinces the right number of people in the right number of counties in the right number of states possessing the right number of electoral votes that he can make them feel better about their lives with the stroke of a pen, the bullying of a Senate, the building of a wall, the taking of an oath to faithfully execute the office that a seventh grade civics student can see he has no real clue about what is involved in executing that office with firmness and determination and even controversy, but with equal parts diplomacy, sanctity...and integrity.

That America has been reduced to this, the case is clearly made, is a sin.

Hate the sin. Love the sinner.

I hate the sin.

The rest of that is asking too much.

"...Fame....I'm Gonna Live Forever....Or Until The PAC Money Runs Out...."

It's beginning to look like Andy Warhol was only partially right.

Which part and how right coming up shortly.


Julian Zelizer is a history and public affairs professor at Princeton University and political analyst. He's co-host of the "Politics & Polls" podcast. He published the following op/ed on line recently.


It looks like these days everyone with a Wikipedia entry or a star on the Walk of Fame is thinking of running for public office. 

With the former star of "The Apprentice" inhabiting the White House, the doors are wide open. Rock and roller Kid Rock, known for hits such as "All Summer Long" and "American Bad Ass" is thinking of challenging Democrat Debbie Stabenow for her Senate seat. 

 

 

Another Rock -- former professional wrestler turned action star-hero "The Rock," Dwayne Johnson -- might be the person challenging President Donald Trump for re-election in 2020, assuming the President makes it that far. A campaign committee formally filed the papers to draft him for president. The Rock has been talking about this for some time now. One day we might see POTUS using his signature move, the People's Elbow, on a legislator who refuses to vote for his bills. Even Lyndon Johnson didn't literally twist arms. 

Are we now entering an era of celebrity politics? Has all of the distrust in government and frustration with perpetual gridlock generated a moment when Americans would rather have telegenic entertainment stars making decisions about war and peace, rather than those who have spent their lives in politics learning about public policy, negotiation, deal-making and diplomacy? 

 

Maybe this will be one of the greatest legacies of the Trump presidency -- Americans will prefer presidents who are intriguing to watch over those who can get the job done.

 

Of course, there are many examples in history of celebrities who turn to politics. Some of them proved to be quite effective. The most successful of all was Ronald Reagan, who had been a film actor for many years before entering the world of politics. 

 

Arnold Schwarzenegger, a legendary action hero, and Jesse Ventura, a professional wrestling star, each served as relatively popular governors (California and Minnesota). Sonny Bono served in the House after being part of the famous duo with Cher.

Child actress Shirley Temple became ambassador to Ghana and Czechoslovakia, while California Sen. George Murphy came to Washington after acting in musicals. Fred Grandy, otherwise known as Gopher on"The Love Boat," was a representative from Iowa in the US House for several terms.  

 

Former "SNL" comedian Al Franken is now a prominent Senate Democrat who has been mentioned as a possible presidential candidate. "Real World" star Sean Duffy represents voters from Wisconsin in the House of Representatives The list goes and on.

There is nothing inherently wrong with celebrities making the transition to politics. It is natural that individuals who are comfortable in the spotlight and possess charisma could end up having strong careers in elected office. After all, the basic qualification for success is often the ability to win people over and communicate in the media. Who better to do this than entertainers?

 

But there are risks. It's not only a question of whether celebrities are qualified to hold office. What are their fundamental goals? It's one thing to focus on earning high ratings and drawing big box office returns. It's another to aim for good governance.

 

Some have concluded that President Trump has revealed the ultimate problem with the celebrity-turned-politician: he doesn't really know how to fulfill the job requirements beyond keeping the public interest.

 

As Columbia Law School Professor Tim Wu wrote in The New York Times, "he can still win by losing. For what really matters are the contests themselves -- the creation of an absorbing spectacle that dominates headlines, grabs audiences and creates a world by which every conversation revolves around Mr. Trump and his doings."

 

It should not be surprising that President Trump watches so much television. This is how he envisions the presidency -- it is the ultimate spectacle and the biggest show in the world. The goal of the President is to keep the audience tuned in. In his mind, Hillary Clinton's worst flaw was most likely that some people found her boring.

If we do find ourselves with more celebrity-politicians, we will have a flood of leaders who really don't care about the art of governing. 

 

Ronald Reagan learned the skills of politics as governor of California. Presidents need to understand that the rules and norms of politics have been put into place for a reason -- to prevent the abuse of power and to make certain that our institutions function well in a democratic process. They need to understand the weight that their words carry as people listen to their political leaders in a way that they don't do with their favorite actors, wrestlers or musicians.

 

Many celebrities who go into high office gain some experience first. Reagan delivered speeches, participated in Barry Goldwater's 1964 campaign, and was governor of a large state. Jesse Ventura was the mayor of Brooklyn Park. Political experience is not a requirement to be effective, as Sen. Franken's success has shown. But it can surely help. 

 

Kid Rock or The Rock could turn out to be good politicians, perhaps more in the tradition of President Reagan than of President Trump. Yet the risks are high for our democracy. Given the kind of ongoing chaos and tumult we are witnessing in Washington these days, voters should take a very serious look at these and other celebrities who want to jump into the political ring.

 

Do we want more leaders whose main concern is not what's good for the nation but, "Are the people still watching?"

 

 

 

As Zelizer rightly offers, there is "nothing inherently wrong with celebrities making the transition to politics". One of the ostensibly "good news" realities of a free and democratic operating system is that anyone born in this country who has a hope and a dream for this country and hears the calling to make good on that hope and dream can answer that call by way of offering themselves up to the public as ready, willing and able to make public service their daily purpose.

The key, and not just a little bit critically important, word in that trifecta cliche' "ready, willing and able" of, course, is the word...able.

 

We've all experienced the annoying, if arguably, lovable drunken uncle who is more than ready and way past willing to climb up on stage at the family wedding and offer his services to the reception band as a "sit in for a few numbers" drummer.

 

Uncle's "able" is where it, more often than not, goes south.

 

Because, again, more often than not, it turns out that Uncle is much more than ready, way more than a little willing but, indescribably, and excruciatingly embarrassingly, "un" able.

And while that "ruined wedding" kind of catastrophe becomes the stuff of family legend, a story to be told and re-told at future family gatherings for generations to come, it is a mere awkward passing of gas at an inappropriate moment compared to the risk of catastrophe facing a nation that hands over the drumsticks of democracy to some ready, willing but decidedly unable wanna be drummer.

It's one thing to possess the charisma, savvy and/or star power necessary to  be that different drummer capable of selling people on the idea of marching to this or that different beat.

 

It's quite another to be possessed only of that charisma or star power, resulting in a nation finding itself wandering aimlessly through the lyrics of a George Harrison song.

 

"When you don't know where you're going / any road will take you there."

 

2017, and 2018 and 2020 just up that road a piece, for that matter, is hardly a first rodeo when it comes to the presence, and influence, of star power in top tier politics.

 

Surely, even colonial times in America found the charm and/or charisma of this Jefferson or that Quincy Adams sufficiently powerful to have, at least, some influence on the affections of the electorate.

 

After all, all these generations later, one of those early American superstars has found his way into contemporary superstardom.

 

Cue the cast of "Hamilton".

 

And, in the pages of more modern times, historians agree that not just a little of what put John Kennedy in the White House in 1960 could be classified as star power. After all, it's not hard to make the case, given that prior to the arrival of Jack and Jackie and Caroline and John, Jr on the national scene, America hadn't seen hide nor hair of Mamie Eisenhower on the covers of the celeb fan rags of the times, Photoplay and Modern Screen Magazine,among others.

But, right there, clear as Camelot, was Jack and Jackie and Caroline and John, Jr.

It's worth noting, though, that the mention of Kennedy as a baseline on the political star power readout is applicable in the extreme, given where that 1960 baseline lies as opposed to 2017 and 2018 and 2020 just up that road a piece.

Kid Rock was born Robert Ritchie January 17, 1971 in Romeo, Michigan to William "Bill" Ritchie, a car dealer who owned several local dealerships, and Susan Ritchie. .He grew up on a six-acre luxurious estate where Robert regularly helped pick apples and cared for the family's horses. Ritchie found small-town life dull and became interested in rap music, learning how to breakdance and participating in talent shows in the Detroit area.At age eleven, he joined a breakdance crew called the Furious Funkers and taught himself to work a cheap belt-driven turntable. In high school, Ritchie deejayed at parties for beer. He eventually joined Bo Wisdom of Groove Time Productions in Mt. Clemens, Michigan to perform basement parties for $30 a night. He chose his stage name while performing at these venues; club goers dubbed him "Kid Rock" after they had enjoyed watching "that white kid rock."

Ritchie eventually ran away to Mt. Clemens at 15. He was forced by a local drug gang known as the "Best Friends" to sell drugs out of a car wash at which he worked. In an attempt to keep the kids out of trouble, a man in the neighborhood organized a rap group. While performing, Rock befriended producer D-Nice of the legendary hip-hop group Boogie Down Productions. When Rock opened for BDP one night, D-Nice invited an A&R representative from Jive Records to see him perform. This meeting led to a demo deal that developed into a full record contract.

Against his parents' wishes, Rock signed the deal at age 17. He later became part of the Straight From The Underground Tour alongside several major rap artists, including Ice Cube, Too Short, D-Nice, Mac Dre, and Yo-Yo.

 

Young man makes good both a proud American tradition and an accomplishment worthy of acknowledgement but, also, fair to say, that Robert Richie was not , then, nor is he now, ever going to be mistaken for Jimmy Stewart.

 

Yet, he, like Mr. Smith, has ambitions to go to Washington.

 

Meanwhile, let's skip over the trillion times told details of the Kennedy early years and do a fast bullet point sum up of the pre-Presidential chops.

• son of the one time Ambassador to Great Britain with extensive experience in foreign travel and education
• graduate of Harvard University
• Pulitzer Prize winning author and historian
• six years as a member of the House of Representatives
• eight years as a member of the United States Senate with memberships on Labor, Governmental Operations and Foreign Relations committees

Yes, he was young and vibrant and charismatic, the 1960's equivalent of the "babe magnet". And, with his mastery of the, then, new and largely untested medium of television, a pioneer in the now common place art of media manipulation.

 

But, high office was a high rung on a ladder he had climbed since childhood. 

And he had been working toward achieving the Presidency of the United States, in some measure, since, at least, twenty years before he got there.

As opposed to the current resident at 1600 Pennsylvania who, as Zelizer points out, "doesn't really know how to fulfill the job requirements beyond keeping the public interest."

 

Naysayers and the predictably predictable trolls will, of course, snark back that Kid Rock isn't talking about running for President, he's talking about running for the Senate.

To that, of the myriad things I can offer in response, let me go with this one.

Sit down and shut up.

Oh...and myriad means a countless or extremely great number.

Obviously, Kid Rock is talking about running for the Senate and not talking about running for the Presidency.

Yet.

No one ever talks about running for the Presidency until they start talking about it.

Even Trump didn't talk, seriously, about it until two or so years ago, while he continued to gain experience, deepen his knowledge, broaden his perspective and further his understanding of the intricate and complex workings of the American governmental system, as well as the myriad factors influencing the socio-economic and geopolitical conditions that critically impact not only the well being and safety of this nation, but this nation's contributions to the global community as he served faithfully and diligently in the variety of elected offices which he held between......

Oh. Wait.

 

The "era of celebrity politics" that Julian Zelizer refers to, has, admittedly, a certain visceral appeal.

 

After all, celebrity, fame and all their tinseled trappings are a temptation pretty hard to resist, let alone ignore.

 

But, like, say Kripsy Kreme doughnuts, celebrity and fame can be tempting, tasty and totally devoid of any benefit or nutritional value whatsoever.

 

And while handing over the drumsticks to drunken Uncle might ruin a reception, it's practically a treasured memory compared with handing over the national budget or responsibility for national healthcare or, Katy, bar the door, the launch codes to somebody whose charisma, savvy and star power can get them the necessary votes to acquire a gig but who doesn't have even close to the chops to begin to actually do the gig.

 

In fairness, Kid Rock could get elected to the Senate and turn out to be the greatest statesman the Republic has seen since, say, ....what was the name of that superstar again?

 

Oh. Right. Cue the cast of "Hamilton".

 

Chances of that happening, of course, are pretty slim.

 

Not to be confused with Slim Shady, which is a nickname of rapper Eminem whose real name is Marshall Mathers who, at least at this writing, isn't talking about running for anything.

 

Yet.

 

Andy Warhol was only partially right.

 

"...in the future," Warhol once wryly observed, " everyone will be world famous for fifteen minutes."

 

More and more each day, it's starting to look like Andy should have tweaked that fifteen minutes thing and gone with the more accurate.....

 

"...term of two, six....or four....years."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"...Seriously, Stop Trying To Lower The Damn River.....Raise The Bridge..."

It is, admittedly, one of the more difficult self admissions to make.

Took me six full months, give or take.

Millions are still struggling with it, perhaps getting this close and then losing ground, falling back into bad habits, returning to the struggle.

Accomplishment, though, remains both beneficial and necessary.

More on that shortly.

Social media, conventional news sources and generic backyard fence gossipers went borderline ballistic over the weekend when Donald Trump had to step out of one of the meetings at the G2 summit in Hamburg and stepping up to have a seat in his place was his director of the Department of Assorted First Ladies, daughter Ivanka.

For those unfamiliar with the Trump family paradigm, Ivanka is the daughter from Trump's marriage to his first wife, Ivana, a wife and mother herself and, of course, a debatably successful dress and/or shoe entrepreneur.

Not to mention, of course, her heretofore unknown resume' mentions of geopolitical, socioeconomic and global diplomacy expertise.

And for those whose awareness comes mostly from E!TV and/or TMZ, Ivanka is the daughter who, according to Donald, were she not Donald's daughter, Donald would probably be dating. 

Oh...that Ivanka. Yes, that Ivanka.

International perspicacity and/or incestuous potential aside, when it comes to the list of those who wield a considerable amount of influence and power in Trump's inner circle, Ivanka clearly has a seat at the table.

And Saturday, she clearly had a seat at the table.

The predictable brouhaha sparked by her sitting at the grown up table in Germany was, obviously, predictable. And the squawks, slams, screams, shouts and saying of neighs were shots heard round the world.

But let's put a pin in righteous indignation for a few minutes and talk about wasted ammunition.

German chancellor Angela Merkel, whose disdain, displeasure and, let's face it from the look on her face most of the time, contempt for Donald is probably sufficient to qualify her for immediate membership in the Democratic Party was actually among those who came to Ivanka's defense regarding Tablegate.

Merkel, who served as the host leader of this year's summit, said at a news conference that it was up to individual nations to decide who represents them, Bloomberg reported.

"The delegations themselves decide, should the president not be present for a meeting, who will then take over and sit in the chair,” Merkel said, according to the report.

“Ivanka Trump was part and parcel of the American delegation so that is something that other delegations also do. It’s very well known that she works at the White House and is also engaged in certain initiatives.”

And, in fairness, it should be noted that no major decisions were made, policies enacted or firm commitments as to international treaties, where to have lunch or what countries Russia should resist annexing next while Ivanka took part, so, no worries on the future of mankind front, anyway.

I mean, it's not like some political dilettante with nothing more than a staggeringly over inflated sense of self worth and a less than Rhodes Scholar fan base to offer up as proof of savvy was joining a meeting of experienced, mature, responsible and principled world leaders.

Like I said, the dilettante had stepped out for a few minutes, so Ivanka stepped up.

Try and keep up.

Here's this not so subtle snarkers two cents re' Angela's analysis.

Yeah, what she said.

The problem with the continued instant, hair trigger pulling at any and everything that can or, even under the thinnest of circumstances, might be construed as a Trumpian faux pas/fuck up is that the continued, hair trigger pulling muddies the waters of wisdom with a whole lot of a contemporary spin on that oldie but goodie, "crying wolf."

And shots, like those, fired across Trump's bow, or even directly at his bow, constitute wasted ammunition because they don't inflict any kind of wound on the intended target and, like one of those sci-fi creatures who absorb the weapon's energy and grow stronger as a result, this ceaseless sniping just fires up the faithful, further empowering the Unpresident.

Not to mention a muzzle flash that inevitably blinds the shooter to the real threat.

The problem, there, Quick Draw, isn't Ivanka sitting at some round table.

The problem is Daddy sitting behind that Oval Office desk.

But, here's the more practical, seems to get lost point in this flurry of not so friendly fire. I offered this up yesterday when posting a link to, and commenting on, the "breaking news" of Ivanka seemingly driving while Donald dallied.

To those bunged about this or any thing else Trump says or does, GIVE IT UP..HE DOESNT CARE!!!.....and as long as his adoring groupies show up at the love rallies, HE WONT CARE !....and all of this hand wringing and whining is waste of time...get busy looking for and getting behind the next, fresh face who can send this clown packing as soon as Electorally possible..

For those inclined to snort or sniffle derisively, by the way, at the use of capital letters in social media posts (it is considered the textual version of yelling pretty loudly), I'd offer that until Facebook gives me the option to italicize or underline within a post, capital letters are the only option when it comes to adding passion or urgency to this or that part of any point being made.

Meanwhile, back to the point.

I said, at the outset, that there exists a very difficult admission many of us are faced with making.   It was, in fact, precisely those "many of us" I was addressing in that capital letter sprinkled post yesterday.

And here's what needs to be swallowed, with a little splash of savvy and even a tiny twist of irony to add a little fun to the flavor.

Trump zealots (and let's just cut the crap...those still supporting this guy by this point have long ago mutated from followers, fans or even, just, supporters) have been doing their own more than fair share of pissing and moaning for nigh on a year now as to why those of us who refuse to accept that Donald is President... refuse to accept that Donald is President.

The reasons why, at least to our way of thinking, are obvious, numerous, egregious...and absolutely useless.

Because Donald is Donald, has always been Donald, shall always be Donald and neither heaven, Earth, nor any voice coming out of any mouth in existence that isn't the voice coming out of Donald's mouth is going to have the slightest effect on anything that he says or does or has yet to say or do.

And while the Samantha Bees and John Olivers and Trevor Noahs and Bill Mahers and Stephen Colberts are, depending on personal taste, all very adept at pillaging and sacking and skewering the Von Trump family singers, they are all, to a pundit, preaching to their own choirs. Inspiring the already inspired. Rallying the already rallied. Telling those who don't need to be told what they know that which they already know and dont need to be told.

Kind of like the way Donald talks to his peeps at those aformentioned love rallies.

Meanwhile, Rome burns while we fiddle with our respective favorite diddling.

So, you see, Trump zealots? You've been asking all along why we don't get it.

Well, this guy gets it.

Except, of course, that we've both been guilty of misguided effort.

Because I'm now giving the right answer.

But you've been asking the wrong question.

You're asking "why don't you accept that Donald Trump is our President?"

When what you really mean, by the question, is "when are you going to embrace and support Donald Trump as our President?"

The answer to that one hasn't changed a lick in pert near a year now.

NEVER.

Oh....and this blog site offers up the option to italicize and underline.

They just don't convey the passion or urgency of the point I'm making.

I admit that he is the President.

Putting any effort into anything other than getting him out of there, meanwhile, isn't on the table.

No matter which of the Trumps is sitting there.

"...Not Much Of A President...And He's No Jimi Hendrix, Either..."

Great musicians will tell you that the difference between just playing an instrument and playing an instrument brilliantly lies not in knowing what to play.

Rather, it's all about knowing what not to play. And when not to play it.

Whatever else Trump is, or isn't, or turns out to be by the time this Twilight Zone episode of a "presidency" is over, one thing is sure fire certain.

Trump is not a great musician.

 Jen Psaki, is a political commentator and spring fellow at the Georgetown University Institute of Politics and Public Service, was the White House communications director and State Department spokeswoman during the Obama administration.  She offers an insider's point of view on the summit showdown.

The Russians just played the President. It was predictable. And he let it happen.

On paper, Vladimir Putin should not have had the upper hand going into the meeting. 

To start with, Russia has been living with sanctions put in place more than three years ago because of their annexation of Crimea. 

And most Americans, save a few people including the President of the United States, are confident that Putin led the Russian intervention into the American election and into many other elections around the world. 

President Obama booted out nearly three dozen spies in December and closed two compounds, and there are many, from both parties, calling for an additional round of sanctions on Russia

We should have had some leverage. So what happened?

To start with, the Russians are skilled public manipulators. 

When I was at the State Department, the country that was easiest for our team to work with on logistics -- whether it was access to the press, or when to do statements or take questions -- were the Russians. They understand, better than most, the importance of the public side of diplomacy. It made planning easy, but it also required on-the-fly adjustments to make sure that the Russians didn't read out meetings or characterize conversations without the perspective of the United States. And they still got the best of us from time to time.

They know how to stage-manage and how to set the expectations for global events. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is a smooth operator who knows how to charm cameras and international audiences. He is visible at international events and followed by a gaggle of adoring state-run media. He also rarely shies away from answering questions, holding press conferences, or reading out meetings. He has been on the international scene as foreign minister for 13 years, and as the UN ambassador for 10 years before that, and it shows.

Putin may have less of a warm diplomatic bedside manner, but he understands the art of presentation and how to set a trap.

And set a trap is exactly what he just did.

The Russians telegraphed in advance of the meeting that their agenda was to 1) publicly mend the relationship, 2) gain a better understanding of US policy, and 3) discuss joint concerns over terrorism. They scored on all three. 

Their previewing kept expectations low and made clear that there simply would not be enough time to talk about Ukraine.

And how did the United States preview the meeting and set the table for the most important diplomatic engagement this summer? 

Just yesterday, Donald Trump questioned the validity of American intelligence on foreign soil and then questioned whether other countries or actors were involved in the hacking.

But before that, H.R. McMaster, the President's national security adviser, previewed the meeting with President Putin by saying there was "no specific agenda -- it's really going to be whatever the President wants to talk about."

The problem is that the expectation-setting and previewing of important diplomatic meetings does more than just fill wire reports and cable air time. It sends the message about what the United States expects to accomplish, how prepared we are for the engagement and also puts the difficult topics on the table that are the core purpose of these meetings.

We did a background briefing with policy experts in advance of nearly every trip Secretary John Kerry did when I was at the State Department. These briefings were often on the plane late at night or early in the morning, sometimes at Andrews Air Force Base and even on the ground. They were demanded by the press corps, but also benefited the United States because they allowed us to set the table for our engagements.

Immediately following the meeting, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson appeared on television making clear that President Trump had repeatedly raised Russian meddling in the meeting. That sounded like a positive development until he said President Trump has decided to focus on "how do we move forward from something that may be an intractable disagreement at this point." 

This statement was quickly followed by Foreign Minister Lavrov appearing on television to say that President Putin had denied involvement, Trump said reports of meddling were exaggerated and he accepted Putin's denials. 

Leading American intelligence agencies, Republicans and Democrats in Congress and many members of his own administration are confident that the Russians intervened in the American election last year. But a simple assurance from President Putin overrides that.

You don't get a lot of shots at pressure in diplomacy. And after you've let your adversary off the hook, you certainly don't get to apply that pressure again. As far as the Russians are concerned, the public case is closed. 

The problem is that the free public pass doesn't make it harder for Russians to proceed with their ongoing efforts to intervene in American democracy, to create confusion and disarray in our system.

And there are ample opportunities.

There are two governor's elections this November, and an additional 36 in 2018. There are

34 Senate seats up in 2018 and every single seat in the House of Representatives. Not to mention that just last year, the Russians potentially hacked into 21 states' electoral systems

And instead of presenting evidence during his meeting with President Putin and making clear that he would stand with Democrats and Republicans and the leading intelligence agencies, Trump accepted the assurances of Putin all while smiling in front of the cameras. And the Russians have photos -- that they are already expertly spreading around the Internet -- to prove it.

In keeping with the already deeply entrenched tradition of "you is either fer us or agin us" that the days of Trump has set loose in the American way of doing things, fine point discussion and/or dissertation on Trump's "performance" in the Putin meeting is a waste of time.

Those whose tantalized taste buds remain hopelessly addicted to the Kool Aid, the folks to whom Trump was referring when he said he could shoot somebody in Times Square and still be able to count on their votes, are applauding and cheering their boy wonder, confident that he didn't take any shit from that Commmie bastard and that, oh, you can bet the farm, Mabel, it's all part of the grand and master plan that their hero has to not only make America great again, but get those foreign fuckers back in line, too.

That brings us around to today's "Reasons Why Those Of Us Who Are Annoyed With How Stupid Trump Supporters Can Be Are Annoyed With How Stupid Trump Supporters Can Be # 73...."

The people who bluster and blow about how great it is to have a president who "shoots from the hip", "tells it like it is", "doesn't bother with trivial things like prepping for meetings" etc are the very same people who would go BAT SHIT CRAZY if their favorite team got its ass kicked in the Super Bowl because the head coach didn't bother prepping his team for the game because "he was smart, real smart, some people say terrifically smart" and didn't need to be bothered with trivial things like having his shit together before walking on to the field....

Authentically smart people know what they don't know...morons know everything...and not a damn thing.....

Great musicians will also tell you that morons don't know a damn thing about when to play...or not to play.

Oh...and that they are cock sure they don't need to be bothered wasting a single minute practicing.

The end result, sadly, and inevitably, is a piss poor musician.

And a very sad song.