HELLO, CHICKENS, WELCOME HOME TO ROOST!

By Edwin Cooney

There were several very telling aspects to the House Judiciary and House Intelligence Committee hearings last Wednesday.

The first was Robert Mueller's very appearance before those committees despite their foreknowledge of the nature of his testimony. It was obvious to me that Mr. Mueller was a very reluctant witness.  After all, in spite of all the performance and testimonial reviews afterward, Bob Mueller wasn't on trial. What was on trial were the political expectations of his inquisitors. When all was asked and answered, it was those expectations that were really found wanting. As I see it, it was the objectives of both pro and anti Trump investigators that were on trial and neither was sustained.

Because Congress knew what it could and couldn't expect from Robert Mueller, it is obvious that Wednesday's hearings were little more than what's often been labeled a political “dog and pony show." Congress has not only the right but even the obligation to investigate, but congressional investigations are supposed to produce legislation rather than merely that which satisfies some political group’s preconceived explanations of what did or didn't happen to create an unacceptable situation. Additionally, because most members of Congress already know that Russian intervention in America's political campaigns has already begun and is continuing, any ongoing investigation of the 2016 campaign without substantial additional information as to who was behind it is worse than silly.

There's a significant irony in this whole situation. Historically, Republicans are more suspicious than Democrats of Russia's motives and intentions in foreign affairs, while the Democrats often take the long view of Russian attitudes and actions. Even more to the point, Republicans are historically suspicious of those who may be closely associated (as Mr. Trump clearly appears to be) with Vladimir Putin, a former low level officer in the Soviet Union's KGB. One wonders (although not too intensely) if candidates Clinton or Obama would get the same assumption of innocence from the GOP as President Trump!

Finally, unless Congress intends to impeach President Trump, and that would be a legitimate if risky venture, it's time for Congress, as an institution, to get off his back. (Note: I'm not suggesting that presidential candidates or the Democratic Party get off his back, I'm addressing Congress! As far as I'm concerned, the people can crawl all over him!)

Exactly 20 years ago, Conservative Republicans raised their hands in horror about an immoral presidency. They insisted that Bill Clinton's moral and illegal misbehavior was clearly the legitimate motive behind their impeachment effort. At the same time, liberal Democrats, including probably most of the would-be presidents in 2020, insisted that Bill Clinton's behavior was purely a private matter. This included feminists, the ACLU and, to some degree, libertarians. Today we see the above constituencies on opposite sides when it comes to presidential behavior. Conservatives and fundamentalist Christians insist that they didn't elect a “Boy Scout" and that President Trump's behavior can be forgiven so long as he "makes America great again” and disassociates himself from any Socialist or non Free Market doctrine. (As I've written many times in these pages, I don't know about anything that's free in a money market — do you?)

What I find amazing as I compare Bill Clinton's and Donald Trump's respective presidential crises is how little any principle has to do with them. President Clinton lost a civil suit to Paula Jones which cost him about eight hundred grand plus lawyers' fees, but it didn't cost him his office. (Had I been in the Senate, I'd have convicted him on the obstruction of justice charge!)

The bottom line, or if you prefer, the home “roost” is that there's historically little principle behind presidential impeachment efforts. Andrew Johnson defied a law the Supreme Court later declared unconstitutional. (That was the Tenure of Office act requiring the president to get the Senate's permission for him to dismiss a cabinet member.) Bill Clinton was impeached over a civil suit  and Donald Trump, if Congress continues to be bullheaded about it, would be impeached basically because so many people think he is "an S.O.B.”! And believe me, that's purely political.

Remember, impeachment is neither criminal nor civil. Impeachment is political as is the upcoming 2020 presidential campaign. Hence, I assert the following:

Congress, drop impeachment efforts. They are no longer your business.

Conservatives and Liberals, forget your “principles." History shows you haven't any. All you have are Republican and Democratic agendas.

Finally, for better or worse, it's all up to the people. Of course, you'll do your best to manipulate the outcome, but at its worst both saints and self-serving jerks have a home in American politics.

Thus, hello again, Chickens! Welcome back to your roost! 

Oh! I wonder, was that an egg or something more messy that just dropped into my open hat?

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

YACK! YACK! YACKITY YACK! - THAT'S NEWLY MINTED PRESIDENTIAL SMACK!!!

By Edwin Cooney

On Friday, January 20th, 2017, Donald John Trump became the nation's 45th President and the thirteenth Chief Executive in my lifetime. From the time I  was in my early teens, presidents' backgrounds, beliefs, promises, dislikes, and personalities have been of keen interest to me. The instrument they use to achieve the presidency is that of a political party and the method they have utilized to become president for the last century is their individual participation in a presidential campaign. Presidential campaigning  goes as far back as 1840, but not until 1912, the year that William Howard Taft, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson all ran, did presidential candidates themselves participate much in them.

Living in Upstate New York which was mostly Republican, I didn't hear much of anything good about Harry Truman until I was in college. He was "give 'em hell Harry,” of course, but he was also known as "Harry S stands for nothin' Truman.” (The Trumans couldn't decide whether Harry's middle initial “S” stood for grandaddy Anderson Shipp Truman or granddaddy Solomon Young. To confuse matters a little more, Harry was named after his maternal uncle, Harrison Young, although his name is Harry not Harrison. No stranger to criticism as a failed haberdasher and an undeservedly labeled gangster,  Harry once put it this way: "I don't care! There's nothin' new they can say about me! It's all been said!”)

Ike, having been first a war hero and second a mere president, was harder to pick on. However, even with his engaging smile and noble heroism, political detractors found ways to ridicule him. Ike was old, bald, his speech syntax was a little off-kilter now and then. He was "grandfatherly," liked to read mostly westerns, and seemed to play golf more than he signed or vetoed legislation. Some considered him temperamentally cold and lacking in vision. However, despite themselves, most Americans, truly liked Ike. You had to — you couldn't help yourself!

Largely ignorant of young Jack Kennedy's extramarital peccadillos, Americans were literally wowed by his Harvard style, his good looks and his often self-deprecating sense of humor. (He once quipped that his rich father absolutely refused to pay for a "...political landslide!”)  Ronald Reagan, twenty years later, used his handsome physiognomy and Hollywood style of entertainment and humor to wow much of America. Reagan's humor was politically sardonic and often misleading in order to make an ideological political point, but it was exceedingly infectious and persuasive.

As human as presidents ultimately are, their follies, foibles, affectations, and assets ultimately have an effect on the national mood — and the national mood has a tendency to eventually dictate national policy, sometimes for as long as a generation. What isn't clear is whether a successful presidential campaign reflects the true sentiment of a free people or how much it manipulates the reaction of the voting public. 

What's most disturbing about President Trump's quarrel with Congresswomen Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib isn't his opposition to what they say or how they oppose his policies, it is his willingness to stir up their ethnically and racially biased opponents. President Trump invariably ridicules and dehumanizes his opposition. He seems totally tone deaf to the very existence of the essence of political liberty — the right and even the obligation to criticize any incumbent administration. Even worse, he has abandoned the role of recent presidents to act as a national arbiter of disputes, a presidential expectation since the days of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Sadly, we've entered a new era in national presidential politics, the era of presidential smack talk. It is on the level of professional wrestling and the worst of sports smack talk. A few years ago, Torrold Deshaun Smart (known as Rod Smart) adopted the name (or handle) "He Hate Me." That is, all of his opponents oppose him because they hate him. Such a sentiment invariably appeals to the champions of any underdog. Mr. Trump is always an underdog. Apparently, he believes America is, too. That’s both sad and bad. 

It’s an appeal to angry pride rather than to patriotism.

It can be argued of course that why we choose one presidential candidate over another is ultimately irrelevant so long as we make the best choice.

As tedious and even boring as an issue-laden campaign may be, our genuine hopes and fears really matter more than any president’s angry inclinations. 

YACKITY YACK!! That’s presidential smack! Too dangerous to ignore, it’s fit only to deplore. It’s hardly patriotic, it’s mostly Trumpian exotic! Too deadly to swallow, so in it, sadly we’re left to wallow. 

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

WRONG ISSUE - WRONG DIAGNOSIS!

By Edwin Cooney

I'm going to try reining in my indignation over this topic partly because up until a short time ago I had, much to my regret, been slow in realizing the full gravity of the issue. The topic is the immigration kerfuffle — and a kerfuffle (or fuss if you prefer) is exactly what it has become! Even worse, up to this point its real significance has been politicized to suit the fortunes of both liberal and conservative "would be” presidents and our incumbent president. What we need to do to really and truly get to the bottom of this issue is to develop a new paradigm or way of thinking to approach this grave matter. So, here it goes!

For most Americans, the issue lately has become the “illegal” status of refugees  attempting to cross the Mexican border to enter our country. As one of President Trump's supporters recently asked, "What part of illegal don't these leftist Liberals and Democrats understand?" The answer to that question is simple. There must always be a limitation to what is legal or illegal. Since the founding of our republic most Americans (with some very notable exceptions) have required our laws to provide "...justice to all.” That's what we mean when we pledge allegiance to the flag. My counter question is, "what part of humaneness don't you understand?”

Any historic review of our immigration policy largely reflects our national and international prejudices and needs which were mostly practical. With the exception of our unfortunate and disgraceful treatment and imprisonment of the Japanese people in the US who were rounded up during World War II, we don’t officially worry much about the policies and politics of immigrants' native nations. Therein lies the real heart of our current immigration crisis.

To me, the question isn't the legal or illegal status of Central American immigrants here in the United States. It is their status at home.

Had President Trump recognized how badly the governments of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador were mistreating or allowing their citizens to be mistreated, he could have alerted the Organization of American States as well as the United Nations. As I see it, humanity would have been forced to support his call for action against these governments. President Donald J. Trump could have been an international hero, a defender of human rights. There's much more that can be written on that aspect of the president's prerogatives, but there's a more compelling line of inquiry that must be taken. Here is a set of questions for you.

How often do you find it convenient to move, even within your own hometown? When you make that decision, is it a casual decision even with all of the conveniences which would be available to you via well-financed and equipped American moving companies?

How far do you like to walk when you move? Have you ever walked across a foreign country? How often do you walk even a city block during your move? What would compel you to subject your own children to such a venture? When you do decide to move, don't you expect to be accepted — if not warmly welcomed — by your new neighbors?

Finally, how often have you had to move in terror? Is a status of civil legality really equivalent to the status of terror? How does our official lack of compassion toward immigrants square with our religious doctrines?

It will be argued that our attitude toward "illegals" is consistent with our right to ensure our national security especially since 9/11.Unfortunately, that legitimate obligation is consistent with our historic "nativism" toward the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Japanese, and the Chinese, as well as with our almost ingrained anti-Catholic, Jewish, and Islamic prejudices.

As I understand it, by the time you receive this column in your inbox, the federal government, under the direction of a "Conservative Republican” president, will have begun invading American cities and neighborhoods to remove and deport “undesirables" along with any criminals who may be present. Clearly the law in this instance draws no distinction between the good and the bad.

The fact of the matter is that since 9/11 we've proven the truth of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's most famous observation which I hereby slightly alter:

We've become a nation that has surrendered to "...fear itself!”

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

OKAY! YOU FIGURE IT OUT - IT'S WAY BEYOND ME!

By Edwin Cooney

Most of my friends were taught by their parents to figure things out for themselves when suffering through a dilemma. My parents must have been Trumpites  because they raised me to realize that I have no problems that ultimately aren't someone else's to figure out. In other words, others tackle the problem and I merely "sop up the syrup," as they say! So, here's your problem for the week!

What is the real significance of the Fourth of July? The problem is greater than most of us realize. So, you want examples? Okay!

Did you know that John Adams, who chaired the five man committee of the Second Continental Congress that was charged with drawing up a "Declaration of Independence,” refused to celebrate the fourth day of July as our national holiday because, after all, Congress voted to support independence on Tuesday, July 2nd, 1776. 

Did you know that late 18th Century Virginians considered Independence Day to be a New England holiday since Boston, Cambridge and Lexington, Massachusetts were where most of the trouble was started and where the first blood was shed?

Despite the Virginians’ attitude, President Thomas Jefferson was the first chief executive to celebrate Independence Day at the White House on Saturday, July 4th, 1801. He even handed out sweets and drinks at his own expense to anyone who visited that day. I've also read that they still hand out drinks and sweets each July 4th at Monticello! Hey! Let's drop in!

Most of us know by now that Jefferson and Adams died on Tuesday, July 4th, 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of our independence. A few even know that former President James Monroe became the third president to die on July 4th. Monroe died in 1831 while living with his daughter in New York City. However, few people realize that one president, Calvin Coolidge, was born at midnight on Thursday, July 4th, 1872. (It's been said that Calvin actually cried out a minute or so before the 4th, but his ever vigilant father, Justice of the Peace John Coolidge, nudged the minute hand on the family grandfather clock — just a tiny bit, you understand — to make little Calvin's birth "nationally significant.”)

Although July Fourth became a federal holiday in 1870 under President Ulysses S. Grant, federal workers weren't paid during their federal holiday until FDR changed that for Friday, July 4th, 1941.

Since Tuesday, July 4th, 1916, Nathan's on Coney Island in New York Harbor, has held a worldwide hotdog eating contest. Joseph Christian (Joey) Chestnut is the current competitive eating World Champion. (Surprisingly, Joey is 6 foot 1 inch and weighs only 230 pounds. Apparently there is a healthy methodology for professional overeaters!)

The national dilemma for 2019 is, of course, President Donald J. Trump. President Trump chose to take over our celebration so that he was the focus of our national attention. Presidents usually stay in the background on Independence Day realizing that it is the nation's birthday, not theirs - with the exception, of course, of President Coolidge. Note that "Silent Cal" usually spent summers out of Washington. One year he was in Wisconsin, another year he was in Upstate New York, and still another year he was in South Dakota. That happened to be the year he issued the following statement on Tuesday, August 2nd, 1927, the fourth anniversary of the date he became president: "I do not choose to run for President in 1928.”

Thus my question. What's the celebration on July 4th all about? Is it really all about the independence  and freedom of "we the people?" Is it about the military and how tough we are? After all, that's how the Soviets celebrated their national holidays. Is it legitimately about the president or ought it be about Joey Chestnut and the rest of us overeating and beer-swilling American patriots?

Oh ya, I just thought of this and it's worth mentioning. There's one other tremendously important American who was born on the Fourth of July. Specifically, he was born on Friday, July 4th, 1930. His name was George M. Steinbrenner III. He made the New York Yankees "great again." Think of what he could have done for America! Imagine, he might have traded Donald Trump to the Russians for Vladimir Putin! Wow! Should I keep on thinking or is it time for you to take over now and explain the real significance of the Fourth of July?

I now yield the floor!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY

THOUGH HE'S REASONABLY COOL, JOE'S CAMPAIGN AIN'T SO HIP!

By Edwin Cooney

Due to the political and social equity that I see in Joe Biden’s presidential candidacy, in last week's column I minimized the effect of his publicly admitted association with late Southern segregationist senators. 

Suddenly, along comes California Senator Kamala Harris who got to the political heart of the race issue where I had only addressed the intellectual aspect of that issue. It's very, very tempting to me to engage, to an even greater degree than I did last week, in a defense of situational political practicalities which, to me, adequately explains Joe Biden's well-meaning Senate civil rights record. After all, Senator Harris openly grants that Joe Biden is not a racist, which speaks well for her sense of political and social equity.

Nevertheless, since neither truth nor accuracy equals popular advantage during a political campaign and since public impression of a candidate's potential political usefulness  to the voters is what draws votes, an early perspective might be helpful.

First, remember it's very early in the campaign. You may even recall that, back in 2007, John McCain, who had been regarded as the front runner for the GOP nomination, began stumbling to the extent that most political prognosticators were practically handing the nomination to former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. Ultimately, despite his unsteady start, John McCain won the GOP nomination, introduced you and me to Sarah Palin, and proceeded to lose to Barack Obama.

Second, remember that during primary season, both Republicans and Democrats necessarily address their natural constituencies rather than the public at large. Thus, every Democratic candidate who can will say something in Spanish, advocate on behalf of DACA children, support medical benefits for illegal aliens, and appear to favor removing the option of purchasing private medical insurance in favor of universal health care - all red flag issues to a lot of voters.

Third, as I see it, future debates ought to be limited to the top ten of the remaining candidates. Hence, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Jay Inslee, Julian Castro and Tim Ryan should slug it out during the second round of debates. Out of these ten candidates, Democrats are likely to select both their presidential and vice presidential nominees. (More about that likelihood in a future musing!)

For the present, it's time that the above mentioned candidates force one another to clarify what their individual messages mean to potential voters. For example: should the issue of climate change be regarded as our top national priority? Ought there be launched a "Green New Deal?”   

Should Americans really be compelled to surrender their right to purchase private medical insurance as a quid pro quo to governmental managed health care?

Are 21st Century liberals really and truly “socialists” as they are being labeled by many American voters?

How is it to our advantage to have a more enlightened attitude toward illegal aliens?

How serious a threat to our well-being, our national security in particular, is President Trump?

Finally, are the above questions related to one another?

As for Joe Biden, regardless of how fair or unfair Senator Harris's challenge was last Thursday night, as former President Jimmy Carter observed about his own struggles back in 1980, "it goes with the territory."

Keep cool, Mr. Vice President! Earlier, I suggested that the entire national  Democratic ticket  is likely to come from the men and women I listed above. However, just a short time ago I suggested that a Biden/Klobuchar ticket might be in the offing. Now make that a Biden/Harris ticket.

It's not that I'm fickle, you understand. It's just that I'm an American voter!

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY