Wednesday, March 27, 2019

Betsy de Vos and her not so hidden agenda

Updated and revised: April 6, 2019

A version of this was published online in the Sky-Hi Daily News April 11, 2019

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos's proposed budget that would reduce the Department of Education by over $7 billion,  is cruel and possibly racist-tinged. Her budget eliminated all federal funding for Special Olympics while putting in her budget $5billion in tax credits for those funding vouchers for students to attend private schools. Public outcry caused Donald Trump to order her to reverse course on Special Olympics.

 Other cuts in federal funds remaining in her budget are harmful to programs which have helped low income and minorities, including, a program that operates after-school programs for low-income kids. Cuts also targeted programs that provide professional development for teachers and provide mental health services. The cuts in assistance to mental health services in the light of recent horrific school shootings are particularly disturbing. She also cut millions to literacy programs.

 This was only a budget proposal and the Democratic-controlled House would have stopped it, but it is an indication of where she sees her priorities: find a way to fund private education by reducing support of programs for the most vulnerable, those with disabilities, and those from low-income families. 

DeVos has a long established history of advocating taxpayer support of religious-based schools, private education, and charter schools. That may be music to Donald Trump's Evangelical base and school choice advocates, but it strikes a sour note with supporters of public education and civil libertarians.   In Michigan where her influence in shaping her favored education policy implementation has been extensive,  test scores dropped in math and reading. While her banner is school choice, in Michigan that choice has been of poorer educational opportunities.

DeVos has clearly stated that she intends to interpret laws to suit her religious agenda.  Her agenda has always been to get federal funding for religious-based education. The separation of church and state has always been a fundamental provision of the Constitution that forbids the government from establishing a state religion. Those opposed to public funding of religious-based schools cite this as a reason. DeVos' way around this is to give vouchers to parents to use wherever they wish. In 2002, the US Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 split ruled in favor of a voucher program in Ohio if it went to parents, not to schools, had a secular purpose,  and did not fund religious education.   

In recent Congressional testimony, DeVos also was charged with racism since she is reviewing department guidance that protected minorities from unequal disciplinary treatment in public education. Rates of disciplinary action against African Americans are much higher for the same infractions as White students. DeVoss has cited a source that concluded that certain racial groups had more behavior problems, so they needed more frequent discipline.   The question was not only would she permit treatment of  African American students differently, but she cut the budget for enforcement of civil rights by $1million.  Critics of private education note that private schools can pick and choose who they admit and are exempted from federal anti-discrimination laws so long as they do not receive federal money.  There are limits and permissions, however,  that vary from state to state,  particularly regarding religious preferences and sexual orientation.

 Charter schools have a great deal of bi-partisan political support.  While charter schools are publicly financed and are bound by anti-discrimination rules and law, in practice some have found a way around that standard by making the admissions application process difficult for minority families. Minority students also have a record of more frequent expulsions. Charter schools have also been found to discriminate against admitting  "hard" to educate kids with behavior problems, low achievement scores, and special needs by ignoring inquiries from their parents seeking admission.   Often charter schools are administered by for-profit enterprises.


In my blog posting 11/27/16, there was a more thorough discussion of vouchers for religious-based school based on an attempt to set up a program in Douglas County, Colorado. Below are some excerpts.
So what is wrong about those who support using taxpayer money vouchers in support of "religious education".  What is at issue is the separation of church and state in the Constitution and if funding religious schools violates that. provision.
There was an attempt in a Denver suburb, Douglas County, to allow vouchers to be used for religious based schools. The effort failed in a federal court.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court in a 5 to 4 split ruled in favor of a voucher program in Ohio if it went to parents, not to schools, had a secular purpose,  and did not fund religious education.


The Private Choice Test developed by the Court, for a voucher program to be constitutional was that  it must meet all of the following criteria:
  • the program must have a valid secular purpose
  • aid must go to parents and not to the schools
  • a broad class of beneficiaries must be covered
  • the program must be neutral with respect to religion
  • there must be adequate nonreligious options
However, the results have had mixed performance on student tests. From a public policy viewpoint, it has not been a great success.

From the public policy perspective, will students' education benefit?  We do have some experience with vouchers and the results are contrary to expectations of many. advocates of vouchers.  From the public policy perspective, Students using vouchers to attend private schools in Ohio performed significantly worse on state tests than their peers who remained in public schools, according to a new study. In Wisconsin, a study finds little or no indication that pupils in those Milwaukee public schools that have more school choice possibilities nearby made significantly greater year-to-year gains in primary school tests than pupils in other Milwaukee public schools. (

The conclusion from these experiences is that vouchers do not benefit the students so much as it satisfies ideological and political beliefs that choice that includes private schools is the most important criteria or that anything private is better than that which is government funded."

Posted on Facebook in the comment section of the posting of this was a very well expressed comment: by Maggie Orth.

"The problem with vouchers is that they create a baseline cost for education. Those who can only afford the vouchers will get crap. Those who can supplement will get more. Moreover, vouchers assume that working parents have the resources and time to weed through a complex marketplace-- just as Medicare vouchers do with seniors. I shudder to think of my poor parents who are struggling with my father's Alzheimer's trying to sort through "market-based Medicare options." The only thing education vouchers guarantee is a parent's right to indoctrinate their children and deny them access to ideas the parents don't like. There are facts in the world- like geology and science. If people think the US can be a world-class stable democracy and economy when people can teach their children whatever facts they want, they are very wrong."
The private elementary school average is $8,522 per year and the private high school average is $12,953

Tuesday, March 26, 2019

End of the Mueller probe: opportunity and danger for Democrats

A version of this was published in the Sky Hi News on line 3 26 19
Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Attorney General  Bill  Barr took the wind out of the sails of Democrats this weekend when he released a summary of Mueller's findings.  Impeachment  because  of  Donald Trump's  collusion/conspiracy with the Russian government was taken  off the table  The  slogan that the "deep state  was out to get Trump" was laid to rest since Mueller's findings got Trump mostly off the hook, though it has been made clear throughout this ordeal that a sitting president would  not be indicted  due to Department of Justice rules.
Given the long number of indictments of Russians interfering in the 2016 election and the indictments and guilty pleas by close campaign and administration associates, even Trump's constant drumbeat that the Mueller probe was just a witch hunt is now an empty slogan.  The Mueller probe caught plenty of witches in their net, but the top witch escaped.  What is left is for the release of the full report so that the American public and Congress can see how Barr came to his conclusions, particularly regarding the obstruction of justice judgment call. Barr was already on the record for supporting a controversial legal theory that presidents could not be prosecuted for obstruction of justice.  He was in no way an impartial arbiter of Mueller's findings.  Unlike similar prior special counsel reports in the Nixon and Clinton cases, Barr made his own call instead of letting Congress do it first, giving Trump a propaganda advantage and an immediate reason for an "I am not a crook" victory tour.

The end of the Mueller probe presents both a danger and an opportunity for Democrats.  It can free Democrats to switch focus from impeachment to pocketbook issues, in particular, health care and unfair distribution of tax cut benefits.   The reason that Democrats flipped the House in 2018 was not so much about the Mueller probe but it was about disgust with Trump's character flaws,  health care and other public policy concerns that impacted middle-class pocketbooks, particularly those of suburban women.

Trump has just set his own trap by announcing support of a court case that would kill Obamacare.  He has stacked the Supreme Court making this total repeal likely to succeed. If the suit is successful it would completely repeal  Obamacare's protection of coverage of 50 million people with pre-existing conditions and eliminate the insurance exchanges for subsidized coverage for 12 million and roll back. expansion of Medicaid for millions more. If the Democrats make a big deal of pursuing the issue of obstruction of justice and impeachment, they may overshadow their best platform plank,  expansion of affordable health care coverage for all, whether it is Medicare for All or some version of making it a public option or allowing consumers to buy into the system.

Trump's strongest pitch for his reelection is the booming economy.  He may regale in the strong economy, but most in the middle class felt no benefits, discovering as they get ready for tax day that over half never felt a significant increase in their take-home pay, got a lower refund than last year, and found that deductions they had counted one were no longer permitted.  Trump, the promiser in chief, conned them.

There are still some unsolved mysteries and concern for the integrity of future election persists, even if they are not on top voter concern lists.  Voters should be more concerned since the future of democracy and our national security are at stake. What we do know  from multiple indictments and guilty pleas coming from the Mueller probe  is that the Russians offered and carried out active measures to help Trump get elected and that Donald Trump's foreign policy supports Russia's designs to expand their control and influence at the expense of the national security interests of the US and our allies. Perhaps sometime in the future, the question will be answered why Trump kissed up to Putin and still supports Putin's foreign policy, but the Barr version of the Mueller report summary shed little light.  In the meantime, we will be puzzled why so many in Trump's near orbit lied about Russian contacts.  We are left to assume Trump's motivation for his pro-Putin policies and attitude were based on sheer self-interest with hopes never dying he would sometime build that Trump tower in Moscow and his loyalty to Putin would be rewarded.

Friday, March 15, 2019

Neo fascism is on the rise

Revised and updated 3 18 19.

A version of this was published on line in the Sky Hi Daily News Marcy 20, 2019

I cannot believe I even need to write this posting.   Do we still have to remind ourselves of what has made America a standard of good civic behavior?  "As Ronald Reagan said in his farewell address to the nation, 'In my mind it (America) was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be a city with walls, the walls had doors, and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and how I  see it ". Many may have quarreled with the public policies Reagan promoted, but his vision of its ideals was not in dispute.

 Always lurking under the surface in American history are demons of violence and racial hatred and Donald  Trump has unleashed its demons.  Those are the same demons that lie in the hearts of others around the world like the mass killer of at least 50 Mosque worshippers in New Zealand March 15, 2019, who was motivated by an ideology of violent white nationalism. Race-based, anti-immigrant white nationalism is on the rise worldwide, and some of it has become violent.

Are white nationalists also fascists?. Merriam-Webster defines fascism as exalting "nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition." Former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright,  in her recent book Fascism: a Warning: limits her definition of fascism to include acts of violence or military action.  Viktor Orban,  of Hungary, whose platform was racial purity, is an example she used. The US was one of three nations not to support an anti-Nazi resolution at the United Nations recently.

The Anti Defamation League reported that every extremist murder in 2018 in the US  was committed by a right-wing group or individuals.   We are living in a time when violent racial and religious hatred is acted out with terrorism, pipe and IED bombs,  and assault weapon massacres.  We have been fixated on stopping ISIS's fomented terrorist acts promoted by international social media, recruitment, and violent ideology. However, we need to devote that same attention to white nationalist terrorism that uses similar techniques and is even more deadly in the US.

Getting tough on right-wing terrorism will be unlikely so long as Trump is president. He has risen to power by fomenting racial strife, calling Mexicans rapists and murderers on his escalator ridden campaign kick-off. One of his first actions was to try to ban all Muslim immigrants. His dog whistles and coded oratory to rally audiences chanting  "build the wall"gained widespread political support and still does.  In the wake of Charlottesville, he called neo-Nazi marchers promoting racial hatred, Nazi symbolism and salutes,  and antisemitism "fine people." just as the protestors were.  Immediately after expressing condolences on the New Zealand shooting, Trump broadcast solidarity with the shooter be using the same word to describe immigrants as "invaders".

While he is quick to call himself a nationalist, is he advocating violence? We should be very alarmed by some voices threatening they will take to the streets if Trump is impeached or loses the next election. Trump himself has more than once threatened violence against journalists and hecklers at his rallies. In a recent interview on Breitbart media, he did not sound like a president. He sounded like a thug unleashing fellow thugs to keep him in power with "I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don't play it tougher. Okay ? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump. I have the tough people, but they don't play it tough - until they get to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad." 

 There are still lessons to learn from the Hitler era besides the atrocities of the Holocaust. These new voices of violence are the epitome of modern-day fascist brown shirts. The brown shirts and firebombing of the Reichstag were key to Hitler's rise, even though he represented a minor party at the time. Trump seems to think that the "police, .military,  and bikers" are his loyal brown shirts. If Trump is not a fascist, he has taken a page from them...threatening violence..  

No one is accusing Trump as being directly responsible for the New Zealand tragedy, but is Trump himself a white nationalist?  Nick Mulvaney, Trump's Cheif of Staff,  says he is not a white supremacist. To paraphrase Andrew Gillum, a candidate for Florida governor whose opponent had used racist tactics against him: he answered the question of whether his opponent was a racist, he responded that he did not know if he was a racist, but the racists think he is a racist.  Substitute the word white nationalist for racist, and that is the answer. The former head of the Ku Klux Klan and a candidate for office in Louisiana as a white nationalist, David Duke, said on the election of Trump,  it was a great victory for "our people". and the New Zealand killer cited Trump and his "common purpose" in his manifesto. Either Trump is the most successful demagogue in history if he does not believe what he orates and tweets, or white nationalism comes from deep in his gut. 

 I still have faith in Americans to right the course for our  Democracy. It is institutionalized in our Constitution that includes a method for peaceful regime change through the ballot box and to protect the right of dissidents to be heard and find hope for success, but it depends upon our willingness to support it.  There are plenty of modern-day examples to remind us how autocrats come to power, manipulate their constitutions, and suppress any opposition with violence, mind control techniques, and abuse of human and civil rights. In modern times, democracy is destroyed with stealth on the internet, magnifying messages on social,  broadcast and cable media. Russia and Turkey are current examples.  Without popular support of the rule of law, separation of powers, and civil rights protections,  the Constitution is only a piece of parchment.

Democracy survived to emerge after our Civil War, but what a cost in human life. The south is just now recovering economically. I have seen first hand the aftermath of recent civil war and the damage it did to the economy and humanity in Bosnia. It has not healed, and it is now the poorest nation in Europe. It is still the poster child of ethnic hatred. I lived in Germany 12 years after the end of World War II. and witnessed the spread of communist dictatorships to eastern Europe. Trust me. The horrors of any of that we do not want to experience... ever.

However, Rep. Steve King is openly threatening a civil war and calling on 8 million bullets in red states.  He is a white supremacist and his party has removed him from his committee assignments .  The question is incitement to violence  protected by the US Constitution as free speech.  Yes, but if it incites imminent violence, it is not.  From wikipedia: 


The Supreme Court has held that "advocacy of the use of force" is unprotected when it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and is "likely to incite or produce such action".[1][2] In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the conviction of a Ku Klux Klan group for "advocating ... violence ... as a means of accomplishing political reform" because their statements at a rally did not express an immediate, or imminent intent, to do violence.[3] This decision overruled Schenck v. United States (1919), which held that a "clear and present danger" could justify a law limiting speech. The primary distinction is that the latter test does not criminalize "mere advocacy".[4]
"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical, right-wingauthoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2][3][4] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,[5] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe."

Thursday, March 14, 2019

Trump's 2019 budget: a roadmap for 2020 Democratic victories

A version of this was published on line at the April 2, 2019

Trump’s budget is a gift to Democrats who hope to defeat him in 2020. This is a cruel budget enacted in the wake of tax cuts to the rich that failed to trickle down to many in the middle class.  Democrats can cite it as what he would do in his second term and use their contrasting positions to turn off a wide-ranging number of voters that propelled Trump to victory in 2016. If we have learned from Donald Trump's first term so far, he takes his campaign promises very seriously and pulls no punches to make good on them,  so voters should not just dismiss his budget as just a wish list. It is an action plan for his second term.

With Democrats in control of the House and the purse strings, this 2019 White House budget is dead on arrival.   Aside from his request for $8 billion more to build the wall, there is plenty of grist in his budget mill to rile even some of his most ardent supporters. Most impacted by cuts  are seniors, those on Medicaid, and Social Security and the disabled

 He had to reverse eliminating all federal support of the Special Olympics because of public outcry.  That was not all his Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos had, oops, proposed. She cut her department's budget by over seven billion dollars to offset cuts to programs that help low-income students and after-school programs and then asked for five billion dollars in tax credits to encourage scholarships to private schools, her pet agenda. The 2019  budget proposal includes cutting out the student loan forgiveness program and taking a chunk out of student loans.

Trump must have it in for the disabled. It is already very difficult to get Social Security disability support now, but he would make it even harder.  His proposal would “save” $72 billion over ten years from that program by making it even harder to qualify. Also getting budget cuts are  Meals on Wheels and programs related to autism and other developmental disabilities.

In 2016, Trump’s voter advantage included seniors and soon to be seniors. He garnered 53 % of their vote of over age 50 in 2016 per AARP polls.  In 2018 midterms, the bloom was off that rose a bit. He carried that block in the 2018 midterms by 50 % v 49% per a Pew Research polling of over the 45 plus crowd. Like the AARP findings, both soon to be an already plus 65% vote in the same percentages.  Now, in 2019, he is touching that third rail and he is likely to get burned in 2020.  His 2019 budget proposes to cut over $456 billion over ten years from Medicare, using that old sleight of hand GOP trope: it will just come out of waste.  That “waste” claim has only ever been as good as a ghost hunt.   Democrats can make hay with their forever and consistent support of Medicare, while GOP loves to call it socialism from its inception to now.  Whatever you call it, per a recent Marist poll, 60% of Americans would rather hike taxes on the rich than cut Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. Only 21% favor cuts of those programs to balance the budget.

 70% of Americans even support certain versions of Medicare for All. If anything, we are likely to see Medicare greatly expanded to younger folks or become a public option in Obamacare. Totally replacing the existing health care insurance system with Medicare for All polls much lower and tanks if private insurers are eliminated.  The Kaiser Foundation has the most current poll figures.

Notice that his 2019 budget ignores the issue of affordable health care insurance, a total disregard to his 2016 promises to replace Obamacare with something wonderful. That great replacement is one promise he has failed to keep. His support of the” repeal without a comparable replacement of  Obamacare” legislation went down in flames with Sen. John McCain’s thumbs down vote in the Senate in 2017. The GOP proposed replacement left many out, including those with pre-existing conditions.  To wrong that right, the President’s executive orders in the meantime have striven to undermine the fiscal stability of Obamacare, and the revolt by voters was the single largest factor in the historic loss of Republican House seats in history.  The cost of health insurance was identified in multiple polls as voters’ single public policy issue determining their vote in the midterms. The Trump 2019 budget changed nothing. However, to do an end-run around Congress, Trump is supporting court actions that would kill Obamacare entirely, from covering pre-existing conditions, rolling back Medicaid, and eliminating subsidies through the exchanges. Now we hear he wants to make the GOP the hero and ride in with a promise, but no plan. We have heard that one before, and before, and before. Having been burned in the 2018 midterms, Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has let Trump know Congress will not help Trump come up with a plan.

Donald Trump’s 2016 strongest support came from the Midwest agriculture sector. His trade war with China hit the soybean/pork farmers in their gut since a third of their market was overseas and China retaliated by finding non-US suppliers. Trump then found $7 billion of taxpayer money to subsidize their losses and in the 2019 budget, he proposes to cut agriculture subsidies by 15% and reducing subsidies for insurance premiums.
 Democrats are already smelling ag sector political blood in terms of pork bellies and long-term grain market loss.


Saturday, March 9, 2019

The GOP resurrects a bogey word: socialism

A version of this was published in the Sky Hi News on line March 13, 2019

Breaking news: Trump's budget proposes cutting $456 billion from  Medicare over 10 years, claiming it will come from "waste". Medicare.

With a field of announced Democrats running for President that is larger than a football team, the ideological spectrum runs from socialists to no-labels who straddle the medium strip between both parties. The question becomes are Democrats about to commit political malpractice. The Republicans have obviously been looking at recent polls that indicate if they call domestic policy issues advocated by a Democrat as “socialism”, they have a potentially winning strategy. 

A Fox News January 2019 poll that found “80% of Republicans and 34% of Democrats who said it would be a “bad thing” for the United States “to move away from capitalism and more toward socialism”. Per a YouGov poll August 2018:  41 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of independents said they would feel “enthusiastic” about or “comfortable” with “a candidate for president who described themselves as a socialist,” while 59 percent of Democrats and 71 percent of independents said they would have “some reservations” or would feel “very uncomfortable.”  Pollster 538’s conclusion was that in 2019 socialism “was still an effective political bogeyman”.

The Republicans have moved quickly to exploit such polling by calling public policies that have widespread public support proposed by Democrats as socialism, from Medicare for All, a concept with 80% approval in recent polls to the Green blueprint for combatting climate change.  Their current strategy is to turn Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a democratic socialist, into their most hated object hoping to paint the entire Democratic field with the same extreme paintbrush.

Socialism means different things to different people. There are many variations and degrees of government participation, and we can debate the fine points until we are blue in the face splitting hairs, but most voters are neither political scientists nor pundits and most only care which policy does what to their own family finances. Some will falsely believe socialism means advocating owning means of production.  Some will see it as class warfare or the destruction of capitalism. European countries have strong capitalist sectors while embracing some socialistic programs. Others will see limited socialism as needed to round out the rough edges of capitalism that left some in the dust. Trump’s tax policy that unfairly benefited few in the middle class but turned the ultra-rich into the ultra richer will be a Democratic party’s effective exhibit for the unfairness of income disparities.

The challenge for Democrats will be framing a position that clarifies what they mean to the public in a way that does not turn off the Never Trumpers and the independents because even a fully unified Democratic party is not enough alone to beat Trump in 2020.. If the candidate debates and primaries leave an unresolved rift with embittered sides of ideologues on one hand and moderate pragmatists on the other, they will have contributed to Trump’s second term. One approach could be that Medicare for All is no more socialist than current Medicare (very popular) or Social Security.  A limited version could be that Medicare is an option people can choose to buy into.  People do not care what ideological pin they stick on it; they just want to afford to pay for their medical bills just as they want to retire with at least a trusted safety net of social security. Both programs have always had the support of Democrats and the Grand Old Party has a Grand Old Tradition of opposing them. Republican attempts to reduce their benefits or to privatize them have failed. Public opposition stem from voters who have suffered under a private system before Obamacare and who have more faith in the fiscal stability of government funded retirement plans than the Wall Street casino or profit seeking health provider monopolies. Since there is no free lunch in health care or in retirement, the debate should include the finances of competing plans and the out of pocket costs to budget sensitive consumers.

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

The gender gap is the GOP's own making

A version of this was published in the Sky Hi News online edition 3 6 2019

The gender gap facing Republicans is no surprise.  In the 2018 midterms, the gulf between women’s vote for Republicans and Democrats is huge. Per Pew Research 59 % of women voted for Democrats, 40% for Republicans. The GOP has become a political home for males, 51% who voted Republican and 47% who went blue in 2018. Demonizing powerful women has become their national past time.

 Fox commentator Tucker Carlson has been on a campaign painting man as the victims and claiming the left is conducting a war on men. That is a strange case to make when Republicans have worked overtime to turn off female support. They support without shame or shaming the most amoral, adulterous, women grabber in the history of the White House.  They back anti-women rights in public policies and they become fixated on calling out and demonizing specific strong women politicians. 

Three recent objects of disaffection are not even candidates for 2020 presidential cycles, but nonetheless, the attempted effect of their attacks is to paint all women candidates with the same brush. The women attacked have different ideological shades of the left from pragmatic power to traditional liberal to democratic socialists, as do Democratic men, so it is not just ideology driving their fixations. 

The current object of right’s most disaffection is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  Her picture is an attention getter for social media postings and her outspoken fearless and clearly stated communication skills get under many skins.  She is as far left as another democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders, but she now occupies his spot as the greatest object to be feared by males on the right if the volume and content of social media postings by right-leaning men are any indications.

For years I have noted that Nancy Pelosi, now serving her second time as House Speaker, has been held up by the GOP as a demon.  Pelosi, too, will not be on the 2020 ballot, but she strikes fear in the hearts of the GOP, not so much because she is a traditional liberal, but because she knows how to wield power as the daughter of a Philadelphia political boss. She expresses herself in non-inflammatory terms, but she has a steely determination and fine-honed use of power.   Recently in a Chuck and Nancy White House meet she stared down President Trump.

The GOP should be proud of their success in turning Hillary Clinton, a traditional liberal, into an uber-demon, painting her as so dishonest she should be locked up.  She is still the object of their scorn and calls for Congressional investigations into her past endure. Why? She is no longer a factor in 2020; Donald Trump is.  She certainly serves as a handy diversion from the Mueller probe.  GOP members of Congress are still demanding investigations into her Uranium One dealings to call a kettle black in the face of Trump’s accused conflict of financial interests as if the allegations concern substance of equal weight and volume.  Multi committee probes and FBI investigations into Clinton resulted in no indictments and guilty pleas, but the story is quite different in the Trump reign.
The public policy initiatives of the GOP feed the impression that the party is anti-women. Rights.   70% of all Americans oppose overturning Roe v Wade but Donald Trump’s stuffing the Supreme Court and lower federal courts with anti-choice lifetime federal judges seriously threatens a woman’s right to choose.   The Kavanaugh hearings for Senate confirmation to the Supreme Court, left a bitter taste in women’s mouths as their GOP male-dominated Senate committee, right-leaning cable talk, and social media, turned Bret Kavanaugh into a victim of unfair attacks as they took   Kavanaugh’s word over Dr. Blasey Ford in a mostly he said, she said situation.  Only Chief Justice Roberts kept a Roe v Wade challenge from setting legal precedent last week that could have limited women’s access to abortion to one clinic in a whole state.