A PALACE IN CARACAS, FREE CUBA, WORLD COP TO WORLD BULLY

Anthony Davis wrote on his Substack blog that Donald Trump finally solved the annoying constitutional problem which states that presidents are supposed to consult Congress before taking the nation into war — simple: don’t ask! Trump demonstrated that a ‘war powers’ discussion is only theoretical — just be loudly confident and “sufficiently uninterested” in being told ‘no’. So, no consultation, no vote, no pretense of deliberation. The sovereign state of Venezuela became the victim of executive power on full volume, with the triumvirate of Trump, Miller and Hegseth flexing their ‘unitary government’ model for the whole world, flying a kidnapped President Nicolás Maduro, his wife to be held as prisoners in New York, pending their courtroom appearances.

In a November Vanity Fair interview, White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles explained that land strikes in Venezuela would require Congressional approval, because “it’s war” that needs legal justification. Trump privately admitted to Congress members the same song and dance as he continued to blow ‘drug smuggler’s’ boats to smithereens; then came the recent announcement that docks, ‘drug warehouses’ and ‘drug boats’ on Venezuela’s shores had been destroyed. The new year then brought the “large scale strike against Venezuela.” the regime change abduction of its president, and Trump’s announcement that his administration would “run the country and take over its oil reserves.” CNN reported in early November that the administration was seeking opinions from DOJ for such strikes, so quite obviously they came up with the language the president and his plotters needed to initiate the action. At his rambling press conference following the action, Trump made the comments that the strikes were about more than stopping the threat of a small-time drug-running head of state who was endangering lives of Americans.

So far, the administration has offered remarkably little care in explaining their justifications or a legal framework — it depends on who you might ask which only adds to the confusion. Vice President Vance is quoted as saying, “You don’t get to avoid justice for drug trafficking in the United States because you live in a palace in Caracas.” Secretary of State Rubio picked up on a line that seems to be echoed by others that, “the military had been supporting a law enforcement function,” noting that Maduro was under indictment in the first Trump administration. That’s woeful news for individuals in other countries that are also under indictments — do we have enough equipment, personnel, and money to also go after them? Yikes!

One of Trump’s early suggestions was that strikes might be justified because Venezuela was sending “bad people” into the US, downplaying any role of that country’s oil reserves, but then a revision occurred — the president voiced his opinion that we needed to reclaim “the oil, land, and other assets that they previously stole from us.” A confused Senator Lindsey Graham indicated that the administration lacked “clarity” in the messaging. He said, “I want clarity here. President Trump saying Maduro’s days are numbered. That seems to me that he’s gotta go. If it’s the goal of taking him out because it’s a threat to our country, then say it. And what happens next? Don’t you think most people want to know that?” It is interesting to note that following the Venezuela action, Graham posted on X: “Free Cuba.”

The attempt to keep the focus on the law enforcement aspect of the operation during the Saturday morning press conference became a shambles as Trump kept wandering off script to emphasize how his administration would temporarily run the government of Venezuela, with repetitious references to the oil reserves and how Venezuelans would become “rich,” all of which begs the question: If he and his bumbling gang can’t run this country successfully, how does that translate to another mismanaged country? And restructuring the Venezuelan oil industry, which is reportedly decrepit and out of date, is another question entirely. “We’re going to rebuild the oil infrastructure. We’re going to run the country right,” said Trump without a whisper of any justification, let alone a plan of action to accomplish this. Venezuela’s large geographical size could prove difficult to control, and because of its significant oil wealth, other countries will take an interest in how our government moves. China has chimed in, calling the attack a “blatant use of force against a sovereign state.”

Of course, the blustering Trump has threatened the possibility of further military options beyond kidnapping and destruction of Venezuela’s industrial and military infrastructure, making it clear that he intends to continue testing the limits his presidential authority and Americans‘ tolerance for his stretching the law. Yet, Americans probably can still be shocked and horrified at his undeclared, unprovoked, and illegal attacks, but we should recognize that this puts us on the same moral and legal footing as Putin’s Russia in their war of pure aggression against Ukraine. Senator Ruben Gallego, in a post where he remarks about his service in the Iraq War, wrote, “Second unjustified war in my life time. This was is illegal, it’s embarrassing that we went from the world cop to the world bully in less than one year. There is no reason for us to be at war with Venezuela.”

Jennifer Rubin writes in The Contrarian on Substack, “It is hard not to conclude that the action is a ‘wag the dog moment’ aimed at distracting the public from the Epstein files, the rotten economy, and Trump’s declining health. It very well could supercharge Trump’s lawless and violent domestic policies against migrants, civil society groups, and others on grounds that they are authorized by wartime powers. His rickety tower of constitutional rubbish will continue to build.” Rubin feels that we should have no expectation that congressional Republicans will do anything to thwart Trump, since they have repeatedly caved in allowing his illegal attacks on boats, even killing survivors in the sea.

With tongue firmly in cheek, the Daily Dose of Democracy site posts, “Whew! It’s almost as if there’s a festering scandal dogging the embattled president on the domestic front and his regime is desperately looking for cover wherever it can find it. Almost.” The writer says that America’s wannabe dictator is feeling frisky after the Venezuela action and is hellbent on continuing his imperial march across the planet — no matter the cost. Trump admitted that US military action against Colombia “sounds good to me,” with an ominous warning to Cuba, and a repeat statement that taking over Greenland is important for our national security. Another repeat was the threat toward Iran should that country’s  crackdown on protesters get out of hand. Unable to stop his ranting, he issued another warning to Mexico over drug trafficking, telling them to “get their act together, or else.”

The attack on Venezuela Rubin blames on the MAGA Supreme Court majority, and Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. specifically, who granted broad immunity never envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution, and now Trump has taken that and made a run headfirst into war. AG Pam Bondi ran headfirst to X, writing, “Nicholás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, have been indicted in the Southern District of New York. Maduro has been charged with Narco-Terrorism Conspiracy, Cocaine Importation Conspiracy, Possession of Machine-guns and Destructive Devices, and Conspiracy to Possess Machine-guns and Destructive Devices against the United States.” She then added, “They will soon face the full wrath of American justice on American soil in American courts. On behalf of the entire US DOJ, I would like to thank President Trump for having the courage to demand accountability on behalf of the American People, and a huge thank you to our brave military who conducted the incredible and highly successful mission to capture these two alleged international narco traffickers.”

Conservative commenters, concerned that New York justice would let down the country, and that Maduro wouldn’t “feel the full wrath of American justice” that Bondi seeks, posted: “So we just hyper complicated this case to a jurisdiction power struggle? In S NY? Well alrighty then;” “Indicted in SDNY? Is that to ensure something does or doesn’t happen?” Another sarcastically posted, “Hopefully not the ‘full wrath’ Ghislaine Maxwell is getting.” Ben Meiselas on MeidasTouch wrote, “I thought the American justice system was supposed to be about ‘due process’ and not ‘wrath,'” as he points out the irony in Trump’s pardon of the convicted drug trafficking Honduran president. One poster on X commented, “The Sackler family has done more to fuel the fentanyl epidemic in America than Venezuela. Can we conduct a midnight raid to arrest them too?”

The president told Fox News there were no US casualties in the raid, though helicopter troops were hurt when their craft was hit, but no Americans were killed. Venezuelan officials denounced the operation as military aggression, calling for mobilization, with reports of around forty deaths and many injuries which are still being assessed. The government’s inner circle is still intact, with vice president Delcy Rodriguez being secretly sworn in as interim president, after which she appeared on state television calling the US action “a brutal attack.” Trump later claimed she had spoken to Marco Rubio and was “essentially willing to do what we think is necessary,” but that claim raises more questions than it answers, especially with all the confusion we’ve seen within the administration over the last few days as they attempt to present a convincing plan for the future.

What could be more Trumpian than The Washington Post’s report that the president has iced out opposition leader, and 2025 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Maria Corina Machado as a successor to Maduro? Her unforgivable sin of accepting the Prize rather than demanding it be given to Trump has resulted in her being thrown under the bus, with Trump stating, “It’d be very tough for her to be the leader because she doesn’t have the support or the respect within the country.” Opposition leaders were stunned because expectations that Washington would rally behind her were dashed. Daily Dose of Democracy calls this newsworthy with the president’s petulant self-serving behavior being truly unmatched — a stark reminder to anyone on the world stage willing to play ball with The Donald, that his ego and self-interest are job numero uno.

The administration’s insistence that the Venezuela action was simply to make an arrest — sure, with helicopters, fighter planes, missiles and bombs, and an armada of support ships in the sea — begs the question: Why is it necessary to now run the country? Trump insists, “We’re going to run the country until such time as we can do a safe, proper, and judicious transition.” He and Secretary of State Rubio need to get their stories on the same page! Senator Chuck Schumer tweeted, “The idea that Trump plans now to run Venezuela should strike fear in the hearts of all Americans. The American people have seen this before and paid the devastating price.” Keep the repeating the mantra: He can’t even run THIS country!

Several MAGA dissidents oppose Trump’s attack, one arguing that, “Most Americans are enraged. American disgust with our own government’s never-ending military aggression and support of foreign wars is justified because we are forced to pay for it, and both parties — Republican and Democrat — always keep the Washington military machine funded and going.” Outgoing Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene posted on X: “This is what many in MAGA thought they voted to end. Boy, were we wrong!” Podcaster and MAGA influencer Candace Owens suggested that the Trump administration had carried out the attack “at the behest of globalist psychopaths.” She says that Venezuela has been ‘liberated’ like Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq with the CIA staging another hostile takeover. “That’s it. That’s what is happening, always, and everywhere,” she said. Democrat Ro Khanna argues that Trump has “betrayed” his MAGA base by launching a war to bring regime change to Venezuela. He said that we keep voting against dumb wars, but our presidents get us entangled in conflicts abroad, while ignoring the lack of good jobs and high costs for Americans at home.

At the unhinged, reckless press conference — as described by Ben Meiselas — Trump appeared to be dozing off for extended periods of time as the military details of the operation were presented by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine. “Nothing says end of empire like a grasping regime change war launched by an aging leader who can’t even stay awake for the announcement,” posted on X by MS Now host, Krystal Ball. “A literal coup isn’t thrilling enough to keep him awake,” wrote journalist Peter Rothpletz. Given the severity of the events revealed at the press conference, author Aaron Bastani wrote on social media, “Trump sounds exhausted while talking, and can’t keep is eyes open. The neocons got what they wanted. Curious to see when he’s disposed of.”

Substack’s Anthony Davis posted: “The larger concern is not just Venezuela, but the precedent. If the world’s most powerful country can bomb a capital city, kidnap a sitting president and face little more than sternly worded statements, others may take notes. Some warn that China may see this moment as proof that force, when wielded by the powerful, comes with few consequences.” Davis observes that Trump appears increasingly comfortable with military theatrics, and positively energized by the operation to use ground forces if needed. His falling approval ratings and domestic scandals only increase the temptation to project strength abroad. Venezuela is a stress test for the international system — if the rules only apply when convenient, then there are no rules at all, only suggestions for smaller countries. Davis concludes: “Trump’s fascist playbook now extends beyond US borders, as he assumes the role of CEO of Venezuela, replacing one dictator with another.”

A RED SIREN, DEFENSIBLE, DELUSIONAL, STOP YELLING!

The synopsis by Ben Meiselas of MeidasTouch of President Trump’s recent 18-minute address from the White House pretty much sums up its value as “a tantrum with a teleprompter.” “A grievance sermon delivered at warp speed, yelled at the American people, as if your bank account personally insulted him,” summarizes Ben. “It was a hostage video starring facts bound, gagged, and shoved into the trunk of a golf cart.” Meiselas surmises that Trump chose the prime time slot — sorry, fans of ‘Survivor‘ — because his “poll numbers are underwater and sinking fast,” and not because of the national emergency of a sinking economy. With sixty percent of the country disapproving of his actions — not a rounding error, but a flashing red siren screaming ‘we don’t believe you‘ — he decides to yell louder at his victims. As if speed-reading a grocery receipt he picked up in a parking lot, he spouted prices of items, and screeched that expenses are falling fast, but Meiselas points out, “You can’t shout inflation into submission. And you definitely can’t bully people into believing their expenses are cheaper just because you said so.” And adding, “Believe me,” doesn’t cut it.

click here to continue (link expands, click again to collapse)

~

TIRING OF FEAR, MAKE YOUR OWN WEATHER, BUBBLING ORANGE PUDDLE

Democratic think tanks make the case that the party needs to move to the right in order to win back voters in ’26 and ’28, trying to prove that voters are more moderate on many social and cultural issues, but a counterargument in The New Republic by Monica Potts provides a road map for candidates that won’t require candidates to throw vulnerable coalition members under the bus. A compilation and analysis of the surveys and focus groups done since the 2024 election by Way to Win, a left-leaning ‘strategic donor collaborative and strategy hub,’ founded after the 2016 election, looks at swing voters including 2020 Biden voters in addition to those who sat out the election. This analysis provides a fuller picture than the conclusion that the electorate swung right in November, concluding that those who sat out the election are much more politically aligned with Democrats but weren’t motivated to vote for Kamala Harris and downballot Democrats, while determining what they want from future candidates.

Way to Win pinpoints several problems: Voters were upset about rising prices and longer-term economic trends — movements on the left around issues like Gaza, racial and economic justice and immigration weren’t aligned with the party. Potts says, “Fundamental to the report is an important corrective. While many Democrats lost last year because the party had moved too far left, Way to Win makes the case that voters don’t actually apply neatly defined ideological frames when they evaluate candidates’ policies and choose whom to vote for. Their decisions are more complex and filtered through their social, family, and work lives — a conclusion supported by much political science research. ‘When you go knock on doors, you hear all kinds of stories, but they almost never have to do with detailed policies or ideological framing,’ the report says.”

A path forward suggests moderation on some issues like immigration, the environment, or trans rights, and while it might be true that the party’s positions are to the left of the majority on some specific issues, there’s no evidence that those issues drove decision-making in November. Jennifer Fernandez Ancona of Way to Win found that other issues highlighted in their report are much bigger factors, especially true of those who failed to vote — they didn’t want moderation, but a stronger economic message and Democrats who would fight for them, who had failed to deliver in the past. By moderating, it was more likely to reinforce Republican talking points, weakening the Democrats’ position. Fernandez Ancona says, “We’re really saying we need to actually go towards strength, which is what we define in the report as basically standing for what you believe in.” The perception of Democrats as weak was partly shaped by Republican attacks rather than Democratic messages themselves, and Harris didn’t work to counter that impression, her campaign messaging failing to break through.

The issue of economic equality is a major factor to Democrat voters who want a strengthened enforcement against wealthy tax cheats, and making the wealthy pay what they owe. Fernandez Ancona says, “It’s making the case that the system is not working for a lot of people because of this inequality and this imbalance, and we have to make that more fair.” Political strategist Anat Shenker-Osorio believes Democrats need to embrace ‘magnetism,’ which is similar to the ‘strength’ that Way to Win advocates in staking out forceful positions that risk pushing some voters away but are also much more likely to attract voters than simply taking whatever positions the polls suggest. These arguments are strengthened by wins of Zohran Mamdani, Mikie Sherrill, and Abigail Spanberger in recent elections, despite the fact that they had ideological differences, but share an approach to politics that was combative on behalf of their constituents, by promising to tackle the big issues like affordability, and working hard to deliver without ceding ideological ground to Republicans. As Fernandez Ancona offers, “They actually went after it head-on by standing up for their values and who they were. The playbook going forward is, name it, call it out for what it is — because the voters don’t like this fear and division. They’re tired of it.”

The havoc and wreckage of the second Trump administration is motivating voters to show up for Democrats, evidenced in the recent elections, but to win big and retain power, the party must work harder to build a party brand that answers voters’ real concerns, differentiating them from the GOP. Potts concludes, “That doesn’t mean behaving like a weather vane, turning in whichever direction the political winds blow. It means having the courage and strength to make your own weather.”

David Rothkopf on The Daily Beast says, “It is hard to know whether Donald Trump or the MAGA movement he created is falling apart faster.” The 79-year old president is deteriorating rapidly — puffy cankles, bruises with bandages and makeup, slurring of speech, erratic behavior and conspicuous naps during televised events — not to mention his painful sensitivity to his health issues, suggesting that those who mention it are guilty of treason. As Rothkopf says, “Of course, every effort he makes to prove he’s not one step away from melting into a bubbling orange puddle seems to make it clear he’s losing it.” He points out that prominent Republicans are defecting at a rapid clip, former loyalists are willing to stand up to The Donald, with several speaking out against Trump’s opposition to extending health subsidies, and the courts have shot down many of his cases — most noteworthy being the James Comey and Letitia James retribution fabrications.

Trump is losing at the ballot box, suggesting that he is now electoral poison. The economy is floundering. Deficits are exploding. Tariffs are unpopular. His inhumane and draconian immigration crackdowns are alienating many, and his foreign policy has alienated allies and empowered adversaries. His overt corruption, his grifting, and catering to billionaires at the expense of our citizens is driving a tangible backlash — not to mention opinion regarding his mega-ballroom and turning the Oval Office into a gilded ‘Nawlins-looking bawdy-house. As Rothkopf says, a common view held by over 40% of Americans, is that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, making it likely that Fred and Wilma Flintstone live alongside their pet snorkasaurus — a larger percentage than those who believe Trump’s lies that he has made America the hottest economy in the world. Even so, it’s worth mentioning that when he wishes to placate his base he moves to attack science-based policies such as vaccines or climate change.

Rothkopf ends his piece with: “What those of us who do believe in empirical facts can see that the president and his movement are in deep trouble. They are entering uncharted territory in which even some of the most gullible among us are no longer buying what our president is selling. That is not to say Trump and MAGA have no future. Their presence will likely be felt by most of us for years to come, like a shiver down our collective spine. And that’s not just because something like 60% of Americans believe in ghosts.”

Andrew Egger points out in The Bulwark that the House passed a bill overturning a Trump executive order stripping union protection from some federal workers, a bill that began as a petition circulated by Democratic Representative Jared Golden of Maine. This was a slap in the face for House Speaker Johnson who has been able, up to now, to keep things clicking away for Trump. Only now is he being seen in the spot where many expected him to be from day one — a weak speaker who leads a fractious party who basically ignores him to do what they wish. Egger brings up the pessimistic assessments of party members who see a “looming disaster” headed their way, “facing certain defeat,” and “going down hard.” He says those statements would be expected from disgruntled GOP operatives outside of MAGA, but coming from Joe Gruters, a die-hard Trumper and chair of the RNC, expounding on conservative radio is pretty crazy.

Gruters isn’t throwing Trump under the bus with his statements; rather, he is making a specific case to the party, that, “The only person that could bring the nose up and help us win is the president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.” Predicting doom risks further depressing GOP voters and encourages office holders to retire early, and it is far from clear who the party needs to step up to get elected, repairing their predicament. In speaking to swing-state GOP operatives, they told Egger bluntly that it isn’t the historical mid-term dilemma facing them, it is the world that Trump has built for them in competing for public office. One operative said, “His message sucks. It’s absolute trash. Nobody believes the economy and particularly affordability is getting better.”

Another strategist feels Republicans will be in particularly bad shape in ’26 because Trump demands that they stay loyal to him. Past presidents have accepted some disrespect, or strategic distancing, simply to have congressional majorities without enforcing personal purity tests — hardly what Donald Trump wants. This panic has led Republicans to take steps to get the president to at least change his messaging, and treat affordability as a major concern. As he headed to Pennsylvania last week for a speech purporting to focus on that topic, he revealed that he had been advised not to call it a hoax — contrary to his earlier statements. “I can’t call it a hoax, because they’ll misconstrue that,” he said. Trump still maintains that he inherited the “worst inflation in history,” but ‘tariff’ is still his favorite word, with that commitment creating the headaches we now suffer.

The GOP can only grit their teeth, cross their fingers and hope against hope that the economy will improve down the line. One of the GOP operatives interviews stated, “This isn’t going to get any better unless he either, one, shuts off the tariffs and starts a real economic turnaround, or two — well, I don’t know what two is — the GOP is looking at a very rough midterm.” So the party isn’t looking for a number three, obviously! After The Bulwark published their story, RNC spokesperson Kiersten Pels commented that The Bulwark is a bunch of shameless hacks, and that, “Republicans will defy history because of President Trump and the successful policies of the America First movement.” And number three is…?

Amie Parnes writes in The Hill that public interest lies in a third party for both Republicans and Democrats as well as those who didn’t vote in the ’24 presidential election, according to a survey released by Voto Latino. The number three we are looking for? Last month’s survey revealed that 9% of US respondents were open to a third party candidate for the next presidential election. Of those who did vote last year, 7% voiced support for a third-party candidate, with voters across party lines being concerned that both parties are doing a poor job — 45% pointing fingers at the Dems, and 50% frowning at the GOP. A majority also said both parties have become too extreme, the Democrats too liberal or progressive, with Republicans being too conservative or right wing. “Neither party is cutting it,” says Maria Teresa Kumar, CEO of Voto Latino. She felt that Biden’s economic agenda was headed in the right direction but didn’t translate fast enough to benefit local economies.

Kumar accuses the Democrats of trying to sell a poverty agenda — not what Americans want to hear, and Trump’s success at selling “a false good” only resulted in inflation, inviting criticism of his unaffordable tariff hikes. The poll also revealed that Black and Latino respondents had skipped meals to conserve money reserves. Both groups also indicated that side jobs, or side hustles, were important in making ends meet. “It’s a tremendous opportunity to come up with a thriving economic agenda. Now is the time to think really big and offer voters something,” said Kumar. She pointed to the winning campaigns of Spanberger, Sherrill and Mamdami, who did “a good job” of speaking about economic issues and seeing voters where they are. “There’s no other place but to go up. People stay home because there’s nothing to go vote for,” Kumar concludes.

As America looks forward to abandonment of our healthcare by the Trump administration, and his lackey Robert Kennedy, Jr.’s Make America Unhealthy Again thrust, satirist Andy Borowitz has come up with a perfect solution: “After decades of anticipation, on Monday congressional Republicans finally unveiled their healthcare plan, urging all Americans who seek coverage to move to Canada. ‘Under this plan, the American people will gain full access to the doctors, hospitals, and medications they deserve,’ House Speaker Mike Johnson declared. ‘They just need to wear lots of layers.’ The proposal drew widespread support from Americans, a majority asserting that they had already considered implementing such a plan since January of this year. But it sparked a strong pushback from Canadians, who called on Prime Minister Carney to build a wall.”