Top 6 Things To Expect From Trump In The Hall Of Presidents

We knew this day was coming. We knew it back in November once the votes were counted. Donald Trump will have his animatronic figure added to the Hall of Presidents in Disney World.

(There will eventually be a Trump Presidential library, too, although I imagine that will mostly consist of multiple video screens scrolling through his tweets.)

I just saw this photo tweeted out today, March 27, although a bit of research shows Disney World actually closed the Hall of Presidents on inauguration day in January and doesn't expect it to open again until summer. Lots to do to get the newest President added to the stage, you know. Here's some things we can expect from the Trump robot:

- Calls out FDR for being "weak" because he didn't "stand up" for things more often.

- Requests the Obama mannequin's clothing be changed to traditional Kenyan garb, except on the weekends, when it will sport golf attire.

- Slaps Lincoln on the back saying, "Hey, you were a Republican! A lot of people don't know that, you know."

- Asks Washington how he could stand working with "that bastard immigrant Hamilton," exclaiming "He's still saying bad, untrue things about me. Sad!"

- Complains about the wi-fi inside the hall, as he can't get a strong enough signal to send out tweets.

- Goes around to all the one-term presidents, pointing at each and saying, "Loser. Loser."

Meanwhile, spokespeople for Disney World say the long delay in getting Trump added to the display is mainly due to problems finding a tie long enough to be historically accurate, and plan to have Trump's mannequin located next to William Henry Harrison in the "Temporary Presidents" section of the stage.

Dangerous Buffoonery

The Trump administration continues to be the gift that never stops giving, if by "gift" you mean "semicomic horrorshow of epic proportions that we can't look away from while desperately praying he doesn't do something to end civilization as we know it." Not only that, but he and his minions have apparently found a way to adjust the time-space continuum so that history now moves at lightning speed and pretty much everything happens all the time.

The big news for now, of course, is the collapse of the American Health Care Act, or the Republicans' efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, or, as a reasonable person might call the AHCA, "Wealthcare." But let's look back, shall we, all the way back to that history-making Congressional hearing with FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers. Remember that? The one where Comey verified there is an ongoing FBI investigation into possible links between Russia and the Trump campaign? The one where Rogers and Comey both actually fact-checked a Trump tweet that was sent during the hearing, telling Congresspersons that what Trump claimed was not, in fact, what they were telling Congress? Seems like so long ago, right?

That was Monday. It took five days to get from that to Friday's epic Trumpcare debacle. Five. Days.

Remember back during the transition and the early days of his Presidency, when Trump was telling us all that his crew was running like a "fine-tuned machine" and that we needed to ignore any media reports to the contrary? This fine-tuned machine is not so fine-tuned after all, it seems.

(Remember the "early days of his Presidency"? Heck, he's been in office for barely two months!!!)

This brings me to my pertinent notion about the AHCA. It was an insanely flawed piece of legislation, something thrown together by GOP hacks and Paul Ryan's assistants (there's a lot of overlap there, true) that the Republicans were desperate to whip together and put up for a vote on March 23, because that was the 7th anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act and there's nothing more important to Republicans than symbolism (nothing except tax cuts for the rich, I mean). So they threw together this mess of a bill, figuring their Republican majority in the House would vote for anything that got rid of Obamacare, and tried to ram it through without giving time for an official CBO score or to let people realize this bill would take health insurance away from tens of millions of Americans while at the same time giving a huge tax break to the wealthiest Americans. No time for that! What was important was:    This bill is better than Obamacare because it uses less paper.

Seriously. That was the main selling point, at least at the March 7 press conference. Not that 14 million or more Americans would lose health insurance. Not that those with incomes over $200,000 per year would receive huge tax breaks. Not that health services for the poor and elderly would become less available and more expensive. Nope - "it's better because it's smaller. See?"

Another point: One of the hallmark complaints about Obamacare from Republicans is that it was "rammed down our throats," that Democrats put together this terrible law in a tremendous rush, without proper vetting or study, and voted it through in the dead of night in a short window during which the patriotic GOP didn't have enough members in the House and Senate to stop it. Except the entire process of getting the ACA through took about 15 months, with multiple public speeches by the President to urge support, with months of debate and consideration of things like a public option, eventually resulting in a bill that should have been the health insurance industry's best buddy. Fifteen months. While the Republicans were hoping to have the AHCA put together and voted through Congress in about two months - something they threw together at the last minute even though they had the past seven years to actually develop a reasonable, thoughtful replacement. Contrast and compare, folks, and you decide which one would have been "rammed" down anybody's throat.

The rest of the AHCA saga is pretty well known by now. Hardcore House Republicans weren't happy because the bill kept too many features of the hated Obamacare. When Trump and Ryan worked to remove even more options from the bill, moderate Republicans began to waver, even as these concessions weren't enough to make the conservative side happy. So, eventually, by March 24 the whole thing fell apart without even coming to a vote in the House.

So naturally, Trump blamed Democrats for the bill's demise. Because if anyone should have stepped up to save an unpopular bill that would hurt tens of millions of Americans while putting more dollars in the pockets of the rich, while at the same time ending the landmark Obamacare legislation carried through while the Democrats held Congress ... why, of course, it should have been the Democrats, right? Pay no attention to the 237-193 GOP lead in the House, which means they could pass bills with zero Democratic votes even if 20 GOP Congress members were out of town, or avoiding town halls, or policing public bathrooms, or anything other than casting a vote in the House.

Of course, Trump was pulling out all the stops, working tirelessly to create a Deal (because he's good at those, you know), and never taking a break in the struggle ...

The total buffoonery of this administration would be pretty darn hilarious ... if only this ineptness wasn't hurting the lives of millions of Americans, making this country a laughing stock around the world, and raising the possibility of a misguided comment, tweet, or action starting some kind of armed conflict. Yeah, except for that, it would be pretty funny.

(And I'm not discounting the fact that Trump associates like Steve Bannon aren't actually inept, but truly have nefarious intentions towards progressivism and our American democracy as it's developed over the past two centuries. But as for Trump and his top appointees? Yeah, inept buffoons is pretty much on the nose.)

The GOP's 6-Step Plan To "Fix" Voting

Here's the Iowa GOP/Paul Pate/Ken Rizer approach to maintaining Republican control in the statehouse, disguised as concern about voting procedures in the state. This is not unique to Iowa, oh, no sir ... this process is a familiar one in the GOP/ALEC playbook that's been used in many states. We're just seeing it about to come to fruition here.

1) Realize demographics are against you, as the future population of Iowa will contain more groups that tend to vote Democratic instead of Republican.

2) Start planting nonsense about electoral fraud and questionable votes ("I would have won the popular vote if it wasn't for those three to five million illegal votes" "busloads of voters were brought in from out of state, ask anybody").

3) Once this has sunk in, quote polls of voters that show there's concerns about the validity of the electoral process (why, wherever might they have gotten that idea from?).

4) Come up with a Voter ID law that sounds simple to the general public ("I have to show my drivers license to buy beer, why not show it to vote?") but not-so-coincidentally puts additional hurdles in the way of certain (usually Democratic) voters - the poor, the elderly, those who don't drive. But hey! People are concerned about voter fraud! We're helping! Pay no attention to the fact this law fixes a problem that doesn't exist! Look, over there! That woman voted for Trump twice (never mind she was caught with our current laws and procedures, by the way)!

5) Claim this new process would make voting "as easy as going through the express line at the supermarket" but be sure not to appropriate any money to help the poor and elderly to obtain these magical voter ID cards.

6) Profit!

Voila! We've prevented more voters who tend to vote against us from going to the polls, while voters get deluded into a false sense of security because we fixed a nonexistent problem! Yay, Republicans!

Let's be very, very clear here. This Voter ID proposal does absolutely nothing to improve the validity of voting in Iowa. Voter impersonation - which is the only form of fraud this bill would have an effect on - is next to nonexistent. Our system of voting is not perfect, mistakes happen, things get screwed up ... but every single investigation of voter fraud in this country has found a vanishingly small amount of it.

So why are Republicans so anxious to ram through Voter ID laws, laws that would increase state and county spending, laws that fix problems that don't even exist? Is it to assuage voter fears of massive illegal voting (fears stoked by the Republicans themselves)? Well, it may do that, but the GOP wouldn't be spending tax dollars simply to make voters feel better.

What is the effect? That's what you need to look at. Voter ID laws raise the voting bar for citizens who may not have a drivers license, forcing them to jump through additional hoops just to vote. They have to make special trips to get that ID (and remember, they don't have a drivers license), perhaps produce copies of their birth certificate (do you know where your birth certificate is right now?). That tends to be the poor, the elderly, the populations that are struggling to just get by ... and oh, by the way, these groups often tend to vote Democratic. Funny how that's the case, right?

These laws are cynical, hateful, and counterproductive to democracy. Don't be misled by the hypocritical stoking of fears about voter fraud ... it practically doesn't exist, and GOP investigations have proven that fact. These laws are about one thing and one thing only - suppression of voters that tend to support your opponents.

Which problem would you rather have? Ten non-proper voters casting votes, or fifty eligible voters being prevented from voting? That's the choice the GOP is giving us, and they're banking on us taking the latter. Unfortunately, since most of those fifty voters aren't "like us," they're probably right.

Designated Contriver

Just a note about the ABC series Designated Survivor: I think commenting fits in context with The West Wing because ABC certainly was appealing to The West Wing fans in their marketing. They advertised heavily on The West Wing Weekly podcast before the premiere, and there was plenty of promotional talk referring to TWW.

Well, in the words of Lloyd Bentsen: I know The West Wing. I've watched The West Wing. The West Wing is a beloved series of mine. You, Designated Survivor, are no The West Wing.

I bought into the marketing. I jumped right in with Designated Survivor last fall. I was anxious to see how a new political drama might work, and I thought the hook was terrific: How would a low-level Cabinet member deal with rising to the office of the President after a disaster strikes everyone else in the line of succession? How would he build his administration? How would he deal with crises, both foreign and domestic? How would staff members held over from the previous President react, and how would he create and work with his own staff in the White House?

Unfortunately, we didn't get much of that. A little, sure, although laughably lame and unrealistic, in my opinion. I mean, what's with the focus on Kirkman's "illegitimacy" because the President was about to fire him from his HUD secretary post? He hadn't been fired, so he still was a Cabinet member - I can't believe there would be that much angst over that issue. Particularly when we got to the point of the governor of Michigan flat-out ignoring the federal government on that basis (and getting arrested. What?). Also, the episode where all the governors came to Washington to have Kirkman tell them how to have their elections to fill House seats. Why would there be any gamesmanship over that? Wouldn't the governors be just as anxious as anyone to have those elections? Why would their personal opinions of Kirkman have anything to do with setting up elections to refill those House seats? Ridiculous.

What we did get was plenty of conspiracies, mustache-twirling villains worming their way into positions of power, crazy family subplots (is Kirkman's son really his, or his wife's former lover's???!?!??), a White House Situation Room that looked like Dr. Evil's lair, and lone-wolf FBI agents who could have solved multiple plot points by JUST TELLING SOMEONE ELSE WHAT THEY KNEW. That wasn't what I tuned in to see, so even though the advertised theme of Designated Survivor was really interesting, and I like Kiefer Sutherland's take on his role, I gave up on the show after about four episodes.

It looks like I wasn't alone. The series debuted strongly, but quickly faded in the ratings (it just returned to the air this week after a winter hiatus). ABC blamed the ratings slide on "politics fatigue" and the unrelenting news cycle of Trump, but why couldn't it be because the show we got wasn't the show we were promised? Not only that, but the network replaced the original showrunner and wants to point the series in a different direction - unfortunately not in the direction I would prefer. Away from the conspiracies somewhat, it appears, but more towards a soap-opera relationship-oriented show. So we'll get to have more affairs, more questions about paternity, more Scandal than The West Wing. Pfui.

Frankly, while I don't actually watch it much (my wife does), it seems Madam Secretary is a much better modern-day comparison to The West Wing than Designated Survivor. Plus, Tea Leoni, Tim Daly, and Bebe Neuwirth are top-notch. So maybe give that a try, if you haven't.