An Open Letter to White Supremacist Richard Spencer

I wrote this a year ago today ... and I think it bears repeating inasmuch as white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and racists continue to have the tacit, if not overt, support of the President of the United States and many of his minions.

An Open Letter to White Supremacist Richard Spencer 

by

Mike Broemmel 

Richard Spencer, a white supremacist, is the queen of the alt-right movement. He’s a pudgy, effeminate, puddle of nonsense who pitched a fit worthy of Tinkerbell after being booted out of the CPAC conference today. My ears still ring from his petulant squeaking. My eyes still bleed from viewing his racist rant, with hair cropped in a manner I’m certain is intentionally designed to mimic the despicable leader of the Third Reich. 

And to Dick Spencer, I tender this open letter.

Dear Dick,

I never had the occasion to listen to you babble until today. You’ve never been a person I’ve had any interest in. I’ve always found you to be more of a closet case who is trying to exude his masculinity through puffery normally assigned to an aged peacock. The difference between you and a peacock, of course, is that you lack appropriate plumage. You use hate speech to make up for your inadequate manhood, methinks. 

You view yourself as the leader of some sort of new conservative movement in the United States. I imagine that you see yourself as taking over the mantle of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Let’s make something very clear from the start: You are not the heir to true conservatives like the Senator and the President. 

In point of fact, many of the leaders of the national GOP today are not the heirs of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Certainly, if many Republicans cannot properly wear the mantle of Goldwater and Reagan, you don’t even wear their socks. Maybe you wear their underpants (as a hat to cover your Adolph Hitler hairdo).  

During your hithy-fit today you stated that people want to talk to you and don’t want to speak with “boring conservatives.” You stated that people want to learn about “ideas whose time has come” and not ideas from true conservatives whose time you think has passed.

You went on to remark that “everyone recognizes that there has to be identity politics.” And you spoke of “white culture” (whatever the hell that is) and stated without equivocation that “white people define the United States.”

I really try to avoid blanket statements. But, Dick, on all accounts, you are wrong. Ignorant, and wrong.

Not many people want to hear you speak. I’ve managed to avoid that experience until today. I confess a sort of prurient curiosity got the best of me, and a morbid inquisitiveness to confirm what I think you really are all about. 

By definition, identity politics demand the formation of small, exclusive, political gaggles at the expense of functional political parties, let alone operational government. Identity politics is not a must, as you profess. That type of politics is harmful, even dangerous.

I’ve tried to research what in the world you mean by white culture. I came up with images of men in lederhosen, images of men in dirty undershirts drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon from extra-large cans, images of men roasting hot dogs over a tire fire, and a gaggle of men perhaps playing hide-n-seek to find what appears to be a plethora of missing teeth. If this is white culture, I ain’t got none of that.

Most of all, Dick, you do not represent “ideas whose time has come.” You have every right to babble about your beliefs. Nonetheless, your ideas thoroughly were discredited long ago. Thoroughly. Discredited. Permanently. 

Your ideas saw their fruition in places called Arbeitsdorf, Auschwitz, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Flossenbürg, Gross-Rosen, Herzogenbosch, Kaunas, Krakow-Plaszow, Majdanek, Mauthausen, Mittelbau-Dora, Natzweiler-Struthof, Neuengamme, Ravensbrück, Riga-Kaiserwald, Sachsenhausen, Stutthof, Vaivara, Warsaw, and Wewelsburg. 

You’re welcome to pout, pander, pirouette, and penché like an erstwhile ballerina. Nonetheless, your ideas at best represent something evil that lurks in the hearts and minds of some people and are nothing to be championed.

Neil Gorsuch will be the Next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

I strongly opposed the decision of the Democratic leaders of the U.S. Senate - when the Democrats controlled the Senate - to trigger the so-called nuclear option in regard to all federal judicial nominations except for the Supreme Court. I said taking that approach was short-sighted. The day would come when the GOP would control the Senate and the Democrats prepared the foundation upon which the Republican leadership could justify taking the final step and trigger the nuclear option as to Supreme Court nominees.

The nuclear option does away with the need for cloture in the Senate. It does away with the need for 60 votes to advance a nomination to a final majority vote.

I remember being viciously attacked by some Democrats, whose commentary included the GOP would not control the White House or the U.S. Senate any time soon -- and a multitude of personal insults.

Well ... Neil Gorsuch will be the next Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. If 60 votes cannot be mustered to bypass a filibuster, the nuclear option will occur. And, the Democratic Party leadership must accept its share of responsibility for setting the stage for its use in the coming week.

It is possible that the nuclear option will not be necessary. 10 incumbent Democrats in the U.S. Senate up for reelection in 2018 are in states that President Trump won and will likely face tough reelection campaigns.

I get it ... the next thing some folks will say ... "But, Mike (or insert pejorative term here) ... Trump is so unpopular." And I will say ... "Well, I suppose so ... in national polls."

But, when we dig down, we find that there are a notable number of Congressional districts in states in which these 10 Democratic Senators serve in which President Trump has approval ratings of over 75% ... today. In other words, some of these Democratic Senators vote against the Gorsuch nomination at their own reelection peril. And some Democrats will vote in favor of the nominee.

Judge Neil Gorsuch

You Cannot Defeat That Which You Do Not Understand: Plotting a Path to Lose to Donald Trump

You cannot defeat that which you do not understand.

You need to research and study a person or a thing to come to such an understanding.

Posting memes like a wild man or women and regurgitating pointless, inaccurate, vitriolic talking points is not research nor study. It's like going to a fire dance and dancing in the flames, rather than around them. The poster is the one who's gonna get burned.

The vast majority of President Trump's opponents do not understand him.

I do not pretend that I come close to fully understanding President Trump, but I am trying to do so and I readily admit when I do not understand something or someone. I have been trying to "get my hands around" Donald Trump (figuratively, not literally) since February of last year when I became quite convinced that he would be the President of the United States.

I have come to one conclusion about the current President of the United States ... and I think I am correct.

Yes, Donald Trump is an arrogant fellow. But ... I think those folks that long for the demise of this Administration have not figured out where the Commander in Chief's pride lies.

I suggest that the President's ego was wrapped up in winning the race. His objective was being elected President of the United States, and he accomplished that objective.

In my heart of hearts, I sincerely believe that Donald Trump does not particularly want to hold the office of President of the United States. Let's face it ... having to live in the White House is a step down for him, and a big one.

There is an extension of what I think is the reality that Donald Trump achieved his goal when he won in November -- and yes, he won. And no, Hillary Clinton did not even win the popular vote ... she lost the popular vote 30 times on November 8, 2016. Civics 101, folks ... but I digress.

Back to what I think is the extension of President Trump achieving his personal goal by winning the election and that serving as President is not his prime objective. I sincerely believe that the President, on his volition, may make the decision to serve one-term.

This particularly will be the case if he achieves at least some progress in correcting the proverbial train wreck that is the ACA and the literal train wreck that is the infrastructure system in the United States. If President Trump oversees the accomplishment of these two goals, he has two major achievements that would outshine what has been done my many U.S. Presidents in recent years, including the last two. And he will have done so by cobbling together two very different coalitions on Capitol Hill -- one of nearly all Republicans and one of nearly all Democrats.

On the other hand, the President, being the same man who wakes up in the morning and seems to enjoy tweeting about whatever the hell happens to pop into his brain, may decide to respond full-force to the incessant (and oftentimes bizarre and unfounded) attacks on him.

Poke a crocodile in the eyeball with a stick and the fellow's gonna snap off your arm. (There are a bunch of one-armed Democrats busy making memes these days, men and women who instead should be trying to figure out how they are part of party that a recent poll, reported in the New York Times, is less popular than ... Donald Trump.)

In the end, even though it very well may not have been a part of the plan, Donald Trump may decide to run for reelection to show his opponents that he can win the White House a second time.

And President Trump will win reelection.

Why?

Because if the drumbeat of unfounded attacks on the President continue -- and I am not talking about the legitimate ones on policy and some other bona fide issues -- the President's opponents will once again demonstrate they just don't understand the man. I've said it before ... you can't beat Trump by becoming Trump.

And, you cannot defeat that which you do not understand.

Mike Broemmel

Griping About Seeking Resignations of U.S. Attorneys Really is Fake News

From the This is Becoming Ridiculous Department:

I have taken President Trump to task for an ever growing number of issues ... but that doesn't mean I've stopped calling the media and the leadership of the Democratic Party to task for manufacturing completely fake issues. (As an aside, this kind of *stuff* is one of the reasons Democrats keep losing up and down the ticket in election after election ... manufacturing issues where none exist.)

The request by Attorney General Sessions seeking the resignation of all US Attorneys ALWAYS happens at the start of EVERY new Administration.

40-some US Attorneys had not yet tendered their resignations or left office as of last week. (There are over 90 US Attorneys in the country.)

As a matter of practice, the Attorney General asked all of those who had yet to submit letters of resignation to do so now. The current Attorney General used essentially the same letter requesting these resignations as was used by Bill Clinton's Attorney General in March of 1993, at the start of that Administration. (Thanks Jim Coder for sharing this letter.) Indeed, here is the one received by the current AG when he was a US Attorney in the Bush Administration.

Mike Broemmel

The Backstory: The Bonfils Girl by Mike Broemmel

With this being International Women’s Day, and with Helen Bonfils being a woman who I sincerely believe should be known around the world, I’ve decided to write this piece sharing how and why I wrote the script for the play about her life. The Bonfils Girl is beginning its second year in continuous production and is one of the plays that I am most proud of, for many reasons. This includes the tremendous performance of Cathy Washburn, who plays the role of Helen Bonfils in the Colorado production of the play.

Ten years ago, I knew very little about Helen Bonfils – known in the latter part of her life simply as Miss Helen. I am a parishioner of Holy Ghost Church, one of the most beautiful churches in the world that I have ever been in (including the magnificent cathedrals in Europe). The corner stone of Holy Ghost makes note that the church was built by Helen Bonfils in memory of her parents.

After a couple of years as a parishioner at Holy Ghost, I found myself making a special monthly tithe to the church in which I asked that a Mass be said for the repose of Helen Bonfils. I never really pondered on where the idea came from, to ask that Masses be said for the woman who built the church I attend.

Not long after that, I became curious about the circumstances surrounding Miss Helen’s decision to pay the costs – all of them – associated with building an amazing church at the tail end of the Great Depression. As I recollect, the price tag back then was $3.5 million. I did the math. The amount Miss Helen spent building Holy Ghost is the equivalent of about $52 million in today’s dollars.

I discovered that Miss Helen, a devout Catholic, was concerned about the wellbeing of her father in the afterlife. Catholics have something of a three-tier destination for people who pass on: heaven, purgatory, and hell. Purgatory is something of a waystation where a dearly departed can make recompense and atone for wrongdoing during life and then enter heaven. In addition, people on Earth can pray for souls in purgatory as a means of shortening their time in that afterlife state.

Miss Helen’s father, Frederick, was not just the founder of the Denver Post newspaper, but he was a real scoundrel. He owned casinos, speakeasies, houses of prostitution. He managed to get shot in the butt by the attorney for infamous Colorado cannibal Alferd Packer. And rather than his assailant getting convicted for shooting him, Frederick Bonfils himself ended up convicted of jury tampering in the trio of trials of the gun-toting barrister.

Miss Helen worried her father was hell-bound. She made mention that she attempted to make “a deal” with the Lord to permit her father the ability to slide into purgatory. She prayed God give him a second chance to avoid the eternal fires of hell. She bargained that she would build a magnificent church that is now called Holy Ghost and asked the Lord to permit her father a place in purgatory in exchange.

My own response to this “deal” was that Miss Helen was practical and reasonable. She didn’t ask for her father to be let inside the majestic Pearly Gates … just a space in purgatory to allow the man one more shot at being something better than a rapscallion.

I started researching Helen Bonfils, with the intent of writing a biography. (I’d not yet written any plays at that juncture.) I quickly discovered she was the first woman in the U.S. to serve as the publisher of a major daily newspaper – the Denver Post for over 30 years. She was the first woman producer on Broadway.

And, a few months ago, and thanks to the term included in the obituary of her second husband – Tiger Mike Davis who died in September of lasti year … she very well may be the world’s first “cougar.” Yes, Tiger Mike evidently wanted it included in his own obituary that he was married to the world’s first cougar: Helen Bonfils. You see, at the time they wed, Tiger Mike was 28 and Miss Helen … well, she was 69.

Her generosity was boundless. Her money is the reason the Denver Performing Arts Center – one of the biggest in the nation – exists at all (and continues to operate). She founded the largest blood bank system west of the Mississippi (in response to the need for blood donations during the Second World War). The list is endless.

But, what is odd … almost no one knew of Helen Bonfils, including in Denver. Her portrait is buried in the back of a smaller performance space the Denver Performing Arts Center. The whole damn thing should bear her name.

There was literally no trace of her – or her father – anywhere in the Denver Post building. In the aftermath of the premiere of The Bonfils Girl (and I have zero idea if one had anything to do with the other, although I did speak with a couple of reporters from the newspapers), Miss Helen’s desk from her tenure at the Post was found and put into a conference room which now bears the Bonfils moniker.

Miss Helen died, estranged from her sole surviving family member and to be all but forgotten in the three decades that followed her passing.

In the end, I wrote the script to the play about Miss Helen’s life, with the help of a writing partner. The play continues to run. The Bonfils Girl ends with Miss Helen speaking these lines, seemingly from purgatory herself:

"My life … I didn’t do much. I always felt like I lived in Papa’s shadow. Lived in Papa’s shadow. That’s what I think my life was all about.

"The shadows ... they’re still here.

But, they’re not Papa’s shadows. No, they’re not. Not at all.

"The shadows … they are mine.

"Perhaps I am here … until I make my shadows go away."

And then it dawned on me … perhaps, some years ago, as I sat in the church built by Helen Bonfils, as I eventually started having Masses said for Miss Helen, even before I knew her story … perhaps, just perhaps … Miss Helen reached out from where she is today and asked me to remember her. And I have.

---------

The next performance of The Bonfils Girl will be sponsored by the Loveland, Colorado Historical Society on October 9, 2017. 

Information and reservations: 

http://www.lovelandhistorical.org/#!event-calendar/c19i1

www.mikebroemmel.com

Mike Broemmel

It’s Gonna Be Donald Trump:

Electoral College Predictions - 2016 Presidential Election

October 29, 2016

by Mike Broemmel

NOTE: I am in the process of trying to archive old essays and columns. As the header indicates, this piece was written on October 29, 2016, for some various social media sites and websites discussing and reporting on the presidential election. As an aside, I was called every kind of stupid by a large swath of people for making this prediction about Trump winning the election with 305 electoral votes. (He ended up with 304.)

I've spoken of Trump under-polling on more than a few occasions. (I am not supporting either Clinton nor Trump.) Specifically, I think there is a block of voters who have/will vote for Trump and never admit doing so. This type of thing happened in 1980. Even through exit polls said Reagan and Carter were neck and neck. However, Reagan won by one of the largest landslides in U.S. history. A block of voters voted for Reagan and yet said they supported Carter. They fibbed. Upwards to 20% of Democrats voted for Reagan in 1980.

I think the same phenomena is at work in 2016. Polls do not take this dynamic into account. I have reconsidered state-by-state polls by taking Trump under-polling into account.

I also think the re-opening of the criminal investigation involving Clinton has some impact on how people will vote. I think it probably peels away about 2% overall from Clinton. Most of these people probably do not migrate to Trump. Many stay home, others vote for another candidate. What this latest turn of events does do is firm up the resolve of quiet Trump voters, those people who will vote for Trump and not admit doing so.

This is where I think the Electoral College vote ends up:

Final Electoral College Results – 2016 Election

Clinton: 233 *

Trump: 305 **

California – 55, Clinton

Texas – 38, Trump

Florida – 29, Trump

New York – 29, Clinton

Illinois – 20, Clinton

Pennsylvania – 20, Trump

Ohio – 18, Trump

Georgia – 16, Trump

Michigan – 16, Clinton

North Carolina – 15, Trump

New Jersey – 14, Clinton

Virginia – 13, Clinton

Washington – 12, Clinton

Arizona – 11, Trump

Indiana – 11, Trump

Massachusetts – 11, Clinton

Tennessee – 11, Trump

Maryland – 10, Clinton

Minnesota – 10, Clinton

Missouri - 10, Trump

Wisconsin – 10, Clinton

Alabama – 9, Trump

Colorado – 9, Trump

South Carolina – 9, Trump

Kentucky – 8, Trump

Louisiana – 8, Trump

Connecticut – 7, Clinton

Oklahoma – 7, Trump

Oregon – 7, Clinton

Arkansas – 6, Trump

Iowa – 6, Trump

Kansas – 6, Trump

Mississippi - 6, Trump

Nevada – 6, Trump

Utah – 6, Trump

Nebraska – 5, Trump

New Mexico – 5, Trump

West Virginia – 5, Trump

Hawaii - 4, Clinton

Idaho - 4, Trump

Maine – 4, Split – 2/2 Trump/Clinton

New Hampshire – 4, Trump

Rhode Island – 4, Clinton

Alaska - 3, Trump

Delaware – 3, Clinton

District of Columbia – 3, Clinton

Montana – 3, Trump

North Dakota – 3, Trump

South Dakota – 3, Trump

Vermont – 3, Clinton

Wyoming – 3, Trump

* Clinton may lose one electoral vote. One pledged Clinton elector indicates that this individual will not vote for her.

** Trump may lose 6 in Utah because an independent candidate on the ballot has a decent chance of winning the state.

Mike Broemmel

Seeing the Forest Through the Trees … And Lighting the Entire Woods Ablaze

A Consideration of the First Month of the Trump Presidency

by Mike Broemmel

People I respect fall into three camps when it comes to President Trump and the Trump Administration. In category one are about 50 percent of my cohort who despise the President. I do not think I exaggerate either the percentage nor the adjective I utilize to describe the depth of their feelings.

About 30 percent of my cohort are supportive of the President. Indeed, I would imagine at least half of this group are enthusiastic about the Trump presidency. The other half are quietly, privately supportive of the President. I need to note that despite what those folks that despise the President presume, my associates in the group of active and quiet Trump supporters are not of one demographic cluster. What I have found since sitting in a diner in Iowa the day before the Iowa caucuses, supporters of Donald Trump break across different demographic classifications.

Finally, there is grouping of about 20 percent of my cohort that are not at this moment highly critical of the President and his Administration. I can best describe them as holding their collective breath, perhaps hoping for the best.

I have always maintained friendships from across the political spectrum. Indeed, I have always voted across the political spectrum, from the very first time I cast a ballot in 1980. During that election, I voted for Ronald Reagan for President and Patricia Schroeder for Congress. (Unfortunately, many folks will not remember, perhaps even know of Pat Schroeder. I encourage those who do not know her to look her up.) Politically, perhaps no two people differ as sharply as President Reagan and Representative Schroeder.

I could vote for both of them because I respected them personally. My own politics have always been and remain that of a raving moderate. Yes, I cherry pick when it comes to issues. In other words, I agreed with President Reagan on some, but not all issues. And, I agreed with Representative Schroeder on some, but not all issues. But, I digress.

As I listen to people who despise Trump speak, as I listen to individuals who admire Trump speak, I tend to (up to now) privately reflect that I’m not sure if anyone is really seeing the forest through the trees. Emotions are running so profoundly high at this juncture in time across the political spectrum, that I sometimes wonder if a good deal of facts get lost in the process.

I’m not being accusatory by suggesting this. I am just making a personal observation. For example, in posts put on social media from both sides of the Trump debate, there rarely is anything put forth by pro-Trump folks and anti-Trump folks that doesn’t contain misinformation.

I necessarily note that I do not oppose all of the proposals of the Trump Administration that thus far at least appear on paper. I am unabashed in my deep concerns about the Affordable Care Act and its collapse. I think the nation’s infrastructure does need major intervention of the type mentioned by the President and the Democratic Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives.

In watching the machinations of the Trump White House over the course of the past month, I’ve reached the conclusion that – at least at this time – my thoughts about folks across the political spectrum not fully seeing the forest through the trees has become utterly irrelevant, and here is why:

It’s pointless to try and see the forest through the trees when the owner of the woods has doused the foliage with gasoline and lit it ablaze.

I have written, and spoken, about the importance of symbolism, what oftentimes is called optics by political hacks (of which I am one). Reagan got it. Schroeder got it. Bill Clinton got it, until he stopped getting it. Obama, not so much. Trump, not at all.

Let me explain.

I rarely hear anyone discuss the constitutional reality that the U.S. President is both head of government and head of state. When I do hear it accidentally discussed, the concept of the President also being the head of state is chortled about derisively, as if that role doesn’t matter in the U.S.A. in the 21st century.

The President as head of state does matter, and I suggest perhaps more at this juncture in history than at any time since World War II.

When entering the Oval Office for the first time, the President not only assumes the role of overseeing the mechanics of running the executive branch of government, he assumes another mantle in which he (or she) embodies the nation itself. As head of state, the President legitimizes the sovereignty of the nation in his (or her) person, by his (or her) actions. This is not some outdated concept. This remains the reality of governments established by human beings.

I was appalled when President Obama made a milquetoast statement about the killing of James Foley, the first U.S. civilian to be beheaded by ISIS, and then was on a golf course doing hand-bumps a full eight minutes after making his remarks. Symbolism matters. Optics matter. As people, we are visual creatures.

I perfectly understand that 50 percent of my associates, those that despise the President, believe the President and his Administration are failing across the board when it comes to matters of policy. I suggest that facts do not support that extreme conclusion. On the other hand, I recognize that my associates that are supportive of the President believe that all of the Administration’s policies are spot-on. I suggest that facts do not support that extreme conclusion.

I return to the seeing the forest through the trees analogy. When it comes to policy issues and the Trump presidency, I tend to think neither partisans nor opponents of the Administration are seeing the trees clearly.

But. (And this is crucial.) At this moment in time, I don’t think this lack of clarity matters. As I made mention, seeing the forest through the trees becomes irrelevant when the owner of the woods douses the foliage with gasoline and lights it all ablaze. And that is precisely what Donald Trump and his key advisors are doing at this time.

President Trump, and those around him, are failing to understand the duality of the U.S. Presidency. Not only is this exemplified by a good deal of the conduct of the President himself, but underscored in a frightening fashion by some of the principals of the White House staff, including Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Sean Spicer, and Kellyanne Conway.

The symbolic importance of the Presidency, and its central place in the life of the nation, is threatened when those charged with its preservation include a President seemingly more worried about an upscale department store snubbing his child, not to mention stewing about attendance figures at his inauguration four weeks past, than the manifold array of issues we face.

The unifying potential of our nation’s head of state is destroyed when minions of the chief executive behave like ignorant, and even sinister, tiddlywinks in front of the media and to the public time and time again. I speak of Sean Spicer and the newest entrant to that category, Stephen Miller.

(I must digress and confess that when I first witnessed Stephen Miller in action on clips of the major Sunday news gabfests, I wondered what in the world Agent Smith from the Matrix was doing on Face the Nation … and Fox News Sunday … and This Week.)

Not only the unifying potential of the Presidency, but the very office itself, is jeopardized when lurking in the shadows is a person like Steve Bannon, with demonstrable racist beliefs topping the tip of the iceberg that is the Counselor to the President.

The fire is lit. The President and his minions pour more gasoline on the conflagration every day.

At this moment, the blaze is yet to rage out of control. Only the President and his team can put it out. If they do not gain control of the raging fire, this Presidency will collapse.

Fond as I am of predictions, Donald Trump will not face impeachment. Rather, if Donald Trump and his key advisors do not start behaving like the guardians of the Presidency itself that they are, this Administration will end in an ignoble whimper. The provisions of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States will be invoked by a majority of the Cabinet and the President will be removed from office.

I do not want the Trump presidency to fail any more than I wanted the George W. Bush or the Barack Obama presidencies to fail (and I was never an enthusiastic fan of either … one made me switch parties, the other oftentimes made me regret that decision). In the end, the Trump presidency fails not because of the work of its opponents. It fails because of the actions of those slinking down the narrow halls of the West Wing as I write this essay.

The Presidency burns.

Mike Broemmel