I now know how John King, the host of CNN’s Inside Politics, must feel.  Yesterday, he opened his show by literally tearing up his preparation notes for the broadcast.  The original topics of the day were the Senate health care charade and the pending disassembling of the First Amendment to the Constitution in the form of the limited Muslim travel ban.  Enter Donald Trump and his misogynistic attack on Mika Brzezinski.  Future news anchors, reporters and pundits are better served studying the art of improvisation than journalism as their livelihood now depends on their ability to ad lib  the news rather than follow a script.

I started drafting this blog and chose the title several weeks ago following Trump’s June 9 joint press conference with Romanian President Klaus Iohannis.  At that time, the “reality-show-host-in-chief” again teased the press about the existence of recordings of his meeting with ex-FBI director James Comey stating, “I’ll tell you about it over a short period of time.”  This was not the first time we have been told this.

• On numerous occasions, Trump told us he would soon release his tax returns. Did he? NEVER!
• At an August 9, 2016 rally in North Carolina, Trump promised his wife Melania would soon hold a press conference to clear up any issues about her immigration status when she first came to the United States.  Did she?  NEVER!
• During the campaign, Trump claimed to have a secret plan to defeat ISIS which he would share on his first day in office.  Did he?  NEVER!

I could go on and on, but you get the point.  A blog post called “Never, Neverland” was supposed to focus on Trump’s modus operandi for responding to information or data requests  to back up his many questionable claims.  It must depend on the outbreak of an Alzheimer pandemic.  Promise disclosure and hope the American people collectively forget they ever asked for the material.

But there are much more relevant aspects of J. M. Barre’s Neverland which better explain the behavior and mindset of the pretender-in-chief.  Consider the following traits outlined in Wikipedia’s description of this fictional world.

• It is an imaginary, faraway place.
• It is a metaphor for eternal childishness and escapism.
• It exists in the minds of children and is not the same from one child to the next.
• It is inhabited by fairies, the most famous being Tinkerbell, whose name was meant to imply her main talent was “tinkering” or fixing things.

It is no stretch to see that Neverland is also a metaphor for the Trump White House.  His denial of the most basic facts–crowd size, climate change or Russian interference in the 2016–suggests he too inhabits “an imaginary, faraway place.” And, as demonstrated again yesterday, he has not grown up.  He is still the ten-year-old playground bully who enjoys demeaning others.  And he has his own Tinkerbell in the form of Kellyanne Conway.  She is the “fixer,” delegated with the unenviable task of rationalizing her boss’s indefensible words and actions.

And in many respects, Trump is Peter Pan.  Again, according to Wikipedia:

Peter is an exaggerated stereotype of a boastful and careless boy. He claims greatness, even when such claims are questionable (such as congratulating himself when Wendy re-attaches his shadow). In the play and book, Peter symbolises the selfishness of childhood, and is portrayed as being forgetful and self-centred.

There is, however, one major difference.  Peter eventually grows up emotionally if not physically.  He befriends others.  He supports their aspirations.  In contrast, Trump remains the aloof, rich kid who brings the football  to the neighborhood pick-up game.  And, if not catered to, threatens to take his ball and go home.

Pay particular attention to the part of the Trump/Brzezinski story involving the National Enquirer, alluded to in this morning’s Washington Post op-ed piece co-authored by Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough.  Following previous negative comments by the Morning Joe duo, Brzezinski, her ex-husband and her two teenage daughters were confronted by Enquirer reporters.  Scarborough then received calls from senior White House staff begging him to call Trump and apologize for the hosts’ negative remarks.  Trump’s henchmen promised, if he did so, Trump would call the Enquirer and kill the story.

One can only hope this is not the Trump Doctrine on which American foreign policy is based.  Except, in this case, the hammer is not a questionable story in a supermarket tabloid, it is the full force and strength of the United States armed services.

POSTSCRIPT

Who says Donald Trump has no major accomplishments during his first 150 days in office?  Are they forgetting how effectively he has exposed the hypocrisy of white evangelicals who make up a large portion of his sagging support?  According to the latest Pew Research poll, an overwhelming 80 percent of white evangelicals approve of Trump’s performance since taking office.

Remember, these are self-proclaimed righteous people whose first principle is to live their lives according to the Scripture which they believe to be the literal Word of God.  One would assume that includes Matthew 53:9 in which, during the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus implores his followers to turn the other cheek.

Perhaps Trump was without his reading glasses and misread the Gospel.  Maybe he thought it said, “To whoever slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other TWEET.”

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

The first alternative title for today’s post was “On Becoming Kim Peek.”  Peek (1951-2009) was the savant after whom screenwriter Barry Morrow fashioned Dustin Hoffman’s character in the movie Rainman.  I often use clips from a BBC documentary titled The Real Rainman to demonstrate Carl Jung’s principle of synchronicity.  Peek had an amazing talent for finding the connection between seemingly unrelated facts or events.

When I woke up this morning, I had a Kim Peek moment or should I say moments because I started making numerous connections associated with yesterday’s testimony by former FBI Director James Comey before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.  So get ready.  This is going to be all over the place.  I only hope it makes more sense than Senator John McCain’s questioning of Mr. Comey.

Which brings me to the second alternative title for today’s post, “The Charge of the Lite Brigade,” an obvious play on the narrative poem by Alfred Lord Tennyson published on December 9, 1854.  In the Tennyson version, “light brigade” refers to cavalry consisting of lightly armed and lightly armored troops on horseback.  Today’s version substitute’s the work “lite,” an adjective denoting a product which tends to be less profound or advanced.  Thus the “lite brigade” is the perfect moniker for most members of the 115th Congress.

But Jung implores us not to stop at that first coincidence; to look for a deeper connection.  And lo and behold, Tennyson’s poem was documenting the Battle of Balaclava during the (drum roll) CRIMEAN WAR.  Two new connections: Russia/Crimea and “Balaclava” a seemingly made-up, nonsense word.  Thus, the third alternative title, “The Battle of Covfefe.”  But the real reason I chose “The Charge of the Light Brigade” as the metaphor for a post mortem on the Comey hearing are the following lines in verse #5.

Cannon to the right of them.
Cannon to the left of them.

Observing most members of the Senate intelligence panel and how other Senators spun Comey’s responses, I realized there was a different threat posed by this”lite brigade.”

Idiots to the right of us.
Idiots to the left us.

Three examples immediately come to mind.  First is Republican James Risch of Idaho.  In defense of the liar-in-chief, Risch focused on Comey’s recollection that Donald Trump had used the word “hope” as opposed to “order” when suggesting Comey should drop the investigation of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.  Now if Trump had been having dinner with his wife (what are the odds of that?) and said, “Melania, I hope Comey understands Mike Flynn is a good guy and gives him some slack on this Russia thing,” I could buy that.  But in the context of previous discussions when Trump had demanded Comey’s loyalty, hoping to make something go away is no mere suggestion.  That’s like saying, “Rocco needs to swim with the fishes,” is a suggestion that Rocco be given an all-expense paid vacation at the Oahu Hyatt where he can enjoy their dolphin experience. (Yes, I know, dolphins are mammals, not fish.)

Second is Republican Marco Rubio of Florida.  His conversion to the better side of the force, as documented in yesterday’s post, was short-lived.  One can only imagine Rubio received a call on Wednesday night informing him, “If you ever want to be the leader of the dysfunctional Republican party, you better stop making sense as you did on Wednesday.” So, as hard as it is to admit, Trump was right.  Marco is little, but not in physical stature.  Instead he exhibits little consistency, little values and little courage.

Last, but not least, I turn to the idiots on the left.  This morning, CNN New Day host Alisyn Camerota asked Democrat Virginia Senator and 2016 vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine what he thought of Comey’s justification for the July 2016 press conference at which he announced the outcome of the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails.  Comey had explained that the meeting between Bill Clinton and then Attorney General Loretta Lynch (his boss) on the tarmac in Arizona compromised the perception that the e-mail investigation was being carried out without political interference.  Kaine’s response? “I thought that was pretty much irrelevant in the hearing yesterday. 2016 is over. This is about 2017.”

If Kaine really believed that and wanted to help the cause, here is what he should have said.

While I might still disagree with what Director Comey said at the July 2016 press conference I can understand the position he found himself in.  And his willingness to share that experience only adds to the veracity of his concern and uneasiness about his interaction with the president.  Whether right or wrong, it is clear Jim Comey, when confronted with what he perceives as a moral dilemma, acts in what he believes is in the best interest of the FBI and the nation.  You don’t have to agree with him all the time.  But he’s consistent.

I know Democrats have criticized the media for suggesting there is a moral equivalency between the behavior of both parties.  But when Tim Kaine evades a reasonable question as he did this morning, he opens the door for those kinds of comparisons.  If Democrats want to argue Sean Spicer or Sarah Huckabee Sanders are defending the indefensible from the White House press room podium, fine.  But if Democrats want to establish there is no moral equivalency, they need to acknowledge indefensible actions in their own camp.  Otherwise, American voters will continue to ask why they should trade one party’s “malarkey” for the other’s.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP