Nervous.

On "Face the Nation" today, the key word was "nervous":

ANTHONY SALVANTO, CBS NEWS ELECTIONS & SURVEYS DIRECTOR: [The people who were conditional supporters of Trump have] an increasing feeling of nervousness that they say that they feel this is back to the idea that -- that this relates -- this investigation relates to the president's judgement and temperament…. But that said, everyone that we re-interviewed [was] increasingly nervous, saying that's the word they consistently use, that they're getting more and more nervous about what the administration is doing… [F]olks who were on the fence are sort of coming over to that firmer opposition, in part because of... that nervousness....

MOLLY BALL, "THE ATLANTIC": … I spent most of my week talking to Republicans on Capitol hill and their staff and people around the Congress and… they're very nervous when -- when Anthony was talking about the -- the nervous Trump curious voters out there in the country, that was very much the vibe I got from Capitol Hill Republicans. They really still want him to be something that he hasn't been so far. They are incredibly nervous by all of these things happening….

RAMESH PONNURU, "THE NATIONAL REVIEW": [O]ne of the things that's happening with congressional Republicans is, look, they've got this feeling in the pit of their stomach. They wish the president would act in different ways, but they are keenly aware that the vast majority of Republican voters across the country, including the voters in their districts, still supports this president. And you will see a pattern where the House Republicans who are in swing seats are more nervous. The senators who are in blue or purple states are more nervous. But the bulk of Republicans don't fit into either of those categories and they're nervous but they're still going to be supporting this president....

JOHN DICKERSON, HOST: [T]hey're nervous and what about the agenda? Are they nervous about that too?… They're nervous about an unpredictable president, but what about the future in terms of getting stuff done?

Comey kept memos of his conversations with Trump and preserved them "because he presumes someone will want to see them."

The quotation is from an unnamed source in a CNN piece titled "Comey prepped responses ahead of Trump discussions."

The wording here is helpful to those who are taking different positions on whether Trump committed the crime of obstruction of justice:

[Comey] was concerned that Trump's suggestion to end the Flynn probe could be an example of obstruction of justice. "It crossed his mind," a person familiar with the matter said, adding "even in its most benign form, it's an improper conversation. You're getting a little too close to the flame."

If we assume all that is true, it seems to me that Comey did not believe that the interaction thus far amounted to a prosecutable crime but that he did see hints of an intention to proceed into the area that would be criminal and he wanted to be careful and observant. Was Trump feeling him out, beginning with ambiguous suggestion and seeing how compliant and easygoing Comey might be? The subsequent summary firing makes me think that is what Trump was doing and he got his answer. Comey was going to be rigorous and independent, and that's not what Trump wanted.

This reminds me of something I've said a number of times about Trump. I don't think he is oriented toward law. The legal framework feels alien to him — a kind of problem or obstacle that must be dealt with, by your lawyers, after you decide what you want to do or — in Trump talk — what you have to do because you have no choice. I'd like to find all the old posts where I've made this observation, but here's one, from March 2016, "Trump's idea of law: 'I want to stay within the law... but we have to increase the law...'":

Perhaps George W. Bush and Barack Obama thought about law the same way, but they didn't say it like this:



As expressed in that clip: Law is respected only in the sense that you acknowledge that when the law is in your way, you'll "increase" the law. Most people would say "change the law," so I'm struck by the locution "increase the law." It's sort of like the way Bush would say things like "Make the pie higher"... but less sunny... and far more sinister...

ADDED: Here's another old post about Trump and the law. It cuts in a somewhat different way, but it shows how his perspective is that of a businessman who uses law when it's to his advantage. It was on "Face the Nation" again, a week later. John Dickerson questioned Trump about his use of H-1B visas and bankruptcy law and tax loopholes: "If you are president, why would anybody follow the laws that you put in place if they knew you were taking advantage of those laws when you were in the private sector?"

"I love your show. I call it Deface the Nation," said Donald Trump to John Dickerson on "Face the Nation" just now.

From the transcript:

JOHN DICKERSON: You said in an interview with Reuters that you thought [being President] would be easier. Why?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, it's a tough job. But I've had a lot of tough jobs. I've had things that were tougher, although I'll let you know that better at the end of eight years. Perhaps eight years. Hopefully, eight years. But I'll let you know later on. I think we've done very well with foreign policy... And I think actually, I've been very consistent. You know, it's very funny when the fake media goes out, you know, which we call the mainstream media which sometimes, I must say, is you.

JOHN DICKERSON: You mean me personally or?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Well, your show. I love your show. I call it Deface the Nation. But, you know, your show is sometimes not exactly correct....

And let me note 2 things Trump said when the discussion turned to Obamacare reform:

1. "Most importantly, we're going to drive down premiums. We're going to drive down deductibles because right now, deductibles are so high, you never -- unless you're going to die a long, hard death, you never can get to use your health care because the deductibles are so high."

2. "[In reforming health care] we ultimately want to get it back down to the states. Look, because if you hurt your knee, honestly, I'd rather have the federal government focused on North Korea, focused on other things, than your knee, okay? Or than your back, as important as your back is. I would much rather see the federal government focused on other things, bigger things. Now, the state is going to be in a much better position to take care, because it's smaller."

And we enjoyed the interjected "Hey, John" in this part about the Democrats needing to wise up:

JOHN DICKERSON: A member of Congress suggested that a condition for getting tax reform would be releasing your tax returns. What do you think about that?

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Oh, I don't know who did that. I mean, I don't care who did that. These are the people, you know, the great obstructionists.

JOHN DICKERSON: So you're not buying that deal.

PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Look where they are. Look where the Democrats have ended up. Hey, John, they had everything going. Now they don't have the presidency, they don't have the House, they don't have the Senate, and Schumer's going around making a fool out of himself.

"Dividing into teams is great if your team wins. But if your team loses..."

"... it allows you to do two things. One is question why you lost. And, B, why did you choose to be on a team, because the team itself is an illusion. And so that was a -- that was something that I came to me at the end of the election special that we did. We did a live Showtime special and I had nothing to say, I didn’t think, at the end of the show."

Said Steve Colbert on "Face the Nation" today. The host, John Dickerson, asked him what he did when he found himself unprepared:

COLBERT: As I knew the outcome, I knew that I would have to throw out everything I had planned, because we had four possible outcomes. One is that we knew that Mrs. Clinton would win. We would not know. It looked like Trump was going to win, but we wouldn’t know until the morning. And then there was he’s going to win and we know he’s going to win. And that was the one that we prepared nothing for, which -- on purpose.

I said, look, what’s the purpose? Don’t prepare anything because everything goes out the window. It’s the least likely path it says -- say all of the number crunchers and I believe in numbers.

I laughed out loud. Data expressed in numerical form isn't like 2 + 2. The belief that 2 + 2 equals 4 is not like believing the polls are correct because you're seeing numbers. It's more like saying "I take a man at his word" whenever any guy says anything.

Colbert continues:

And -- and if [we know Trump is going to win], we’re going to be doing a show for a group of people who have been hauled into a Chilean soccer stadium to watch people executed. People are going to be very depressed. So anyway, at the very end of it, one of the things that occurred to me to say was that it makes me question picking sides, because if you look at this like a -- a sport, if you look at it like as a battle against your neighbor, you’ll choose anything as a knife against the other side. And that itself is a -- what’s the opposite of a virtue?

John Dickerson had to tell him that the opposite of "virtue" is "vice."

Reince Priebus calls Trump "a Socratic method guy" — "It kind of reminds me of being back in law school."

"He asks a lot of questions, asks questions about questions. And he will keep going until he’s satisfied with the information that he’s getting."

That was on "Face the Nation" today, in answer to probing by John Dickerson about whether Trump is getting intelligence briefings. Priebus says he is  — "it feels like every day." And then:

I’m not sure if it is every day. But it’s a lot. And that’s who he is. It’s someone who studies and someone that wants to be informed and it’s someone who asks a lot of questions and listens.

Dickerson asks if Trump is "a details guy," and Priebus says "He is a details guy," and then "I would say it’s he’s a Socratic method guy" and the rest of the quote I've set out above.

Dickerson asks Priebus what he does when Trump tweets something that's not true, such as when he said there were millions of illegal votes in California. Priebus's lame response was that we don't know it's not true. Dickerson patiently, politely nailed him:

I guess [the] question is, when you’re president, can you just offer a theory that has no evidence behind it, or does he have to tighten up his standard of proof?

We all know the answer to that question, but I appreciate that Dickerson had the presence of mind to put it in the form of a question... especially nice, since Priebus had just expressed admiration for the Socratic method. What can Priebus say (except You got me, Socrates)? He makes a lateral leap:

I think he’s done a great job. I think the president-elect is someone who has pushed the envelope and caused people to think in this country, has not taken conventional thought on every single issue. And it’s caused people to look at things that maybe they have taken for granted. 

Priebus distracts us onto the subject of Trump's ability to distract us with some new nutty thing. Hey, here's a theory! Ever think about it that way? Then Priebus brings up the flag-burning issue. That was a faux pas from Trump, wasn't it? So why shift to that? Priebus says flag-burning "is an 80% issue" — meaning (I presume) that 80% of Americans want to punish protesters who burn flags as a way of expressing themselves.

And then you watch the news media and they say, well, it’s constitutional. Well, right, it is constitutional...

He means the Supreme Court has found a constitutional right to burn the flag as symbolic expression.

... and but it doesn’t mean it’s not a subject for debate and discussion for the Supreme Court to revisit down the road.

That is, a Supreme Court opinion on a constitutional matter does not stop the conversation about what the constitution means. A case can be overruled. And a Supreme Court appointment is in the offing. What issues will come to the foreground as we grill the new nominee? Why not make it flag burning? Whether the flag-burning decision is ever overruled, there's political advantage in getting us talking about how we feel about it.

America! The flag!  

It's an 80% issue.

Is "too risky" a good argument against Trump?

Consider this colloquy from yesterday's "Face the Nation":

JOHN DICKERSON: In advance of the debates, the Clinton team is pushing the idea that Donald Trump is too risky to be president. You had some interesting finding there about this idea of risk and Donald Trump. Explain that.

ANTHONY SALVANTO, CBS NEWS ELECTIONS DIRECTOR: Right. Well, both candidates, to some extent, are described as risky among a number of other descriptions that voters use. Trump, in particular, but you notice even his voters say that he is risky. Well, that’s not necessarily a bad thing for them. And the reason is, they want change. They want change -- political change and cultural change and economic change, so they’re willing to tolerate some risk in order to get the change that they want.

Trump is "an improviser" — "someone who jumps out and tries to provoke and tries to connect with people by speaking plainly."

"And he truly believes that all publicity is good publicity. He also truly believes that where you are on a particular issue doesn’t especially matter. What matters is connecting with people and getting what you wanted, getting the final step. The bottom line is what’s important to him. And this has been true throughout his business career and his personal life. It’s all about him. It’s am about getting to the goal. And he is quite willing to run roughshod over people to get there."

Said Marc Fisher, co-author of "Trump Revealed: An American Journey of Ambition, Ego, Money, and Power." Fisher was answering a question, on "Face the Nation" yesterday, from the host John Dickerson, about what are Trump's "core beliefs." After that answer, Dickerson sums it up as: "Just getting a win. Just calling it a win."

At that point, I was talking to the television, saying something like: Yes, but what counts as a win when you are President of the United States? There's no way to win for yourself alone. You have to win for the country. It doesn't make sense any other way. That's the definition of a win — Make America Great Again.

Fisher continued:

Getting a win. He grew up in a house where his father warned him against being a nothing. And his whole life has really been structured around proving to himself and others that he is something, something big and important. And this is only the latest step in really a very consistent pattern throughout his life.

And now he offers to win for us as a country. What is wrong with that idea? And I'm not asking that question as a way to say Nothing wrong with that! I'm really asking the question seriously. What is wrong with a man with a powerful, deep-seated orientation toward winning offering to merge his independent individual persona with the entire country and then winning for us?

I mean, other than that it seems to jump off the page as the definition of fascism.

Hillary's problem of "insularity and... arrogance" — "there was no one around her who was willing to tell her that she was wrong."

The quotes are from Ron Brownstein of "The Atlantic" in a panel discussion on today's "Face the Nation" about the inspector general's report on Hillary's email. The moderator, John Dickerson, had pointed to the finding that "When her staffers were asked about her private server system, they were told, do not ask about it again." Brownstein said:

BROWNSTEIN: That's what's the most troubling, I thought, in this report. I mean kind of the insularity and the arrogance. Not so much the specifics of the e-mails, but about the kind of leadership style and what it says about how you might be as president. I did a panel a couple of years ago when Jim Baker and George Mitchell were winning the Lifetime achievement Award from the National Academy of Public Administration, and they each said the same thing, the toughest thing was to find someone who could tell a president they were wrong. And what was -- what was -- what was, I thought, most apparent in this report was that there was no one around her who was willing to tell her that she was wrong. And when people tried to raise questions, they were told to be quiet. That is a -- that was ominous traits for a president.

But what about Trump? Are people around him able to tell him he's wrong? Peggy Noonan brought that up:

NOONAN: We talked about people around Hillary can't tell -- tell her the truth.... Who around Donald Trump says to him, boss, stop this, don't do that anymore, it's not nice?

Speaking of Noonan, she also said this:

NOONAN: When you look at the tape of Mrs. Clinton saying things about the e-mails that have been shown to not of them true in the IG thing, she has been -- I hate to say lied, but she has lied coolly and -- in a creamy, practiced way. It doesn't look good.

Creamy... I wrote that word down to search for in the transcript. Hillary lied in a coolly... creamy, practiced way.

ADDED: On the ABC show "This Week," Dianne Feinstein, the Hillary Clinton proxy, was confronted by Jonathan Karl:

"Can I just finish the two wars we're already in before you go looking for a third one?"

Said Robert Gates when Barack Obama asked him for his opinion on intervention in Libya.

From an interview on "Face the Nation" today. John Dickerson had asked Gates about what he thought of Ben Rhodes referring to the American foreign policy establishment as "the blob":

Trumpquake.

So Reince Priebus was on "Face the Nation." John Dickerson tried to get him to talk about Trump-not-Trump's "John Miller" routine from a quarter century ago, but Reince brushed it off and plugged in his main message: The Earthquake:

[P]eople are comparing Hillary Clinton, a career politician, someone who has made millions of dollars on politics, and a guy who has never run for public office, a business guy, who is a total outsider that is going to cause an earthquake in Washington. That's really the issue that is on the ballot.

I was laughing, because: Which side is he on? Who likes earthquakes? But I guess maybe it's figured out, the people want mass destruction... in Washington. That was the talking point Priebus came to deliver, because he found a way to say it again at the end of the interview:

And when the choice is Hillary Clinton, someone who has made a career of lying and skirting the issues, and you look at the e-mails, the Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, and a guy who has never run for office and might have some stories out there that may make some interesting news, I think, in the end, people are going to choose the person that is going to cause an earthquake in Washington and get something done over Hillary Clinton.

When it was panel time on FTN, John Dickerson brought up the Trumpquake:

DICKERSON: What if it's just, we -- you know, we are so fed up with Washington that -- and Reince Priebus used the word "earthquake," you know, that -- that they want the earthquake. And forget positions, smitions, we want the earthquake, and that's Donald Trump.

[CBS News political analyst Jamelle] BOUIE: I mean I think that might be true in the Republican Party. I'm just not sure how true it is in the Democratic Party... [T]he heat of a primary has sort of created the perception in the Democratic Party that there are these steep divisions and no doubt I think there are generational divisions in the Democratic Party that Sanders has revealed and may play themselves out in various ways going forward. But in terms of the presidential race, I tend to think that there really isn't that much disunity in the Democratic Party... And I don't think -- given that the Democratic Party is almost like, you know, it's close to majority non-white, I just do not think that Trump is the earthquake that anyone in the Democratic Party is looking for.

That's a lot of blah blah from Bouie, like he thought we wouldn't notice when he switched from asserting that Democrats don't want an earthquake to Democrats might want a different earthquake. Know your quakes. There's the Trumpquake and the Berniequake. To those who want to be counted out when you talk about destruction, "earthquake" sounds like undifferentiated chaos, but to the earthquake connoisseur, there are distinctions.

Why did Donald Trump require John Dickerson to interview him next to a noisy Trump Tower waterfall?

On "Face the Nation" today, Dickerson introduced the interview saying: "We sat down with Mr. Trump on Friday at Trump Tower in New York, which has a very large indoor waterfall which you will hear in the background."

And, yes, indeed, the whole interview is conducted with loud running water in the soundtrack. Now, Trump has other places in Trump Tower to do interviews. He did his "Fox News Sunday" interview on the same day, in Trump Tower, in a quiet space in front of some lovely windows. Trump had to have wanted that sound effect. I'm guessing he's used to doing business next to that distracting waterfall and knows how to ignore it while it messes with the other person's hearing and concentration. (Perhaps it unsettles some people with a feeling of needing to go to the bathroom.)

Making a recording, Dickerson had to have been additionally distracted knowing that he was devoting all his effort into making what was going to be a decidedly inferior product. I thought I could hear the strain in Dickerson's voice as he soldiered on.

This happened on Friday. Was it an April Fool's joke and Dickerson lacked the nerve to demand decent accommodations? We were laughing at how absurd it was.

Anyway, you can check out the video recording here. And here's the transcript. I'll just call attention to a couple things that caught my ear.

First, abortion. Based on the confusion last week, Trump had to be ready for the abortion question — "What would you do to further restrict women's access to abortions as president?" — and he answered incoherently:

A phrase that shocked me — "downscale white guys" — spoken by Ruth Marcus of The Washington Post.

I am used to class politics and racial politics. I have 181 and 993 blog posts with these tags. I read elite media every day and watch the Sunday shows — often all 5 — nearly every week. I notice and focus on language in my writing here. It's what I do. When something jumps out at me as different — not the way they normally talk — it means something. I think: Whoa! That must be the way they talk behind the scenes. The mask slipped.

Yesterday, on "Face the Nation," John Dickerson was moderating a panel discussion. He'd asked Ruth Marcus about Donald Trump's efforts to reach out to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan in the interest of party unity. Marcus said "some Republicans" were "getting to yes with Donald Trump" but a lot were "getting to OMG with Donald Trump."

There was some talk about GOP leaders plotting a 3rd party move or "piggybacking" on the ballot access of the Libertarian or Constitution Party. But even if that worked to keep Trump from winning the presidency, where would it leave the Republican Party going forward? Reihan Salam (of The National Review) observed that younger voters — 18-29-year-old voters — leaned toward Bernie Sanders, and:

The Republican Party needs to think around the bend. Donald Trump is - he's energized a lot of voters who are, frankly, not going to be the voters of the future.

"Frankly" = These people are old and therefore on their way off Planet Earth (if not quite soon enough to stop Trump).

Susan Page (of USA Today) revealed that the Republicans who are talking to her (off the record) assume they're going to lose the presidential election, and they're just trying to figure out "a way to lose the presidency but hold the Senate" or — at least — "lose the White House and the Senate but not have the party destroyed." With that as the goal, they can't agree on "whether Ted Cruz or Donald Trump is the smarter bet."

John Dickerson said he'd talked to Lindsey Graham about that and "the gap between what they say privately and what they're willing to do [in] public... is vast." Two other panelists — Page and Jonathan Martin (of the NYT) — back Dickerson up. The GOP leaders don't want to endorse Cruz. Martin says:

[I]'s hard for these folks in the party to get behind Ted Cruz. Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham are trying to make it easier, but it's - it's still very difficult.... But this is - this is - the state of the GOP in March of 2016 is, we have to lose with Cruz, it's important. That's astonishing, right, that they are trying to save their party by nominating somebody that they assume will lose the presidency.

This idea that Cruz is the preferable loser triggers Ruth Marcus. She thinks Trump would be "a less strong candidate against Hillary Clinton than Ted Cruz," but then she says "the Clinton campaign is quite nervous about the prospect of running against Donald Trump." Now, that seems contradictory, but it makes sense if you think that both Cruz and Trump will lose to Hillary, but Trump will be a much more unpleasant opponent for her.

Dickerson prods Marcus to explain:

DICKERSON: Because why?

MARCUS: Because who knows.

MARTIN: The unknowns. Yes.

MARCUS: Be - because the rustbelt. Because all those down scale white guys, who knows what - you know with Ted Cruz sort of where he's going and what he's going to say. You don't know that with Donald Trump and you don't know what voters he can energize.

The adjective "downscale" along with "white" and the too-casual "guys" felt so contemptuous to me. And that comes right after the inarticulate "be- because the rustbelt." So disrespectful, so revealing of waves of loathing roiling underneath. These people who should be dead already might get "energized" by Trump. He's the trumpet that blows on Judgment Day and wakes the dead. Could they just please remain in a state of suspended animation until they have the dignity to disappear? That's what I'm hearing in "all those down scale white guys." She's saying: Don't they know they're not needed anymore... how ridiculous they look heaving themselves up off their death beds and dancing to Trump's tune?

I didn't think I'd ever heard the adjective "downscale" to refer to a human being. It seems like something you'd say about a shopping mall or a neighborhood (if you were talking about a place where other people go). I searched the NYT archive to reinforce my impression, and it mostly did. But I found this July 2013 column by Paul Krugman, "Whites and the Safety Net" that used "downscale" to refer to human beings — white human beings — 3 times:

But if there really is a missing-white-voter issue — and I’d like to see some more analysis by serious political scientists before I completely buy in — what will it take to bring these people back out to play? Sean Trende, who has been making the missing-whites case, describes the missing as “downscale, rural, Northern whites”. What can the GOP offer them?

Wow! We know the answer in 2016. The GOP could offer Donald Trump. Krugman continues:

Well, the trendy answer now is “libertarian populism” — but the question is what that means. And for a lot of Republicans, as Mike Konczal notes, it seems to mean lower tax rates on the wealthy, tight money, and deregulation. And this is supposed to appeal to downscale whites because, um, because.

There's that "because" tic we saw in Ruth Marcus.

Krugman, of course, thinks the GOP really has nothing for these people. He doesn't buy the GOP's supply-side economics and doesn't think it has any power to win over anyone who's not already a believer. And what's worse for the GOP is that their attacks on safety-net programs threaten the downscale white people:

[N]ews flash: these programs don’t just benefit Those People; they’re also very important to downscale whites, the very people that will supposedly rescue the GOP.

There's the theory. "Downscale white guys" — or "downscale whites" if you're in print — are on the dole. They should belong to the Democrats, who empathize with the vulnerable. The GOP wanted them, but only if they bought an agenda that made no direct appeal to them. And the billionaire saw them and spoke to them: We don't win anymore! And they came alive. 

"Yesterday on Face the Nation, John Dickerson asked Donald Trump a question that didn't seem to make sense."

"Both my mom (Ann Althouse) and I pointed this out without discussing it with each other or reading what the other had said about it. My mom and I are both in the legal field, and we thought it was very odd that Dickerson suggested that since Trump claims he has *followed* the law as a businessperson, it will be hard for him to ask people to follow the law under his administration! So I'd ask John Dickerson to give some kind of clarification or retraction."

Wrote my son John Althouse Cohen, referring to my post "On 'Face the Nation' today, John Dickerson asked Donald Trump a question about law that I — being in the law field — found very weird."

What was very cool was that John Dickerson responded:

Good question. What I was trying to get at is where is he on the question of gaming the laws and abiding by them. Does he think laws exist to be maneuvered around and taken advantage of? In the case of companies like Apple and others he makes a moral objection to their taking advantage of tax and trade laws. But in his own business he says he plays every game he can even when he acknowledges (as he did with H1B visas) that it's a bad thing to do. (He's under investigation both for his use H1B visas and his tax filings) So what I was trying to get at is whether he expects everyone to game the system when he's trying to make the system better or whether he expected a different standard than the one he uses once he's on the other side — since his view of standards is a moving target. (For example, he campaigns against foreign workers taking jobs but hires them; campaigns against foreign made goods but makes them). So where's' the line? How does he draw it? How will he draw those lines when he's president. He offered a lot of that in his answer. The point is to excavate his reasoning. The reason I asked about his event with Dr. Carson is that it's part of the same inquiry: what guides your behavior? Is politics a system to be gamed? Seems like a lot of people are upset about politics being turned into a game this election cycle. As the candidate who has achieved a special status because voters think he tells unique truths, how can he say something seemingly true one minute and then say oh that wasn't true it was just politics the next minute. There's no law against doing that. He's just playing the game. But I keep hearing that people are tired of the game playing. Also, it seems like a pretty shifting set of standards — and campaigns are about whether what you're saying will still be true once you're elected. So why, if his standards are shifting now, should people not think he'll shift his standards when he gets into office. Nothing will be there to bind him in many cases but his personal set of standards. Thanks for asking!

I continue to believe that private citizens are entitled to take advantage and it's the job of government to refine the law and make it right. I don't see any hypocrisy from Trump here. Businesspersons should be competent and government should be competent. Trump is offering to transfer his businessman competence into the field of government and saying it's a plus that he understands the game. 

On "Face the Nation" today, John Dickerson asked Donald Trump a question about law that I — being in the law field — found very weird.

From the transcript:

DICKERSON: At the debate, you talked about H-1B visas. You said: "It's something I, frankly, use, and I shouldn't be allowed to use it." When you have talked about the bankruptcy laws, you talk about how you took advantage of them. When you and I talked about your taxes, you say you try and pay as little as possible. If you are president, why would anybody follow the laws that you put in place if they knew you were taking advantage of those laws when you were in the private sector?

What's Dickerson trying to say, that taxpayers should pay more than they owe? That businesspersons shouldn't understand the law, see what's to their advantage, and structure their transactions efficiently? Why wouldn't voters trust a businessperson who followed the law and figured out how to use it? Don't we want someone knowledgeable and competent? We're supposed to prefer someone who's so intimidated by law that he wastes money? Is Dickerson a fool or is he just trying to manipulate viewers into thinking ill of Trump?

Here's Trump's answer (with another weirdly obtuse question by Dickerson):

Trump's idea of law: "I want to stay within the law... but we have to increase the law..."

Perhaps George W. Bush and Barack Obama thought about law the same way, but they didn't say it like this:



As expressed in that clip: Law is respected only in the sense that you acknowledge that when the law is in your way, you'll "increase" the law. Most people would say "change the law," so I'm struck by the locution "increase the law." It's sort of like the way Bush would say things like "Make the pie higher"... but less sunny... and far more sinister.

Here's the "Face the Nation" website, where I expect to find the full interview and transcript soon.

When I get the transcript, I will demonstrate something I figured out as I listened to him speaking about torture and going beyond waterboarding. He does not view these practices as enhanced interrogation techniques, focused on dragging needed information out of captives. He sees them as useful for the purpose of frightening the enemy, that is, he embraces terrorism.

ADDED: Here's the transcript for the March 6, 2016 "Face the Nation." The full quote from Trump is: 

TRUMP: They're killing our soldiers when they capture them. I mean, they're doing that anyway. Now, if that were the case, in other words, we won't do it and you don't do it. But we're not playing by those rules. They're not -- why, somebody tell ISIS, look, we're going to treat your guys well, would you please do us a favor and treat our guys well? They don't do that. We're not playing by -- we are playing by rules, but they have no rules. It's very hard to win when that's the case.

DICKERSON: Isn't that separates us from the savages, rules?

TRUMP: No, I don't think so. We have to beat the savages.

DICKERSON: And therefore throw all rules out?

TRUMP: We have beat the savages.

DICKERSON: By being savages?

TRUMP: No. We -- well, look, you have to play the game the way they're playing the game. You're not going to win if we are soft, and they are -- they have no rules. Now, I want to stay within the laws. I want to do all of that. But I think we have to increase the laws, because the laws are not working, obviously. All you have to do is take a look what is going on. And they're getting worse. They're chopping, chopping, chopping, and we're worried about water-boarding. I just think it's -- I think our priorities are mixed up.

Another GOP debate.

I'm not live-blogging (nor is John tonight), but I'm watching and very interested in how they will talk about the death of Antonin Scalia.

Please comment. I'll drop in if I can (and if not, will say a few things tomorrow).

ADDED: The first question was about the vacancy left by Justice Scalia, and all of the candidates were called upon to address whether President Obama deserves to have control of the nomination. The moderator, John Dickerson, was heavy-handed enough pushing the idea of Obama's power and duty that the audience resorted to booing. As for the candidates, it was interesting. Each showed something of his personal style in addressing the question:

Donald Trump — on "Face the Nation" just now — talks about how he feels about getting used in terrorist propaganda.

Trump was excellent, I thought. Here. Watch the extended interview:

How Donald Trump managed John Dickerson on "Face the Nation" today.

Dickerson confronted Trump about the San Bernardino massacre. Note how Dickerson sets up the question with a statement that isn't part of the question...

DICKERSON: There are links between ISIS and this terror attack in San Bernardino, but there were no red flags. So, how do you stop this from happening again?

But Trump won't let him get away with that. He goes back to the unexamined premise:

TRUMP: Well, I think there are red flags. And a lot of people knew what was going on in that house or that apartment. And people were not wanting to call because they thought it would be inappropriate to call. 

Dickerson is forced to bounce off Trump:

DICKERSON: Inappropriate why?

Trump responds:

TRUMP: Well, they were saying that it was -- that they would have been profiling. And a person said, we sort of knew what was going on, but we don't want to profile. Can you believe this?

Again, Dickerson must take his cue from Trump and ask "Should there be profiling?" And Trump says: "Well, I think there can be profiling." Dickerson fails to drag a meaning of "profiling" out of Trump, and Trump doesn't get too technical about it. The people who didn't call the police were afraid to be thought of as profiling, but Trump doesn't tell us what kind of profiling could be acceptable. He sticks to saying that it's "pretty bad" not to have called the police, because "People are dead." It's a problem that "everybody wants to be politically correct" and "a lot of people are dead right now."

Would Jeb Bush — as he has pledged — support Donald Trump as the nominee?

He was asked that question by John Dickerson on "Face the Nation" yesterday:

BUSH: Look, I have said -- I -- because anybody is better than Hillary Clinton. Let me just be clear about that. But I have great doubts about Donald Trump's ability to be commander in chief. I really do. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt to see how the campaign unfolded. But if you listen to him talk, it's kind of scary, to be honest with you, because he's not a serious candidate. He doesn't talk about the issues at hand that are of national security importance for our country. To keep us safe is the first priority of the president. And he's all over the map, misinformed at best, and preying on people's fear at worst.

Dickerson asked the apt question: "How would any of that specifically be better than Hillary Clinton?" What was Jeb supposed to say?

BUSH: Well, I will let voters decide about Donald Trump. I'm pretty confident that, the more they hear of him, the less likely it is he's going to get the Republican nomination.

Later, on the pundit panel, WaPo's David Ignatius effused:

IGNATIUS: I thought [Jeb] was powerful in taking out, calling out Donald Trump. I thought that this was moment in which he went to the heart of the matter, that Trump is playing on people's fears. This is -- it's getting toward Bush's last chance.

AND: Ignatius also summed up the whole show like this (addressing the host, John Dickerson):

You know, John, I heard one thing today on your show that really surprised me. I heard from John McCain talk about candidates bloviating in this race. I heard from Ben Carson talk about hateful rhetoric that was hurting the country. And I heard from Jeb Bush how Donald Trump was preying on people's fears. It's the first time I can remember hearing on one show three candidates speak out against the tone in the Republican race.

There's a real effort, in the elite mainstream media, to portray the GOP as ugly and aggressive and fear-mongering. And this is morphing into a focus on Trump: He, specifically, contains what normally is seen as permeating the GOP. The elite media are cheering on the GOP characters who are trying to take out Trump by adopting this rhetoric, but if Trump is taken out, it won't be long before mild-mannered Jeb and gentle Ben are accused of ugly aggressiveness and fear-mongering.

Behind the scenes at CBS, as John Dickerson reframed the Democratic debate in the immediate aftermath of the Paris attacks.

Nice reporting by The L.A. Times.

Sitting in the presidential suite at the Des Lux Hotel earlier Friday, Dickerson's eyes were fixed on his binder of queries, looking up to ask whether a change in wording or a well-crafted follow-up would work to push the candidates off their stump speeches and away from the answers that had become pat over a number of interviews....

As Dickerson took in the news from Paris, he had an expression that indicated he knew that there would be a long night ahead and a different tone Saturday. "It's going to be heavier — and a lot more complicated," he said....

Not everyone was happy about the course change for the evening. Isham called the campaigns Saturday morning to alert them that foreign policy was moving to the front burner. A representative for the Sanders camp "went nuts," he said. Naturally, the reaction was leaked to the press by one of Sanders' rivals.

I was tempted to say that Sanders isn't ready for his 3 a.m. phone call in the White House, but that's what whoever leaked that reaction to the press wants you to think, "went nuts" is a characterization that's practically meaningless, and it wasn't Sanders himself doing the nuts-going, but one of his people.

Speaking of meaninglessness, I'm reading this article because Drudge linked to it for some near-meaningless tidbit stuck in the middle of the article: Caitlyn Jenner tried and failed to get a ticket to the event, a request that "went all the way up to CBS News President David Rhodes." But there were no tickets left. I wonder if Jenner said, Don't you know who I am?

Anyway, I'm impressed by Dickerson. He handled the debate extremely well, something I'd have thought even without knowing that they had to scrap a lot of painstakingly crafted questions, questions designed to make plugging in rote material look obviously nonresponsive. Dickerson had to fly home after the debate and get up the next day and do his Sunday show, "Face the Nation." I watched the show, and he mentioned at one point that he got little sleep, but I'm reading just now that the flight began at 2:30 a.m.  and he "Got to bed at 4 and up at 5:45."