A Tale of Two Affairs

Graphic included for purposes of titillation...

Gotcha!  From the title of this post, I'll bet you thought I was posting about sexual dalliances.  After all, that's probably the common American-English usage of the word 'affair.'  But it can also mean 'an event' as in "the charity dinner was a grand affair."  And it can also mean a regrettable chapter as in "the Dreyfus Affair."  This last usage corresponds to the Hebrew word 'parasha.'  Jews in the diaspora generally know the word 'parasha' as referring to the weekly Torah reading in the synagogue, as in "last week's parasha was 'Terumah' (ie, Exodus 25:1-27:19, which it was)."  But for Israelis, the more common use of the word parasha in public life is to mean 'an affair' as in 'a scandalous chapter.'

Both Israeli and American public consciousness have been riveted for the past year and more on investigations by special police units into the doings of their political leaders.  In Israel's case, the elite Lahav 433 investigative unit of the Israeli Police has been investigating charges of bribery and corruption against the country's head of government, Prime Minister Benjamin ("Bibi") Netanyahu.  In the case of the USA, a group within the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) headed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller (past director of the FBI), has been investigating charges that President Trump and his campaign, transition, and White House staff colluded with Russian nationals, possibly with the government of the Russian Federation, to influence the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential Election, ie, to secure a win for Trump and a loss for Hillary Clinton.  In both affairs, the investigators came out publicly last week with findings.

I'd like to take a moment to state a trio of remarkable parallels between the two men, Bibi and Trump.  

Both wield political power that is contraindicated by weaknesses within their respective political parties.  Never in the history of the modern State of Israel has a single party been able to form a government without some serious coalition building with other parties, but the number of seats held by Likud, Bibi's party, 30 in a Knesset of 120 seats, is an historic low by a ruling party.  Somewhat likewise, while the Republican party now holds a comfortable majority in the US House of Representatives with 248 seats as opposed to the Democrats' 187, they are weak in the US Senate with 51 seats as opposed to the Democrats' 49 (including two independents who caucus with their Democratic colleagues).  While 51 is a majority, in the Senate certain types of issues require 60 votes, plus there are several 'moderate' Republicans who do not reliably vote with their party colleagues.  So both Bibi in Israel and Trump in the USA, face difficulties in passing legislation.

Additionally, both men wield their power despite that they are considered deeply flawed by many voters, yet enjoy a great deal of personal support by voters who see no viable alternative.  In Israel, where there is really only one issue that matters in a general election - the security situation - no potential prime minister has the support of the electorate that Bibi enjoys, in terms of confidence that, come what may, he will be able to protect the nation in a time of war or conflict.  This explains in large part why he has clung to power over so many years, despite that everybody seems to have some beef with him and/or his party.  Trump is, of course, much newer to his office.  But he was elected, in part and as I've mentioned before, because enough voters thought his flaws were not as fatal as those of his opponent.  And, although it's early to say, it appears at this time that the Democrats are unlikely to find and put up against him in 2020, a candidate who can outshine him and stand out as a viable alternative.  That is, unless Trump were felled by a major scandal.

The final parallel:  both politicians, under fire by investigators and the press in their respective countries, claim that both organs are out to get them unfairly.

US President Trump and Special Counsel Robert Mueller

So the 'scandal' on which Trump's detractors have pinned their hopes for felling him, after well over a year in process, has so far revealed nothing that impugns the actions of Trump or those close to him.  Last week, Special Counsel Mueller announced indictments against 13 Russian nationals for interfering in the political process in the US.  But the charges made it clear that the nature of the interference detracted from both campaigns (Trump and Clinton) and has continued since the election, serving to interfere with overall governing process in the US, not just an election.  In other words, it appears that the Russians seem to be intent on general interference in US civic life, for the purposes of tying our general political process in knots and, presumably, lessening our ability to wield the power of state in international affairs where Russia has their own abiding interests that are counter to the US's.  In the indictments that Mueller announced last week, there was no mention of collusion with the Russians' efforts by anybody in Trump's circles.  The only indictment against a Trump adviser to date, is that against Michael Flynn, who briefly served as Trump's National Security and plead guilty for lying to the FBI about prior contacts with Russian officials.  Trump long ago fired Flynn for the same reason, lying about contacts with Russians, which served to embarrass Vice President Pence.  Another one-time Trump adviser, Paul Manafort, seems to have entered into an immunity deal to give evidence against Trump or unspecified members of his team - but since no charges against any of the above have been lodged, it would appear that Manafort had nothing to add to the investigation. 

Israeli PM Netanyahu and Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit

In the case of charges of corruption against Bibi, the public report by the police investigators last week was similarly anticlimactic in terms of what his detractors have been asserting that he's guilty of.  There are two individuals that he has been accused of bribing.  In one case, it is beyond dispute that Bibi accepted expensive gifts from several wealthy businessmen.  That's been public for a long time.  But on the other hand, the investigators have yet to tie those gifts to any legislative favors given in return for those gifts.  So yes, Bibi did accept some expensive Scotch and cigars from Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan - believe me, I'm jealous! - but it isn't clear that there was any quid pro quo.  The second of two cases against Bibi is more complicated.  in 2007 a new daily newspaper, Yisrael Hayom, started up and supplanted the position of Yediot Aharonot as the country's largest-circulation daily paper.  It achieved this by being circulated for free.  How could it be distributed free-of-charge?  The belief was that it was financed for this purpose with $50 million by US investor Sheldon Adelson, a strong supporter of Bibi, who created Yisrael Hayom in order to provide coverage sympathetic to Bibi in contrast to Yediot Aharonot, which is often critical towards the Prime Minister.  According to the investigators, Bibi offered Yediot Aharonot executive publisher Arnon Mozes to sponsor legislation forbidding Yisrael Hayom from being circulated free (on the grounds that it is unfair competition) in return to more sympathetic coverage.  Now whatever evidence there is, that this 'deal' took place, there are two irrefutable facts:  Yisrael Hayom is still being circulated free (alongside Yediot Aharonot, with 'dueling paperboys' trying to force both newspapers into the hands of commuters entering train stations every weekday morning), and Yediot Aharonot's coverage of Bibi is still far from sympathetic.

So despite exhaustive investigations by elite units that have stretched out over long periods of time, it remains to be seen that Trump is guilty of anything, or that Bibi is guilty of anything other than accepting some Scotch and cigars.

As to the third parallel I mentioned above, that both claim to be the target of a vast conspiracy to 'get' them.  In both cases, they have been accused of paranoia.  But that brings to mind the words of Joseph Heller in his novel, Catch 22:  Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.
  
And the beat goes on...

Are Tropes that Bad?

In Jewish life, anybody using the word 'trope' is likely talking about the system of chanting the readings from Tanach (Bible) in the synagogue.  The text has, in addition to the words and vowels, additional signs that are known as 'trope' or, in Hebrew, te'amim which help the reader by telling him or her what melody to apply to that word, where to accent it, and how to phrase out the verse.

In the greater world, 'trope' refers to a literary device, a figure of speech repeated again and again so that its meaning is immediately understood.

In civil life, one of the most oft-repeated tropes is "thoughts and prayers," as in, when some tragedy strikes, public figures - especially politicians - intone something like: "our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families."  There was probably a time in history when one would have said just "prayers," but now most public figures acknowledge the validity of not holding a religious faith, so it has become "thoughts and prayers."

Of course, this week after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, there were a lot of statements by public figures offering their "thoughts and Prayers."  President Trump used a slight variation; he offered his "prayers and condolences."

When somebody makes the statement concerning "thoughts and prayers" after a tragedy, it really means much more.  It means that the situation in question, simply beggars rational comment because of its enormity and immediacy.  So the "thoughts and prayers" statement is, in effect, an admission that there's nothing to say at this time of great tragedy, that will lessen the suffering of those affected.  The speaker invokes of "thoughts and prayers" simply to acknowledge his or her presence and attention to the situation, and to inform/remind those affected that he or she is, well, thinking of and/or praying for them.

The use of the trope "thoughts and prayers" is, to a certain extent, predicated upon the need by public figures to say something at such times.  If they are politicians, they are required to say something, even if they don't really have something to say.

This reminds me of the adage as to the difference between a wise man and a fool; a wise man always has something to say, whereas a fool always has to say something.  Not that I'm suggesting that all politicians fall into the latter category, although I'm sure more than a few do!

After a tragedy that includes gun violence on a mass scale, it has become normal for some to ridicule those who offer "thoughts and prayers." The Twittersphere has been aflame for the past few days with celebrity Tweeters lecturing us with differing degrees of venom, telling us that "thoughts and prayers" are inadequate in the face of such a tragedy, and that it is time for action - in the form of some serious "gun control."  Until last year, the chorus would have been led by our last, 'Rock Star' President, Barrack Obama, who had a habit of coming out before the cameras after such a tragedy, telling us in advance that some would criticize him for "politicizing" the tragedy, and then lecturing us that the valid response to it was to look at serious measures the country's lawmakers might take to avert such tragedies in the future.  And of course, the suggested shape of those measures was always some serious limitations on the public's access to firearms.

This is not really the time for a serious discussion of the Founding Fathers' intent on including the Second Amendment in the US Constitution, and trying to understand what it might mean for us today, and wondering what forms of gun control, if any, might offer the public some additional safety while not trampling on the citizen's basic rights.  The time for that will be a week, or perhaps two weeks from now.  I do harbor some very definite thoughts on the subject, which I will be happy to share at a more appropriate time.

Right now is also not the time to start impugning the FBI and law enforcement.  It appears that both the FBI and local Florida law enforcement agencies may have dropped the ball with this shooter, Nicolas Cruz; there is some information circulating that indicates he should have been on a number of radar screens.  But that, too, is of little utility at this moment when the funerals for the 14 students and three faculty members of Marjory Stone Douglas, are starting to take place.  There will be a time for serious inquiry as to whether some law enforcement agencies were negligent, bot not now.

For now, even though nobody asked me, I only wish to express my prayers and condolences - yes, I like the President's version - for all those currently grieving.  Yes, it is the repetition of a mere trope, but is that really a bad thing?  After all, "I love you" is also a trope.

A good week, all!

After the Downing

In recent posts, I've been writing about happenings in the USA, but today I turn my attention back to Israel.  If news from Israel is covered where you live, then you're probably aware that we had a little excitement here over the past weekend.  The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) were a bit busy...

Wreckage of the downed IAF F-16 burns on the ground in
Northern Israel, next to Kibbutz Harduf

In the wee hours of Saturday morning, a drone crossed over into Israeli airspace in the Jordan valley, near the town of Beit Shean.  An Israeli Air Force (IAF) attack helicopter shot it down.  And then IAF F-16 fighters launched to take out the drone control facility.  They succeeded, but one of the F-16's (they're designated Sufa, Storm, here...not Fighting Falcon) was hit by a surface to air missile and brought down.  Fortunately, the plane went down on Israeli territory, protecting any secrets that may be hidden in its electronics and other systems, and the pilot and weapons officer survived the bail-out.  One was heavily injured and his condition appeared dicey for a while, but it is now improving.  The other was lightly wounded.

In downing the F-16, the other side shot so many missiles into the air that they were raining down all over, with several landing on the Israeli side of the border - thankfully, to no effect.

It is difficult, at least for the general public, to sort out exactly whom the F-16's mission was against, and who managed to shoot the one aircraft down.  The drone, of Iranian manufacture, was based in Syria and supposedly under operational control of Hezbollah, the Iranian proxy army in Lebanon and Syria.  The particular drone design is quite striking, looking like a miniature of the US Air Force's B-2 stealth bomber.)  But whose SAM knocked the F-16 out of the air?  Hezbollah's, or the Syrian Air Defense Forces?  And if the latter, was it not really the Russians who are in control, having built up their presence in Syria in recent months in order to buttress the Assad regime in its civil war?  And what, if any, role did the Islamic State have in this activity?

The confusion is unavoidable, and symptomatic of the dilemma that Israel faces in Syria:  what happens there affects Israel profoundly, but Israel appears to have little choice but to stand on the sidelines and watch - until the hostilities spill over into Israeli territory as they periodically do, and as they did on Saturday.

My son, Eyal's tank battalion has been on watch opposite the Syrian border for the past few months, but apart from sitting in readiness, their only role has been to provide humanitarian aid for victims of the internecine violence there who get to the border looking for medical assistance.  Since Eyal is a combat medic, he has been among those rendering aid; I'm proud of him, as all Israel should be, for the work that he and his colleagues are doing in expressing the values that we hold:  that all human life is precious and all human suffering needs to be addressed.

As for the downing of the F-16, of course the Syrians, the Iranians, and various other parties in the Arab world are gloating.  This is the first IAF casualty since 1982, so it's a big deal.  If Israelis lionize their army in general, thinking them invincible, they see the air force as the elite of the elite, surpassed perhaps only by the top-tier special operations units.  That said, the air force has experienced its failures in the past:  for example, in the 1973 Yom Kippur War when the IAF took many casualties before it learned how to cope with Egyptian SAM's.  But the myth of the air force's invincibility is kept and cherished by much of the country, because Israelis know that their only real defense is technological superiority and the air force, in many people's minds, represents the apex of war fighting technology.

The IDF, for their part, is trying to put the best spin on Saturday's events.  Instead of dwelling on the loss of the F-16,  they claim to have destroyed not only the drone and its controlling facility, but also to have done serious damage to Syrian air defenses generally.  This resonates with me, having been involved in the electronic warfare game many years ago when I was young and stupid.  We wanted potential adversaries to light up their air defense radars and communications, and yes, even to fire missiles into the air because that's how we learned how to counter them.  In the US Air Force, during the Vietnam War we developed the Wild Weasels, groups of pilots flying specially-equipped fighters whose very mission was to draw the fire of enemy SAM batteries in order to defeat them.  The IAF is reputed to be fearless, and proficient, in this mission as well.  That the downed F-16 carried two airmen, more than hints to me that it was performing this mission.

After Saturday's events, several voices of the opposition in the Knesset (Israel's parliament), accused Prime Minister Netanyahu of orchestrating all this to divert the public's attention from the investigations into his possible corruption.  The report from the elite police unit that has been investigating him, had been expected to make its recommendations public early this week.  (This did, in fact happen yesterday evening, and now the state Attorney General has to decide whether to prosecute.  But I'll reserve making further comments on this until more information becomes clear.)  Fortunately, the top representatives of the main opposition parties distanced themselves from this accusation. 

As worrisome as all this is, it is important to remember that the F-16, while an important IAF workhorse, is now dated and hardly stealthy.  Thank G-d the IAF is now acquiring the latest fighter - the F-35 Lightning II - to counter the existing and emerging threats of this century.

Never a dull moment, eh?

'FISA-Gate': The Drama Continues

The Watergate Hotel complex in Washington, DC; site of the
Nixon campaign break-in to the DNC headquarters in 1972.

I was 15 years old when the Watergate break-in took place, and I was 16 when the cover-up scandal rocked Washington and the entire USA.  As a high school student studying civics and US history - among other subjects - I followed the events very closely with my teachers and classmates.  In the wake of Watergate, every shameful episode in American public life has come to be measured against the break-in of the five Watergate burglars, all aides to President Nixon who was running for re-election at the time, to the Democratic National Committee offices to collect intelligence.  The attempts by the Nixon White House to cover up the scandal, led to a constitutional crisis with the certainty that the House of Represents would impeach the President.  Nixon's Vice President, Gerald Ford, had only been in the Number Two Office a short time, serving in that capacity as a result of a scandal in which Nixon's original VP, Spiro Agnew, resigned after pleading No Contest to a corruption charge and Ford, a US Congressman from Michigan and House Minority Leader, was tapped to replace him.  After only a year as VP, Ford was elevated to President upon Nixon's resigning to avoid impeachment; he pardoned his former boss as one of his first official acts of office.  In the wake of Watergate, almost every scandal in public life has been known by a word describing it, appended by '-gate' as an allusion to the Daddy of all Scandals.

Center:  US Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA), Chairman of
the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, and
principle author of the now-unclassified memo alleging
irregularities by Obama Administration officials in seeking
FISA warrants against members of the Trump campaign.
Flanked by (left) Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), ranking Dem-
ocrat on the Committee, and (right) Rep. Pete King (R-NY)
 

This week, for the first time I heard a news commentator refer to the scandal currently raging in Washington as 'FISA-gate,' an allusion to the contention of Congressman Devin Nunes' memo that was de-classified and made public last Friday, that the top officials in the Obama Justice Department and FBI had used the Steele/GPS Dossier as the basis for their seeking, and getting, warrants under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) based mainly, or even exclusively, on alleged collusion with the Government of Russia by President Trump's campaign team, to influence the 2016 Presidential Election.  The problem with the Dossier, which was leaked to the public realm last year, are two:  the thrust of its 'revelations' were not, and have still not been, corroborated through other sources; and it was financed by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton Foundation.
  The Watergate Scandal provided an ignominious, premature end to the Nixon presidency, which by all accounts had been up to that point successful on a number fronts, in both foreign and domestic policy.  The question is, what are the parallels - if any - between 1972-3 and 2016-18?

As the scandal is shaping up, it looks as if FISA-Gate represents an attempt by the Democrats and Hillary Clinton to do exactly what Nixon and his aides tried to do:  to get dirt on the other side in the election, in order to ultimately discredit them.  If so, and if - as has been speculated - its ultimate purpose was to deflect public attention from the negative fallout on the Clinton candidacy from what many contend to be the irregular and tainted nature of the FBI's 'investigation' into into the Clinton E-mail Scandal, a residual from her time as Secretary of State under Obama.  Although Clinton won the Democratic nomination despite that scandal - there was little opposition, but even so many are contending that the Democratic machine schemed to 'steal' the nomination from Senator Bernie Sanders - there were well-founded fears that it would influence voters to vote against her, for Trump.  And in fact, that was at least part of the reason for Trump's win; just as there were 'Never Trumpers' in the Republican Party and electorate, probably a good many voted for Trump in the spirit of 'Anybody but Hillary.'  I guess I would count myself among the latter group; while I thought at the time that Trump was a flawed candidate because of his penchant to spontaneously spout things that no president should (in my opinion) say, I thought this flaw was small potatoes compared to the scandal of Clinton's behavior as Secretary of State and what was looking like a serious cover-up of same in the highest echelons of Washington.  If Trump was rough around the edges, Clinton appeared to be entirely corrupt.  For me, the choice of whom to vote for was easy.

If the deflecting of the public's attention from Hillary Clinton's flaws, was the purpose of the Executive Branch's surveillance of the Trump campaign, it was unsuccessful.  But of course, that's not a good reason to just sweep the whole thing under the carpet; if there's truth to it, then it represents corruption at the highest levels of the previous administration and therefore a serious breach of the public trust that should be revealed and yes, prosecuted and punished.

So the biggest differences between Watergate and FISA-gate would seem to be two.  First, the former was perpetrated by the winning side, the latter by the losing side.  Second - if proven to be true - FISA-gate makes the Watergate Break-in look, in comparison (in the words of former Arkansas Governor and presidential contender, and now Fox News commentator Mike Huckabee) "like a [college] fraternity prank."  Comparing the two scandals in that spirit, I'm reminded of the line in Mario Puzo's novel The Godfather:  "One lawyer with a briefcase can steal more than a hundred men with guns."

But perhaps more important than anything else I've said above, is the question of what the recent revelations about the Obama Administration's alleged misuse of the FISA Court, means for the Mueller investigation into the Trump Campaign-Russia connection.  As you know, that investigation has been underway for well over a year - previously led by FBI Director James Comey until Trump fired him - and has yet to result in any proof of such allegations.  One of the contentions of a number of prominent opponents to the declassification of the Nunes Memo, was that it would take the wind out of the sails of the Mueller Investigation.  Whether that will be the case, remains to be seen.  But since the investigation appears to be going nowhere, perhaps that's not a bad thing. 

Oy!

State of Rabbi Don's Attention Deficit

I have a confession to make.  I've never been a fan of US Presidents' annual State of the Union Addresses (SOTU).  Why not?  

President Trump delivers the State of the Union Address on 30
January 2018, as Vice President Pence and Speaker of the
House Ryan look on.

Well for starters, they're too long for this ADHD guy!  President Trump's recent SOTU, his first, at one hour, 20 minutes was the longest SOTU of any modern president, save for President Bill Clinton's last one in the year 2000, which was eight minutes longer.  These speeches really test my attention span!  And since I've been living abroad for so many of them, including Trump's speech earlier this week, I've had to watch them - when I have - after-the-fact.  It's hard enough to sit through such a long speech in real time, when one has a sense of wanting to watch history unfold; it's even harder to keep one's focus after-the-fact, when one has already heard at least some of the 'Monday Night Quarterbacking' from the talking heads. 

In addition to the length of these annual speeches, they seem far too much like media events, and less like the substance-filled sessions I would think to be appropriate.

That said, I thought President Trump's first attempt to slay the SOTU dragon, wasn't bad at all.  Okay, I know that Trump, like other presidents before him, didn't write the speech; all presidents in our era, like many 'lesser' public figures, elected and otherwise, has professionals to craft his speeches for him.  But I'm reasonably certain that Trump, like his predecessors, did not first see the speech as it scrolled onto the Teleprompter Tuesday night; there was too much of Trump's own voice in the speech, to think that his writer(s) didn't work closely with him in ironing out what he would say.  So I guess that credit is due, not only to the Commander-in-Chief, but also to his communications people who drafted and then worked collaboratively with him to produce the SOTU we saw and heard.

Much has been made, at least on Fox News and in the conservative blogosphere, of the Democratic response to the President's SOTU address.  I don't mean the counter-speech, delivered soon afterwards by Congressman Joe Kennedy III.  Or the other, 'unofficial' responses, delivered by other Democratic Party members.  I mean the reactions, perhaps with some degree of spontaneity, to the speech while it was happening, by Democratic party members in the audience in the House of Representatives Chamber.  The party 'in opposition' to the president always reacts with different degrees of disagreement to the SOTU.  On occasions when I have watched the annual addresses, I've watched Republicans sour-pussed over Clinton's and Obama's addresses, and Democrats over Reagan's, both Bushes', and now Trump's.  But the level of stony-faced refusal to applaud the successes of the American people that Trump, as well as Congress, have been privileged to preside over, has got to be the highest on record...as asserted by keener observers than me.

I don't expect observers to applaud accomplishments, with which they can't agree.  But when you refuse to stand and applaud genuine American heroes when they are recognized, or genuine good news that one cannot possibly, logically, think badly of, then you leave me befuddled and thinking:  WTF??!  Just as an example of the more blatant of the latter, was when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi looked like she was in danger of losing her lunch on hearing the President challenge legislators of both parties to work together for the good of the American people.  Even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, while sporting a bit of a smirk, at least applauded.  And then, when Trump announced that African-American unemployment had hit an historic low, the angry glares and refusal to applaud of the Congressional Black Caucus, who made watching their reaction easy since they sat together and wore matching scarves and ties, gave me another WTF moment.  Don't like the messenger?  I get it.  But c'mon, are you really unhappy that more or your ethnic brothers and sisters are happily and gainfully employed, just because you don't like the guy who's on watch when it happens??!  Such moments, such images, leave me wonder when the Democratic opposition will, well, grow up.

And I think I have a bit of credibility to ask the question.  I was a registered Democrat, and tended to vote Democratic, up to and including the November 2000 elections.  After the attacks on America in 2001, shortly into the term of President George W. Bush, I watched the President - for whom I did not vote in that first election - react admirably to the challenge and danger facing the nation.  And I did not appreciate the way he was opposed by the Democrats.  I don't mean that, because there was danger, the Democrats were beholden to cave in to the President's every wish.  I mean, rather, that the level of vituperative opposition to his efforts to keep America safe, was far in excess - I thought and still think - than what is reasonable.  That's when I started to re-examine my own loyalties.  But I didn't think at the time - and I still don't think - that I changed so much in ultimately switching party affiliations.  Rather, I felt that the Democratic Party had changed so much that it left me feeling more at home as a Republican.

With that said, I thought the reactions from Democrats to Trump's first SOTU, were more than a bit over the top.  But you don't have to take my word for it.  As time goes by, more and more independent voters, notably those who did not vote for Trump, are registering approval over his accomplishments.  I truly hope that the Democratic Party will, sooner rather than later, begin to formulate and communicate a more coherent vision of America, other than 'Trump and the Republicans are Evil.'  Because if they don't, there will be no viable opposition in the government.  And despite my happiness with what Trump and Republicans have started to achieve as we swing into the second year of the administration of the 45th President and of the 115th US Congress, I want there to be two strong and viable parties to maintain the balances of power that are the pride of American government.  Please Democrats, get your act together!

And please, President Trump, try to be more concise next year!