"It's Clearly Not My Time": de Blasio Drops Out

New York City mayor Bill de Blasio has ended his presidential campaign:

“Getting out there — being able to hear people’s concerns, addressing them with new ideas — has been an extraordinary experience, but I have to tell you at the same time I feel like I’ve contributed all I can to this primary election, and it’s clearly not my time, so I’m going to end my presidential campaign,” de Blasio said during an appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” (From the Washington Post, read more here.)

I've moved de Blasio to the "I'm Not Running Anymore" list.

I'm Not Running Anymore Declared candidates who have dropped out:

1. Richard Ojeda (1/25/19)
2. Eric Swalwell (7/8/19)
3. John Hickenlooper (8/15/19)
4. Jay Inslee  (8/21/19)
5. Seth Moulton (8/23/19)
6. Kirsten Gillibrand (8/28/19)
7. Howard Schultz (9/6/19) * Ran as an Independent   
8. Bill de Blasio (9/20/19)

I'm Running Declared Democratic candidates, in order of their announcement:

1. John Delaney (7/28/17) 
2. Andrew Yang (11/6/17) 
3. Elizabeth Warren (12/31/18)
4. Tulsi Gabbard (1/11/19)
5. Julián Castro (1/12/19)
6. Kamala Harris (1/21/19)
7. Pete Buttigieg (1/23/19)
8. Marianne Williamson (1/30/19)
9. Cory Booker (2/1/19)
10. Amy Klobuchar (2/10/19)
11. Bernie Sanders (2/19/19)
12. Beto O'Rourke (3/14/19)
13. Tim Ryan (4/5/19)
14. Joe Biden (4/25/19)
15. Michael Bennet (5/2/19)
16. Wayne Messam (Declared 3/28, added to this list on 5/2/19)
17. Steve Bullock (5/14/19)
18. Joe Sestak (6/22/19) 
19. Tom Steyer (7/9/19)

Days until Election Day: 409

Viola Davis

Issue dated September 30, 2019: Viola Davis


Viola Davis gets the cover this week, just before the start of the final season of How To Get Away With Murder. She also has a new contract as the face of L'Oreal Paris. Felicity Huffman and Sarah Hyland were on the Guessing Game post (read it here,) Demi Moore was not, and the article about Moore is just a "write-around," quoting a source and an interview with The New York Times.

Last year at this time: Issue dated October 1, 2018
 

The Guessing Game (And A Few People Covers) - Updated

After a summer hiatus, the Guessing Game is back! What will be on the cover of People this week? Here are my guesses:

Friends and/or ER: Both shows premiered 25 years ago; ER on September 19, 1994, and Friends three days later on the 22nd
Jennifer Lopez and/or Constance Wu: Their movie, Hustlers, opened big, the biggest opening of Lopez's career.
Roselyn Keo and Samantha Barbash: The real-life women played by Lopez and Wu
Renee Zellweger: Getting great reviews for her performance as Judy Garland; the movie Judy opens September 27
Downton Abby: The movie opens this Friday
Antonio Brown: The Patriots player is accused of sexual assault and not paying his debts
Sam Smith: The British singer has come out as gender-fluid; his pronouns are now they/them
Christie Brinkley and/or her daughter Sailor Brinkley Cook: Christie broke her arm last Thursday and had to withdraw from Dancing With The Stars; her daughter Sailor is taking her place
Felicity Huffman: Sentenced to 14 days in jail
Brad Pitt: His new movie, Ad Astra, opens Friday, he visited NASA and spoke to astronauts on the Space Station
Shane Gillis: Will not be joining Saturday Night Live after offensive comments surface
Tyler Cameron and GiGi Hadid: The Bachelorette runner-up appears to be dating the supermodel; men-from-the-Bachelorette-dating-famous-women is becoming a trend. Wells Adams is engaged to Sarah Hyland, Mike Johnson has been flirting with Demi Lovato and this afternoon people.com posted a story headlined "Fans Think Rachel Bilson and The Bachelor's Nick Viall Are Dating After Instagram Flirtations." Wow. Read about Nick and Rachel here.
Demi Burnett and Kristian Haggerty: Word on the street is that they get engaged on tonight's Bachelor In Paradise finale, the first same-sex couple in Bachelor Nation history
Harry and Meghan, plus their son Archie: The whole family is leaving on Monday 9/23 for an official trip to Africa

Stories that appear on the new cover will be highlighted in green.

To bring us up-to-date, here are the most recent People covers:

Issue dated September 23, 2019: Princess Kate


Issue dated September 16, 2019: Adele


Issue dated September 9, 2019: Kelly Clarkson


Issue dated September 2, 2019: Lori Loughlin


Issue dated August 26, 2019: The royal children


Update: See the new issue, featuring Viola Davis, here.

This Day In History, 2004: Everybody Gets A Car

It was 15 years ago:

📺On September 13, 2004, ‘The @Oprah Winfrey Show’ gave each unsuspecting audience member a brand new Pontiac G6: a total of 276 cars pic.twitter.com/OGro3djUGV

— RetroNewsNow (@RetroNewsNow) September 13, 2019

Here's how that episode is described in an article at Oprah.com, dated yesterday and titled 15 Years Ago Today, Oprah Gave Away $28,500 Cars to Her Entire Audience:  

They don’t make 'em like this anymore.

Across 25 seasons, The Oprah Winfrey Show brought us tear-jerking human interest stories, plus some of the most memorable celebrity interviews in television history. (Who can forget when Tom Cruise jumped on Oprah’s couch back in 2005?

But the show also become unforgettable thanks to the generosity of its host. Episode after episode, Oprah managed to give back to Americans in some way—even if it was simply with a book recommendation she thought could change your life.

Of course, the most epic giveaway happened back in 2004, when Oprah surprised an audience of 276 people by gifting them brand-new Pontiac G-6 cars that reportedly retailed for $28,500 during her “Wildest Dreams Come True” season. The event is now known as “Oprah’s Ultimate Car Giveaway,” and it’s been exactly 15 years since she brought endless amounts of joy to her live guests and the folks watching at home.

In case you forgot, the episode will always be remembered not only because, you know, she gave away free cars, but because of Oprah’s delivery. After teasing the audience by suggesting only one person would win a vehicle, she proclaimed—at the top of her lungs—“You get a car! You get a car! You get a car! Everybody gets a car!” (Read the article here.)

"... the generosity of its host." 

"Oprah managed to give back to Americans in some way"

"... she brought endless amounts of joy to her live guests and the folks watching at home."

Wow. That's some serious sucking-up by author Jonathan Borge, and it's also a serious distortion of what really happened.  

Those cars were not personal gifts from Oprah to her audience members and they weren't paid for by the show either. Not even close. Pontiac provided all 276 cars as a promotion, meaning that the entire episode was really a Pontiac commercial. Here's how Forbes described it in a retrospective article in 2016:

While it felt like the best.gift.ever for members of the audience, the car wasn't really a gift at all. The cars were part of a promotion for Pontiac (now defunct, but previously a brand of cars under the General Motors umbrella) to promote the G-6, a car introduced that same year as a replacement for the Grand Am. The moment, which was paid out of the car manufacturer's advertising budget, was named #4 of the Top 25 Oprah's Show Moments out of 4,000 episodes by TV Guide (because I know you're wondering, it was passed by the wagon of fat, Tom Cruise jumping on a sofa and the flash mob dance featuring the Black Eyed Peas). Frank Brady, chairman of the mass communications department at St. John's University in New York, called it "one of the great promotional stunts in the history of television."

The free car was a hit for ratings, but some audience members claimed a bigger hit: to their wallets. It turns out that free isn't always free. While General Motors handled the state sales tax on each of the new cars (around $1,800 per car), plus licensing fees, audience members were tasked with paying federal and state income taxes on the value of their new vehicle. To keep things simple, for reporting purposes, General Motors issued forms 1099-MISC to the recipients. 

While actual taxes payable varied based on individual tax brackets, estimates settled around $7,000 per car. That was hard to swallow for many in the audience - especially when Oprah had reportedly asked her staff to seek out audience members who were in need of a car. Those weren't taxpayers who were likely to have an extra $7,000 or so laying around. (Read the article here.)

I'm not always a fan of Oprah, and this is an example of why. 

A Fashion Statement

The Oregon Ducks will be making quite the fashion statement in their game against Montana Saturday night:

 

Read more here.

Go Ducks!

SPOILER: The Next Bachelor

Spoiler: If you don't want to know who the next Bachelor is until ABC announces his name Tuesday night, don't read this post.

*********************************************************************************

The rumors are out there that Peter Weber, aka Pilot Pete, is the next Bachelor and it looks like they're right:

(SPOILER): Peter shooting some of his Bachelor intro video today at LAX. pic.twitter.com/FlvU6wwFPI

— RealitySteve (@RealitySteve) September 12, 2019

I had been wondering if his employer, Delta Airlines, would be featured by name and it looks like it will be. Will the international travel be on Delta too? I assume so. And a note to producers: Please, please, please, keep the windmill references to a minimum.

Seriously: Is There Something Wrong With Donald?

Something is very off with Trump. Listen to this repetitive circle. This is different than the usual crazy rants.
Thoughts? pic.twitter.com/I6j6sO5GLr

— Mystery Solvent (@MysterySolvent) September 12, 2019

This Day In History, 1953: Jack & Jackie Get Married

View this post on Instagram

Happy 66th Anniversary to John and Jackie Kennedy. Your lives continue to inspire

A post shared by Monte Durham (@therealmontedurham) on Sep 12, 2019 at 6:04am PDT

Would Donald Fire Mike Pence? Can He?

Remember this tweet?

How worried must Pence be about being dumped from the ticket to go these lengths to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars at a Trump resort? https://t.co/sS9OtkTxSi

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) September 3, 2019

I assumed Kristol was mostly kidding, just piling on the "What was he thinking?" snarkfest when Mike Pence's stay at Donald's hotel in Ireland became a big story. Now I'm wondering, is Pence really at risk? Bill Kristol and Rick Wilson, in tweets posted yesterday, apparently think so:  

By the way, Trump’s dumping him. https://t.co/XKX4z04fq3

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) September 10, 2019

When Trump finally fires Mike Pence, there will still be people in DC who are shocked.

Don't you people get it?

This is a reality show, not a government.

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) September 11, 2019

Can Donald fire his Vice President? Probably not directly. Unlike cabinet Secretaries and White House staff members, the VP doesn't serve solely "at the pleasure of the president." He was elected by the people and sworn in via oath on Inauguration Day, just like Donald. If Donald decides he wants Pence gone, he'd have to convince him to "resign" and I'd say it's at least possible that the VP wouldn't go, or at least not quietly.

The other option for Donald would be to keep Pence on as VP for the rest of this term, but select someone else as his running mate for the 2020 election. If that sounds machiavellian and not very nice, well, yes, it would be but it's not unprecedented. Franklin Roosevelt had three vice presidents over the course of his 12-year presidency. John Nance Garner was his running mate in 1932 and 1936 and served eight years as VP. For the 1940 election, FDR dumped Garner and selected someone named Henry A. Wallace, who I had never heard of before doing some googling to write this post. (In truth, I probably learned about him in junior high school history classes, but Vice President Wallace was less than memorable.) Wallace served one term then got dumped himself for Harry Truman. Truman was elected, with FDR, in the 1944 election, and sworn in as VP on January 20, 1945. Just shy of 12 weeks later, FDR died and Truman became president. More recently, President Ford dropped his vice president, Nelson Rockefeller, and selected Senator Bob Dole as his running mate in 1976.

Can you imagine the political feeding frenzy that would ensue if Donald even hinted that he has fallen out of love with Mike Pence? In the past 74 years, three vice presidents, Truman, Lyndon Johnson (1963) and Gerald Ford (1974) have been promoted to the top job as a result of presidential death or resignation. (In the same period of time, only one sitting VP, George H.W. Bush in 1988, was able to get himself elected to the presidency.) I've said here before that I believe one of the key reasons Pence agreed to work for Donald was the possibility that Donald wouldn't last a full term. That possibility makes the VP job very appealing, even with Donald as the boss. I can only imagine how ugly things could get with Mike Pence desperately trying to keep his job while every other Republican, from Nikki Haley to Mitt Romney to Chris Christie, is desperately trying to replace him in it.

Would Donald really break up with Mike Pence? Based on everything we've seen so far, I'd say it's not out of question. I considered the possibility of Pence becoming president back in January, click here to read that post. 

You Don't Have To Be A Car Mechanic... - Updated

Peter Wehner is a life-long Republican who worked in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, and at the Bush 43 White House. Last night he posted an article at The Atlantic, titled Trump Is Not Well. This is the article in its entirety:

During the 2016 campaign, I received a phone call from an influential political journalist and author, who was soliciting my thoughts on Donald Trump. Trump’s rise in the Republican Party was still something of a shock, and he wanted to know the things I felt he should keep in mind as he went about the task of covering Trump.

At the top of my list: Talk to psychologists and psychiatrists about the state of Trump’s mental health, since I considered that to be the most important thing when it came to understanding him. It was Trump’s Rosetta stone.

I wasn’t shy about making the same case publicly. During a July 14, 2016, appearance on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, for example, I responded to a pro-Trump caller who was upset that I opposed Trump despite my having been a Republican for my entire adult life and having served in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations and the George W. Bush White House.

“I don’t oppose Mr. Trump because I think he’s going to lose to Hillary Clinton,” I told Ben from Purcellville, Virginia. “I think he will, but as I said, he may well win. My opposition to him is based on something completely different, which is, first, I think he is temperamentally unfit to be president. I think he’s erratic, I think he’s unprincipled, I think he’s unstable, and I think that he has a personality disorder; I think he’s obsessive. And at the end of the day, having served in the White House for seven years in three administrations and worked for three presidents, one closely, and read a lot of history, I think the main requirement for president of the United States … is temperament, and disposition … whether you have wisdom and judgment and prudence.”

That statement has been validated.

Donald Trump’s disordered personality—his unhealthy patterns of thinking, functioning, and behaving—has become the defining characteristic of his presidency. It manifests itself in multiple ways: his extreme narcissism; his addiction to lying about things large and small, including his finances and bullying and silencing those who could expose them; his detachment from reality, including denying things he said even when there is video evidence to the contrary; his affinity for conspiracy theories; his demand for total loyalty from others while showing none to others; and his self-aggrandizement and petty cheating.

It manifests itself in Trump’s impulsiveness and vindictiveness; his craving for adulation; his misogyny, predatory sexual behavior, and sexualization of his daughters; his open admiration for brutal dictators; his remorselessness; and his lack of empathy and sympathy, including attacking a family whose son died while fighting for this country, mocking a reporter with a disability, and ridiculing a former POW. (When asked about Trump’s feelings for his fellow human beings, Trump’s mentor, the notorious lawyer Roy Cohn, reportedly said, “He pisses ice water.”)

The most recent example is the president’s bizarre fixation on falsely insisting that he was correct to warn that Alabama faced a major risk from Hurricane Dorian, to the point that he doctored a hurricane map with a black Sharpie to include the state as being in the path of the storm.

“He’s deteriorating in plain sight,” one Republican strategist who is in frequent contact with the White House told Business Insider on Friday. Asked why the president was obsessed with Alabama instead of the states that would actually be affected by the storm, the strategist said, “You should ask a psychiatrist about that; I’m not sure I’m qualified to comment.”

We have repeatedly heard versions of that sentiment over the course of Trump’s presidency. It’s said that speculating on Trump’s mental health is inappropriate and unwise, especially for those who are not formally trained in the field of psychiatry or psychology.

That’s true, up to a point. Yes, it is best to leave it to experts to determine whether Trump satisfies the criteria for a clinical diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, some combination of both, or nothing at all.

But if a clinical diagnosis is beyond my own expertise, Trump’s psychological impairments are obvious to all who are not willfully blind. On a daily basis we see the president’s chaotic, unstable mind on display. Are we supposed to ignore that?

An analogy may be helpful here. If smoke is coming out from under the hood of your car, if you notice puddles of oil under it, if the engine is overheating and you smell burning oil, you don’t have to be a car mechanic to know that something is wrong with your car.

Accepting the reality about Trump’s disordered personality is important and even essential. For one thing, it will help us to better react to Trump’s freak show.

Even now, almost a thousand days into his presidency, the latest Trump outrage elicits shock and disbelief in people. The reaction is, “Can you believe he said that and did this?”

To which my response is, “Why are you surprised?” It’s a shock only if the assumption is that we’re dealing with a psychologically normal human being. We’re not. Trump is profoundly compromised, acting just as you would imagine a person with a disordered personality would. Many Americans haven’t yet come to terms with the fact that we elected as president a man who is deeply damaged, an emotional misfit. But it would be helpful if they did.

Among other things, it would keep us feeling less startled and disoriented, less in a state of constant agitation, less susceptible to provocations. Donald Trump thrives on creating chaos, on gaslighting us, on creating antipathy among Americans, on keeping people on edge and off balance. He wants to dominate our every waking hour. We ought not grant him that power over us.

It might also take some of the edge off the hatred many people feel for Trump. Seeing him for what he is—a terribly damaged soul, a broken man, a person with a disordered mind—should not lessen our revulsion at how Trump mistreats others, at his cruelty and dehumanizing actions. Nor should it weaken our resolve to stand up to it. It does complicate the picture just a bit, though, eliciting some pity and sorrow for Trump.

But above all, accepting the truth about Trump’s mental state will cause us to take more seriously than we have our democratic duty, which is to prevent a psychologically and morally unfit person from becoming president.

The office is too powerful, and the consequences are too dangerous, to allow a person to become president who views morality only through the prism of whether an action advances his own narrow interests, his own distorted desires, his own twisted impulses. When an individual comes to believe his interests and those of the nation he leads are one and the same, it opens the door to all sorts of moral and constitutional devilry.

Whether or not his disorders are diagnosable, the president’s psychological flaws are all too apparent. They were alarming when he took the oath of office; they are worse now. Every day Donald Trump is president is a day of disgrace. And a day of danger.  

Also at The Atlantic, writer McKay Coppins has posted an article about the dysfunction and rivalries in the Trump family, in particular between Ivanka and Don Jr. You can read it here.

Update on Wednesday afternoon. This is Donald talking about vaping, and in the second video, his son Barron:

Here's video of Trump telling reporters today that "innocent children" are "coming home and they're saying, 'mom, I want to vape!'" pic.twitter.com/XwSrYboavZ

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 11, 2019

everyone: my son

Trump: "She's got a son -- together" pic.twitter.com/6e89rJpZfB

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 11, 2019

How does he sound to you? 

This Day In History, 1966: Star Trek

It all started on this day back in 1966:

📺’Star Trek’ DEBUT (TV Guide, September 8, 1966) pic.twitter.com/VRTpVMSKQI

— RetroNewsNow (@RetroNewsNow) September 9, 2019

Note: I don't know why the video above is marked as having sensitive content. It's just the opening credits: Space, the final frontier...

The original Star Trek only lasted three seasons, but William Shatner was back in 1975, starring in a show titled Barbary Coast, which also had its premiere on September 8. According to IMDB.com, it only lasted 14 episodes.

Howard Schultz Won't Run

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz has decided against a run for president as an Independent:

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz won't run for president in 2020, ending his exploration of an independent run against President Donald Trump.

"My belief in the need to reform our two-party system has not wavered, but I have concluded that an independent campaign for the White House is not how I can best serve our country at this time," Schultz said in a letter posted to his website on Friday. (From CNN; read more here.)

Schultz was never an officially declared candidate, but he did a lot of the things candidates do when they're thinking about running, at least initially, so I'm adding him to the "I'm Not Running Anymore'' list:

I'm Not Running Anymore: Declared candidates who have dropped out:

1. Richard Ojeda (1/25/19)
2. Eric Swalwell (7/8/19)
3. John Hickenlooper (8/15/19)
4. Jay Inslee  (8/21/19)
5. Seth Moulton (8/23/19)
6. Kirsten Gillibrand (8/28/19)
7. Howard Schultz (9/6/19) 

There are now 20 candidates on the "I'm Running" list: 

I'm Running: Declared Democratic candidates, in order of their announcement

1. John Delaney (7/28/17) 
2. Andrew Yang (11/6/17) 
3. Elizabeth Warren (12/31/18)
4. Tulsi Gabbard (1/11/19)
5. Julián Castro (1/12/19)
6. Kamala Harris (1/21/19)
7. Pete Buttigieg (1/23/19)
8. Marianne Williamson (1/30/19)
9. Cory Booker (2/1/19)
10. Amy Klobuchar (2/10/19)
11. Bernie Sanders (2/19/19)
12. Beto O'Rourke (3/14/19)
13. Tim Ryan (4/5/19)
14. Joe Biden (4/25/19)
15. Michael Bennet (5/2/19)
16. Wayne Messam (Declared 3/28, added to this list on 5/2/19)
17. Steve Bullock (5/14/19)
18. Bill de Blasio (5/16/19)
19. Joe Sestak (6/22/19) 
20. Tom Steyer (7/9/19)

... only half of whom qualified to participate in the next debate on September 12: 

Days until the election: 422

This Day In History, 1972: Mark Spitz Wins Gold (Lots of Gold!)

🇺🇸On September 4, 1972, U.S. swimmer Mark Spitz became the first athlete to win seven gold medals during a single Olympiad pic.twitter.com/7gfQgUtiZ0

— RetroNewsNow (@RetroNewsNow) September 4, 2019

The Emoluments Clause - Updated

Mike Pence's trip to Ireland is in the news this morning. First, White House Deputy Press Secretary Judd Deere wants us to believe that the fact that the VP and his wife are having lunch with Taoiseach Leo Varadkar (who's gay) and his partner proves that the VP isn't anti-gay:

For all of you who still think our @VP is anti-gay, I point you to his and the @SecondLady’s schedule tomorrow where they will join Taoiseach @LeoVaradkar and his partner Dr. Matthew Barrett for lunch in Ireland. 🇮🇪 @merrionstreet pic.twitter.com/Cj5kMpln0U

— Judd Deere (@JuddPDeere45) September 3, 2019

... then people started to question why Pence and his family are staying at a hotel so far away from his meetings in Dublin, which just happens to be owned by the current President of the United States:

While in Ireland, VP Pence is staying in Trump's golf resort. Which is in Doonbeg (red pin).

His official duties are in Dublin, which is literally the opposite side of the country.

Apart from enriching the President, what is the purpose of running up taxpayer costs like this? pic.twitter.com/30QyxI5WXb

— Don Moynihan (@donmoyn) September 3, 2019

two questions for a congressional oversight committee

1) How much will the decision to commute by air between Trump property and Pence's appointments in Dublin cost the taxpayer?

2) How much will the (troubled) Trump property in Ireland be paid by the taxpayer? https://t.co/S1s7CzOHWK

— David Frum (@davidfrum) September 3, 2019

VP’s chief of staff tells reporters it was Trump’s suggestion that Pence stay at his golf resort in Doonbeg in Ireland (on the other side of the country from the capital). Taxpayers still footing the bill though; Trump didn’t offer to pay. Pence flying back and forth to Dublin.

— Kevin Liptak (@Kevinliptakcnn) September 3, 2019

Pence chief @marcshort45 on whether Trump asked Pence to stay at his property in Doonbeg, Ireland — via @costareports, who is doing a terrific job pooling the VP’s trip to Europe pic.twitter.com/utkQ56X6RB

— Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) September 3, 2019

How the White House explains Trump’s suggestion that Pence and his team stay at Trump’s Irish golf club (and spend taxpayer dollars there):

"It's like, 'Well, you should stay at my place.' It wasn't like a, 'You must.’ It wasn't like, 'You have to.'” https://t.co/akmXN3OsJi

— Tim O'Brien (@TimOBrien) September 3, 2019

The Secret Service will provide a secure & safe location regardless of where the VP stays. They never take the path of least resistance in their protective model; using the USSS as an excuse, lacking any real security construct, shows a misguided understanding of their mission. https://t.co/j2SPFDpCff

— Jonathan Wackrow (@JDWackrow) September 3, 2019

You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to get why this is an abuse of power, either. Everyone knows you can't use your government job for personal profit. It's simple: Emoluments = Payola. Trump is all about the payola. https://t.co/mYhG5C4knC

— Elizabeth de la Vega (@Delavegalaw) September 3, 2019

Bill Kristol has another idea about why the VP and his family are staying at Donald's hotel:

How worried must Pence be about being dumped from the ticket to go these lengths to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars at a Trump resort? https://t.co/sS9OtkTxSi

— Bill Kristol (@BillKristol) September 3, 2019

The VP responds: 

VP Pence offers no apologies for staying at Trump golf resort in Doonbeg, Ireland. Says its "deeply humbling" for him to visit "the very hometown of my mother's grandmother." Says the @StateDept approved his stay and the @VP says it was important to him that he stay in Doonbeg. pic.twitter.com/Gm5CZaRwFo

— Mark Knoller (@markknoller) September 3, 2019

Update on Wednesday afternoon: Uh oh. Sounds like someone wasn't happy with reporting that said it was Donald who "suggested" the VP and his family stay at his hotel:

New Pence team statement on his Doonbeg stay after hours of controversy over his entourage staying several hours from his Dublin meetings: pic.twitter.com/UFy6XvCQZz

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) September 4, 2019

To be clear, it wasn't Democrats or reporters who said that Donald had suggested Pence stay at his hotel. That information came directly from Pence's chief of staff, as shown in Seung Min Kim's tweet above.

More, from CNN.com:

With fealty to President Donald Trump as his defining political trait, Vice President Mike Pence isn't typically the man in the spotlight. But his latest European jaunt has been marked with unfortunate headlines and questions about how far he's willing to go to please his boss.

...Trump had been irked that he was being blamed for the fallout for Pence's accommodations, sources told CNN, and Pence -- who keeps a close eye on his media coverage -- was also exasperated by the negative attention.

Trump has suggested before that Cabinet officials and advisers stay at his properties while they are traveling. He himself has spent 289 days of his presidency at a Trump property, according to a CNN tally.

A person familiar with the President's thinking explained the pattern as Trump's genuine belief that his locations are the best place for aides to lodge, and makes similar recommendations to his friends who do not work for him.

In the past, however, aides have typically ignored the recommendations, knowing it would result in a firestorm of ethics questions.

On Tuesday and Wednesday, multiple White House officials expressed disbelief that Pence's office thought spending two nights at the Trump International Golf Links & Hotel was good idea.

Pence has made several overseas trips while in office -- and on occasion been sent in the President's stead -- but he has never faced turbulence like in Europe this week. (Read the article here.)

The Number One Shoe? - Updated

Is Sean Hannity the number one shoe on Cable Television? Donald thinks so:

Has anyone noticed that the top shows on @foxnews and cable ratings are those that are Fair (or great) to your favorite President, me! Congratulations to @seanhannity for being the number one shoe on Cable Television!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 31, 2019

As I've said here before, posting Donald's "tweets with typos" isn't as much fun as it used to be because there are so many of them. Every now and then, however, I just can't stop myself. Enjoy.

Update: Donald doesn't always correct his typos; this time he did:

Has anyone noticed that the top shows on @foxnews and cable ratings are those that are Fair (or great) to your favorite President, me! Congratulations to @seanhannity for being the number one show on Cable Television!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 31, 2019

Something Has Changed - Updated

This is striking:

Compare and contrast: Trump speaking during his June 2015 campaign launch speech vs. Trump speaking today pic.twitter.com/TTG5EArhJZ

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) August 29, 2019

Update on Sunday evening. More evidence that Donald is not well:

President Trump: “I'm not sure that I’ve ever even heard of a Category 5."

Also President Trump: pic.twitter.com/lj8c5yeUQ1

— Kasie DC (@KasieDC) September 2, 2019

In a FEMA briefing today, Donald says he's never heard of a Category 5
hurricane, but watch the video. Back in 2017, he talked about a Cat 5
storm on September 14, September 21, September 26, October 3 and
October 19. He also talked about one on May 8 of this year. Does he really
not remember? 

Daniel Dale provides specifics: 

President Donald Trump on the existence of Category 5 hurricanes, 2017-2019. pic.twitter.com/IRRny20hfp

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) September 1, 2019

  
And one more thing: 

In addition to Florida - South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated. Looking like one of the largest hurricanes ever. Already category 5. BE CAREFUL! GOD BLESS EVERYONE!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 1, 2019

Well, not Alabama:

Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian. We repeat, no impacts from Hurricane #Dorian will be felt across Alabama. The system will remain too far east. #alwx

— NWS Birmingham (@NWSBirmingham) September 1, 2019

Update #2, on Wednesday afternoon:

The President of the United States altered a National Hurricane Center map with a sharpie to falsely extend the official forecast toward Alabama so he didn't have to admit he was wrong in a tweet. https://t.co/i0CJcYV4yq pic.twitter.com/pR57IL6WfT

— Dennis Mersereau (@wxdam) September 4, 2019

Scandalous, Indeed

From yesterday:

View this post on Instagram

August 28 (even years only) is known as scandal day in the Obama administration.⁣ ⁣ 1. On this day in 2010, President Obama BENT HIS WRIST while fly-fishing.⁣ ⁣ 2. On this day in 2012, President Obama fist-bumped TWO PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME.⁣ ⁣ 3. On this day in 2014, President Obama draped a TAN SUIT on the back of his chair in the Oval Office, and then WORE THE SUIT IN THE WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING ROOM.⁣ ⁣ 4. On this day in 2016, President Obama took the day off and I have no pictures of him.

A post shared by Pete Souza (@petesouza) on Aug 28, 2019 at 10:07am PDT

And Then There Were Nine? - Updated

I currently have 21 candidates on my "I'm Running" list: (Added Wednesday afternoon: We're now down to 20 after Kirsten Gillibrand dropped out.)

I'm Running: Declared Democratic candidates, in order of their announcement

1. John Delaney (7/28/17) 
2. Andrew Yang (11/6/17) 
3. Elizabeth Warren (12/31/18)
4. Tulsi Gabbard (1/11/19)
5. Julián Castro (1/12/19)
6. Kamala Harris (1/21/19)
7. Pete Buttigieg (1/23/19)
8. Marianne Williamson (1/30/19)
9. Cory Booker (2/1/19)
10. Amy Klobuchar (2/10/19)
11. Bernie Sanders (2/19/19)
12. Beto O'Rourke (3/14/19)
13. Tim Ryan (4/5/19)
14. Joe Biden (4/25/19)
15. Michael Bennet (5/2/19)
16. Wayne Messam (Declared 3/28, added to this list on 5/2/19)
17. Steve Bullock (5/14/19)
18. Bill de Blasio (5/16/19)
19. Joe Sestak (6/22/19) 
20. Tom Steyer (7/9/19)

Now, in a column posted today, political scientist Jonathan Bernstein says only nine are what he calls plausible nominees:

1. Joe Biden
2. Elizabeth Warren
3. Kamala Harris
4. Pete Buttigieg
5. Cory Booker 
6. Beto O'Rourke 
7. Julián Castro
8. Amy Klobuchar
9. Bernie Sanders

Here's why :

We’ll find out Wednesday whether any more candidates have qualified for the next round of Democratic debates. So far, 10 have made it in. If we’re going to rank them, one could do worse than what Richard Skinner said on Tuesday: “I feel like there’s Tier 1 (Joe, E-Dubs, Bernie, Harris), Tier 2 (Pete B, Booker, Beto, Castro, Amy K) and Tier 3 (most others, mostly hopeless). But then also`problematic’ tier (Yang, Steyer, Tulsi, Marianne).”

The big difference I’d have with Skinner’s analysis is that I can’t see Bernie Sanders in the top tier. In fact, I’d put him at the bottom of the second group, making him (more or less) the ninth-most-likely Democrat to win the nomination. It’s true that Sanders is still second in the RealClearPolitics polling average. Yet he’s sixth in the FiveThirtyEight index of high-profile endorsements, and Seth Masket’s interviews with early-state activists portray him as a factional candidate. Could I see a scenario in which Sanders wins? Just barely. Iowa and New Hampshire were unusually good for him in 2016 and appear to be this time as well; if he can manage to win in both, perhaps opposition within the party melts away after all.

Separating the rest of that top group – Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris – seems impossible to me. They each have advantages and disadvantages, but they’re all plausible nominees. Each has support from party actors, but none has a clear lead. Biden leads in overall endorsement points, but both Harris and Warren can claim to have landed more signs of party support recently.

I still think that makes everyone in the next group – Pete Buttigieg, Cory Booker, Beto O’Rourke, Julian Castro and Amy Klobuchar – a bit more likely than Sanders. They’re behind in the polls, to be sure. But each has signs of party support, while none looks like a factional candidate. What they each need is to separate their image from the crowd. It would be no surprise if they all fizzled, the way that Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson all did during the 2008 campaign despite having solid credentials. But each appears able to capitalize if they do demonstrate solid gains.

The remaining candidates seem unlikely to come anywhere close to the nomination. Failing to qualify for the September debates is a real blow. And no one in the “problematic” group Skinner identifies – including Andrew Yang, who has qualified for the next round – appears to have much party support, suggesting that even if they can move up temporarily in the polls, they’re unlikely to ride that to victory.

So we’re likely down to nine plausible nominees, with some small percentage chance for the remaining field combined. (This is the column in its entirety.)

As I'm writing, at about 10.30 a.m. Wednesday, the Washington Post says 10 candidates have qualified for the upcoming September debate, the nine on Bernstein's list above, plus Andrew Yang. Today is the deadline to qualify; if anyone else slides in at the last minute, I'll update this post. (Read the WaPo article here.) 

Update on Wednesday afternoon. NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has dropped out of the race for president. I've moved her name to the "I'm Not Running Anymore" list:

I'm Not Running Anymore: Declared candidates who have dropped out:

1. Richard Ojeda (1/25/19)
2. Eric Swalwell (7/8/19)
3. John Hickenlooper (8/15/19)
4. Jay Inslee  (8/21/19)
5. Seth Moulton (8/23/19)
6. Kirsten Gillibrand (8/28/19) 

This is a tweet from 2013, I'm posting it here just in case: 

I'm just going to call this right now, apropos of nothing: 1st female U.S. president will be Kirsten Gillibrand. (Foggier on year. 2020?)

— Dan Zak (@MrDanZak) January 7, 2013

This Day In History, 2014: Obama's Tan Suit

Five years ago, Obama was blasted for wearing a tan suit. Now, it’s used to contrast him with Trump. https://t.co/wRCdcuFDjk

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) August 28, 2019

From the article at the Washington Post: 

Ronald Reagan wore tan suits during his presidency. So did Dwight D. Eisenhower, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

But on Aug. 28, 2014, when President Barack Obama showed up for a White House news conference dressed in beige, the light-colored suit became a matter of national import. Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) fumed that the suit pointed to a “lack of seriousness” on the president’s part, cable news shows held roundtable discussions, fashion critics and image consultants weighed in, and TV news reporters conducted man-on-the-street interviews to find out what the people of Northeast Ohio thought of the controversial look.

Five years later, however, Tan Suit Gate has taken on a different meaning, coming to symbolize the relative dearth of scandals during the Obama administration. On social media, just about every news item about potential conflicts of interests within the Trump administration and the president’s flouting of norms is met with some variant of “Remember when Obama wore a tan suit?” In the past week alone, the tan suit comparison has been leveled against President Trump’s assertion that he is “the chosen one,” his demand that U.S. companies leave China, and his desire to hold next year’s Group of Seven summit at his Florida golf resort — just to name a few examples. (Read the article here.)