Nominee Pete Hegseth for defense secretary is dangerous and evidence of his drinking problem is disqualifying

The Sound of Fear on Air:  It is an ominous sign that Morning Joe felt it had to apologize for something I said. By David Frum

David Frum Says MSNBC’s ‘Efforts to Appease’ Trump by Apologizing for His Joke About Pete Hegsesth’s Drinking Are ‘Very Ominous’

I had an unsettling experience with the hosts of Morning Joe.

I was invited onto MSNBC’s Morning Joe to talk from a studio in Washington, D.C., about an article I’d written on Trump’s approach to foreign policy. Before getting to the article, I was asked about the nomination of Pete Hegseth as secretary of defense—specifically about an NBC News report that his heavy drinking worried colleagues at Fox News and at the veterans organizations he’d headed. (A spokesman for the Trump transition told NBC, “These disgusting allegations are completely unfounded and false, and anyone peddling these defamatory lies to score political cheap shots is sickening.”)

Political commentator David Frum joined MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” Wednesday to discuss allegations of heavy drinking against Donald Trump’s defense secretary nominee, Pete Hegseth. Frum introduced the story with a joke about Fox News, which then prompted MSNBC to issue an apology. In a written response in the Atlantic, Frum warned such an act is “a very ominous thing” ahead of Trump’s return to the White House.

NBC published a report Tuesday that revealed former colleagues of Hegseth’s at Fox News were deeply concerned about his drinking habits. Two people interviewed said they smelled alcohol on Hegseth before he went on the air, with one person noting that they noticed the smell as recently as November.

The report was a follow-up to a New Yorker magazine piece published Sunday that revealed there were similar concerns about Hegseth when he was head of Concerned Veterans for America from 2013-2016.

When Frum began the segment Wednesday, he joked, “If you’re too drunk for Fox News, you’re very, very drunk indeed.” During the commercial break that followed, he wrote in the Atlantic, a producer “objected to my comments about Fox and warned me not to repeat them.” The topic didn’t come back up and Frum departed the set.

“Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski then read an apology for Frum’s comments. Brzezinski and her husband co-host Joe Scarborough came under fire in November after a visit the pair paid to Trump at Mar-a-Lago was made public.

“A little bit earlier in this block there was a comment made about Fox News, in our coverage about Pete Hegseth and the growing number of allegations about his behavior over the years and possible addiction to alcohol or issues with alcohol,” Brzezinski said on “Morning Joe.”

“The comment was a little too flippant for this moment that we’re in. We just want to make that comment as well. We want to make that clear. We have differences in coverage with Fox News, and that’s a good debate that we should have often, but right now I just want to say there’s a lot of good people who work at Fox News who care about Pete Hegseth, and we will want to leave it at that.”

In his follow-up piece, Frum agreed “there are good people at Fox News” but added that if the report from NBC is to be believed, “many of those same good people have failed to report publicly that their former colleague, appointed to lead the armed forces of the United States, was notorious in their own building for his drinking.”

Frum also expressed empathy for the fact that the popularity of “Morning Joe” has in turn “exposed the hosts and producers to extraordinary pressures and threats in the Trump era,” especially due to the President-elect’s own claims that he will retaliate against those in the media he feels have spoken badly about him.

He took responsibility for the comment (“my face was on the screen, my name was on the chyron, and anyone who took offense knows whom to blame,” Frum writes) but added a chill warning: “It is a very ominous thing if our leading forums for discussion of public affairs are already feeling the chill of intimidation and responding with efforts to appease.”

“I do not write to scold anyone; I write because fear is infectious. Let it spread, and it will paralyze us all,” Frum continued. “The only antidote is courage. And that’s infectious, too.”

Joe Scarborouogh and Mika have consistently expressed their strong reservations and perspectives regarding Pete Hegseth’s nomination from the very beginning, and that stance remains unchanged.

We would have responded in the same manner regardless of when these comments were made or what news…

— Richard Hudock (@richardhudock) December 4, 2024

Frum was invited back to “Morning Joe” Thursday morning by NBC’s VP of communications, Richard Hudock. He wrote on X, formerly Twitter, “We would have responded in the same manner regardless of when these comments were made or what news organization was referenced.”  (Hmmmmm❓.....Maine Writer is not convinced about Hudock's point of view....too defensive.)

Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald Trump's incompetent pick for defense secretary, drank in ways that concerned his Fox News colleagues while he was a host at the network, according to an NBC News report.

Gun sales and the futility of "thoughts and prayers"

Thoughts and prayers. It began as a cliché. It became a joke. It has putrefied into a national shame.

Echo essay published in The Atlantic by David Frum:

If tonight, Americans do turn heavenward in pain and grief for the lost children of Uvalde, Texas, they may hear the answer delivered in the Bible through the words of Isaiah:

“And when ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your hands are full of blood.” (They have become a burden to Me; I am weary of bearing them).

Prays need action!

We will learn more about the 18-year-old killer of elementary-school children: his personality, his ideology, whatever confection of hate and cruelty drove him to his horrible crime. But we already know the answer to one question: Who put the weapon of mass murder into his hand? The answer to that question is that the public policy of this country armed him.

Every other democracy makes some considerable effort to keep guns away from dangerous people, and dangerous people away from guns. For many years—and especially since the massacre at Connecticut’s Sandy Hook Elementary School almost a decade ago—the United States has put more and more guns into more and more hands: 120 guns per 100 people in this country. The years of the pandemic have been the years of the greatest gun sales in U.S. history: almost 20 million guns sold in 2020; another 18.5 million sold in 2021. No surprise, those two years also witnessed a surge in gun violence: the spectacular human butchery of our recurring mass slaughters; the surge of one-on-one lethal criminality; the unceasing tragic toll of carelessness as American gun owners hurt and kill their loved ones and themselves.

https://www.uvaldeleadernews.com/articles/robb-shooting-claims-19-children-2-teachers/

Most of us are appalled. But not enough of us are sufficiently appalled to cast our votes to halt it. And those to whom Americans entrust political power, at the state and federal levels, seem determined to make things worse and bloodier. In the next few weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will deliver its opinion in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, a decision that could strike down concealed-carry bans even in the few states that still have them. More guns, more places, fewer checks, fewer protections: Since Sandy Hook, this country has plunged backward and downward toward barbarism.

In his memoir of his career in the gun trade, the former gun-industry executive Ryan Busse writes of the effect of mass shootings on gun sales. They are, to put it bluntly, good for business. People think that perhaps the authorities might do something, and race to the gun stores to buy weapons before the “something” happens. The gun in the gunman’s hand multiplies to more guns in more hands. Most of those hands do not mean to inflict harm. But the harm follows, even so.

In this magazine five years ago, I wrote a parable: 

A village has been built in the deepest gully of a floodplain.

At regular intervals, flash floods wipe away houses, killing all inside. Less dramatic—but more lethal—is the steady toll as individual villagers slip and drown in the marshes around them.

After especially deadly events, the villagers solemnly discuss what they might do to protect themselves. Perhaps they might raise their homes on stilts? But a powerful faction among the villagers is always at hand to explain why these ideas won’t work. “No law can keep our village safe! The answer is that our people must learn to be better swimmers—and oh by the way, you said ‘stilts’ when the proper term is ‘piles,’ so why should anybody listen to you?”

So the argument rages, without result, year after year, decade after decade, fatalities mounting all the while. Nearby villages, built in the hills, marvel that the gully-dwellers persist in their seemingly reckless way of life. But the gully-dwellers counter that they are following the wishes of their Founders, whose decisions two centuries ago must always be upheld by their descendants.

Since then, of course, things have only gotten worse. Can it be different this time? Whether any particular killer proves to be a racist, a jihadist, a sexually frustrated incel, or a randomly malignant carrier of sorrow and grief, can Americans ever break the pattern of empty thoughts, meaningless prayers, and more and worse bloodshed to follow?

The lobbying groups and politicians who enable these killers will dominate the federal courts and state governments, as they do today, until the mighty forces of decency and kindness in American life say to the enablers:

“That’s enough! This must stop—and we will stop you.”

P.S. Maine Writer:  Thank you David Frum

France was snubbed on Constitution Day!

Echo report published in The Atlantic written by the David Frum:

Dining room of the French Embassy, Washington, D.C. digital file from original.

DATELINE: September 17, 2021, in the dining room of the French ambassador’s residence.  Constitution Day.

In fact, the location is one of the most beautiful places in Washington, D.C., a confection of frothed plaster overlooking a garden in the poodle-clipped style the French so love. Before COVID-19, the room was known for the discussion sessions held there, hosted by a gracious series of ambassadors. 

French Ambassador Philippe Étienne was recalled after the usurped submarine deal between the US and Australia was abruptly announced.

It’s been a long time since anyone was able to enjoy an in-person event at the residence. So when invitations arrived to celebrate Constitution Day, September 17, at the residence in a lunchtime discussion with a former justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and an equally distinguished French judge, well, the RSVPs returned quickly.

The timing, however, was unfortunate, as it coincided with an angry upset in Franco-American relations. The United States had snatched a $90 billion submarine contract with Australia from French shipyards. To add (security policy) insult to the (lost jobs and revenues) injury, the redirected submarine contract would consolidate a new U.S.-U.K.-Australia naval defense agreement in the Indo-Pacific, an agreement into which France had not been invited.

Worse still, the French received word only hours before the public found out, reportedly because the Americans and the Australians each insisted that the other deliver the bad news.

The French administered a symbolic protest by canceling a gala event planned for Friday evening: a commemoration of the 240th anniversary of a naval battle that helped secure the American victory at Yorktown in 1781. But lunch? Attendees hastily confirmed: Lunch was safe. Or so it seemed.

The first hour of the lunch event harkened back to pre-COVID days. There was champagne in the foyer and courteous welcomes by embassy senior staff, all as it used to be. 

Guests took their seats. Opening remarks were elegantly spoken, all off the record, but so guarded and careful that there would be no news in them even without an agreement not to quote them. 

Steve Clemons, an editor at large at The Hill and the whiskey-smooth master of ceremonies, set the conversation in motion. But about 15 minutes in, Clemons was obliged to make a regretful announcement: The ambassador had a very important meeting and would be leaving immediately.

Somebody loudly asked, “Off to the State Department?” (Maine Writer: Oh no, I don't think so!)

Only later did we learn where the ambassador was heading: not to the State Department, not to the Pentagon, not to the White House, but upstairs to pack before flying to Paris for “consultations.”

Earlier in the meal, somebody had cracked a joke about U.S.-French relations—how they’d sunk so low that they were now underwater. The Americans laughed. The French did not.

But on the plus side: They did not shove us out on the sidewalk. A powerful symbolic message was sent. France is mad, but not so mad that we will deprive our American friends of lunch and dessert. (Crème brûlée, in case you were wondering, under crackling crusts individually crafted by a sous-chef with a miniature flamethrower.)

It’s like a scene from a marriage that endures despite the quarrels. The aggrieved partner walked out in a rage, but not before ensuring that the other had been properly fed.

David Frum is a staff writer at The Atlantic and the author of Trumpocalypse: Restoring American Democracy 

Donald Trump - A danger to himself and others (opinion)

More trouble for Trump: Unfit to lead: "...military and intelligence agencies are learning new habits of disregard for presidential statements.."

The Problem With 'Containing' Donald Trump- by David Frum

When Bob Corker says officials are trying to “contain” the president, he’s pointing to a long-term threat to democratic stability.

Two interlocking constitutional crises are now gripping the United States. We are in a very precarious situation. One spectacularly visible and noisy; while the other is unfolding more quietly. Senator Bob Corker’s Sunday remarks to The New York Times brought the quiet crisis into full public view.

The noisy crisis is, of course, the presidency of Donald Trump. The quiet crisis is the response of the national-security system to the noisy crisis.

Mr. Trump poses such an acute risk, the senator said, that a coterie of senior administration officials must protect him from his own instincts.

“I know for a fact that every single day at the White House, it’s a situation of trying to contain him,” Mr. Corker said in a telephone interview.

(In other words, MaineWriter asssessment, Donald Trump is a "danger to himself and others".)

This observation by the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Tennessee Senator Bob Corker, has been seconded by other insiders.

Senator Bob Corker, R-TN will not seek re-election. He is speaking truth to power

“There are people inside the administration that think it is their job to save America from this president,” then-White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci told CNN’s New Day in July.

 In April, an unnamed senior administration official praised the work of Rex Tillerson, Jim Mattis, and John Kelly, then still secretary of homeland security: “They realize this is a tumultuous White House, and they are serving as a leveling influence over fractious personalities … responsibly protecting the country from enemies both foreign and domestic.” The “domestic enemies” in this formula apparently included much of President Trump’s own senior staff.

Good news: The people containing the commander-in-chief have to a considerable extent succeeded. The United States has not launched a preemptive attack on North Korea, abandoned Estonia to the Russians, canceled NAFTA, or started a trade war with China—each and every one of those outcomes a seemingly live possibility if you heeded Trump’s own words.

Bad news: The national-security services are apparently coping with Donald Trump in ways that circumvent the president’s constitutional role as commander-in-chief. One example spotlights the ways Trump’s orders are shirked by his nominal subordinates. Trump tweeted in July that the “United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.” 

The actual policy set forth in executive orders in August will be very different: It leaves discretion to the secretary of defense to determine whether “military readiness” will be assisted or impaired by allowing transgender soldiers to continue their service.

We’ve seen the president issue threats of imminent military action—only to be contradicted by cabinet officers and military staff assuring potential adversaries that the United States will not initiate the use of force that the president had threatened to initiate.

The military and intelligence agencies are learning new habits of disregard for presidential statements and even (?) orders that those agencies deem ignorant or reckless. By and large, those agencies’ judgments are vastly to be preferred to the president’s—but that does not make these habits any less dangerous.

Among other insights, Corker’s Sunday interview forces Americans to confront some tough questions: By what methods is the president being contained? Is he, for example, being denied sensitive information by agencies that remember how he blurted a closely guarded secret to the Russian foreign minister and the location of U.S. nuclear submarines to the president of the Philippines? Are allies and potential adversaries being signaled that presidential statements do not actually represent the policy of the United States government? That was how National-Security Adviser H.R. McMaster dealt with Trump’s refusal to read aloud the endorsement of NATO’s Article 5 in the speech written for Trump to deliver at NATO headquarters in May. “He did not make a decision not to say it."

To what extent does the president remain in the military chain of command?

It seems incredible that the military would outright defy a presidential order.

But not hearing it? Not understanding it? Not acting on it promptly? Holding back information that might provoke an unwanted presidential reaction? White House insiders told a reporter Monday that Vice President Pence had made a mistake in telling Trump he planned to attend a game featuring a tribute to Indiana football great Peyton Manning on Sunday: It was that casual remark that goaded Trump into ordering Pence to stage his walk-out stunt.* Whether the story is true or not, it reveals the preferred method of managing a distrusted president:

In other words, deny him information that could have unwanted effects.

Thank you and congratulations to those officials struggling to protect American security, the Western alliance, and world peace against Donald Trump.

But the constitutional order is becoming the casualty of these struggles. The Constitution provides a way to remedy an unfit presidency: the removal process under the 25th amendment. Regencies and palace coups are not constitutional. I dare say many readers would prefer a Mattis presidency to a Trump presidency. But to stealthily endow Secretary Mattis with the powers of the presidency as a work-around of Trump’s abuse of them? That’s a crisis, too, and one sinister for the future. 

What if Trump is succeeded by a Bernie Sanders-type whom the military and intelligence agencies distrust as much as they distrust Trump: Will they continue the habits they acquired in the Trump years?

Bob Corker’s “containment” remark both reassures and warns: The “lesser evil” response to Trump’s challenge to the constitutional order—isolate and ignore him—remains a significant hazard in itself.

(MaineWriter: A danger to himself and others.)

Republican reality check: job losses & uncompensated care is immoral in ACA repeal

Republicans are well aware of the right and ethical replacement for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as "Obamacare". It's an excellent program already working and ready to go called "Medicare for All". This program simply calls for expansion of those eligible for the Medicare benefit to those who are under 65 years old.

Nevertheless, the Republicans are "hell bent" (as Senator Angus King-I-Me, rightly says) to repeal Obamacare without any consideration about the consequences. Thirty million people will be forced, against their will and through no fault of their own, to be without health insurance coverage.

Senator Angus King speaks with staff at Bridgton Maine hospital 

Moreover, Obamacare repeal means health care providers will be forced to deny access to people who cannot pay because, frankly, hospitals and other professionals cannot absorb revenue losses by providing uncompensated care. 

Senator Angus King was interviewed while visiting the Bridgton Hospital in rural Western Maine. Consequences about Obamacare repeal will harm small hospitals because patients will loose access to care and cause reduction in labor force, due to loss of revenues.

BRIDGTON, Maine (NEWS CENTER-6) — The U.S. House followed the Senate's lead Friday afternoon and voted along party lines to begin dismantling the Affordable Care Act.

Sen. Angus King met with doctors, nurses and administrators Friday morning at Bridgton Hospital to hear from those on the front lines of health care — how repealing the ACA would impact rural hospitals in Maine.

Bridgton Hospital President David Frum told Sen. King that 8 percent of the hospital's patients have insurance through the ACA, and that if those people lose their insurance, it will mean a major loss of revenue and force the hospital to make cuts in services and likely jobs.

"You would likely be looking at a workforce reduction," Frum said, "and we are the largest employer in Bridgton."

Frum said rural Maine hospitals are looking at a "double-whammy" with the possible repeal of the ACA and proposed cuts outlined in Gov. LePage's budget. If both come to pass, he predicts some rural Maine hospitals could be forced to close.

Doctors told King that repealing the law without a replacement could mean fewer people getting preventative care — like vaccinations or cancer screenings.

King says he will take the information he heard Friday back to Washington as the political process to dismantle the ACA moves through Congress.

"Why don't we hold off on repeal until we do the replacement?" King said. "To me, it's so logical. I don't know how you argue against it?" (Especially when a replacement plan named "Medicare for All" is ready to go today, if Congress would permit beneficiaries who qualify to access their Medicare coverage before reaching age 65.) In fact, private insurance isn't really needed because, truth be told, Americans can greatly benefit from implementing Medicare for All. So, "the rest of the story" is this: the reason Medicare for All isn't viable has nothing to do with health care policy but everything to do with the powerful insurance lobby.

Speaker Paul Ryan alert!