Call Republican senators at these numbers and tell them to stop Trump's war on refugees

Here is a running list of phone numbers where I've been able to leave voice mail messages for Republican Senators; many others have voicemail boxes that are currently full as of Jan. 28:

John Boozman, Arkansas, (479) 573-0189
Richard Burr, North Carolina, (202) 224-3154
Bill Cassidy, Louisiana, (225) 929-7711
Thad Cochran, Mississippi, (202) 224-5054
Susan Collins, Maine, (202) 224-2523
Bob Corker, Tennessee, (901) 683-1910
John Cornyn, Texas, (806) 472-7533
Tom Cotton, Arkansas, (501) 223-9081
Mike Crapo, Idaho, (208) 236-6775
Steve Daines, Montana, (202) 224-2651
Deb Fischer, Nebraska, (202) 224-6551
Cory Garner, Colorado, (202) 224-5941
Lindsey Graham, South Carolina, (864) 646-4090
Chuck Grassley, Iowa, (202) 224-3744
Orrin Hatch, Utah, (801) 524-4380
Johnny Isakson, Georgia, (202) 224-3643
John Kennedy, Louisiana, (202) 224-4623
Mitch McConnell, Kentucky, (270) 442-4554
John McCain, Arizona, (202) 224-2235
Marco Rubio, Florida, (850) 433-2603
Jerry Moran, Kansas, (202) 224-6521
Lisa Murkowski, Alaska, (907) 225-6880
Paul Rand, Kentucky, (202) 224-4343
David Perdue, Georgia, 202) 224-3521
Rob Portman, Ohio, (202) 224-3353
Ben Sasse, Nebraska, (202) 224-4224
Richard Shelby, Alabama, (202) 224-5744
Dan Sullivan, Alaska, (202) 224-3004
John Thune, South Dakota, (202) 224-2321
Roger Wicker, Mississippi, (202) 224-6253
Todd Young, Indiana, (202) 224-5623
Lamar Alexander, Tennessee, (865) 545-4253
Michael Enzi, Wyoming, (307) 527-9444, ext. 12 
John Hoeven, North Dakota, (701) 838-1361
James Lankford, Oklahoma, (918) 581-7651
Jeff Sessions, Alabama,  (334) 792-4924

Hello,
I'm calling to ask Senator (insert name) to take a stand against Donald Trump's immoral and unjust actions against immigrants and refugees fleeing persecution from countries such as Syria. Innocent children and other refugees from these war-torn countries may lose their lives as a result of Donald Trump's actions. These people pose no threat to America or its people. No Syrian citizen has been responsible for any terrorist act or plot against this country. On the contrary, Donald Trump has excluded from his ban citizens of Saudi Arabia, the country that produced most of the terrorists that committed the 9/11 attacks against our country that cost the lives of nearly 3,000 Americans. Donald Trump has excluded Saudi Arabia, a country long known as a breeding ground for radicalism and terrorism and where he has extensive business interests, but targeted war-torn countries where children and families are seeking survival and freedom. Do not allow these refugees to perish the way Jewish refugees perished during the Nazi Holocaust when this country rejected them. Do not allow more Anne Franks to die in Syria, Iraq and Somalia. These are not the values and principles upon which our nation is based. It is up to you and the rest of the Republican members of Congress to stand up for what is right and just. Thank you for your time, (insert name)

Time for liberals to look in the mirror

Those who pay attention to (or are annoyed by) my posts know that my political views lean to the left. I believe climate change is a threat to the survival of our planet; I despise the NRA and believe it is largely responsible for the epidemic of gun violence and deaths in our nation; I believe in universal health care as a fundamental right; I believe immigrants contribute much more to our nation than they take away, and that a path to citizenship for most undocumented immigrants is the right thing, morally and economically. I believe trickle-down economics is a myth and that the rich should pay more in taxes to pay down national debt and support underfunded entitlement programs.

But I am not a registered Democrat and do not consider myself a liberal, at least as it's typically defined by the liberal establishment in this nation. I don't automatically support labor unions no matter what the topic or cause; in fact, I believe unions often are as driven by self-interest as the corporations and government agencies they battle. I don't agree with teachers' unions on many of the big debates surrounding education, and believe education reform is urgently needed. I don't believe in the legalization of marijuana and other recreational drugs. I believe waste and fraud is a significant problem at all levels of government that the Democratic Party too often ignores. And while I respect a woman's right to choose and have no interest in seeing Roe V. Wade overturned, I do view abortion as a deep moral issue and believe that as a society, we should work together to create policies and a support system that makes it as rare as possible -- something liberals rarely express any interest in discussing. But I still vote with liberals most of the time because I honestly believe that, on the whole, their polices and values are more inclusive, fair and just for all Americans; the liberal values I agree with are much more important to me than the policies on which I differ.

In the wake of this disastrous election for Democrats and the unbelievable rise of Donald Trump, this would be a good time for the liberal establishment in this country to take a long look at itself in the mirror and ask some tough questions. Starting with: How is it that so many Americans who, like me, agree with liberals on the majority of core issues facing this nation regularly vote against them in elections? Is it their fault, or yours?

It probably has a lot to do with perception. A perception that liberals are largely intellectual elites who spend a lot of time trying to tell everyone else what's good for them. A perception that while they speak of the needs and struggles of the poor and disadvantaged, they are much more likely to surround themselves with the well-to-do and really have little idea what goes on in the daily lives of people they claim to speak for (that seemed to be Hillary Clinton's big problem). A perception that they are hostile to organized religion, even when most religions espouse the same moral values they do, and work tirelessly in support of social justice. A perception, in short, that they are condescending, patronizing and arrogant.

As with everything, reconciling reality and perception is more complex. By and large, I believe most liberals are more open-minded and tolerant of opposing views than those on the conservative end of the political spectrum. But as is the case with both political ideologies, the further to the left or right you go, the more intolerance and extremism you will find, along with a disregard for facts and truth. As the country has progressively grown more polarized, the tendency for liberals and conservatives alike has been to further alienate the other side, and those in the middle, rather than search for common ground.

Like many liberals, I've been indignant and outraged over the actions of Donald Trump both before and after he took office, and am still grappling to understand how such a man who lacks basic human decency could possibly be elected president. But I'm also trying to think to the future, how liberals can correct the mistakes they made during this election and appeal to open-minded Trump voters (and they do exist) in red states and districts in two and four years. That doesn't mean compromising their values; it means making a better effort to make these people understand them by trying to connect with them, understand them and convince them that they share the same dreams and ideas for making our nation and world a better place. And it means welcoming people to your tent even if they don't share every element of your political orthodoxy.

The natural response by liberals to Trump might be to dig in their heels, lurch further to the left, and take the fight to all who supported this man for president. I think that would be a mistake. The wiser course, in my opinion, would be to take a long look at the mirror and recognize your role in creating this mess. Ask yourselves why so many people in this country whom you profess to want to help seem to dislike and distrust you so much? If the answer is that they're simply ignorant and uninformed, you may be setting yourself up for more election disasters.

Where's the carnage? Can someone help me find it?

Many presidents have given inaugural addresses during periods of crisis and despair in our nation's history. But none ever painted as dark a picture of the nation he was about to lead than Donald Trump did on Friday. Not Lincoln when America was about to be torn apart by four years of civil war, and again at the end of that war that had taken 600,000 lives. Not Roosevelt during the darkest days of the Great Depression when one-third of the work force was unemployed and bread lines stretched as far as the eye could see. Not Kennedy during the coldest days of the Cold War when the Soviet Union was leapfrogging us in the Space Race and on the cusp of placing nuclear weapons 90 miles from the Florida coast. Not Johnson when the country was still scarred by the sins of rampant racial segregation and violence that permeated the South and much of the rest of the nation. And not Barack Obama during the collapse of the U.S. financial and auto industries that was costing thousands of Americans their jobs and homes each day.

As far as I know, none of those presidents used the word "carnage" to describe the state of America when they spoke to the throngs gathered on the National Mall. So 2017 must really be a frightening time to be an American, right? The only problem is I'm having trouble finding that carnage that Trump spoke of on Friday. Sure, there are problems and challenges, as there always are, and some Americans continue to be left behind. But carnage is defined as the "the slaughter of a great number of people, as in battle; butchery; massacre." (I didn't make that up, it's on a reputable site called Dictionary.com).

Is the carnage to be found in a stock market that rose 180% during Obama's presidency, not only enriching banks and auto companies that were on the verge of collapse but bolstering the 401(k) and IRA accounts of ordinary working Americans? Is it to be found in an economy that has generated the longest, uninterrupted period of job growth in the history of the country, producing 15 million jobs since 2010, many of them in auto manufacturing factories that the Obama administration saved from collapse? Is it to be found in a health care system that now insures more Americans than ever before, protecting them from the prospect of death or bankruptcy from a medical emergency?

Can someone please help me find this carnage of which Trump speaks? Or could it be that the carnage is largely bred from an undying hatred toward a black president who conducted himself with dignity for eight years and helped bring America back from the precipice of economic collapse that would have affected every one of our lives? A carnage of the mind that leaves no room for understanding of facts or reality?

The Trump presidency: What the next four years will bring

The United States has never had four consecutive two-term presidencies. Donald Trump's won't be the first.

Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama each served a full two terms as president, the first time that's happened consecutively since Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and James Monroe in the early 1800s. That streak ended when John Quincy Adams, who was handed the presidency despite losing the popular vote by 10 percentage points to Andrew Jackson, was trounced by Jackson four years later.

I don't see Hillary Clinton re-emerging in four years to avenge her loss to Trump. Her political career is over. And Trump's presidency could take many twists and turns over the next four years, some more disastrous or benign for the country than others. But the perfect alignment of forces that led to his election in 2016 (a populist movement that re-energized white working class voters plus a deeply unpopular opponent whom he successfully smeared with lies and half-truths along with razor-thin victories in key swing states) will not, in my opinion, repeat itself.

I see four likely outcomes for Trump and the nation over the next four years, only one of which gives him a plausible path to re-election (then again, I'm the one who boldly predicted days before the election that Clinton would win in a landslide, so who knows?)

• First, my most unlikely scenario. Trump will avoid major controversy or crisis during his presidency (largely due to luck than any skill on his part), tone down his most radical, divisive proposals and largely benefit from the strong economy that the Obama administration left in his hands. He won't be able to deliver on most of his promises, but a good number of voters really won't care once they realize that things like building a wall are unnecessary and that there are other jobs to replace the ones that were outsourced. He'll run for a second term, and depending on whom the Democrats nominate, maybe even have a chance of winning it. I give this about a 10% likelihood of happening.
• Trump will prove totally inept as president, be dogged by personal scandals and ultimately be impeached, or resign, as he alienates himself from both political parties. I give this about a 20% likelihood.
• Trump will muddle through his four years, accomplishing little and growing more divisive in the process. Many voters who supported him will grow weary of his bombast and incendiary conduct. He will see the writing on the wall and not bother to run for a second term, railing against a rigged system and boasting that he can get a lot more done for America by rededicating himself to his business empire. I put this at a 30% likelihood.
• Largely the second scenario, but in this one Trump will nevertheless seek a second term, hoping to energize the same base that propelled him to victory this time around, blaming all his failures on the Washington swamp he was unable to drain due to no fault of his own. Republican voters, though, will see the writing on the wall and deny him the nomination. Whom they nominate instead is anyone's guess, but it won't be anyone who ran and lost in 2016. Probably a fresh-faced governor far removed from the dysfunction of Washington. This, in my opinion, is the most likely scenario. I put it at 40%.

A big question for me is what will happen in Congress over the next four years. Will the polarization and lack of bipartisanship persist, with Democrats trading places with Republicans as the Party of No? Or will Trump's unpopularity among a large faction of Republicans push both parties to find some much-needed common ground to thwart his more dangerous impulses? My guess is it will fall somewhere in between. Early in his administration, Trump and the Republican leadership will focus on the areas where they agree (such as repealing Obamacare) and try to undo as much of Obama's legacy as possible, largely skirting around their differences. But those differences will become harder and harder to ignore as his presidency progresses, and at some point there will be a major split. But if the Republicans succeed in tearing up some of Obama's legacy in health care, financial reform and other areas (which is very much an open question as it will take only three Republican defectors in the Senate to curtail any of those efforts, not to mention Democratic filibusters), the Democrats will be much more interested in trying to exploit any rift between Trump and the Republicans for their own political gain rather than team up with congressional Republicans. 

There has been only one time in American history where a president elected in his own right was denied the nomination of his party for a second term, Franklin Pierce in 1852 (a handful of others were denied the nomination after becoming president upon the death of their predecessor). I'm predicting Trump will become the second. Then again, I never saw him getting this far. It will be a very interesting four years. 

How will history judge Barack Obama? My guess is a lot like Dwight Eisenhower

I love history, especially presidential history (my family has grown to not quite love our annual Presidents Day tradition of putting together the presidents floor puzzle). So as Barack Obama prepares to end his eight-year presidency, I've been thinking a bit about how history will treat him.

Only time will answer that question; it will takes year, or decades, to determine what Obama's lasting legacy will be and how it impacted the course and shape of the nation, in ways large and small. But judging by the facts as we know them today (those pesky things conveniently ignored by the far-righter who love to brand him the worst president in history), it seems clear that Obama's presidency will largely be judged a success. By every economic measure (unemployment, GDP growth, stock market performance), the economy today is much stronger than the collapsing one Obama inherited in 2009 as the Great Recession reached crisis levels. It's always debatable how much credit a president deserves for economic performance, but given the magnitude of the problems Obama inherited and the swift action he took to reverse the slide, my guess is he'll receive more credit than most.

Upon closer inspection, I've found striking similarities between Obama's presidency and Dwight Eisenhower's -- when you take away the fact that one was a conservative Republican and the other a progressive Democrat. To start with, both were milestone presidents (Eisenhower the last general and man born in the 19th century; Obama the first African-American president). But the similarities go much deeper:

Take for instance:

• Both began their presidencies succeeding incumbents from the opposing party who had become deeply unpopular with the American public, in large part because of the messy wars they had been unable to end (Harry Truman and Korea and Obama and Iraq). Both were elected in part on their promises to end those wars.
• Both began their presidencies with a wave of Congressional support only to see that advantage quickly disappear. When Eisenhower was elected president in 1952, the Republican Party also took control of the House and Representatives and Senate, giving the party total control of Washington. Similarly, Obama began his presidency with big majorities in Congress, giving him the ability to pass a massive economic stimulus plan (which by all accounts worked) and an overhaul of health care. But both presidents found themselves unable to maintain those majorities despite their own electoral success. The Democrats won back both houses of Congress in 1954, and would hold those majorities for the next quarter-century. Obama fared only slightly better, losing the House in 2010 but holding onto the Senate until 2014. As a result, neither man was able to achieve grand legislative successes through the majority of their presidencies.
• Despite their limited legislative successes, both orchestrated major domestic initiatives: in Eisenhower's case, it was the interstate highway system; in Obama's it was a national health care system (which is now at risk of being undone).
• Both served during periods of general economic growth that were nonetheless uneven and inconsistent. The 1950s are largely remembered for the growth of the middle class and rise of the suburbs, but there were also two recessions during Eisenhower's presidency and a fair amount of economic angst during the 1960 campaign. Under Obama, the U.S. economy avoided slipping into a full-blown Depression and slowly but steadily recovered, with years of solid stock market gains and employment growth. But the economy during the Obama years was also clouded by stagnant wages and the continued loss of traditional blue collar jobs that Donald Trump promised to bring back (but won't be able to). 
• In foreign affairs, both kept the United States out of major international crises and scored significant successes; for Eisenhower, it was the armistice ending the Korean War that has kept peace on the Korean peninsula ever since, and the containment of Soviet aggression during the Cold War. For Obama, it was the capture of Bin Laden and the nuclear deal with Iran (which may also be undone). 
• But both also saw the nation's prestige, and perceptions of its standing in the world, suffer in the later years of their presidencies. For Eisenhower, it was the Soviet Union taking the lead in the space race with Sputnik, the loss of Cuba 90 miles off U.S. shores to a communist dictator, and the downing of the U.S. spy plane over the Soviet Union that caught the president in an international lie. You could almost picture a 1960s version of Donald Trump railing about how we were losing the Cold War and not winning anywhere anymore. Similarly, Obama was bedeviled by the Syrian civil war and his inability to address the humanitarian disaster, along with Russia's emboldened meddling in other nations and the rise of ISIS as an international terrorist threat. In retrospect, much of the angst about the United States' diminishing stature during the end of the Eisenhower presidency was overblown; the supposed missile gap that John F. Kennedy focused on during the 1960 campaign did not exist, and the U.S. would ultimately win the space race and the Cold War. It will be interesting to see if views about Obama's supposed passivity in foreign affairs change with the passage of time. Both men largely succeeded at keeping the nation at peace during tumultuous times in world affairs.
• There's also an interesting similarity concerning the elections to choose their successors. Each saw their chosen successors lose close elections despite their own generally strong approval ratings (Eisenhower's final approval rating was 59%, and it appears Obama's will be only slightly lower than that, though Obama never came close to the average approval ratings Eisenhower enjoyed during his presidency). Just as Kennedy suggested that the United States was falling behind at the end of the Eisenhower years and losing the Cold War, Trump ran on the idea that America was no longer great. So it seems that despite their successes and good standing in the eyes of most Americans, both presidencies left enough voters wanting a change in direction to cost their party the White House. 
• Finally, both may also be remembered for delivering enduring farewell messages; in Eisenhower's case, his warning about the growing influence of the nation's military-industrial complex; in Obama's, his stirring address last week warning about the dangers of division and sacrificing our shared values to fear. 

Eisenhower left office a generally popular president whose leadership skills and influence were nevertheless called into question by those who judged him passive and uninspiring, a caretaker father figure more than a powerful agent of change, one who spent too much time in his later presidential years playing golf. Obama leaves office a generally popular president who was nonetheless unable to fully implement the ambitious vision of hope and change he embarked upon and rather saw division and polarization grow as his presidency progressed.

In the years since Eisenhower's presidency, his stature has largely grown in the eyes of historians who now appreciate his administrative skills and behind-the-scenes effectiveness in keeping the nation moving (the hidden-hand presidency), despite his failure to solve deep problems like civil rights. In terms of grades, he's probably gone from a B- to a B+

If I were to assign Obama a grade on the day his presidency ends, it would probably be a solid B. History will determine whether that grade rises or falls. My guess is it will ultimately rise as objective observers grow to appreciate the steady leadership he showed in guiding the nation out of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression, unwinding the U.S. from messy wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and generally returning a sense of dignity and confidence to the office after the scandals of the Clinton presidency and the economic and international ineptitude of the Bush years. I think a strong argument can be made that Obama also faced much tougher political challenges than Eisenhower, who was already a national hero when he was elected and governed in an era where true bipartisanship and compromise were still possible. He also did not have to tackle economic problems on the scale that Obama did, though it can be argued that he faced steeper international challenges with the Cold War and growing threat of a nuclear holocaust. 

 But the political polarization of the years in which Obama served -- and his inability to connect personally with Americans and inspire faith in them the way Reagan and Roosevelt did -- will ultimately cost him any hope for a mantle of greatness. As was the case with Eisenhower, the nation's deepest flaws were beyond his grasp to solve -- they may well have been beyond any president's. For some problems, the only solution comes in the slow but steady march of human progress.