[teejers1]

Very true, and quite obvious, it seems to me.  Which is why I've been frustrated/disappointed/cynical about the opposition to Trump in Washington and the media.  If you want Trump to do the "right thing," you figure out how to make him think that the "right thing" is his idea and that it will benefit HIM to promote that thing.  What you DON'T do is constantly criticize him, demonize him, and call him stupid and wrong for doing whatever it is that you think is the "wrong thing."  That latter approach, however, is pretty much all that the Democrats and the media have done from day one, which, I think, raises a legitimate question of whether they are more interested in getting him to do the "right thing" OR in being able to criticize, demonize, and call him stupid -- even if that latter approach pretty much guarantees that he will double down on doing the "wrong thing."  Sure, ranting and raving and calling him an existential threat every day feels good and routinely results in a round of high fives... but [at least in the short term, that is, until November, 2020] it hasn't actually gotten any tangible, beneficial [from the opposition's perspective] results.

[You needn't bother to wasting time saying "whatabout...," because I concede up front that this approach is very much a two-party problem... although I think Trump, who lacks any real principles beyond "I'm always right" would actually be much more susceptible to "creative persuasion" based on flattery, etc., than others, on both sides, whose positions are based on real principles.]

Point of Parliamentary Inquiry:  if an answer to a question is so obvious, is the raised question really "legitimate?"

The answer to your question is plain:  the Dems and most of the media want Trump out.  THAT is the agenda; and if the country suffers a bit for it . . . so be it.

While I'd like to think politicians can "rise above" - in truth that is in very scarce supply the last decade +.  Normally, I might get really agitated at the Dems, but the truth is that Trump has brought this all on himself.  Entirely.  It's not just his desultory policies on Covid . . . it's his entire persona  which prevents him from ever admitting he made missteps, resulting in hostile, "us against them" mindset for just about everything.  (I don't even bother with the psychological profile . . . other than to note it's not very "presidential").  Anyway, the refusal to admit errors, combined with bunker mentality, is an especially bad combo when trying to deal with a pandemic where everybody is learning as we go.

Bottom line:  would you like to see other policymakers in DC "do better" along the lines you suggest?  Yeah.  Is there some blame to go around there?  Probably. A little.  But 95+% of the federal deficiencies on Covid front can be laid at 1600.  At least that's what it looks like from here.

[teejers1]

Very true, and quite obvious, it seems to me.  Which is why I've been frustrated/disappointed/cynical about the opposition to Trump in Washington and the media.  If you want Trump to do the "right thing," you figure out how to make him think that the "right thing" is his idea and that it will benefit HIM to promote that thing.  What you DON'T do is constantly criticize him, demonize him, and call him stupid and wrong for doing whatever it is that you think is the "wrong thing."  That latter approach, however, is pretty much all that the Democrats and the media have done from day one, which, I think, raises a legitimate question of whether they are more interested in getting him to do the "right thing" OR in being able to criticize, demonize, and call him stupid -- even if that latter approach pretty much guarantees that he will double down on doing the "wrong thing."  Sure, ranting and raving and calling him an existential threat every day feels good and routinely results in a round of high fives... but [at least in the short term, that is, until November, 2020] it hasn't actually gotten any tangible, beneficial [from the opposition's perspective] results.

[You needn't bother to wasting time saying "whatabout...," because I concede up front that this approach is very much a two-party problem... although I think Trump, who lacks any real principles beyond "I'm always right" would actually be much more susceptible to "creative persuasion" based on flattery, etc., than others, on both sides, whose positions are based on real principles.]

Point of Parliamentary Inquiry:  if an answer to a question is so obvious, is the raised question really "legitimate?"

The answer to your question is plain:  the Dems and most of the media want Trump out.  THAT is the agenda; and if the country suffers a bit for it . . . so be it.

While I'd like to think politicians can "rise above" - in truth that is in very scarce supply the last decade +.  Normally, I might get really agitated at the Dems, but the truth is that Trump has brought this all on himself.  Entirely.  It's not just his desultory policies on Covid . . . it's his entire persona  which prevents him from ever admitting he made missteps, resulting in hostile, "us against them" mindset for just about everything.  (I don't even bother with the psychological profile . . . other than to note it's not very "presidential").  Anyway, the refusal to admit errors, combined with bunker mentality, is an especially bad combo when trying to deal with a pandemic where everybody is learning as we go.

Bottom line:  would you like to see other policymakers in DC "do better" along the lines you suggest?  Yeah.  Is there some blame to go around there?  Probably. A little.  But 95+% of the federal deficiencies on Covid front can be laid at 1600.  At least that's what it looks like from here.