Monthly Archives: August 2026

Ossoff’s “Natalie” Remark & the Ensuing GOP Faux Outrage

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

Summary: The controversy over GA Sen. Jon Ossoff’s “Natalie” remark is best understood as a test of consistency. The line may have been clumsy, but the outrage from Trump’s allies rings hollow, given Trump’s long record of degrading comments about women, especially women who challenge him publicly.

  • Access Hollywood: Trump was recorded boasting that famous men can kiss women without waiting and “grab them” by their genitals.
  • Pageant dressing rooms: Trump told Howard Stern that, as a pageant owner, he could go backstage while contestants were dressing because he was “inspecting” the pageant.
  • Megyn Kelly: Trump responded to her questions about misogyny by saying there was “blood coming out of her eyes” and “blood coming out of her wherever.”
  • Black women journalists and public figures: April Ryan, Abby Phillip, Yamiche Alcindor, Omarosa Manigault Newman, and Rep. Maxine Waters have been targeted with insults such as “stupid,” “racist,” “dog,” “crazed, crying lowlife,” and “low IQ individual.”

The uproar over Ossoff’s reference to Natalie Harp reveals the selectivity of modern political outrage. At an Atlanta rally, Ossoff accused Donald Trump of neglecting the presidency, saying Trump would rather “build his ballroom and travel with Natalie” than do the job. Trump allies called the line sexist and demeaning. Some even claimed she is not a public figure.

There is a fair critique here: political attacks should focus on power, conduct, and policy rather than insinuation. But let’s be clear, there is a bright line that distinguishes implying, which rests with the speaker, and inferring, which lies with the hearer. 

Harp’s proximity to Trump makes her role a legitimate subject of scrutiny, especially given reports that she helps prepare, select, or post content for his social media accounts without ordinary White House review. That is not a private relationship; it is political influence. Yes, Ossoff could have made his point without mentioning Harp, but the claim that she is irrelevant to Trump’s public conduct is impossible to sustain.

The backlash is especially hard to take seriously, when considering Trump’s record. He was recorded boasting that famous men can kiss women without waiting and “grab them” by their genitals. He told Howard Stern that, as a pageant owner, he could go backstage while contestants were dressing because he was “inspecting” the pageant. He answered Megyn Kelly’s questions about misogyny by saying there was “blood coming out of her eyes” and “blood coming out of her wherever.” These were not isolated lapses; they were part of a pattern of contempt.

That pattern is especially stark in Trump’s treatment of Black women who challenge him. April Ryan, Abby Phillip, Yamiche Alcindor, Omarosa Manigault Newman, and Rep. Maxine Waters have been told to sit down, accused of asking “racist” or “stupid” questions, called a “dog” and a “crazed, crying lowlife,” or branded a “low IQ individual.” Those insults draw on familiar stereotypes while punishing women for doing the work of questioning power.

So yes, Ossoff’s line was inelegant. But Trump’s allies are not defending a universal standard of respect for women; they are weaponizing one woman’s name while excusing a long record of contempt toward many women. The outrage over “Natalie” would carry more weight if it came from people who objected when Trump bragged about sexual entitlement, invoked pageant ownership to justify entering dressing rooms, demeaned Megyn Kelly, called Omarosa a “dog,” or belittled Maxine Waters and Black women reporters with racially loaded condescension. Instead, it looks selective, tactical, and hollow. Until Trump’s defenders apply their standard to Trump himself, their fury is not a principle. It is a performance.

The point is not that every flawed remark deserves endless condemnation; it is that moral standards lose meaning when they are applied only to political opponents. If Trump’s defenders want to claim the mantle of respect for women, they must confront the record of the man they defend. Otherwise, the outrage over Ossoff’s comment is not a defense of women at all. It is a partisan shield for Trump. This has been the story of “Ossoff’s “Natalie” Remark & the Ensuing GOP Faux Outrage!”

I’m done; holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

Click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, conduct your own web searches. Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Ossoff’s “Natalie” Remark & the Ensuing GOP Faux Outrage

This post was augmented by the use of AI.

Obama Played the Inexperience Card (Edition X)

Posted on by
Reply

It’s time to Break It Down!

Note: This is a reprised, amended, and expanded presentation of my original blog post, a version of which I have subsequently shared eight times.

Happy 19th Anniversary “Break It Down!”

Today, in acknowledgment of another anniversary of this publication, as I have often done in years past, I am revisiting my inaugural post.

Before launching into that post, it is only fitting to add a little context. My original blog entry centered on a young lion named Barack Obama, then still emerging on the national stage, moving toward what would, for all practical purposes, become his era.

Tempus fugit—time flies. Today marks a significant milestone in the life and development of “Break It Down!” I began this blog on August 20, 2007, on something close to a lark—almost a dare. That was exactly nineteen years and 990 editions ago, come tomorrow. Since I have told the backstory several times over the years, I will spare readers the full recounting today.

What I will note, however, is that on that summer evening I spent five paragraphs considering the experience—or, more accurately, the perceived lack of it—of then Senator Barack Obama as he navigated the early stages of his historic presidential campaign.

In a nutshell, Post #1 consisted of five brisk paragraphs and a sign-off:

“In an apparent, calculated act of derring-do, Obama declares the virtue of inexperience. Gotta love it!

Personal footnote of recollection: I remember Jimmy Carter running the classic “anti-Washington” campaign in 1975–76—one built, in part, around his lack of Capitol Hill experience. And you know what? It worked.

The problem was that once President Carter sent many of the reigning bureaucrats and policy wonks home, he was left with an assembly of newcomers who did not fully understand how to get things done in Washington. 

The result was that a very smart man, a genuine humanitarian, and an otherwise successful leader presided over what was widely perceived at the time as a disastrous presidency. His single term was fraught with serious challenges—the Shah of Iran, double-digit inflation, runaway gas prices, and the outrageous interest-rate and mortgage morass—as well as public-relations gaffes, from the infamous killer rabbit story to the failed helicopter rescue attempt.

Fortunately for former President Carter, he lived long enough and did enough good work after leaving office to distance himself from much of that unremarkable one-term tenure, which ended with a resounding defeat at the hands of the cowboy actor, the Teflon guy.”

Of course, none of that had anything directly to do with Obama—except in the unlikely event that he prevailed. If he did, I wrote, let us hope he would not take the inexperience thing too far. As President George W. Bush constantly reminded us, getting to the White House is one thing; providing prudent and effective leadership once there is quite another. In hindsight, of course, we know President Obama not only prevailed but went on to win re-election and serve a second term.

As we are now endeavoring to navigate a sometimes tortuous and always unpredictable second year of 45/47’s second term—separated from his first term by Joe Biden’s solo run—we are buffeted by the collective exigencies of the TACO tariff policy, the Day 1 Promise Series, the mass-immigration morass, trying on new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh who will wrap up his first Quarter in office within the week, the continued broadside attacks on the Smithsonian museums, especially the National Museum of African American History and Culture, constant efforts to deflect attention from the infamous so-called Epstein Files, the circuitous saga of installing a new Attorney General and former (or current personal counsel) Todd Blanche, the now you see him, now you don’t fiasco of hiding POTUS in a catering truck, only to ensconce him on a “third” plane, while leaving the press corps and several staffers on the erstwhile Air Force-1, which in effect, was temporarily reduced to a decoy plane, and finally, traversing Mr. Trump’s war-of-choice with Iran and the quest to determine if the Strait of Hormuz will ever again be open again, as it was before Trump joined Netanyahu in a launching an attack on Iran. It is enough to make one say, “Where is Obama when you need him?” I kid, I kid.

Barack Obama, whom many Democrats—and even some Republicans—regard as a sterling orator, won wide acclaim more than two decades ago, in 2004, when he addressed the Democratic National Convention in Boston. At the time, he was an aspiring U.S. Senate candidate, fresh off an unexpected landslide victory in the March 2004 Illinois Democratic primary. That victory catapulted him into rising-star status within Democratic Party circles, and he leveraged that newfound celebrity into a speaking role at the 2004 convention, where he delivered in spectacular fashion. He went on to win his Senate race in Illinois and served four years before mounting his successful 2008 presidential campaign.

For context, here is how national news outlets framed the Democratic presidential campaign on August 20, 2007:

Democratic Presidential Hopefuls Debate in Iowa

Obama posits virtue of inexperience: What rivals criticized as naiveté; he presented as a break from the status quo.

At that Iowa debate, Obama attempted to turn his perceived lack of national experience into a strength. Challenged by rivals over his readiness and recent foreign-policy comments, he argued that Washington experience alone had not prevented the country from making grave mistakes. “Nobody had more experience than Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney,” Obama said, pointing to those who had helped lead the nation into the Iraq War. His broader point was that conventional thinking had become a habit in Washington—and that habit, he suggested, was part of the problem.

Senator Christopher Dodd countered that a president would not have time to get ready after taking office. Former Senator John Edwards, while acknowledging that Obama’s views added something to the debate, warned against airing hypothetical solutions to serious foreign-policy problems. Obama, for his part, held firm: experience mattered, but judgment mattered too.

Reflecting now on the 2008 campaign, I am struck again by how swiftly time and events pass. I am reminded, especially, of how a supremely confident senator from Illinois approached his moment. That moment propelled me to write the words, “Obama Played the Inexperience Card!” In the years since, he has gained an enormous amount of experience—political, presidential, historical, and otherwise. “Obama Played the Inexperience Card – Edition X!”

I’m done, holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

Click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, conduct your own web searches.Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com.

Obama Played the Inexperience Card (Edition X)

This post was augmented by AI.

A Ruse By Any Other Name: Presidential Primer on How to Slip Away

Posted on by
Reply

BREAK IT DOWN!

Reports published this week described an unusual security operation surrounding President Trump’s departure from Ankara, Turkey, after last month’s NATO summit. The public-facing story began normally: cameras saw Trump enter an older Air Force One (AF-1) aircraft, and journalists and some staff members believed they were traveling on the same plane as the president. Behind that familiar departure ritual, however, officials reportedly carried out a carefully staged diversion that moved him onto a third aircraft before the flight left Turkey.

The reported ruse, which one outlet dubbed “Three Plane Monty, centered on misdirection. Trump had arrived in Turkey on a newer, Qatari-donated Boeing 747-8 that had been adapted for presidential use. But before leaving Ankara he announced that he would use an older AF-1 aircraft instead, describing the choice as being “for old time’s sake.” That explanation implied the switch was sentimental or logistical rather than urgent. 

The older jet then became the visible stage for the deception: it was positioned for departure. Press and staff were aboard, and Trump entered it in full view of cameras.

According to reporting, the key move happened only after Trump boarded the decoy aircraft. A catering truck, the kind normally used to load meals and supplies onto planes, was positioned on the far side of the jet, away from the cameras’ main view. Through that ordinary-looking service vehicle, the president was reportedly moved out of sight and transported to a different aircraft, later identified in reports as an Air Force C-32A, a military version of the Boeing 757. That third plane—not the older AF-1 that the public and press believed he was using—carried him from Ankara to Royal Air Force Mildenhall in the United Kingdom.

That visible performance mattered because the ruse depended on more than moving the president from one aircraft to another. It required everyone watching to believe the ordinary sequence of presidential travel was unfolding exactly as expected.

The reason for the deception, according to news reports, was a credible threat tied to Iran and allied proxies. U.S. officials were said to have been concerned that adversaries might deploy a Surface-to-Air (SAM) to target the aircraft believed to be carrying the president as it left Turkey. 

By allowing observers to believe Trump was aboard the older AF-1 while placing him on a separate military jet, security planners reduced the risk that any hostile actor could confidently identify his actual location. In that sense, the ruse was less about secrecy for its own sake than about creating uncertainty at a moment when certainty could have been dangerous.

The operation also reportedly left some people on the decoy aircraft unaware of the switch. Journalists and certain White House staff members traveled on the older AF-1 believing Trump was onboard. Reports said press cabin window shades were kept closed, reinforcing the controlled environment around the movement. 

The deception allegedly continued even after the separate aircraft landed. Before deplaning, Trump was returned to AF-1, allowing passengers on the decoy flight to remain unaware that he had not actually traveled with them. That final step made the operation more complete: the ruse did not end once the third plane was airborne but continued until the normal appearance of presidential travel could be restored. If accurate, that detail illustrates how presidential security can rely not only on armored vehicles, secure communications, and military aircraft, but also on ordinary-looking objects and routine airport procedures.

Some aboard the decoy flight reportedly did not realize that the president was absent, because the transfer had been concealed. Once the details emerged, the reaction was a mix of surprise, curiosity, and recognition that the secrecy had been deliberate rather than accidental. 

For journalists in particular, the episode underscored how limited a view even the traveling press corps may have during sensitive security movements: they can witness the visible ceremony of departure while remaining unaware of the operational decisions taking place just out of sight.

Public discussion of the episode has focused on both the seriousness of the threat and the sensitivity of revealing such protective methods. Officials quoted in news reports expressed frustration that classified tactics had entered public view, warning that disclosure could make similar operations harder in the future. That reaction echoed concerns expressed after initial reports emerged that security concerns has caused ditching the Qatari-gifted plane in favor of a previous AF-1. The Trump Administration DOJ issued and subsequently rescinded subpoenas targeting The New York Times reporters for security leaks. The current response was more of the same.

The incident offered a rare glimpse into the layered nature of presidential travel security. The visible aircraft, the stated explanation, the press arrangements, the service truck, the third plane, and the return to Air Force One all formed parts of a single deception plan. The result was a departure that appeared routine from one angle but, according to the reporting, was designed to conceal the president’s true route until the illusion was no longer needed.

At the highest level, the operation was a success. The President was unscathed, and protecting POTUS is always critical at all costs. The press corps and anyone else traveling in a Presidential Party does so with full knowledge that they may be subject to heightened danger. Most, however, do not expect to be used as a decoy, and/or placed in that position unknowingly. One could certainly make the case that by traveling on AF-1, an aircraft designed with a plethora of defensive and offensive capabilities, the journalists and staff members were best positioned to survive an enemy assault, should one have come. Still, to place the working press, and even administration staff (presuming they didn’t know either) in that position unknowingly, is in a word, unseemly. Of course, considering Trump sees much of the media as the enemy of the people, it doesn’t exactly land as a surprise. “A Ruse By Any Other Name: Presidential Primer on How to Slip Away!”

I’m done, holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

Click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space and click on “Sign me up.”

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, conduct your own web searches.

A Ruse By Any Other Name: Presidential Primer on How to Slip Away

This post was augmented by AI.

The GOP’s Max Miller Dilemma: Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery

Posted on by
1

BREAK IT DOWN!

The controversy surrounding Rep. Max Miller has become a revealing dilemma for Republicans: how to balance loyalty, political survival, and the hard limits of Trump-era defiance. Miller, an Ohio Republican and former aide to Donald Trump, is facing intense pressure over allegations made by his ex-wife, Emily Moreno, the daughter of Sen. Bernie Moreno. Miller has denied wrongdoing, but the accusations have triggered calls for him to leave Congress and abandon his reelection campaign. The dispute has also drawn in Trump himself, whose public sympathy and private political realism point in different directions.

Publicly, Trump has avoided an outright break with Miller. Asked about the allegations, he described Miller as a good person and framed the matter as a painful family dispute. Privately, however, multiple reports said Trump phoned Miller and warned that his political position had deteriorated. According to accounts of the call, Trump told Miller that the race would be difficult and that he was not sure Miller would be able to pull it out. That warning sharpened the dilemma: Trump could stand by a loyal ally and risk a damaged seat or acknowledge that loyalty does not always translate into electability.

Miller’s response deepened the dilemma rather than resolving it. In a CNN interview, Miller said he reminded Trump of the resilience Trump showed in 2016, when many political observers believed his campaign could collapse after the release of the Access Hollywood tape. Trump refused to quit, weathered the scandal, and went on to win the presidency as the 45th president of the United States. Miller’s point was clear: if Trump could survive a moment that seemed politically fatal, Miller argued, then he too should not be expected to retreat simply because party leaders feared the consequences.

The comparison is politically useful for Miller, but it is also risky. Trump’s 2016 survival became a central myth of his movement: never apologize, never retreat, and trust that supporters will filter scandal through partisan loyalty. By invoking that example, Miller is trying to cast his own refusal to step aside as strength rather than stubbornness. He has insisted that his constituents know him better than national commentators do, and he has argued that the race will be decided locally rather than by pressure from Washington, cable news, or the extended Moreno family feud.

Still, Miller’s situation is not simply a matter of campaign grit. Republicans reportedly fear that keeping him on the ballot could place an otherwise winnable Ohio seat at risk. The deadline for replacing him has added urgency to the pressure campaign. If Miller withdraws in time, party leaders could seek another nominee; if he stays, the party may be forced to defend a candidate under a harsh spotlight. That explains why Trump’s private warning carried such significance. It suggested not a moral judgment, but a hard political calculation: Miller might be loyal, but loyalty does not guarantee electability.

The episode captures a familiar tension in Republican politics. Trump’s brand rewards defiance, yet Republican strategists still worry about swing voters, suburban discomfort, and the down-ballot consequences of scandal. Miller is betting that the Trump model of endurance remains transferable. His critics are betting that this case is different, and that allegations involving family violence cannot be absorbed through partisan messaging alone. Whether Miller’s invocation of 2016 proves shrewd or self-defeating will depend on whether voters see him as resilient, reckless, or simply too damaged to continue.

For now, the imbroglio has turned Miller’s campaign into more than one Ohio House race. It has become a dilemma about how far the Trump model of political survival can be stretched. When Trump told Miller winning would be difficult, Miller answered with Trump’s own biography: the Access Hollywood tape, the calls to quit, the refusal to leave, and the eventual victory. It was in effect, the ultimate “Be like Trump retort. 

Miller’s repeated refrain is, he is not leaving the race; he is confident he will win. Regardless of whether he is that confident, or he has picked the ironic moment to be a poseur and engage in classic Trumpian bluster, that answer forces members of the Grand Old Party to choose between two lessons from the Trump era: never surrender under pressure or recognize when damage to a candidate may damage the party as well. “The GOP’s Max Miller Dilemma: Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery!”

I’m done, holla back!

Read my blog anytime by clicking the link: http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com. Find a new post each Wednesday.

Click on Follow in the bottom right-hand corner of my Home Page at http://thesphinxofcharlotte.com; enter your e-mail address in the designated space and click on “Sign me up.” 

Subsequent editions of “Break It Down” will be mailed to your in-box.

For more detailed information on a variety of aspects related to this post, consult the links below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Miller_(politician)

The GOP’s Max Miller Dilemma: Imitation is the Sincerest Form of Flattery

This post was augmented by the use of AI.