<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
    xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
    xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
    xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/">
<channel>
    <title>Dana Milbank</title>
    <category>Dana Milbank</category>
    <link>https://tj.durangoherald.com/section/columnists-dana-milbank/feed/</link>
    <atom:link href="https://tj.durangoherald.com/section/columnists-dana-milbank/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <description>Latest local news from The Durango Herald.</description>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Aug 2026 21:01:23 -0600</lastBuildDate>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <ttl>30</ttl>
    <item>
        <link>https://tj.durangoherald.com/labors-death-reports-were-greatly-exaggerated/</link>
        <title>Labor’s death reports were greatly exaggerated</title>
        <description>Something funny happened on the way to the labor movement’s funeral. When Justice Samuel Alito and his antilabor colleagues on the Supreme Court handed down the Janus vs. AFSCME decision last June, unions braced for the worst. The American Federation...</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2019 17:33:09 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">80C47F8A-EB04-2B26-E053-0100007F6C03</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Something funny happened on the way to the labor movement’s funeral. When Justice Samuel Alito and his antilabor colleagues on the Supreme Court handed down the Janus vs. AFSCME decision last June, unions braced for the worst. The American Federation of Teachers expected it might lose 30 percent of its revenue after the high court gave public-sector workers the right to be free riders, benefiting from union representation but paying nothing. Instead, the 1.7 million-member union added 88,500 members since Janus – more than offsetting the 84,000 “agency fee payers” it lost because of the Supreme Court ruling. And the union has had a burst of energy. There has been a surge of high-profile strikes by teachers’ unions in West Virginia, Oklahoma, Arizona, Los Angeles and elsewhere. Rallies, pickets and local campaigns mushroomed by the hundreds. The union has tallied 11 organizing wins since Janus, tripled its “member engagement” budget from 2014 and nearly doubled the number of voters it contacted in 2018. “Alito put his thumb on the scales of justice for the anti-union ideologues,” says Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers. “It was a wake-up call to everyone. Everybody got engaged.” Labor leaders ought to thank Alito – and send chocolates to the Koch brothers for bankrolling the anti-union court case. Their brazen assault, combined with President Trump’s hostility toward labor, has generated a backlash, invigorating public-sector unions and making a case for the labor movement to embrace a more militant style. Unions had become ossified, serving as member-service organizations that offered workplace representation and collective-bargaining assistance but not much fire. Now, the threat posed by Janus hasn’t materialized – membership has held steady – and, instead, has spurred a renewal of activism. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees feared it could lose 30 percent of its revenue. Instead, the AFSCME reports that for every free rider opting out since Janus, it has gained seven new members. It has continued to notch organizing wins (220 since July 2016, resulting in more than 22,000 newly organized members). It has also trained more than 25,000 activists over the past three years to spread the union gospel. Back in February when the case was argued, I suggested the justices beware the unintended consequences of their actions, lest they revive labor militancy. Alito expressed no such worry. In his scornful majority opinion that jettisoned decades of precedent, he dismissed the “loss of payments” that would be “unpleasant” for unions. Now, in the wake of Janus, we see that there wasn’t as much anti-union sentiment in the workforce as right-wing groups supposed. Many of the “agency-fee payers,” the ones whose free speech was allegedly compromised because they were “forced to subsidize a union,” as Alito put it, have become full members of unions instead of quitting. AFSCME reports that 310,000 former agency fee payers have converted to full membership since 2014. (The anti-union plaintiff in the AFSCME case, Mark Janus, who before the ruling said “I love my job,” quit his state-government job right after the decision and joined a conservative think tank.) Rank-and-file members, meanwhile, perceiving the threat to the union, have become more aggressive in recruitment. Workplace units have organically launched everything from social media campaigns and town-hall meetings to civil disobedience and full-blown strikes. And union bosses redirected resources from member services toward organizing, engagement and high-impact community campaigns. The overall result: Instead of the feared 30 percent drop in membership, public-sector unions held their own in 2018, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last week. There was a total decline of just 83,000, or 0.7 percent. Labor is still a long way from healthy, and more legal threats could blunt the renewed momentum. Lawsuits attempting to force unions to refund agency-fee payers retroactively could be ruinous. But the renewed energy following Janus points the way forward for labor: Success is to be found not in reinvention but in returning to its combative origins. “The Koch brothers and their team ... expected us to hide under the bed,” Lily Eskelen Garcia, president of the National Education Association, tells me. Instead, “we stood up on soapboxes and stages and painted picket signs.” The NEA had projected a loss of as many as 200,000 members, based on previous drop-membership campaigns. Instead, the 3 million-member union is actually up 13,935 members year over year – and the increase in membership among new teachers is particularly encouraging. Credit the Kochs, and Alito, for that. Dana Milbank is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://tj.durangoherald.com/leaving-white-house-they-say-dont-blame-me/</link>
        <title>Leaving White House, they say ‘Don’t blame me’</title>
        <description>WASHINGTON – One by one they leap – or are pushed – from the foundering USS Trump, each offering a variation of the same plea: Don’t blame me. Comes now retired Gen. John Kelly, the second of President Trump’s chiefs...</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2019 17:33:09 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">7E7D2CCA-C650-3292-E053-0100007FC58C</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – One by one they leap – or are pushed – from the foundering USS Trump, each offering a variation of the same plea: Don’t blame me. Comes now retired Gen. John Kelly, the second of President Trump’s chiefs of staff to be discarded. Days before departing, he paused for an interview with the Los Angeles Times. It was an extended exercise in self-absolution. Don’t blame him for Trump’s border-wall obsession. “To be honest, it’s not a wall,” Kelly disclosed, insisting “we left a solid concrete wall early on in the administration.” (Trump tweeted: “An all concrete Wall was NEVER ABANDONED.”) Don’t blame Kelly for Trump’s fabricated “crisis” at the southern border. “If you want to stop illegal immigration, stop U.S. demand for drugs and expand economic opportunity” in Central America, Kelly proposed. Don’t blame him for Trump’s claims that Hispanic immigrants spread violence and drugs. “Illegal immigrants, overwhelmingly, are not bad people,” Kelly said. And don’t blame him for the travel ban or the family separation policies, either. Rather, he argued, he should be judged for what Trump didn’t do: withdraw from Syria and Afghanistan (which he’s doing now), pull troops out of South Korea or withdraw from NATO (which remain uncertain). If we judge success by things that didn’t happen, we should also credit Kelly for avoiding a zombie apocalypse. Kelly served his country honorably for decades. But there’s nothing courageous in announcing, on the way out the door, that he didn’t agree with many awful things Trump did on his watch. There was, once, a good argument that qualified people, by taking administration jobs, could temper Trump’s worst instincts. But it turned out Trump was not to be tempered. Those who disagreed with the madness had an obligation to resign, or at least to speak out – not to wash their hands of responsibility after the fact. Don’t blame Rex Tillerson. The ousted secretary of state told Bob Schieffer of CBS News he reined in Trump by saying “you can’t do it that way. It violates the law. It violates a treaty.” Don’t blame Jim Mattis. The former defense secretary waited until resigning to state his disagreements with Trump over “treating allies with respect.” Don’t blame Reince Priebus. Trump’s first chief of staff spoke up about Trump’s chaos after he was ousted, telling Chris Whipple: “Take everything you’ve heard and multiply it by 50.” Don’t blame Nikki Haley. Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations, in a parting shot, said “our opponents are not evil. They’re just our opponents.” Don’t blame Gary Cohn. The economic adviser decried Trump’s trade war and defended the Fed’s interest-rate policy against Trump’s criticism (“I don’t think he should make comments on any independent agency”). Also, don’t blame Omarosa Manigault Newman (she knew Trump was a racist but took a job in his White House anyway) or Michael Cohen (at his sentencing, the president’s former personal lawyer said his loyalty to Trump led him to “cover up his dirty deeds”) or Steve Bannon (after he departed the White House, the former top strategist suggested Donald Trump Jr., Jared Kushner and Paul Manafort had engaged in “treasonous” and “unpatriotic” behavior). The self-absolution extends into the diaspora of Trump apologists. Rep. Mia Love, the Utah Republican, in defeat, denounced Trump for operating with “no real relationships, just convenient transactions.” Better late than never? Perhaps. Those taking parting shots are certainly more honorable than those who get paid to defend Trump on the airwaves. The post-employment critics also compare favorably with Mick Mulvaney, who called Trump a “terrible human being” before becoming Trump’s budget director and now acting chief of staff. But the after-the-fact criticism seems self-serving – a way for Trump enablers to rebuild their reputations and find new jobs. Tucker Carlson, an unstinting Trump booster, used the anonymity of a German-language weekly to put on the record that he questions Trump’s competence, knowledge, self-aggrandizement and personnel choices. Even Carlson, though, is braver than the anonymous Trump official who wrote The New York Times op-ed about efforts to sabotage Trump from within. How long before the author emerges to claim credit – and perhaps a book contract? Proposed title: Don’t Blame Me. Dana Milbank is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://tj.durangoherald.com/trump-finally-found-conspiracy-he-doesnt-believe/</link>
        <title>Trump finally found conspiracy he doesn’t believe</title>
        <description>WASHINGTON – So President Trump finally found a conspiracy theory he doesn’t believe. “Are you still a believer in Santa?” Trump asked an unsuspecting 7-year-old, Collman Lloyd, when she called in to the military’s Santa Claus tracker line on Christmas...</description>
        <pubDate>Mon, 31 Dec 2018 17:33:10 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">7E1AF380-3D84-7B69-E053-0100007FC672</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – So President Trump finally found a conspiracy theory he doesn’t believe. “Are you still a believer in Santa?” Trump asked an unsuspecting 7-year-old, Collman Lloyd, when she called in to the military’s Santa Claus tracker line on Christmas Eve. “Yes sir,” she replied. “Because at 7, that’s marginal, right?” “Yes, sir,” replied the child, though she didn’t know what “marginal” meant. I can imagine the confusion of the young South Carolinian, who had put out sugar cookies and chocolate milk for Santa. Mom! Dad! President Trump says I’m margarine! But I can’t imagine what was going through the president’s head. He has entertained notions that Sen. Ted Cruz’s father was involved in the JFK assassination, that President Obama’s birth certificate was fake, and that Vince Foster and Antonin Scalia may have been murdered – but he doesn’t believe an elderly man with a long beard lives at the North Pole with hundreds of elves? Trump has said he believes climate change is a hoax, millions voted illegally for Hillary Clinton and Democrats faked the Puerto Rico hurricane death toll – but he can’t accept that a herd of flying reindeer delivers billions of gifts down the chimneys of all households on Earth on a single night? The day after disabusing little Collman of her trust in Christmas magic, Trump made a most unusual holiday address. In an unprompted, televised rant about James Comey and his other persecutors, Trump delivered ill will to all with the vigor of the Grinch shouting down at Whoville: “It’s a disgrace, what’s happening in our country. But other than that, I wish everybody a very merry Christmas.” Might this be the beginning of a series of such holiday greetings? It’s a disgrace, what women are doing to this country. But other than that, I wish everybody a very happy Mother’s Day. American workers are a disgrace. But other than that, I wish everybody a very happy Labor Day. You don’t need Rudolph, Mr. President, to find a better course than this. You need to embrace the Santa Claus conspiracy with the passion of Alex Jones discovering false-flag operations. In 1897, a letter to the New York Sun from 8-year-old Virginia O’Hanlon inquiring about the existence of Santa Claus inspired the famous editorial: “Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He exists as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist. ... A thousand years from now, Virginia, nay 10 times 10,000 years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.” Thus began the era of fake news. Could not the president, whose power comes from convincing his followers to believe in things that do not exist, embrace the Santa conspiracy theory? I suggest an updated version of the story Trump could offer to his loyal supporters: “Yes, West Virginia, there is a Santa Claus. He worked with an army of little people deep below Comet Ping Pong, a pizza restaurant in Washington. Between 3 million and 5 million of them voted fraudulently in the 2016 election. “But after I threatened to rain fire and fury on Santa’s workshop, he gave us a much better deal. He will now export beautiful, clean coal from West Virginia to stockings across the world. “Santa, by giving a nod and laying a finger aside of his nose, will replace Obamacare with something cheaper and better. Steel jobs will return, Russia will be our friend, everybody will be home for Christmas and all your Christmases will be white. Yes, West Virginia, and Ohio, and Michigan, there is a Santa Claus.” Dana Milbank is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://tj.durangoherald.com/the-2020-presidential-field-oh-we-have-names/</link>
        <title>The 2020 presidential field – oh, we have names</title>
        <description>Until now, there were, by my count, 44 Democrats who have either expressed interest in a 2020 presidential run, traveled to Iowa or New Hampshire or otherwise managed to get themselves mentioned. But we can now stop the bidding. Because...</description>
        <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2018 17:03:10 -0700</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">7C220100-D498-7B2B-E053-0100007F1A30</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[Until now, there were, by my count, 44 Democrats who have either expressed interest in a 2020 presidential run, traveled to Iowa or New Hampshire or otherwise managed to get themselves mentioned. But we can now stop the bidding. Because a 45th candidate has just emerged, and he is about to clear the field. Yes, the man Democrats have been waiting for, Sen. Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, says he has “an obligation to consider” running for president – and tacks on a Trumpian tease: “We’ll see what happens.” Casey is the total package -- assuming the Democrats’ idea of a total package is mild, earnest and quite possibly the most boring person in politics. This is why they should instead go with New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker – unless Democrats are concerned about their standard-bearer being a showboat who declares, with straight face, “I am Spartacus.” In this case, I say: Go with everyman Joe Biden – as long as they won’t mind putting a 77-year-old former vice president up against a 74-year-old incumbent. Otherwise, the best choice would be youthful California Rep. Eric Swalwell though the 38-year-old’s main qualification is cable news overexposure. Hence, the need for a candidate of substance: Minnesota’s Sen. Amy Klobuchar – as long as her perceived lack of toughness isn’t a problem. If it is, combative Sen. Kamala Harris of California is the best option. But she’s not the person you’d want to have a beer with. No, that person is Gov. John Hickenlooper of Colorado, who once ran a brewery. Except his name makes everybody giggle. Better, then, to go with another white guy from Colorado, Sen. Michael Bennet – assuming the electorate is as excited as he is by filibuster reform. If not, the fiery populist Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts is top choice – unless Democrats think her DNA-test adventure means President Trump has her number with “Pocahontas.” If genuineness is the essential quality, Rep. Beto O’Rourke of Texas is the man, though he is a failed Senate candidate, which also probably knocks out West Virginia’s Richard Ojeda, a failed House candidate. Therefore, may I suggest Sen. Sherrod Brown or Rep. Tim Ryan, who win among Ohio steelworkers? Except there aren’t that many workers left. The Latino population, by contrast, is large and growing, making former Housing and Urban Development secretary Julian Castro ideal. If only Latinos turned out to vote. This is why I would suggest an outsider, such as billionaires Howard Schultz (except he’s not ready to mix it up with Trump); or Mark Cuban (except he’s another reality TV guy), or Tom Steyer (except he, like Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, is a one-trick pony on climate change). Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont or Tim Kaine of Virginia or former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley would be perfect – if they weren’t 2016 retreads. Hillary Clinton herself would be ideal – if she weren’t a 2016 and a 2008 retread. John Kerry would be the logical pick – if he weren’t a 2004 retread. And California Gov. Jerry Brown would be the man – if he weren’t a 1976, 1980 and 1992 retread. I therefore nominate former attorney general Eric Holder – though he’s an Obama administration retread. My fallbacks, then, are former governors Deval Patrick Massachusetts and Terry McAuliffe of Virginia – though they’re both Clinton retreads. May I propose, then, that Democrats go with a storied name, such as Rep. Joe Kennedy of Massachusetts or Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York Although, the Clintons may have killed dynastic politics. Hence, my first choice: Montana Gov. Steve Bullock. Except he’s unlikely to turn out the 99 percent of Democrats who don’t live on farms. This leads us to former New Orleans mayor Mitch Landrieu, or Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti – except Democrats need to appeal to people who live beyond city lines. The ultimate pick, therefore, is Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Indiana, a gay Democrat in a conservative area. Or, he would be the ultimate pick if he weren’t utterly unknown. No one is better known than Oprah Winfrey, who would be terrific – if only she’d run. Otherwise, Democrats can have Oprah’s friend, spiritual guru Marianne Williamson, who just announced that she’s running. Democrats, however, are not feeling their inner harmony at the moment, so they should skip Williamson and go with a street brawler, Michael Avenatti – assuming he isn’t himself among the prison population on Election Day. Which is why the Democrats need somebody sober, predictable and even boring – such as Bob Casey. Dana Milbank is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
    <item>
        <link>https://tj.durangoherald.com/trump-who-doesnt-drink-goes-on-another-bender/</link>
        <title>Trump, who doesn’t drink, goes on another bender</title>
        <description>WASHINGTON – President Trump, in the Rose Garden on Monday morning to celebrate a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico, displayed a side seldom, if ever, seen before: a flash of self-awareness. Goaded by reporters’ questions about Supreme Court...</description>
        <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2018 17:03:19 -0600</pubDate>
        <guid isPermaLink="false">77589ADB-CEA7-3E74-E053-0100007FBF5B</guid>
        <content:encoded><![CDATA[WASHINGTON – President Trump, in the Rose Garden on Monday morning to celebrate a new trade deal with Canada and Mexico, displayed a side seldom, if ever, seen before: a flash of self-awareness. Goaded by reporters’ questions about Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh’s memorable testimony last week – “I like beer! I still like beer!” – the teetotaling president offered an unsolicited thought on his own abstemiousness. “I’m just saying, I’m not a drinker,” he said. “It’s one of my only good traits. … I’ve never had alcohol. I’ve just – you know, for whatever reason. Can you imagine if I had what a mess I’d be? I’d be the world’s worst.” I’ll raise a glass to that bit of introspection. The man often goes off on wild rhetorical benders fueled by nothing stronger than Diet Coke – something Trump was, at that very moment, proving anew. Sunday night’s agreement on a successor to the North American Free Trade Agreement had given Trump a legitimate reason to crow about a “very, very good,” “terrific,” “amazing,” “incredible” and “historic” deal. But he then opted to take questions on Monday, after aides had signaled he wouldn’t. Inevitably, he trampled his good news with a new rant about the Kavanaugh affair. Trump, crying “witch hunt,” said that he’s with Kavanaugh “all the way,” and that his nominee has “been treated horribly” and “so viciously and so violently.” He said one of Kavanaugh’s accusers “has very little credibility,” and cast doubt on his primary accuser, Christine Blasey Ford: “What day was it? Where was it? Do you know the location?” Once he got started, Trump couldn’t stop. He complained about “crap” he gets from the news media, saying journalists are “loco” (a word he used “because of the fact that we made a deal with Mexico”). And the president alleged he had seen an unnamed Democratic senator “in very, very bad situations, somewhat compromising.” On and on he went – for 90 meandering minutes. Those arrayed behind him in the Rose Garden for the trade announcement fidgeted, bobbed and swayed. Somewhere in his disorderly mind, Trump had a notion that he needed to keep on the topic of trade. But his hectoring of reporters only distracted further. When he called on ABC News’ Cecilia Vega, he added that “she’s shocked that I picked her, like in a state of shock.” Vega protested. “I’m not. Thank you, Mr. President.” “I know you’re not thinking. You never do,” he said. “I’m sorry?” replied Vega. Just the kind of gratuitous insult of a woman that the White House needed amid the backlash over Kavanaugh’s alleged mistreatment of women. Trump rebuffed Vega and other reporters asking about Kavanaugh, saying he would take those questions later. To his credit, he did. And, when he did, he veered irrevocably off script. Watching the president step all over his trade triumph, I couldn’t help but wonder how things might have turned out differently if he had self-discipline. Strip away Trump’s zany hyperbole – that “NAFTA was perhaps the worst trade deal ever made” and that his revised trade deal creates a “manufacturing powerhouse” where factories never close and workers never lose jobs – and there is much to like about the new deal at first glance: potentially higher wages, tougher labor and environmental standards, a greater proportion of vehicles made in North America. What if instead of taking the alt-right, nationalist path, Trump had, from the beginning, devoted himself to infrastructure rebuilding and trade-pact renegotiation, both broadly popular ideas? What if he had negotiated a NAFTA replacement without sparking international chaos, calling Mexicans murderers and rapists and Canada’s prime minister “very dishonest and weak”? And what if he had been able to run his administration without the constant distraction of corruption, scandal, outrage, division and chaos? We will never know. Even as Trump celebrated his agreement, he tossed in nonsense claims: U.S. Steel is “building eight or nine plants” and the Obama administration “said we’re not going to have manufacturing jobs anymore.” Soon he was talking about bump stocks and the border wall, “fake news,” his “landslide” victory in 2016 and 2018 midterm polls, and how “vocal” Kavanaugh was “about the fact that he likes beer” and the “difficulty” he had with alcohol – everything but what Trump was supposed to be talking about. Trump’s unpredictable careening from topic to topic is intoxicating to behold. That the president’s mind works this way is sobering. Dana Milbank is a columnist for The Washington Post.]]></content:encoded>
    </item>
</channel>
</rss>
