Airline travel is broken.
Hope you don't have to fly this holiday weekend.
Saturday, November 30, 2019
Friday, November 29, 2019
Harris
Interesting profile in the Times about the dysfunction of the Harris campaign. She obviously possess some special political gifts, but running for statewide office in California is both hard and easy. It's hard, because it's a huge state - actually a mini-country - and trying to organize a campaign to win there requires a fair amount of talent.
But it's also easy, in that Democrats are really popular in California and simply being the Democratic candidate is likely enough to win the race. As a result, Harris' ability to staff and strategize was hampered by a lack of "muscle memory" in those areas. Buttigieg has more than his share of flaws, but he is running a tight ship, especially in comparison to Harris.
I was a Lean Harris voter this summer, but a few missteps and a generally lackluster outreach made me shift my focus to Warren. Her missteps - a tendency to over-explain and be wonky when her real strength is simplifying complex issues - are real, too. Both Warren and Harris have faded for a variety of reasons. Democratic voters are risk averse at this point. They have made mistakes, especially on messaging. Perhaps they simply peaked too soon. The field is so large no one can stand out.
Buttigieg's rise has come with increased scrutiny, and his statements on race are more in tune with '90s DLC than today's Democratic electorate. His complete lack of support from African American voters is a huge, huge problem for him. His test is to overcome those hurdles. Harris and Warren may have failed theirs, which is a damned shame.
But it's also easy, in that Democrats are really popular in California and simply being the Democratic candidate is likely enough to win the race. As a result, Harris' ability to staff and strategize was hampered by a lack of "muscle memory" in those areas. Buttigieg has more than his share of flaws, but he is running a tight ship, especially in comparison to Harris.
I was a Lean Harris voter this summer, but a few missteps and a generally lackluster outreach made me shift my focus to Warren. Her missteps - a tendency to over-explain and be wonky when her real strength is simplifying complex issues - are real, too. Both Warren and Harris have faded for a variety of reasons. Democratic voters are risk averse at this point. They have made mistakes, especially on messaging. Perhaps they simply peaked too soon. The field is so large no one can stand out.
Buttigieg's rise has come with increased scrutiny, and his statements on race are more in tune with '90s DLC than today's Democratic electorate. His complete lack of support from African American voters is a huge, huge problem for him. His test is to overcome those hurdles. Harris and Warren may have failed theirs, which is a damned shame.
Thursday, November 28, 2019
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Act II
A lot of Twitter is upset that the impeachment hearings are shutting down without dealing with (Pet Issue X).
The Judiciary will start looking into the obstruction of justice issues. That's a whole separate affair.
(Holy shit...Joe Biden just walked into the coffee shop I'm writing in. Don't be a dick. DON'T BE A DICK....He left.)
Anyway, there's a lot more impeachment to come...
The Judiciary will start looking into the obstruction of justice issues. That's a whole separate affair.
(Holy shit...Joe Biden just walked into the coffee shop I'm writing in. Don't be a dick. DON'T BE A DICK....He left.)
Anyway, there's a lot more impeachment to come...
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
Mayor Pete
One of the more surprising developments of the Democratic primary has been Pete Buttigieg's rise. I've tried to figure out some of why he's so appealing. The nearest historical analogy I can come up with is Jimmy Carter.
Carter's appeal was a basic decency ("I'll never lie to you."), an open and easy Christian faith and a very thin resume on which to attack him. He was a largely moderate governor, fairly liberal on race for 1976, noticeably intelligent and generally inoffensive. Nixon's crimes made a figure like Carter appealing. Carter was the anti-Nixon, and road that to upset wins in Iowa that he carried on to narrow wins in Oklahoma and New Hampshire. Democrats had been burned four years earlier with McGovern and they sought a safe candidate. His strongest challenger was (gulp) George Wallace who ran strongly in the Southern states. Jerry Brown made a late entry to represent the left wing of the party, although maybe Mo Udall fit some of that space.
What's striking about 2020 is that - having been burned by the bizarre and fluky victory of Trump - the Democrats have decided not to play it safe. Perhaps they HAVE, because Biden still leads most polls. While I don't think Biden is a "safe" candidate, because he's never been a very adroit politician, he would appear that way to a lot of primary voters. It's telling that African Americans voters are his core support. Again, I think that's because they are the most strategic and safe in their voting. They don't trust white voters not to fuck things up again. I remember in 2008, several African Americans said to me something along the lines of "They aren't going to let Obama win." The "they" was undefined, but I think Biden's support is rooted in the "safe" candidate tag. Compared to Warren and Sanders, there might be some truth to that. I am convinced Biden would've beaten Trump in 2016, for instance. It's not 2016, however.
Buttigieg is basically competing with Biden for the voters who don't want to risk nominating a women, a person of color or a Socialist. Bloomberg and others are trying to seize that space, but I just don't see that there's enough oxygen in that space. The fact that Buttigieg is gay allows him to be a little "outside the box" but not so threateningly so.
What's interesting is that homophobia remains an issue with older Christians, and while most accounts of evangelicals refers to whites, African Americans are among the most religious Americans. And frankly, they probably still have a problem with gays, especially in a state like South Carolina. It's not a case that Buttigieg is polling 0% with black voters because they are all voting for Harris or Booker. They aren't. They are supporting Biden, because...safe. I don't think Buttigieg looks "safe" to black voters, whereas the white, college educated demographic likes him, because they don't see the sexual orientation as being as risky.
A strategic voting choice between Buttigieg and Biden comes down to what your electoral strategy is. Do you want to claw back some working class white votes? Biden makes some sense there. Some. Do you want to run up the score in the suburbs? Buttigieg is a better bet there.
A Buttigieg-Warren choice is fascinating, and it would be interesting to see where African American votes land. Regardless, getting black voters to the ballot box is going to be critical in 2020. Will they rally around Buttigieg, if he wins the nomination?
Carter's appeal was a basic decency ("I'll never lie to you."), an open and easy Christian faith and a very thin resume on which to attack him. He was a largely moderate governor, fairly liberal on race for 1976, noticeably intelligent and generally inoffensive. Nixon's crimes made a figure like Carter appealing. Carter was the anti-Nixon, and road that to upset wins in Iowa that he carried on to narrow wins in Oklahoma and New Hampshire. Democrats had been burned four years earlier with McGovern and they sought a safe candidate. His strongest challenger was (gulp) George Wallace who ran strongly in the Southern states. Jerry Brown made a late entry to represent the left wing of the party, although maybe Mo Udall fit some of that space.
What's striking about 2020 is that - having been burned by the bizarre and fluky victory of Trump - the Democrats have decided not to play it safe. Perhaps they HAVE, because Biden still leads most polls. While I don't think Biden is a "safe" candidate, because he's never been a very adroit politician, he would appear that way to a lot of primary voters. It's telling that African Americans voters are his core support. Again, I think that's because they are the most strategic and safe in their voting. They don't trust white voters not to fuck things up again. I remember in 2008, several African Americans said to me something along the lines of "They aren't going to let Obama win." The "they" was undefined, but I think Biden's support is rooted in the "safe" candidate tag. Compared to Warren and Sanders, there might be some truth to that. I am convinced Biden would've beaten Trump in 2016, for instance. It's not 2016, however.
Buttigieg is basically competing with Biden for the voters who don't want to risk nominating a women, a person of color or a Socialist. Bloomberg and others are trying to seize that space, but I just don't see that there's enough oxygen in that space. The fact that Buttigieg is gay allows him to be a little "outside the box" but not so threateningly so.
What's interesting is that homophobia remains an issue with older Christians, and while most accounts of evangelicals refers to whites, African Americans are among the most religious Americans. And frankly, they probably still have a problem with gays, especially in a state like South Carolina. It's not a case that Buttigieg is polling 0% with black voters because they are all voting for Harris or Booker. They aren't. They are supporting Biden, because...safe. I don't think Buttigieg looks "safe" to black voters, whereas the white, college educated demographic likes him, because they don't see the sexual orientation as being as risky.
A strategic voting choice between Buttigieg and Biden comes down to what your electoral strategy is. Do you want to claw back some working class white votes? Biden makes some sense there. Some. Do you want to run up the score in the suburbs? Buttigieg is a better bet there.
A Buttigieg-Warren choice is fascinating, and it would be interesting to see where African American votes land. Regardless, getting black voters to the ballot box is going to be critical in 2020. Will they rally around Buttigieg, if he wins the nomination?
Monday, November 25, 2019
Hence The Focus
There has been some carping about the narrow focus of the impeachment inquiry. I get that, and I hope they expand those hearings to include what we are learning every day now about Giuliani, Trump, the GOP and Ukraine.
But reading through this recap by Josh Marshall (who has a PhD in Trumpistan and its links to the former Soviet Union), and it can get very confusing, very quickly. Firtash? Fruman? Kolomoisky? Kelensky? Kelenskyy? (More details about it here.)
Schiff and the witnesses did an excellent job distilling the combined scandals into a single narrative, but even that is likely beyond the ability of the disengaged electorate to understand. That's why no real minds have been changed. You either already wanted him gone or believe he was chosen by Christ or you simply don't follow politics.
That latter group is key, but almost impossible to reach. The Twittersphere that loves hating on Congressional Dems doesn't seem to acknowledge that they exist.
But reading through this recap by Josh Marshall (who has a PhD in Trumpistan and its links to the former Soviet Union), and it can get very confusing, very quickly. Firtash? Fruman? Kolomoisky? Kelensky? Kelenskyy? (More details about it here.)
Schiff and the witnesses did an excellent job distilling the combined scandals into a single narrative, but even that is likely beyond the ability of the disengaged electorate to understand. That's why no real minds have been changed. You either already wanted him gone or believe he was chosen by Christ or you simply don't follow politics.
That latter group is key, but almost impossible to reach. The Twittersphere that loves hating on Congressional Dems doesn't seem to acknowledge that they exist.
Is There Any Breaking Point?
There's a problem with the lede in this WaPo piece on the resignation of Navy Secretary Richard Spencer. It says that CPO Edward Gallagher was "accused" of war crimes. He was accused of murder, but convicted of war crimes and violating standards of conduct for US servicemen. He was guilty and Trump pardoned him, in order to keep that part of America that likes its servicemember to desecrate corpses happy. Let's not forget the other crimes he was accused of:
For Trump and his Cruelty Caucus, a SEAL who stabs a prisoner to death and shoots unarmed civilians is badass rather than rank cruelty. Apparently, the members of his team disabled his sniper rifle to keep him from shooting people. Finally fed up, three of them decided to report his conduct to superiors.
The Navy can't do anything about Trump's pardon, as the pardon power is largely unchallengeable. They did, however, want Gallagher out of the SEALs and out of the Navy. Trump pushed back against this, because of course he did. Killing Muslim children isn't a problem in Trumpistan. Spencer probably tried to flatter or lie to Trump to distract him from plans to strip Gallagher of his Trident (the SEALs insignia and a BFD).
Trump's decision to interfere in these - and other cases - greatly undermine the military's tenuous ability to maintain control of troops in war zones. Savagery is a natural byproduct of war and keeping men who you have trained to kill on task and out of murderous behavior is incredibly difficult. War erases the thin line between civilization and barbarism. Trump wants to erase that line.
When will the military break with him? I know a majority of the enlisted troops likely love him, but the brass knows how corrosive this shit is. Like McMaster and Kelly and Mattis they seem intent on self-immolation on his pyre.
When will the military stand up to this martinet?
SEALs from the platoon that Chief Gallagher led during a deployment to Mosul, Iraq, in 2017 told military officials that they saw the chief fatally stab a wounded ISIS captive. Navy investigators said while several SEALs were providing medical aid to the fighter, Chief Gallagher took out a handmade hunting knife and stabbed the captive, a teenager, several times in the neck and torso.
The chief was also accused of firing a sniper rifle at civilians, striking a girl wearing a flower-print hijab as she walked along a riverbank and an old man carrying a water jug. Several SEALs broke the group’s code of silence and testified against Chief Gallagher in a military trial.
For Trump and his Cruelty Caucus, a SEAL who stabs a prisoner to death and shoots unarmed civilians is badass rather than rank cruelty. Apparently, the members of his team disabled his sniper rifle to keep him from shooting people. Finally fed up, three of them decided to report his conduct to superiors.
The Navy can't do anything about Trump's pardon, as the pardon power is largely unchallengeable. They did, however, want Gallagher out of the SEALs and out of the Navy. Trump pushed back against this, because of course he did. Killing Muslim children isn't a problem in Trumpistan. Spencer probably tried to flatter or lie to Trump to distract him from plans to strip Gallagher of his Trident (the SEALs insignia and a BFD).
Trump's decision to interfere in these - and other cases - greatly undermine the military's tenuous ability to maintain control of troops in war zones. Savagery is a natural byproduct of war and keeping men who you have trained to kill on task and out of murderous behavior is incredibly difficult. War erases the thin line between civilization and barbarism. Trump wants to erase that line.
When will the military break with him? I know a majority of the enlisted troops likely love him, but the brass knows how corrosive this shit is. Like McMaster and Kelly and Mattis they seem intent on self-immolation on his pyre.
When will the military stand up to this martinet?
Saturday, November 23, 2019
Booker
Going into the primary slog, I was most intrigued by Gillibrand and Booker. Gillibrand has already dropped out, and I don't know why Booker never caught fire. There's an interesting roundtable about why that might not have happened.
It starts from a premise that makes a certain amount of sense, which is that if you were looking for another Obama, Booker certainly fit many aspects of that role, and not just race. He's an Ivy Leaguer who returned to work on local politics to help urban minorities. He's charismatic. He can be an electrifying speaker, even if it's not on a par with Obama.
The panel hit on an interesting observation from 2008 though. They noted that African American voters were, ironically, some of the last to warm to Obama. He broke through among college educated whites first, and African Americans were reluctant to vote for him, because they thought racism was too strong. I remember so many conversations with both white and black voters opinionating that Obama would lose in the end, because even if people told pollsters they were voting for him, implicit bias and subliminal racism would change their mind in the voting booth. No presidential candidate ever won more raw votes than Obama did in 2008.
We see a similar dynamic playing out among some Democratic constituencies in 2020. Trump is uniquely awful, and therefore we should play it safe. This is the heart of the appeal of Joe Biden, I think. Sure, there's the connection with Obama, but I think the reason many African Americans support Biden is that he's seen as the safest bet to win 270 electoral votes. In short, African American voters are not so naive to assume that Americans will vote for a more qualified woman, because, well...
This is a remarkably impressive field, until you start parsing every utterance and applying litmus tests to how eager they support charter schools or how much they want to soak the rich. The 2020 primary is a clinic in the narcissism of small differences.
If you ask Democrats, 90% want someone who can thrash Trump. That's their #1 goal. They might see that through an ideological lens (I think Warren's transformational message is the only thing that...yadayadayada.), but they are primarily interested in beating Trump. That might make them risk averse, and that might be why African American voters are rallying around Biden - even though in many ways he's as risky a candidate as the Democrats could nominate. The perception, however, is that he isn't. To a certain degree, Buttigieg is on both sides of this calculus. He's a moderate but he's gay, so that constitutes a risk.
Booker still has time to rally and make a strong showing somewhere, and I think he'd be a tremendous candidate in the general election. But it's clear that he has an obstacle to overcome, and it's not just Joe Biden and Kamala Harris sharing "his lane."
It starts from a premise that makes a certain amount of sense, which is that if you were looking for another Obama, Booker certainly fit many aspects of that role, and not just race. He's an Ivy Leaguer who returned to work on local politics to help urban minorities. He's charismatic. He can be an electrifying speaker, even if it's not on a par with Obama.
The panel hit on an interesting observation from 2008 though. They noted that African American voters were, ironically, some of the last to warm to Obama. He broke through among college educated whites first, and African Americans were reluctant to vote for him, because they thought racism was too strong. I remember so many conversations with both white and black voters opinionating that Obama would lose in the end, because even if people told pollsters they were voting for him, implicit bias and subliminal racism would change their mind in the voting booth. No presidential candidate ever won more raw votes than Obama did in 2008.
We see a similar dynamic playing out among some Democratic constituencies in 2020. Trump is uniquely awful, and therefore we should play it safe. This is the heart of the appeal of Joe Biden, I think. Sure, there's the connection with Obama, but I think the reason many African Americans support Biden is that he's seen as the safest bet to win 270 electoral votes. In short, African American voters are not so naive to assume that Americans will vote for a more qualified woman, because, well...
This is a remarkably impressive field, until you start parsing every utterance and applying litmus tests to how eager they support charter schools or how much they want to soak the rich. The 2020 primary is a clinic in the narcissism of small differences.
If you ask Democrats, 90% want someone who can thrash Trump. That's their #1 goal. They might see that through an ideological lens (I think Warren's transformational message is the only thing that...yadayadayada.), but they are primarily interested in beating Trump. That might make them risk averse, and that might be why African American voters are rallying around Biden - even though in many ways he's as risky a candidate as the Democrats could nominate. The perception, however, is that he isn't. To a certain degree, Buttigieg is on both sides of this calculus. He's a moderate but he's gay, so that constitutes a risk.
Booker still has time to rally and make a strong showing somewhere, and I think he'd be a tremendous candidate in the general election. But it's clear that he has an obstacle to overcome, and it's not just Joe Biden and Kamala Harris sharing "his lane."
Oh. What A Surprise.
Turns out the FBI isn't running crooked investigations against Trump.
The problem, of course, with conspiracy theories is that their very absurdity is their armor. Once you commit to an evidence-free conspiracy theory, actual evidence against it is simply more evidence of how deep the conspiracy goes.
This won't reach the Deplorables, but hopefully it will at least reach enough of the news media that they will be more wary about repeating any nonsense talking points from the GOP.
Hahahahaha, who am I kidding, of course they'll keep doing that.
The problem, of course, with conspiracy theories is that their very absurdity is their armor. Once you commit to an evidence-free conspiracy theory, actual evidence against it is simply more evidence of how deep the conspiracy goes.
This won't reach the Deplorables, but hopefully it will at least reach enough of the news media that they will be more wary about repeating any nonsense talking points from the GOP.
Hahahahaha, who am I kidding, of course they'll keep doing that.
Friday, November 22, 2019
All Roads Lead To Moscow
Fiona Hill's testimony was, frankly, kind of awesome. The chewy, working class, Durham accent and the absolute inability to brook bullshit made her an instant celebrity in the more academic reaches of the internet. Her fundamental point, however, was one that needs drawing out.
Hill made it abundantly clear that anyone parroting the line that somehow Ukraine was behind election meddling in 2016 was serving Putin, not America. The overwhelming consensus of American intelligence agencies is that Russia used various strategies on social media to shape and influence the election. They also were responsible for hacking the DNC server and releasing emails at times that were most felicitous for the Trump campaign. The Russians wanted Trump to win and they worked to make it happen. This is illegal and the Trump campaign was at least tacitly working to facilitate Russian help.
This is the truth, as best we can discern it, about the 2016 election.
At some point, Trump - and therefore Republicans - have seized on a bonkers conspiracy theory that somehow it was Ukraine who interfered in the 2016 election. This has proven to be a nice wedding of Russian counterintel and Republican susceptibility to conspiracy theories. In Trumpistan, remember, every allegation is a confession. And therefore, whatever Dems allege, they, too, must have done. So, if Democrats allege that Russia helped Trump (and they did), then Ukraine must've helped the Democrats.
There is, to put it mildly, no evidence for this - beyond some Ukrainian politicians who didn't like Trump, because he was obviously so cozy with the bastard who has invaded and annexed part of their country. Those crazy Ukrainians! But animus against Trump is not the same as action, and there is no evidence that Ukraine was as bold or stupid enough to meddle in the election of an ally they needed to preserve their territorial integrity.
It has been very difficult for Republicans to plausibly defend Trump's behavior. Hell, he's gone on TV and committed the very crime that he's being impeached over. He did it. The evidence is overwhelming. Because the GOP is more concerned with loyalty to their clan (or is it klan) than they are to the country, they need a line of defense - any line at all - to defend Hair Furor.
It should be concerning that they have alighted on a defense that matches so nicely with the Kremlin's own counterintel strategy. Hill was trying to make that point, and I think she did to those who have not simply walled themselves off from reality.
For about 20 years, there has been an argument that the future of the country is Democratic. Younger people tilt very strongly towards Democrats and the left, because they are less white and more educated than previous generations. The only Republican to crack 50% in a presidential election since 1988 was Dubya Bush's reelection in 2004, and he only managed 50.7%. Trump, as we know, squeezed into office by running an inside straight. Pennsylvania and Michigan seemed lost to him, which bring the Democratic floor to 268.
In order to maintain a hold on the White House, Republicans will need to rely on undemocratic means to maintain power. We saw some of this in Georgia when Brian Kemp used voter suppression to beat Stacey Abrams.
The importance of impeaching and removing Trump is that is subverting democracy by using foreign autocracies to help him win elections. The problem is that aligns with GOP needs. And if that means embracing Putin, they will do so.
The Republican Party is telling us who they are. We should listen.
Hill made it abundantly clear that anyone parroting the line that somehow Ukraine was behind election meddling in 2016 was serving Putin, not America. The overwhelming consensus of American intelligence agencies is that Russia used various strategies on social media to shape and influence the election. They also were responsible for hacking the DNC server and releasing emails at times that were most felicitous for the Trump campaign. The Russians wanted Trump to win and they worked to make it happen. This is illegal and the Trump campaign was at least tacitly working to facilitate Russian help.
This is the truth, as best we can discern it, about the 2016 election.
At some point, Trump - and therefore Republicans - have seized on a bonkers conspiracy theory that somehow it was Ukraine who interfered in the 2016 election. This has proven to be a nice wedding of Russian counterintel and Republican susceptibility to conspiracy theories. In Trumpistan, remember, every allegation is a confession. And therefore, whatever Dems allege, they, too, must have done. So, if Democrats allege that Russia helped Trump (and they did), then Ukraine must've helped the Democrats.
There is, to put it mildly, no evidence for this - beyond some Ukrainian politicians who didn't like Trump, because he was obviously so cozy with the bastard who has invaded and annexed part of their country. Those crazy Ukrainians! But animus against Trump is not the same as action, and there is no evidence that Ukraine was as bold or stupid enough to meddle in the election of an ally they needed to preserve their territorial integrity.
It has been very difficult for Republicans to plausibly defend Trump's behavior. Hell, he's gone on TV and committed the very crime that he's being impeached over. He did it. The evidence is overwhelming. Because the GOP is more concerned with loyalty to their clan (or is it klan) than they are to the country, they need a line of defense - any line at all - to defend Hair Furor.
It should be concerning that they have alighted on a defense that matches so nicely with the Kremlin's own counterintel strategy. Hill was trying to make that point, and I think she did to those who have not simply walled themselves off from reality.
For about 20 years, there has been an argument that the future of the country is Democratic. Younger people tilt very strongly towards Democrats and the left, because they are less white and more educated than previous generations. The only Republican to crack 50% in a presidential election since 1988 was Dubya Bush's reelection in 2004, and he only managed 50.7%. Trump, as we know, squeezed into office by running an inside straight. Pennsylvania and Michigan seemed lost to him, which bring the Democratic floor to 268.
In order to maintain a hold on the White House, Republicans will need to rely on undemocratic means to maintain power. We saw some of this in Georgia when Brian Kemp used voter suppression to beat Stacey Abrams.
The importance of impeaching and removing Trump is that is subverting democracy by using foreign autocracies to help him win elections. The problem is that aligns with GOP needs. And if that means embracing Putin, they will do so.
The Republican Party is telling us who they are. We should listen.
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Hand Wringing
After yesterday's legitimate bombshell from Gordon Sondland, Democrats gathered for a debate. As usual, there was a cacophony of voices on the stage, a dynamic that mostly works for those already ahead. It's also clear that the so-called gaping divide between candidates is an exaggeration borne of small differences and the incessant combat of social media. Pete Buttigieg would likely be the most progressive president this country has known, yet he is derided as being a "Republican-lite." All of the serious candidates are embracing more movement towards single payer; they agree on the goal, they just differ on the way to get there.
Meanwhile, every single day is a day that would sink any other presidency. The testimony is damning, whether it's by Gordon Sondland, Fiona Hill or David Holmes. Republicans have been trying to dump as much crap into the proceedings as possible, but the fact is they aren't very capable. More over, the main pillar of support for Trump in the hearings might very well be implicated himself. Parnas remains the dagger at the heart of the Trump Crime Syndicate. He was inside the room with Giuliani and the conduit to various unsavory figures in Ukraine. If he met with Trump and they conspired together...I mean, I don't want to credit Republicans with principles, but that would have to leave a mark wouldn't it?
Plus, you have easily the most dysfunctional administration in history. They can't even get someone to lead NOAA. He is currently without a Secretary of Homeland Security or Director of National Intelligence. He is about to be without a Secretary of Energy and possibly Secretary of State. The number of sub-Cabinet positions that are filled with temporary and "acting" heads are legion. They can't plan a one-car parade.
Meanwhile a single poll out of Wisconsin with a weird sample size has Democrats freaking out. The psychic scars of 2016 are real. Trump absolutely CAN win, because he will almost certainly be the Republican nominee. He will almost certainly benefit from foreign interference to keep this ambulatory shitshow in the Oval Office.
The Republicans are bleeding out in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Atlanta, Charlotte, Phoenix and Houston. GOP members are resigning in droves.
Keep working, stopping committing to circular firing squads, keep your eye on the orange, lumpy ball.
Meanwhile, every single day is a day that would sink any other presidency. The testimony is damning, whether it's by Gordon Sondland, Fiona Hill or David Holmes. Republicans have been trying to dump as much crap into the proceedings as possible, but the fact is they aren't very capable. More over, the main pillar of support for Trump in the hearings might very well be implicated himself. Parnas remains the dagger at the heart of the Trump Crime Syndicate. He was inside the room with Giuliani and the conduit to various unsavory figures in Ukraine. If he met with Trump and they conspired together...I mean, I don't want to credit Republicans with principles, but that would have to leave a mark wouldn't it?
Plus, you have easily the most dysfunctional administration in history. They can't even get someone to lead NOAA. He is currently without a Secretary of Homeland Security or Director of National Intelligence. He is about to be without a Secretary of Energy and possibly Secretary of State. The number of sub-Cabinet positions that are filled with temporary and "acting" heads are legion. They can't plan a one-car parade.
Meanwhile a single poll out of Wisconsin with a weird sample size has Democrats freaking out. The psychic scars of 2016 are real. Trump absolutely CAN win, because he will almost certainly be the Republican nominee. He will almost certainly benefit from foreign interference to keep this ambulatory shitshow in the Oval Office.
The Republicans are bleeding out in the suburbs of Philadelphia, Atlanta, Charlotte, Phoenix and Houston. GOP members are resigning in droves.
Keep working, stopping committing to circular firing squads, keep your eye on the orange, lumpy ball.
Wednesday, November 20, 2019
Well, Damn
Gordon Sondland just threw Trump under the bus, backed over him and ran over him again.
In a sane world, Trump would be crafting his resignation letter as Republicans abandon him.
In a sane world, Trump would be crafting his resignation letter as Republicans abandon him.
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
This Is Sobering
Here is a poll that reveals the following:
- 51% of Americans believe that Trump did something wrong, should be impeached and removed from office.
- 57% of Americans believe that Trump did something wrong, should be impeached but NOT removed from office.
- 70% of Americans believe that Trump did something wrong.
The difference between the 51% who believe he should be removed from office and the 70% of those who believe he did something wrong is a different problem from the 25% who think he didn't do anything wrong. That 25% is basically the Crazification Factor. You can't reach them; they are the Deplorables.
More concerning, in an odd way, are that roughly 1 in 5 Americans who can admit that Trump did something wrong - ask a foreign power to interfere in an American election - and yet still want Trump to remain in office. These are not the rabid MAGAts who are spewing sputtering nonsense about the Deep State or Fake News. These are people who have assimilated a few of the basic facts in the case and decided they are OK with that.
There was some of this back in Clinton's impeachment, especially in the sense that Clinton's behavior was problematic at best and predatory at worst. The nature of the offenses, however, are incredibly different. I would characterize the '98 impeachment as being basically about work place sexual practices. Did Clinton engage in a sexual relationship with someone far beneath him on the organizational chart? He absolutely did. The nature of Lewinsky's consent has changed a bit over time. She originally said it was consensual, and she never asserted that it was coercive, rather than Clinton, as the older, more powerful figure in the relationship should have known better. They were adults, but the inequality of their relationship made things inherently fraught with problems.
That seems essentially what Congressional Censure is for.
Trump has been accused of bending the power of the presidency to shape what should be a free and fair election. Of course, every day brings implications of new and different crimes. Impeachment is primarily designed to limit out of control executive power. That is its explicit purpose.
And there's about 20% of Americans who are cool with that.
- 51% of Americans believe that Trump did something wrong, should be impeached and removed from office.
- 57% of Americans believe that Trump did something wrong, should be impeached but NOT removed from office.
- 70% of Americans believe that Trump did something wrong.
The difference between the 51% who believe he should be removed from office and the 70% of those who believe he did something wrong is a different problem from the 25% who think he didn't do anything wrong. That 25% is basically the Crazification Factor. You can't reach them; they are the Deplorables.
More concerning, in an odd way, are that roughly 1 in 5 Americans who can admit that Trump did something wrong - ask a foreign power to interfere in an American election - and yet still want Trump to remain in office. These are not the rabid MAGAts who are spewing sputtering nonsense about the Deep State or Fake News. These are people who have assimilated a few of the basic facts in the case and decided they are OK with that.
There was some of this back in Clinton's impeachment, especially in the sense that Clinton's behavior was problematic at best and predatory at worst. The nature of the offenses, however, are incredibly different. I would characterize the '98 impeachment as being basically about work place sexual practices. Did Clinton engage in a sexual relationship with someone far beneath him on the organizational chart? He absolutely did. The nature of Lewinsky's consent has changed a bit over time. She originally said it was consensual, and she never asserted that it was coercive, rather than Clinton, as the older, more powerful figure in the relationship should have known better. They were adults, but the inequality of their relationship made things inherently fraught with problems.
That seems essentially what Congressional Censure is for.
Trump has been accused of bending the power of the presidency to shape what should be a free and fair election. Of course, every day brings implications of new and different crimes. Impeachment is primarily designed to limit out of control executive power. That is its explicit purpose.
And there's about 20% of Americans who are cool with that.
Monday, November 18, 2019
Sunday, November 17, 2019
How's It Going, GOP?
So to recap just some stuff that has happened in the last 48 hours.
- Secondary witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have firmly tied Trump to Sondland. The "rogue staffers" defense is going nowhere. Every additional witness and deposition is more and more damning, requiring Republicans to focus on nonsensical process arguments to muddy the waters.
- Purported moderate Elise Stefanak has thrown in to the Fox News shitshow and attacked Adam Schiff baselessly for enforcing the rules that the Republicans wrote, which she used to fundraise off of. Her challenger saw a massive boost in fundraising of her own.
- John Bel Edwards won re-election as governor of Louisiana. In the three critical gubernatorial races this cycle - all in the deep red states of Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi - Democrats won two out of three.
- Trump checked into Walter Reed hospital yesterday for what his flacks are saying was "part one" of his annual physical. A consequence of the farrago of bullshit from the White House makes every possible utterance a lie. His annual physical was 9 months ago, and who decides on a whim to get some standard medical tests on a Saturday? The WaPo story is entirely too credulous of the White House claims, but what else can you do when the Office of the President is staffed by a compulsive liar? He's an old, unhealthy man in the world's most stressful job in the middle of an impeachment inquiry. He knows his crimes. It would be amazing if he wasn't having at least a panic attack or two.
It's a whole year away, but the reflexive crouch of Democrats is really as tiresome as it is predictable. They are winning the debate over the future of the country.
- Secondary witnesses in the impeachment inquiry have firmly tied Trump to Sondland. The "rogue staffers" defense is going nowhere. Every additional witness and deposition is more and more damning, requiring Republicans to focus on nonsensical process arguments to muddy the waters.
- Purported moderate Elise Stefanak has thrown in to the Fox News shitshow and attacked Adam Schiff baselessly for enforcing the rules that the Republicans wrote, which she used to fundraise off of. Her challenger saw a massive boost in fundraising of her own.
- John Bel Edwards won re-election as governor of Louisiana. In the three critical gubernatorial races this cycle - all in the deep red states of Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi - Democrats won two out of three.
- Trump checked into Walter Reed hospital yesterday for what his flacks are saying was "part one" of his annual physical. A consequence of the farrago of bullshit from the White House makes every possible utterance a lie. His annual physical was 9 months ago, and who decides on a whim to get some standard medical tests on a Saturday? The WaPo story is entirely too credulous of the White House claims, but what else can you do when the Office of the President is staffed by a compulsive liar? He's an old, unhealthy man in the world's most stressful job in the middle of an impeachment inquiry. He knows his crimes. It would be amazing if he wasn't having at least a panic attack or two.
It's a whole year away, but the reflexive crouch of Democrats is really as tiresome as it is predictable. They are winning the debate over the future of the country.
Saturday, November 16, 2019
Stepping On Rakes
There was a time when the GOP could point to figures of real intellect and cunning. While Reagan wasn't stupid, he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but there were figures in the GOP who were credibly intelligent. As the GOP has descended into the Upside Down of Fox News, they have bled their more intelligent members or their more intelligent members have had dumb themselves down to stay in touch with the party's base of aggrieved white men who disdain "book larning."
Anyway, that's a long way of introducing the idea that the their efforts to defend Trump have been comically bad. So bad that they have really abandoned any attempt to defend Trump and have tried instead to discredit the process. The fact are against them, the law is against them, so all that is left is to pound on the table and yell like hell.
A few weeks ago, this took the form of screaming on Fox about how the Democrats were doing all this behind closed doors. They memorably stormed into a secure facility with their freaking cellphones. The GOP demanded that the Democrats hold an actual vote to start impeachment and that there be public hearings.
First of all, this was all bullshit. Democrats were following the template of previous impeachments. Secondly, every time the GOP tried to make a process argument, the Democrats would snatch the argument away from them. "Why isn't there a vote?" They then had a vote. "Why isn't testimony public?" Now we have public testimony.
This has led to the sobering testimony of the last few days, where Ambassadors Taylor and Yovanovitch have been incredibly persuasive and even introduced new evidence. The saddest part is that this is unlikely to move the Deplorables. The Foxified base of the party is impervious to evidence or reason. That is the primary audience of Devin Nunes bonkers spectacles. The larger part of the electorate, however, is not addled by the steady stream of lunatic conspiracy theories that make up Trump's "defense."
We have had so many Holy Shit moments in this impeachment saga, but we haven't had the Holiest of Shit moment. We need an audio recording. We need Lev Parnas or Rudy Giuliani to flip. If public opinion can support removal to the tune of 60%, that could greatly affect the calculus of the Senate - especially if they choose to have a secret ballot.
We are a long way from removing Trump via impeachment. But the ineffectual nature of his defense should be sobering for those who are trying to keep this grifter in the Oval Office.
Anyway, that's a long way of introducing the idea that the their efforts to defend Trump have been comically bad. So bad that they have really abandoned any attempt to defend Trump and have tried instead to discredit the process. The fact are against them, the law is against them, so all that is left is to pound on the table and yell like hell.
A few weeks ago, this took the form of screaming on Fox about how the Democrats were doing all this behind closed doors. They memorably stormed into a secure facility with their freaking cellphones. The GOP demanded that the Democrats hold an actual vote to start impeachment and that there be public hearings.
First of all, this was all bullshit. Democrats were following the template of previous impeachments. Secondly, every time the GOP tried to make a process argument, the Democrats would snatch the argument away from them. "Why isn't there a vote?" They then had a vote. "Why isn't testimony public?" Now we have public testimony.
This has led to the sobering testimony of the last few days, where Ambassadors Taylor and Yovanovitch have been incredibly persuasive and even introduced new evidence. The saddest part is that this is unlikely to move the Deplorables. The Foxified base of the party is impervious to evidence or reason. That is the primary audience of Devin Nunes bonkers spectacles. The larger part of the electorate, however, is not addled by the steady stream of lunatic conspiracy theories that make up Trump's "defense."
We have had so many Holy Shit moments in this impeachment saga, but we haven't had the Holiest of Shit moment. We need an audio recording. We need Lev Parnas or Rudy Giuliani to flip. If public opinion can support removal to the tune of 60%, that could greatly affect the calculus of the Senate - especially if they choose to have a secret ballot.
We are a long way from removing Trump via impeachment. But the ineffectual nature of his defense should be sobering for those who are trying to keep this grifter in the Oval Office.
Friday, November 15, 2019
His Time In The Barrel
Roger Stone, guilty on all counts.
This is fundamentally good news. He was part of the original move of the Republican Party into criminality under Nixon. I doubt he sees a ton of jail time for trying to undermine American democracy, but it's still good news.
This is fundamentally good news. He was part of the original move of the Republican Party into criminality under Nixon. I doubt he sees a ton of jail time for trying to undermine American democracy, but it's still good news.
Thursday, November 14, 2019
Thanks, Matt
Matthew Yglesias makes a compelling case that most polls - especially at the state level - are bullshit if they don't include education. And few include education as a sampling.
It's clear that having a college education means a great deal in how you vote. As Martin Longman points out, there are enough idiots to give Trump a chance. I know, I know, I'm being a sneering coastal, Ivy League elitist, but I'm also not wrong. If you believe Trump over ANY neutral news source (Fox does not count) then you are an idiot. Trump has proven time and time again that he has no regard for any concepts of object truth. I mean, how can you possibly decide who's telling the truth, all those career public servants testifying under oath or Trump's fat fingered Twitter feed?
I've never been a fan of the plans for universal college education, but when you consider how contingent Republican rule is becoming on a minority cabal of plutocrats and the willfully, proudly ignorant...it's starting to sound like a pretty good idea.
It's clear that having a college education means a great deal in how you vote. As Martin Longman points out, there are enough idiots to give Trump a chance. I know, I know, I'm being a sneering coastal, Ivy League elitist, but I'm also not wrong. If you believe Trump over ANY neutral news source (Fox does not count) then you are an idiot. Trump has proven time and time again that he has no regard for any concepts of object truth. I mean, how can you possibly decide who's telling the truth, all those career public servants testifying under oath or Trump's fat fingered Twitter feed?
I've never been a fan of the plans for universal college education, but when you consider how contingent Republican rule is becoming on a minority cabal of plutocrats and the willfully, proudly ignorant...it's starting to sound like a pretty good idea.
And We're Off
The first day of the impeachment hearing is in the books. There was one notable surprise, when Bill Taylor linked Trump to a direct phone call to Sondland. Most of the other basic facts were already known, but if the Democrats have another "surprise a day" hiding in their pockets, they might be able to slowly erode Republican resistance.
That resistance has taken a notable form. It is largely scattershot, basically flinging stuff against the wall in the hope that something sticks - or more likely that the continual farrago of bullshit will satisfy their base who are safely ensconced in their Fox News Bubble. Democrats have largely ignored the unhinged ramblings of Devin Nunes who is one more bad news cycle away from blaming Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden for kidnapping the Lindbergh Baby. Nunes's whirlwind of lies and conspiracy theories will have to be engaged at some point, but there was more than a little whiff of flopsweat among some of the Republicans asking questions yesterday.
If the Democrats are hoping to really put the squeeze on Republicans, however, we will need more. An actual transcript or recording of Trump's conversations with Kelenskyy or even some other world leader. John Bolton coming in and laying the whole sordid tale before Congress. Lev Parnas throwing Giuliani and Trump under the bus, backing the bus up a few more times and flattening them flatter than hammered shit.
This will be necessary, because the GOP has shown they are completely and utterly in the tank for this fraud, this orange confection of lies. And we already have the media saying that the hearings "lacked pizzazz" because it wasn't an episode of Law and Order or...something.
Trump is guilty. Will he be held accountable?
That resistance has taken a notable form. It is largely scattershot, basically flinging stuff against the wall in the hope that something sticks - or more likely that the continual farrago of bullshit will satisfy their base who are safely ensconced in their Fox News Bubble. Democrats have largely ignored the unhinged ramblings of Devin Nunes who is one more bad news cycle away from blaming Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden for kidnapping the Lindbergh Baby. Nunes's whirlwind of lies and conspiracy theories will have to be engaged at some point, but there was more than a little whiff of flopsweat among some of the Republicans asking questions yesterday.
If the Democrats are hoping to really put the squeeze on Republicans, however, we will need more. An actual transcript or recording of Trump's conversations with Kelenskyy or even some other world leader. John Bolton coming in and laying the whole sordid tale before Congress. Lev Parnas throwing Giuliani and Trump under the bus, backing the bus up a few more times and flattening them flatter than hammered shit.
This will be necessary, because the GOP has shown they are completely and utterly in the tank for this fraud, this orange confection of lies. And we already have the media saying that the hearings "lacked pizzazz" because it wasn't an episode of Law and Order or...something.
Trump is guilty. Will he be held accountable?
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
We're On The Road To Nowhere
The public phase of impeachment begins today. The case is pretty clear. However, the incidentals are just confusing enough to confound the normal person who does not spend the day crawling through news for the latest update.
Perhaps there is a "smoking gun" witness. Lev Parnas springs to mind. More likely we will simply get a public record of the president abusing the powers of his office for personal gain. Sure, Ukraine is the issue at hand, but there are so many other instances it's boggles the mind that Democrats are focusing on only one instance. Of course, that's Trump's instinctual strategy: flood the zone with so much egregious conduct that your opponents get distracted. There are actual white supremacists working in the White House, and that barely registers in the swirling shitstorm of Trumpistan.
Most people made up their minds weeks ago, based on what they already believe about politics. Unless there is a surprise appearance by Parnas or John Bolton, the needle is likely stuck. Trump will be impeached by the House and not removed by the Senate, because America is broken and GOP loyalty to their party over their country broke it.
Perhaps there is a "smoking gun" witness. Lev Parnas springs to mind. More likely we will simply get a public record of the president abusing the powers of his office for personal gain. Sure, Ukraine is the issue at hand, but there are so many other instances it's boggles the mind that Democrats are focusing on only one instance. Of course, that's Trump's instinctual strategy: flood the zone with so much egregious conduct that your opponents get distracted. There are actual white supremacists working in the White House, and that barely registers in the swirling shitstorm of Trumpistan.
Most people made up their minds weeks ago, based on what they already believe about politics. Unless there is a surprise appearance by Parnas or John Bolton, the needle is likely stuck. Trump will be impeached by the House and not removed by the Senate, because America is broken and GOP loyalty to their party over their country broke it.
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Deeply Messed Up
The Democratic primary has officially gone on too long, and we haven't even had the Iowa Caucus yet.
The last minute quasi-entries of Michael Bloomberg and Duval Patrick are profoundly weird. There seems to be no constituency for Bloomberg, and Patrick's work for Bain Capital would likely be largely disqualifying. Because the Democratic primaries begin in lily-white Iowa and New Hampshire, candidates like Kamala Harris are struggling to find their footing. They moved California earlier, but she isn't really running strong there, either, nor has she connected with South Carolina's overwhelmingly African American constituency.
Basically, we've come down to the following categories:
White Left of Center: Biden and Buttigieg. They are presenting themselves as moderating influence on a party moving to the left in ways that are genuinely concerning for a general election (much less governing with a closely divided Senate). Biden and Buttigieg are promising a boring presidency where you don't have worry about whether the president has gone off the rails and called nurses sexual degenerates or allied the country with Uzbekistan in an ethnic cleansing campaign.
White Change Agents: Warren and Sanders. They are presenting themselves as fundamental change agents. You think the system is broken? They have a plan/revolution for that. Their primary appeal is the angrier part of the party, who is convinced that everything is messed up and we need to a proper cleansing. Both rely on a left wing populist pitch. Warren is seeing both good and bad by being the current lead female candidate.
Surprising Flops: Harris, Booker and Klobuchar. All three of these candidates bring something really compelling to the table. Yet none of them have been able to break out. I was a Harris supporter, and I would be happy to vote for her in the primary, but there doesn't seem to be much chance she'll still be around in April. Booker has amazing charisma in a party that love young charismatic candidates. Klobuchar could have easily been what Buttigieg has become: the center-left alternative to Biden. Maybe one of these guys gets a surprisingly strong showing early on, but they feel like they could be winnowed sooner rather than later.
Why do Bloomberg and Patrick feel the need to jump in? Their lanes are already full and that's not counting other candidates like Castro or Yang who have at least some support,
What's worse is the very nature of Democratic politics. The policy differences between a change agent like Warren and center-left candidates like Buttigieg are real but even Buttigieg is proposing policies that are further left than what Obama was able to do. But the echo chamber nature of social media and the overwhelming need to defend "your candidate" is tearing the party apart.
Yesterday, someone posted a video of Pete Buttigieg offering a fairly blase statement about the need for a "new politics," one that wasn't rooted in non-stop partisan warfare, but also didn't return to the "Obama and Clinton era" politics of Grand Bargains and Triangulation. OK, sure. What will that look like and how do you accomplish it are kind of huge questions. Biden has presented himself as a continuation of Obama's politics (if not his policies) and so Buttigieg needs to differentiate himself from Biden by presenting himself as the bold new voice. But because he seemed to make a slight criticism of Obama, people lost their shit. I didn't see much criticism of Obama, and Buttigieg clarified that he wasn't referring to Obama's presidency, but it was enough to royally piss of some people.
I went on Twitter and said I didn't see a slam of Obama, but rather a recognition that the old Grand Bargain/Triangulation politics are gone. Biden says he can get Mitch McConnell to work with him because some Republicans voted for the Violence Against Women Act. WTF? So Buttigieg says that those politics are the past and we need a new politics that recognizes that the GOP has gone insane without continually exacerbating partisan tensions. Whatever, it's pablum. But when I tried to make this argument, that Buttigieg was going after Biden and not Obama, I get attacked as a Buttigieg supporter. When I note that the only presidential candidate I've contributed to is Warren, I basically got called a racist, and by a writer I generally admire.
Winning elections in our electoral system requires making broad coalitions. Trump has abandoned this and gone with a base strategy, which I think should be disastrous. But if the Democratic party degenerates into a massive internecine bloodbath, we could be in real trouble.
I started out supporting Booker and Gillibrand. She's already out and Booker never caught fire. I moved to Harris, but Warren won me over rather than me losing Harris. Still, I would happily pull the lever for any of them. And if it's Biden or Buttigieg, I'll vote for them next November. My only question is whether the party will survive that long.
The last minute quasi-entries of Michael Bloomberg and Duval Patrick are profoundly weird. There seems to be no constituency for Bloomberg, and Patrick's work for Bain Capital would likely be largely disqualifying. Because the Democratic primaries begin in lily-white Iowa and New Hampshire, candidates like Kamala Harris are struggling to find their footing. They moved California earlier, but she isn't really running strong there, either, nor has she connected with South Carolina's overwhelmingly African American constituency.
Basically, we've come down to the following categories:
White Left of Center: Biden and Buttigieg. They are presenting themselves as moderating influence on a party moving to the left in ways that are genuinely concerning for a general election (much less governing with a closely divided Senate). Biden and Buttigieg are promising a boring presidency where you don't have worry about whether the president has gone off the rails and called nurses sexual degenerates or allied the country with Uzbekistan in an ethnic cleansing campaign.
White Change Agents: Warren and Sanders. They are presenting themselves as fundamental change agents. You think the system is broken? They have a plan/revolution for that. Their primary appeal is the angrier part of the party, who is convinced that everything is messed up and we need to a proper cleansing. Both rely on a left wing populist pitch. Warren is seeing both good and bad by being the current lead female candidate.
Surprising Flops: Harris, Booker and Klobuchar. All three of these candidates bring something really compelling to the table. Yet none of them have been able to break out. I was a Harris supporter, and I would be happy to vote for her in the primary, but there doesn't seem to be much chance she'll still be around in April. Booker has amazing charisma in a party that love young charismatic candidates. Klobuchar could have easily been what Buttigieg has become: the center-left alternative to Biden. Maybe one of these guys gets a surprisingly strong showing early on, but they feel like they could be winnowed sooner rather than later.
Why do Bloomberg and Patrick feel the need to jump in? Their lanes are already full and that's not counting other candidates like Castro or Yang who have at least some support,
What's worse is the very nature of Democratic politics. The policy differences between a change agent like Warren and center-left candidates like Buttigieg are real but even Buttigieg is proposing policies that are further left than what Obama was able to do. But the echo chamber nature of social media and the overwhelming need to defend "your candidate" is tearing the party apart.
Yesterday, someone posted a video of Pete Buttigieg offering a fairly blase statement about the need for a "new politics," one that wasn't rooted in non-stop partisan warfare, but also didn't return to the "Obama and Clinton era" politics of Grand Bargains and Triangulation. OK, sure. What will that look like and how do you accomplish it are kind of huge questions. Biden has presented himself as a continuation of Obama's politics (if not his policies) and so Buttigieg needs to differentiate himself from Biden by presenting himself as the bold new voice. But because he seemed to make a slight criticism of Obama, people lost their shit. I didn't see much criticism of Obama, and Buttigieg clarified that he wasn't referring to Obama's presidency, but it was enough to royally piss of some people.
I went on Twitter and said I didn't see a slam of Obama, but rather a recognition that the old Grand Bargain/Triangulation politics are gone. Biden says he can get Mitch McConnell to work with him because some Republicans voted for the Violence Against Women Act. WTF? So Buttigieg says that those politics are the past and we need a new politics that recognizes that the GOP has gone insane without continually exacerbating partisan tensions. Whatever, it's pablum. But when I tried to make this argument, that Buttigieg was going after Biden and not Obama, I get attacked as a Buttigieg supporter. When I note that the only presidential candidate I've contributed to is Warren, I basically got called a racist, and by a writer I generally admire.
Winning elections in our electoral system requires making broad coalitions. Trump has abandoned this and gone with a base strategy, which I think should be disastrous. But if the Democratic party degenerates into a massive internecine bloodbath, we could be in real trouble.
I started out supporting Booker and Gillibrand. She's already out and Booker never caught fire. I moved to Harris, but Warren won me over rather than me losing Harris. Still, I would happily pull the lever for any of them. And if it's Biden or Buttigieg, I'll vote for them next November. My only question is whether the party will survive that long.
Monday, November 11, 2019
A Tiresome Reflex
Bolivian President Evo Morales was an important symbol of the ascendency of indigenous political groups in Latin America, and he did some genuinely good things for his country.
Inevitably, he slid into more autocratic and undemocratic practices. He defied the constitutional ban on a third term and then rigged an election to grab a fourth. People rioted, the police and military refused to crackdown on the protests and Morales was forced to abdicate. Was it a coup? Possibly.
Immediately in the hellscape of social media, self-appointed experts decided that the CIA must've overthrown Morales, because Bolivia is rich in lithium. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The problem with assigning responsibility to the CIA is that basically strips the Bolivian people of any agency in the affairs of their country. There's a strain of foreign policy thinking that unites elements of the Right and Left that basically holds that anything that happens in the world is because America made it happen. The Berlin Wall? Reagan did that, say conservative. Opposition to Maduro and Morales? Must be the CIA say leftists.
Morales was trampling on democratic norms. Ultimately that was the problem. Now, could it be a right-wing coup? If the subsequent elections have the appearance of fraud, yet a right wing president is installed by the military, then I think we can call it a coup. But if there are free and fair elections, and Bolivians are able to select a new president, then maybe this was an important moment in Bolivia's democratic history. IT, COULD. GO. EITHER. WAY. But to anoint this as another bad action by the CIA because you hate the CIA seems to be rushing to judgment.
Inevitably, he slid into more autocratic and undemocratic practices. He defied the constitutional ban on a third term and then rigged an election to grab a fourth. People rioted, the police and military refused to crackdown on the protests and Morales was forced to abdicate. Was it a coup? Possibly.
Immediately in the hellscape of social media, self-appointed experts decided that the CIA must've overthrown Morales, because Bolivia is rich in lithium. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. The problem with assigning responsibility to the CIA is that basically strips the Bolivian people of any agency in the affairs of their country. There's a strain of foreign policy thinking that unites elements of the Right and Left that basically holds that anything that happens in the world is because America made it happen. The Berlin Wall? Reagan did that, say conservative. Opposition to Maduro and Morales? Must be the CIA say leftists.
Morales was trampling on democratic norms. Ultimately that was the problem. Now, could it be a right-wing coup? If the subsequent elections have the appearance of fraud, yet a right wing president is installed by the military, then I think we can call it a coup. But if there are free and fair elections, and Bolivians are able to select a new president, then maybe this was an important moment in Bolivia's democratic history. IT, COULD. GO. EITHER. WAY. But to anoint this as another bad action by the CIA because you hate the CIA seems to be rushing to judgment.
Sunday, November 10, 2019
Saturday, November 9, 2019
A Chilling But Necessary Read
Those GOP politicians supporting Trump aren't doing it out of cowardice in the face of the Trumpenproletariat. They are doing it because they really believe their bullshit.
And this isn't much more reassuring.
And this isn't much more reassuring.
The Way This Probably Unfolds
The House GOP tries to subpoena the whistleblower for no reason beyond spite.
Schiff points out that this is both spiteful and dangerous and a violation of whistleblower laws.
Schmuck Todd wonders what the whistleblower is hiding, beyond their identity to preserve their safety.
Debate becomes about the whistleblower among the Right Wing and Sensible Centrist news medi.
The whistleblower demands to come forward.
The whistleblower testifies in public and it's absolutely brutal for Trump.
Everything the GOP has tried to do to help Trump has inevitably, in the end, made things worse.
Schiff points out that this is both spiteful and dangerous and a violation of whistleblower laws.
Schmuck Todd wonders what the whistleblower is hiding, beyond their identity to preserve their safety.
Debate becomes about the whistleblower among the Right Wing and Sensible Centrist news medi.
The whistleblower demands to come forward.
The whistleblower testifies in public and it's absolutely brutal for Trump.
Everything the GOP has tried to do to help Trump has inevitably, in the end, made things worse.
Friday, November 8, 2019
Morons
I think the GOP strategy on impeachment has been pretty predictable. Attack the process. When the Democrats address those concerns, decide that quid pro quo isn't a quid pro quo or a crime at all.
But eventually the sheer tonnage of evidence will break the dam. They will need a new stratagem to protect Dear Leader. Especially if Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman testify to save their skins, they could provide damning details about what Giuliani was doing. That means sacrificing Giuliani to save Trump. Pin it all on him and say he was acting as a rogue agent.
Two problems. First, it would admit that the Ukraine ploy was illegal. It clearly was, but they've been trying to hem and haw and count on the protection of Fox News to keep from having to admit that what Trump did to Zelenskyy was illegal and corrupt.
The second problem is that there is ample evidence from Trump's own mouth of his working with Giuliani. Trump and Giuliani's rank idiocy has endlessly complicated any consistent defense of Trump. It's like the scene in A Few Good Men where Caffey gets Jessup to admit to the Code Red.
Except it's happening over and over and over again.
But eventually the sheer tonnage of evidence will break the dam. They will need a new stratagem to protect Dear Leader. Especially if Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman testify to save their skins, they could provide damning details about what Giuliani was doing. That means sacrificing Giuliani to save Trump. Pin it all on him and say he was acting as a rogue agent.
Two problems. First, it would admit that the Ukraine ploy was illegal. It clearly was, but they've been trying to hem and haw and count on the protection of Fox News to keep from having to admit that what Trump did to Zelenskyy was illegal and corrupt.
The second problem is that there is ample evidence from Trump's own mouth of his working with Giuliani. Trump and Giuliani's rank idiocy has endlessly complicated any consistent defense of Trump. It's like the scene in A Few Good Men where Caffey gets Jessup to admit to the Code Red.
Except it's happening over and over and over again.
Thursday, November 7, 2019
The Sessions Session
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions will apparently be running for his old seat in Alabama. What makes this a fascinating story is the raging anger Trump still feels for Sessions, because Sessions - for all his odious racism - was insufficiently loyal to Hair Furor. The odds of Trump attacking Sessions is remarkably high.
Alabama - unexpectedly - represents a crucial battleground state for control of the Senate. Republicans look likely to lose a seat in Colorado, and could lose seats in Maine, North Carolina, Iowa, Arizona, and perhaps even Georgia and Kentucky. Regaining the seat in Alabama is critical to any plans to retain control of the upper chamber.
So Trump's malignant narcissism could produce a conundrum for his hate-huffing acolytes in Alabama. The racist we've know for decades or the racist we've come to adore?
Ideally, Sessions narrowly edges accused pedophile Roy Moore, who launches a third party bid out of spite. Moore draws off 10% of the creepier fundies and Doug Jones gets another six years.
Alabama - unexpectedly - represents a crucial battleground state for control of the Senate. Republicans look likely to lose a seat in Colorado, and could lose seats in Maine, North Carolina, Iowa, Arizona, and perhaps even Georgia and Kentucky. Regaining the seat in Alabama is critical to any plans to retain control of the upper chamber.
So Trump's malignant narcissism could produce a conundrum for his hate-huffing acolytes in Alabama. The racist we've know for decades or the racist we've come to adore?
Ideally, Sessions narrowly edges accused pedophile Roy Moore, who launches a third party bid out of spite. Moore draws off 10% of the creepier fundies and Doug Jones gets another six years.
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Boom Goes The Dynamite
Remember, remember
The Fifth of November!
So, yesterday was quite a week.
First, and most importantly, my wife won a seat on our town council. Pray for me a sinner in the hour of my need.
Second, Gordon Sondland - perhaps the only person so far to testify that gave Trump any wiggle room - reversed his previous testimony. He admitted that Trump was trying to coordinate an "off the books" intervention through Giuliani. Most importantly, he admitted that he found Trump and Giuliani's attempt to pressure Ukraine to probably be illegal. In other words? Quid pro quo. Sondland decided that Trump and Giuliani weren't worth jail time. He won't be the last to make that calculation.
Third, there were elections last night (see point #1), and Democrats did remarkably well. They now control the trifecta in Virginia, and amazingly, they won the governorship in Kentucky. What you see when you look at the map in Virginia and the map in Kentucky is where the battleground has shifted nationally. Yes, Matt Bevin was an extremely unpopular governor and Andy Beshear is the son of a very popular former governor. Yes, Virginia has been trending "blue" for several elections. When you look at the maps, however, what you see is that any district with any sizeable population tended to vote for the Democrat. Urban areas have been Democratic for decades now, but it's the suburbs that are starting to flip to parties, and that is likely a direct result of Donald J. Trump. Trump won Kentucky by 30 points in 2016.
There will be policy implications, of course. Kentucky will likely bring back some form of Obamacare and 150,000 former felons will get their voting rights back. Virginia might ratify the ERA, which would be the 38th state to do so. However, the date for ratifying the ERA has passed, so the Supreme Court will need to decide if that counts. In a state like Virginia, the Democrats will now control redistricting which at the very least will create fair districts, if not ones that lean Democratic.
In Kentucky, Trump tried to make Bevin's reelection about himself and about impeachment. Bevin was the only Republican to lose his statewide race. Don't think that hasn't left a mark on Mitch McConnell and other Republicans.
The Fifth of November!
So, yesterday was quite a week.
First, and most importantly, my wife won a seat on our town council. Pray for me a sinner in the hour of my need.
Second, Gordon Sondland - perhaps the only person so far to testify that gave Trump any wiggle room - reversed his previous testimony. He admitted that Trump was trying to coordinate an "off the books" intervention through Giuliani. Most importantly, he admitted that he found Trump and Giuliani's attempt to pressure Ukraine to probably be illegal. In other words? Quid pro quo. Sondland decided that Trump and Giuliani weren't worth jail time. He won't be the last to make that calculation.
Third, there were elections last night (see point #1), and Democrats did remarkably well. They now control the trifecta in Virginia, and amazingly, they won the governorship in Kentucky. What you see when you look at the map in Virginia and the map in Kentucky is where the battleground has shifted nationally. Yes, Matt Bevin was an extremely unpopular governor and Andy Beshear is the son of a very popular former governor. Yes, Virginia has been trending "blue" for several elections. When you look at the maps, however, what you see is that any district with any sizeable population tended to vote for the Democrat. Urban areas have been Democratic for decades now, but it's the suburbs that are starting to flip to parties, and that is likely a direct result of Donald J. Trump. Trump won Kentucky by 30 points in 2016.
There will be policy implications, of course. Kentucky will likely bring back some form of Obamacare and 150,000 former felons will get their voting rights back. Virginia might ratify the ERA, which would be the 38th state to do so. However, the date for ratifying the ERA has passed, so the Supreme Court will need to decide if that counts. In a state like Virginia, the Democrats will now control redistricting which at the very least will create fair districts, if not ones that lean Democratic.
In Kentucky, Trump tried to make Bevin's reelection about himself and about impeachment. Bevin was the only Republican to lose his statewide race. Don't think that hasn't left a mark on Mitch McConnell and other Republicans.
Tuesday, November 5, 2019
Watch This Story
The NYTimes poll that had Trump winning the swing states really does seem like an outlier. Meanwhile, the WaPo released a poll that has Trump getting absolutely thumped by every major Democratic candidate.
In the background, there is another story brewing. It's about "the best economy ever" that Trump touts as perhaps his only net positive. Unemployment is ticking up in those critical Rust Belt states, including Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio and North Carolina. (And if someone can explain to me the numbers in Alabama and Mississippi, I'd be obliged.)
The post-2008 economy has produced a bunch of jobs, but many of them are pretty crappy. Under-employment, poor wage growth, lingering debt...all of these are critical issues facing working class voters.
Looming on the horizon are two other trends: Trump's trade war is not only hurting American farmers, but it's beginning to take a toll on manufacturers. The Conservative Party looks poised to win the December election, at which point, Brexit will happen and Europe will slip into a recession.
The only things keeping Trump afloat are rigid partisanship and a reasonably sound economy. That last bit might not last until election day.
In the background, there is another story brewing. It's about "the best economy ever" that Trump touts as perhaps his only net positive. Unemployment is ticking up in those critical Rust Belt states, including Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio and North Carolina. (And if someone can explain to me the numbers in Alabama and Mississippi, I'd be obliged.)
The post-2008 economy has produced a bunch of jobs, but many of them are pretty crappy. Under-employment, poor wage growth, lingering debt...all of these are critical issues facing working class voters.
Looming on the horizon are two other trends: Trump's trade war is not only hurting American farmers, but it's beginning to take a toll on manufacturers. The Conservative Party looks poised to win the December election, at which point, Brexit will happen and Europe will slip into a recession.
The only things keeping Trump afloat are rigid partisanship and a reasonably sound economy. That last bit might not last until election day.
The Gist Of It
Josh Marshall lays down the basic plot from Ambassador Yovanovitch's testimony: She was fired because she was standing in the way of corrupt officials in Ukraine who wanted to give Giuliani and by extension Trump what they were asking for on the Biden family. The State Department didn't want to do or say anything that might be upended by Trump's Twitter feed.
The broader point is that Trump's infantile response mechanisms - attack, leap before your look, attack again - was easily manipulated by those goombahs arrested a few weeks back: Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. They knew what they wanted and it was exceedingly easy to get Trump to bite. As Marshall notes, we should assume that if those two idiots and Giuliani figured it out, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China and Turkey should have zero trouble manipulating the toddler-in-chief.
Thanks, Republicans!
The broader point is that Trump's infantile response mechanisms - attack, leap before your look, attack again - was easily manipulated by those goombahs arrested a few weeks back: Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. They knew what they wanted and it was exceedingly easy to get Trump to bite. As Marshall notes, we should assume that if those two idiots and Giuliani figured it out, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China and Turkey should have zero trouble manipulating the toddler-in-chief.
Thanks, Republicans!
Monday, November 4, 2019
My Nightmare
I worry Jon Chait might be right about this. Part of my worry is that Martin Longman has said the same things, and he's not a concern troll, the way Chait can be.
The "Biden is more electable" pitch is fundamentally flawed by the accumulated history of his previous presidential runs. He's not a great standard bearer. But... he might fit the wishes of the vast mushy, unengaged middle of the electorate.
We've hit a lull in the impeachment process, with fewer new revelations dropping every day. That will allow Trump to regain a bit of his floundering support. Don't forget that polls are tricky to read, and you shouldn't base too much off one poll.
Still, the sickness I feel when I ponder the slimmest possibility of re-electing Donald Trump is overwhelming.
The "Biden is more electable" pitch is fundamentally flawed by the accumulated history of his previous presidential runs. He's not a great standard bearer. But... he might fit the wishes of the vast mushy, unengaged middle of the electorate.
We've hit a lull in the impeachment process, with fewer new revelations dropping every day. That will allow Trump to regain a bit of his floundering support. Don't forget that polls are tricky to read, and you shouldn't base too much off one poll.
Still, the sickness I feel when I ponder the slimmest possibility of re-electing Donald Trump is overwhelming.
Sunday, November 3, 2019
Saturday, November 2, 2019
It's All One Scandal
Newly released documents show that the Ukraine scandal is not a separate scandal from the Russia/Mueller scandal. Needless to say, Paul Manafort was at the center of it, and he appears to be the source of Trump's bonkers theory that Ukraine secretly "framed" Trump by stealing the DNC emails and releasing them to....Yeah, it gets fuzzy there.
Pelosi has said that they won't necessarily narrowly focus the impeachment on Ukraine. My guess is that they know much of this already and are going to slowly expand the inquiry.
Not a week goes by when it doesn't get worse. Not a week goes by where that seems to matter to the GOP.
Pelosi has said that they won't necessarily narrowly focus the impeachment on Ukraine. My guess is that they know much of this already and are going to slowly expand the inquiry.
Not a week goes by when it doesn't get worse. Not a week goes by where that seems to matter to the GOP.
Friday, November 1, 2019
Katie Hill
Representative Katie Hill resigned after photos were released that showed her having sexual relations with a campaign staffer. There are allegations that she might have had relations with a congressional staffer. The latter is against House rules put in place after #MeToo exposed predatory and untoward sexual relations between members and staff on Capitol Hill.
There has been a lot of talk about double standards based on gender, and no doubt that it true. Hill is the first openly bisexual member of the House, and that no doubt feeds into the prurient interest in her sex life and the associated fact that the subordinate was a woman. The accusations of double standard usually note that Duncan Hunter - also from California, but a Republican - continues to serve, despite far worse accusations against him.
But perhaps a better analogy is Duncan Hunter, but Al Franken. Franken's behavior was bad and unworthy of a US Senator. He might have weathered the storm, and perhaps some sort of political comeback exists in his future. But he resigned, because he felt his status was damaged. He could no longer do his job. Hill made much the same point.
Hunter, however, is a Republican. His primary loyalty is to Republican voters and the Republican party. He is completely uninterested in the opinions of those who think sexual harassment is wrong, which ipso facto does include Republican voters and the Republican party.
We have entered a universe where one political party has shame and the other doesn't. One party holds itself to its ideals and an idea of justice and fairness and one doesn't.
Yes, gender played a role in Hill's treatment and her decision to resign. But don't pretend the moral bankruptcy of the GOP wasn't also an important part of this double standard.
There has been a lot of talk about double standards based on gender, and no doubt that it true. Hill is the first openly bisexual member of the House, and that no doubt feeds into the prurient interest in her sex life and the associated fact that the subordinate was a woman. The accusations of double standard usually note that Duncan Hunter - also from California, but a Republican - continues to serve, despite far worse accusations against him.
But perhaps a better analogy is Duncan Hunter, but Al Franken. Franken's behavior was bad and unworthy of a US Senator. He might have weathered the storm, and perhaps some sort of political comeback exists in his future. But he resigned, because he felt his status was damaged. He could no longer do his job. Hill made much the same point.
Hunter, however, is a Republican. His primary loyalty is to Republican voters and the Republican party. He is completely uninterested in the opinions of those who think sexual harassment is wrong, which ipso facto does include Republican voters and the Republican party.
We have entered a universe where one political party has shame and the other doesn't. One party holds itself to its ideals and an idea of justice and fairness and one doesn't.
Yes, gender played a role in Hill's treatment and her decision to resign. But don't pretend the moral bankruptcy of the GOP wasn't also an important part of this double standard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)