Speaking Of Idiocy

 You really have to read David Roth on the Reflecting Pool fiasco. 

A taste:

Specifically, the water is more or less the color of a sour apple Jolly Rancher now. It looks like they're brewing Yodas in there. It is so uncannily green and visibly slimy that it feels inevitable that video will soon surface of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. splashing around in it with jeans on. It looks like the aftermath of Boston Tea Party-style political action involving matcha. 

And:

Disfiguring public spaces on a whim fits within Trump's program of relentless, reckless literalism. Claiming, as an administration spokesperson did earlier today, that the algae bloom has been "successfully destroyed" when the reflecting pool still looks like someone recently boiled spinach in it, reflects, among other things, how thoroughly he has already moved on. As far as Trump is concerned, the problem was solved when he decided upon a solution; it immediately and irrevocably became everyone else's problem the moment he stopped thinking about it. Other people will be charged with doing the dirty work of cleaning up his mess for some time to come, and life will go on in the stink and shadow of this ruinous and tossed-off fix until then. Not much of a metaphor there, either.

Secretary Of Losing A War

 So, indeed, we lost the war to Iran. If the Memorandum of Understanding is the terms of the peace deal, then we undeniably lost this war. It was a war of choice on terms of our choosing, where we established a broad set of terms for the end of the war and fundamentally achieved none of them. The global economy has taken a hit and Iran has emerged in a stronger geopolitical position than when it began,

China has also emerged much stronger. What we have learned from Covid and Trump's War is the primary importance of trade routes. Trump may hate trade, but the reality is we rely on it. Iran proved (or rather re-proved) how important the Strait of Hormuz is, but China enjoys a similar chokehold not only on the goods it produces, but they can easily choke of trade by attacking Taiwan. America's erratic, feckless and moronic leadership under Trump has made China look wise and the stabilizing force that the US once was. 

Will the Chinese learn the lessons of 2022-26, though? It's pretty clear Pete Hegseth has not.

If the past four years have taught sentient people anything, it is that the nature of war in 21st century has changed. It is no longer recognizable to the warriors that invaded and occupied Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001-3. The US military overthrew the Taliban with a combination of Special Forces, airpower and local militias. A much heavier force overthrew Saddam Hussein in a matter of weeks. 

What happened next was not necessarily "new." Both countries degenerated into insurrections and civil war, conflicts that would not have seemed dissimilar to the French in Algeria or the US in Vietnam. In the end, Iraq became something that was not quite a victory but not quite a defeat, whereas Afghanistan can reasonably and clearly seen as a failure. (Some of this was that the terms of victory we established in Afghanistan were obviously not met. If the terms of victory there had been the destruction of Al Qaeda, then we won that war.)

The "old" war of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism required intelligent leadership combined with brute force of arms. To a certain degree, what Pete Hegseth was trying to create was the brute force of arms. He wanted every soldier, sailor and airman to be Rambo. His juvenile obsession with pushups and waistlines was part of this hopelessly buffoonish vision of what military strength looked like.

What he missed - because he's an idiot - is that the nature of war is now completely changed and continues to change at a lightning pace. 

War has always been fundamentally a competition between political and economic systems. If your economy is weaker and smaller, you are unlikely to win a conventional war. The advent of insurgencies was a response to this fact. The idea was to bleed out the superior power to the point where the war became unsustainable. The US in Vietnam, the Soviets in Afghanistan. 

Now, drones allow the weaker power to exert force beyond an insurgency. They can even exert force beyond their own borders. 

Drones don't care how many pushups the Secretary of Defense can do.

During the waning years of the Civil War, European military observers must have looked at the miles of trenchwork around Richmond and seen the future. In the intervening years, the machine gun made trenches the new form of warfare and World War I extracted a brutal price for those generals unable to see the new reality. Countries then sank resources in the interwar years into the emerging technologies of tanks, airplanes and mobility warfare. 

We are at a similar tipping point where technology has changed the nature of combat and the profoundly unserious men that surround Trump are congenitally unable to understand this or adapt to it. 

What's more, the shallow, gasping narcissism of Trumpism means that they cannot do the first, more important step: admit they lost and understand WHY they lost. The success of the US military from 1989-2001 was built on understanding the lessons of Vietnam as being the lessons one learns from defeat. Rumsfeld and Cheney forgot those lessons and we lost any chance in Afghanistan when we pivoted to Iraq. Subsequent military decisions have been made from the understanding that we lost the political nature of those conflicts. 

Trump and Hegseth ignored those lessons and ignored the lessons from Ukraine, and we lost another war. Despite the hundreds and hundreds of billions we spend on defense, we lost to a second rate power, because we have leaders who are morons, dangerously unable to learn from failure because they can't even admit when they failed. (Want to know how ignorant they are? Trump signed his surrender at Versailles. Macron knows history, if Trump does not.)

Welcome to the Post-American World Order.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall suggests something interesting. That much of this deal will likely not come to pass, as both sides need to get out of this. Trump never releases the money, Iran never agrees to nuclear inspections...not exactly a victory for Iran, but not a loss either.

Musky Odor

 Amazon was not profitable for many years. Today it makes most of its money off cloud storage, not sending you a three-pack of tighty-whiteys in 24 hours. The point being that you never know when the next huge company will emerge. 

Krugman looks at the IPO for SpaceX. (First of all, NVIDIA is now the company with the largest market cap. More than Alphabet (Google), Apple and Microsoft.) SpaceX jumped ahead of Amazon, making Musk the world's first trillionaire. All of these companies are - more or less - IT companies. Apple, I guess, actually makes physical products, as does NVIDIA. There's a tangible "thing" there. SpaceX seems to be in the same space, in that they have a lot of shitty IT stuff (Twitter, Grok) but they do have a good satellite system.

What's crazy about these IT companies is that most of them were not profitable for years. Eventually, they found a way, like Google did, of monetizing their product. Amazon moved into cloud storage, because being the world's largest retailer wasn't profitable enough. If you look at the most profitable companies in the world, the usual suspects are there, but so are Saudi Aramco, Berkshire Hathaway and a bunch of banks.

The valuation of SpaceX is entirely a valuation of Elon Musk. Microsoft - whom no one loves, and that includes freaks like me who actually use an MS system - has $125B in profits off $318B in revenue. SpaceX has $4B in LOSSES off $19B in revenue. How are there market caps the same?

Ultimately, it's a bet on Musk. He's this crazed, ketamine fueled weirdo whose manifest strangeness is presumed to represent genius. Yes, Tesla makes an amazing battery and Starlink is very impressive. But Grok?  The Boring Company? His purchase (and destruction) of Twitter? You can hand-wave away these flops as the price of genius, or you could look at Musk and see a nine year old boy rattling off dreams ("I'm gonna go to MARS!") and mistake that for vision, because was right about lithium batteries. He's so fucking strange that he must be a genius, right? So let's buy into SpaceX, because...space is profitable?

Silicon Valley is all about hype, and sometimes that hype pays off. Sometimes it very much doesn't. Musk, sadly, has largely accumulated so much speculative money that even if his endeavors crash and burn, he will likely blithely sail along on his riches. 

The plutocratic freakshow this diminished age deserves.

Also

 I haven't written about the Iran Memorandum of Understanding, because there is nothing to write about. This all feels like more bullshit that Trump gave himself as a birthday present. 

We shall see in the coming days, but at best this ends the war with Iran in a largely improved strategic positions, even if their regular military capacity is badly degraded. They have learned the lesson that that simpering idiot Pete Hegseth has not: 21st century warfare belongs to cheap drones.

Iran controls the Straits. That is a new geopolitical reality created by Trump's stupid war. The MOU is an attempt to move past this with some handwaving, but it's the truth. What's more, oil prices are unlikely to fall to pre-war levels for quite some time, so I'm not even sure this works to his benefit.

But, Yes, Right About This One

 If I felt that Krugman was a little too easy on the First Gilded Age yesterday, today I think he gets it right. The real issue with the super-rich is their shamelessness. Certainly, Trump is the great pioneer of all this - his tabloid persona cultivated throughout the '70s and '80s was designed around the Yuppie culture, but it was more depraved than that. The obvious punctuation mark of this was Epstein. 

Back in the 90s, as I referenced yesterday, there were efforts by Ted Turner to shame people like Bill Gates into philanthropy. It worked in Gates' case, but there have been other efforts by the emerging billionaire class to have at least SOME charitable work, even if it's something as trivial as the Google Money trying to preserve "Old" Nantucket.

With the rise of Trump in 2016, we saw the destruction of so many political norms. He insulted a Gold Star family, people with disabilities, he used slurs, he refused to release his tax returns, he was caught in tape bragging about sexual assault...and he still "won." The lesson that so many people - rich and poor - took from this was that the norms that had largely existed for years, decades or even centuries were now moot.

We recently saw this on Twitter after Trump's re-election, with people using the slur "retarded" with virulent gusto. It's juvenile and the very definition of "punching down" in ways that any normally emotionally adjusted person would find gross and cruel. Look, I don't think I need to put my pronouns in my email signature; I think my gender presentation is pretty straightforward. Having to do so was annoying for a few moments, but I got over it, because I'm an adult. There are, however, people who made opposing these actions their whole personality. Bullying became an act of rebellion against the norms that have arisen over the last few decades.

For the superrich, they've always been more constrained by norms more than laws. Rockefeller and Vanderbilt were sons of bitches. Rockefeller, though, pretended to piety in ways that eventually moved him towards some charitable work. Certainly the example of someone like Carnegie pricked the sensibilities of other very rich men. Today, our leading philanthropist is likely MacKenzie Scott, Jeff Bezos' ex-wife, who has given roughly $26 billion in gifts. Bezos himself has given "only" $4 billion; Musk really hasn't given anything. Those sorts of billionaires have the capacity to change the world for the poor, but instead they spend lavishly on themselves and their hobby horses.

When we finally de-Trumpify America, one of our priorities has to be writing stronger rules to constrain the rich. Trump has taught them a lesson that Rockefeller or even Vanderbilt never learned: When you're rich, they let you do it.

Not So Sure About This One

 Krugman makes the case that today we have more oligarchic politics than the last Gilded Age. He uses a few crude numbers to argue that we have more wealth concentrated in the hands of a few individuals now than we did 140 years ago. I think that is probably true, because the nature of wealth overall has changed. I also agree with him that there were some cultural guardrails that encouraged men of great wealth to fund some form of charitable work. In fact, I remember Ted Turner working to shame people like Bill Gates into throwing some of his wealth into charity - and it worked!  The Gates Foundation does great work.

Some of the comparisons Krugman makes are not very apt. The Gilded Age did not see a president as corrupt as Trump - no such figure has ever existed. However, just about every other level of government was absolutely saturated with a depth of corruption that is just inconceivable today. This corruption launched two broad political movements: Populism and Progressivism. 

These two movements were demographically dissimilar, but they shared ideological DNA: namely that American democracy had become a corrupted oligarchy. This was why the Progressive Amendments were addressing. The income tax, the direct election of Senators, even woman suffrage and Prohibition, were all efforts to redeem American democracy. 

Why Prohibition? Because alcohol and the saloon were at the heart of vote-buying and machine politics. You think partisanship is bad today (it certainly is), but in the Gilded Age the parties largely existed to distribute graft rather than public services. This was at the heart of Garfield's assassination. In order to win elections and control the distribution of graft, votes were bought with alcohol. Additionally, the parties were not ideological but rather demographic. Violence often attended elections, as mobs roamed the streets looking for people from the opposite party. Voting was not done by secret ballot, so people knew who you voted for. 

Finally, while we have more wealth inequality than we had back in the Gilded Age, we also have more overall wealth. Every vice of poverty that we can imagine today existed back then. The poor of 1890 were crushingly poor. Tuberculosis would cut through tenements like a scythe carrying off children by the hundreds. Farmers were so burdened by debt that they stormed the Kansas capital with guns trying to get relief. 

There was no food assistance, no public health, no income tax, no worker safety measures, no medical care for the young or elderly, no protections against child labor, no protections against monopolies, no civil rights for anyone but white men, no protections for women...it was grim.

I don't think things are going great. However, the one restraint Trump is facing is the fact that there are still laws in this country and they still have force. Go look at the tarps on the Kennedy Center. 

Things are bad. The Gilded Age was crushingly awful.

Freddie The German

 The World Cup is off to a great start, with compelling victories, heroic losses, honest draws. However, the star of the Cup so far is not Messi, Mbappe or Yamal; it's a German tourist who has won over the country and social media. During his travels - which are mostly narrations of food he has eaten and normal American shit that he's done - he has earned the attention of sports teams and American stars. JJ Watt hooked him up with a hotel room and a bunch of swag, including a signed jersey.

There are a few things about Freddie that have people embracing him. 

First, he blanks out his face (or rather covers it with his favorite player Renaldo's). Anyone else - any American - would likely be seeking to grab those fifteen minutes of fame. They would be trying to seize their monetized moment, like the Hawk Tuah girl. This guy is just looking to have a blast and largely succeeding.

Second, I think Freddie is seeing us the way we would like to be seen. America is going through some shit right now. Trump turning the White House into a trailer park is just deeply shameful. Our politics - especially online - has degenerated to Trump's level of invective nastiness. Lies and insults shape our public discourse.

But Freddie is simply reminding us that BBQ tastes great. That Buc-ees are both hilarious and impressive. That this really is a beautiful country and that most Americans are really nice. 

People are good. A person - some more than others - can be bad, but people are generally good and most of the damage they do to the world comes from fear, pain or ignorance. This World Cup is already full of moments like Freddie's that remind us that the best way to live is with open hearts and open arms. 

What A Lovely Evening

 Last night, we saw the best half of soccer that a USMNT has probably ever played - given the stage. 

We also saw them start to chisel Trump's name off the Kennedy Center.

Small victories, maybe, but we will take what we can.

Blood For Oil

 WAAAAAY back in 1990, as the United States gathered together a coalition backed by the United Nations to restore Kuwaiti sovereignty after Saddam Hussein invaded that country, the antiwar Left held rallies crying "No Blood For Oil." That never seemed persuasive to me, as we could have bought oil from Iraq as easily as Kuwait. In fact, I guarantee that's what Trump would have done. Bush 41 was a true internationalist and institutionalist, and he wanted to restore the purpose to the UN and the luster to American arms. He more or less accomplished both. 

However, now that Trump is president, we have a clear case of him moving towards a literal "blood for oil" scenario. Trump really got a kick out of his video game heroics in Venezuela, and a bunch of cronies and Netanyahu convinced him that a similar outcome was in the offering in Iran.

It was not.

This has now led us into a dangerous impasse. America has struck more or less what it could strike and damaged a lot of Iranian leadership and military hardware. Iran, however, has already placed many of its eggs in the drone basket that is changing 21st century warfare. Iran also has decided that it can weather the very real economic pain that the war if creating in Iran, whereas the Americans cannot. A lot of this is because this war was never explained to Americans and never supported by us. You can ask people to sacrifice, but there must be a Glorious Cause to enlist their sacrifices. 

Trump, meanwhile, has of course telegraphed his next move, because he's a senile old dipshit that can't resist opening his festering gob. He is considering an attack on Kharg Island. This would certainly hurt Iran, but it will lead to significant American casualties. 

In Venezuela, he was able to pull off an almost bloodless operation that deposed a dictator and replaced him with a dictator that will follow Trump's lead. It is completely plausible - almost inevitable - that we find out that Americans close to Trump and Trump himself are profiting off Venezuelan oil. Sending US ground troops to Kharg would be another oil grab. Pure and simple.

Now, this operation could conceivably force Iran to negotiate in earnest - if they felt they could trust the US, which they do not. More likely hundreds of Americans will die, thousands will be wounded, Iran will hunker down, oil will spike to $150 a barrel, Americans will be pissed, no one will bail Trump out from a quagmire of his own making and...Yeah, that's the most likely outcome. America takes the island with many dead and it solves nothing in the short term.

Trump was sold another Venezuela: quick strike, profit! Instead, he's being mugged by reality. He's too dumb (with a "b") to understand that, so he's liable to be manipulated by the evil and stupid people around him to make this even worse.

The Party of Bill Clinton

 The Big Dog has taken some reputational hits in the past decade. The #MeToo movement was not kind to his serial infidelity and the unequal nature of his relationship with Monica Lewinsky. Balancing the budget - an extraordinary achievement in many ways - was largely derided in left wing economic circles amid the lunacy of Modern Monetary Theory. The wreckage of 2008 argued, correctly, for Keynesian deficit spending. If you want to see what the wrong thing to do in 2008-2010 was, look at Britain's austerity program.

All of which brings me to the debate about what Democrats should do if they win in 2028 (which they almost certainly will if we have free and fair elections). The problem is that, much like Clinton, this hypothetical Democratic president and Congress will face fiscal realities arguably more dire than Clinton faced.

This includes Social Security.

The problem, as I see it, is that we have an ideological schism in everyone to the left of Mitt Romney. Right now you have a vague sort of Bernie Bro, DSA type of leftist and they have been countered by a technocratic prioritizing of "abundance." The argument is fiscal policy, which is taxing and spending. There is a broad acknowledgement that we need to tax the rich more, but when it comes to Social Security, something like Elizabeth Warren's "wealth tax" might not work. To shore up Social Security, you need to increase the steady stream of revenue. 

Some of that might come from moving from a payroll tax to more of an income tax. As Krugman notes, the explosion of the wealth gap comes not from a divergence in salary, but in equities. A CEO might have a large salary, sure, but he also has a ton of stock options that are taxed differently than salaried income. 

Capturing that will piss off a lot of people, though doing it subtly - a scalpel rather than a battle axe - might ease some problems.

By the time Trump is finally forced off the national stage, America will be facing multiple crises of his and the Republican's making: a galloping climate crisis, America's diminished standing in the world, poisonous divisions within the body politic, an AI movement largely unfettered from public accountability, a degraded military from numerous misadventures, a need to re-attract immigrants to a place that doesn't feel as safe as it once did, widespread public corruption...the list goes on.

The fiscal crisis will not be a "Trumpist" crisis; it's a Republican crisis. It's the old "starve the beast" form of governance that will require the next government of adults (ie Democrats) have to clean up the mess. 

American politics really went off the rails after the 2000 election. Some of that was 9/11, but if Nader doesn't run and Gore actually wins, the track of American history might not include 9/11. It certainly wouldn't include Iraq. It wouldn't include Bush's wasteful tax cuts. Gore was as exciting as a Saltine cracker, but his governance could have built on Clinton's and created a financially solvent country that felt no need to elect the charlatan from the tabloids and reality TV.

If Democrats swarm back into power in 2028, they will have to make actual hard governing decisions on boring shit like how to shore up Social Security, how to reduce the deficit. When Clinton did it, interest rates fell, businesses expanded and the economy boomed - and not just at the top. 

The question is: Would an angry Democratic primary electorate vote for this candidate?

No, He's Responsible

 Yglesias writes a decent column about Trump's war on government competence, best exemplified by DOGE. He notes how cuts to various agricultural and public health programs are running into real world consequences, notably screwworm, measles and Ebola. Yet, he then says that some of this isn't "Trump's fault." His argument is that - unlike the disastrous war against Iran - these are not direct policy consequences. Trump didn't CAUSE screwworm or measles or Ebola to exist.

I honestly don't even know how you get yourself into that rhetorical space. 

Krugman - famously called "shrill" by his editors - tends to lean the other way. He makes a much more expansive case for things like the problems farmers are having because of Trump's trade policies and that same war in Iran. Of course, many of those deep rural voters are both upset with Trump's policies that have actively immiserated them, but they are also unlikely to vote for Democrats. 

Leaving aside the fact that they won't switch parties, let's look at how they won't hold Trump accountable. Elections are how you hold elected officials and indeed all the organs of government accountable. It is precisely this accountability that makes democracies more functional in the long run - even if they short run is messy as hell.

If farmers are pissed about Trump's policies, then they should vote for Democrats to force a course correction. However, if you start adopting Yglesias' framing of Trump not being responsible for shit that happens even though he gutted the institutions designed to keep that shit from happening on to your head, then you can make the easy walk to "both sides are to blame, I guess I'll just keep voting Republican."

I realize Yglesias is not a partisan propagandist, but technically neither is Krugman. They both purport to be part of the "reality based community." At school, we are urged to practice scrupulous non-partisanship, but Donald Trump IS a felon, and pointing that out - or that tariffs and wars are inflationary - is not being partisan. 

We have a measles and screwworm outbreak in this country, because Donald Trump and the Republican Party have waged war on technical expertise and government capacity. Yes, he didn't actively infect kids with measles or cows with screwworm, but his policies are making this a growing health and economic crisis.

There is simply something very strange about how Yglesias frames his political discussions, and excusing Trump for the destruction of public health measures because he didn't cause the illness is top of the list in strangeness. 

Gordon Wood

 Gordon Wood died yesterday at the age of 92, amazingly struck down by a car and not his advanced age. Wood was one of the finest living historians of US History and certainly the Dean of Historians when it came to the American Revolution. Himself a student of Bernard Bailyn, Wood argued for the essential revolutionary nature of the American Revolution. He stood against some - and I occasionally include myself - that argued that it was more a War of Independence than a true "revolution," especially if compared against the French or Russian Revolutions. In this telling, the Civil War and Reconstruction Era is much more of a revolution than replacing the monarchy with a representative government.

But of course, establishing a Republic - over so large an area no less - was a revolutionary act. It was fraught with pitfalls and dangers that the generation that framed the Constitutions was very much aware of. 

None more so than James Madison.

It was Madison who spent years thinking about how to preserve liberty and self-government. Today, we think of them as being reinforcing, but it was understood at the time that self-government tended to degenerate to anarchy, which led to the rise of a dictator. As Madison wrote in the Federalist: 

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.

This framework is at the heart of our long practice in representative government, of combining democracy and republicanism to create something truly new over 235 years ago when the Constitution was written. 

As Richardson notes at the link above, Madison was also the author of the Bill of Rights. Initially reluctant, he came to see how writing down fundamental rights was part of the needed constraints on those who governed, especially the desire of those who - once in power - might wish to restrict the freedom of the press to blunt criticism of themselves, or perhaps ban public assemblies and petitions to the same purpose. 

It also extended to the free practice of religion, which had been pioneered by Roger Williams of Rhode Island in the 17th century, but then picked up by Virginians like Madison and Thomas Jefferson. If a government could dictate religious belief and practice, what couldn't they dictate? The free exercise of conscience preceded all other rights.

As we begin to mark the commemoration of the Declaration of Independence, we can see these "inalienable rights" under assault from a cabal of wicked people who surround a fundamentally ignorant and weak bully who would destroy those very rights that the Revolution was fought over. Pete Hegseth wants to tell servicemember how to worship. Various creatures wish to destroy the free press and outlaw protests. This is not hyperbole. 

Wood's death - just a few weeks before the 250th anniversary of the declaration of universal, inalienable rights - should help us reflect on how those rights which were so revolutionary 250 years ago are not self-enforcing. Wood reminded us that we are heirs to a revolutionary tradition, and at the heart of the revolution was the belief that government must belong to the governed. 

The Upside Down

 Among the more infuriating thing about living in Trumpistan is that basic reality is upside down. Yeah, sure, there's the lying, but I'm not even talking about Trump's incessant falsehoods. Trump largely benefits from "vibes" in terms of his being a "businessman" and "dealmaker" when his track record is quite the opposite.

No greater example of this upside down dynamic exists than "Trump is a tough guy." To recap:

- Trump avoided Vietnam by getting the family doctor to write up his bone spurs.
- Trump wears a LOT of makeup.
- Trump is fastidious about his hair.
- Trump refused to go to a veteran's service in France, because it was raining, and it might make his hair look bad.
- Trump rolls over on his back and piddles on his belly anytime he's around a dictator.
- He has a child's conception of what strength is.
- He, like all bullies, is a physical coward.

Yesterday, Meet the Press aired part of an interview with Trump. Only part, because Trump got pissy and red in the face and then walked off the set when called out on his lies. Not even "called out", Kristen Welker pressed him to provide evidence for his farrago of falsehoods. He of course has no evidence for electoral fraud or FBI complicity on 1/6 or any of the bullshit he spews forth all over the national discourse. Welker, unlike the usual sycophants he surrounds himself with, continued to press the man-baby on the lack of evidence. He lost his shit.

If you ever wondered what a decompressing narcissist looks like in real time, watch the clip. He gets rid in the face. He blusters. He hurls more lies. He hurls insults. He uses spurious ad hominem attacks to try and change the subject. He storms off in a pissy little huff. He even lays hands on Welker in a way that was likely meant to intimidate her, but it honestly looked like he was unsteady on his feet as he rose to pout his way off camera. 

Trump moral unfitness for office has been explained away by his cultists by saying, "Sure, he's a bit rough around the edges, but that's because he is a tough as nails businessman."

Bull.

Shit.

Finally Too Far?

 Whiskey Pete Hegseth has been a national embarrassment since he was plucked from Faux News to lead the biggest, most important bureaucracy in the country. (Technically, he was an embarrassment before that, but only to his friends and family.)

Recently, his remarks at the D-Day commemoration seemed to suggest that he's a Nazi. Or that he would have, at least, been manning a pillbox overlooking Omaha Beach (O-MAGA beach?). The sad thing is that this is not, by any stretch of the imagination a disqualifying statement in the Trump Administration.

No, what might finally rid us of this bothersome pest is his decision to strip Mormonism from the approved list of Christian religions serviced by Christian chaplains in the military. This is a BIG deal for Mormons. Mormons have always been unusually skeptical of Trump for a deeply conservative group of people. Despite - or perhaps because of - their pious religiosity that have resisted MAGA. They still largely vote for him, but with deep misgivings.

If the Mountain West had a competent Democratic Party, they would be flooding the airwaves with this. Not just Utah, but Idaho, Wyoming and Arizona, where there are a lot of Mormons. Again, maybe you just get them to stay home in November, but this is not a brick that Republicans can let slip from the coalition.

Or maybe Trump (or the people telling him what to do) will finally fire this foolish asshole. 

Good Take On Platner

 As is so often the case, Josh Marshall expounds on a point I've been trying to make.

In this case, what Graham Platner says about the factional divisions within the Democratic coalition.