This is a bigger deal than it gets credit for. It's not Climate Change level of importance, but it's among the more important economic stories of the past decade. The author hedges his bets as to why workers have not gotten appreciable raises, but he fails to mention the stagnation in the minimum wage. While he mentions the decline of unions (and that is another important factor), the lack of growth in the minimum wage is a scandal. It works hand-in-glove with the GOP tax bill that rewards companies for paying executives more and squeezing workers. The recent cuts in jobs by GM is a good example of this dynamic at work. GM executives will see their stock options increase in value, while blue collar workers are immiserated.
A lot of these workers jumped to Trump in 2016 and there is some evidence that some of them flipped back to Democrats in 2018. If Democrats can make the case that the GOP is screwing them over (which wouldn't be hard if it weren't for the alternative reality of Fox News and basic civic and economic illiteracy), they could see even greater gains in 2020.
Trump ran on "I'm too rich to be corrupted." That has proven laughably absurd (though it was in 2016, too). A combined message of Trumpist personal corruption with stagnant wages can hopefully continue to cement the GOP as the party of Scrooge McDuck and Ebeneezer Scrooge.
Friday, November 30, 2018
The More Things Do Not Change...
This story from St. Louis is depressing but unsurprising. There is ample evidence that three St. Louis police officers specifically planned and then executed a plan to viciously beat protesters. One of the protesters that they beat was an undercover police officer, so there might be an actual consequence. Yet... probably not.
With a few exceptions - most recently in Chicago - police officers are rarely convicted of assault against civilians. Some of this is the nature of white juries siding with police and some is a consequence of District Attorneys not vigorously prosecuting police. DAs and cops are two sides of the same coin, and DAs require good relations with the police to do their jobs. It's little wonder that they don't go after cops who riot as vigorously as they go after corner boys dealing drugs.
Missouri is also showing some really troubling tendencies in its politics and race relations. Once an electoral bellwether, it's increasingly more like a populous Alabama.
The evidence against the officers seems overwhelming. I'm not convinced a jury will hold them accountable, though.
With a few exceptions - most recently in Chicago - police officers are rarely convicted of assault against civilians. Some of this is the nature of white juries siding with police and some is a consequence of District Attorneys not vigorously prosecuting police. DAs and cops are two sides of the same coin, and DAs require good relations with the police to do their jobs. It's little wonder that they don't go after cops who riot as vigorously as they go after corner boys dealing drugs.
Missouri is also showing some really troubling tendencies in its politics and race relations. Once an electoral bellwether, it's increasingly more like a populous Alabama.
The evidence against the officers seems overwhelming. I'm not convinced a jury will hold them accountable, though.
Thursday, November 29, 2018
State of Flux
Things are all over the place with the Mueller probe. Josh Marshall is right, in that we have no idea what this actually means.
My hunch is that you have a lot of people under a lot of pressure – making reckless moves, taking desperate actions, pulling ejection seat cords. They’re making wild moves. Some are lying. Some of the new details are accurate. But it’s hard to distinguish between the real information and the smoke and distractions various players are tossing up into the air. The confusion isn’t simply confusion. It’s a sign that something big is taking shape. What it is won’t be clear until Mueller speaks – figuratively.
My hunch is that you have a lot of people under a lot of pressure – making reckless moves, taking desperate actions, pulling ejection seat cords. They’re making wild moves. Some are lying. Some of the new details are accurate. But it’s hard to distinguish between the real information and the smoke and distractions various players are tossing up into the air. The confusion isn’t simply confusion. It’s a sign that something big is taking shape. What it is won’t be clear until Mueller speaks – figuratively.
Wednesday, November 28, 2018
Bad Idea
Cindy Hyde-Smith won fairly handily last night, because of course she did. It was Mississippi.
However, there was some concern that allegations of her attending a white's only school and embracing neo-confederate groups would hurt her. She handled the allegations poorly, but in the end it didn't matter.
I wonder if maybe it did matter.
In the general election, there were three main candidates. One of them, Chris McDaniel, was a true white supremacist. He was a bomb throwing demagogue, who upset the Mississippi GOP establishment. He got 16.5% of the vote. There was some question as to whether his voters would stay home, and them staying home was Espy's only route to victory.
Instead, the various attacks on Hyde-Smith likely helped her with those McDaniel voters. On election day, she won 368,000 votes. Espy won 360,000 votes. Yesterday, Hyde-Smith won 457,000 votes, whereas Espy only picked up 388,000.
The racism helped her.
I'm sure the NY Times will write a Very Serious Piece about how Democrats need to reach out to working class whites in Mississippi, but if I'm right, I just don't see how that's possible. The racism wasn't a problem, it was the point.
However, there was some concern that allegations of her attending a white's only school and embracing neo-confederate groups would hurt her. She handled the allegations poorly, but in the end it didn't matter.
I wonder if maybe it did matter.
In the general election, there were three main candidates. One of them, Chris McDaniel, was a true white supremacist. He was a bomb throwing demagogue, who upset the Mississippi GOP establishment. He got 16.5% of the vote. There was some question as to whether his voters would stay home, and them staying home was Espy's only route to victory.
Instead, the various attacks on Hyde-Smith likely helped her with those McDaniel voters. On election day, she won 368,000 votes. Espy won 360,000 votes. Yesterday, Hyde-Smith won 457,000 votes, whereas Espy only picked up 388,000.
The racism helped her.
I'm sure the NY Times will write a Very Serious Piece about how Democrats need to reach out to working class whites in Mississippi, but if I'm right, I just don't see how that's possible. The racism wasn't a problem, it was the point.
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
MIssissippi
Special elections and run-offs are weird, but there's not a great chance for Mike Espy to knock off neo-confederate Cindy Hyde-Smith today. Unless white Mississippians stay home and African Americans flood the polls, it's unlikely to happen.
But it would be...amazeballs.
But it would be...amazeballs.
Monday, November 26, 2018
Morons
I don't know what the everloving hell is wrong with these people. The GOP majority craps all over them for years, so I get their desire to re-write House rules to empower the middle. The problem is that these rules will hamstring Democrats in the majority, and once the Republicans regain the majority at some point in the future, they will un-do the rules.
I don't believe Democrats should play the same politics that Republicans play, but they shouldn't hamper their own efforts with appeals to bipartisanship that have zero appeal outside of the donor base of a few wealthy individuals.
I don't believe Democrats should play the same politics that Republicans play, but they shouldn't hamper their own efforts with appeals to bipartisanship that have zero appeal outside of the donor base of a few wealthy individuals.
Sunday, November 25, 2018
Slow Rolling Catastrophe
On Friday, the Trump White House quietly dumped an incredibly damning report about the immediate impact of climate change. On the one hand, it was amazing that the report was even allowed to see the light of day, but obviously it demonstrates two things about information in Trumpistan.
First, they used the Friday News Dump. This was a favored tactic of previous administrations - Dubya was especially good at it. If you have bad news, get it out on Friday afternoon, so the story gets lost in the weekend. Dumping it the Friday after Thanksgiving was especially deft, since literally no one is watching the news with any urgency. This demonstrates, as if we didn't know, how little Trump and the entire GOP cares about climate change. The GOP is literally the only major political party in the developed world (and that includes the Chinese Communist Party) that doesn't accept that climate change is man-made and needs a policy solution.
Second, it demonstrates how poorly news organizations can handle bad news in Trumpistan. This is a big deal. It's about...everything. It comes on the heels of a major catastrophe in California. It comes a few months after catastrophic hurricanes hit Florida. There is context galore for major stories about the impact of climate change.
But simultaneous to this, you have a GOP Senate candidate exposed as a literal neo-Confederate; the ongoing outrage of Khashoggi's murder; the ongoing feud between Trump and Chief Justice Roberts; another migration crisis on our borders and...well, let's just see what Monday brings, shall we?
The complete overloading of the puke funnel with terrible stories is having an impact. I believe that those formerly GOP leaning suburban women who flipped on Election Day were influenced by the steadily rising flood of bad stories. It creates a feeling detached from specifics of a world gone shitty. What it doesn't necessarily do is create focus on certain issues. Right now there are probably two major policy concerns: in the short term, Trump's corruption, in the long term, climate change. Neither one can hold any one's attention for more than a few hours before something else horrible comes along to distract us.
Remember: "May you live in interesting times" is a curse.
First, they used the Friday News Dump. This was a favored tactic of previous administrations - Dubya was especially good at it. If you have bad news, get it out on Friday afternoon, so the story gets lost in the weekend. Dumping it the Friday after Thanksgiving was especially deft, since literally no one is watching the news with any urgency. This demonstrates, as if we didn't know, how little Trump and the entire GOP cares about climate change. The GOP is literally the only major political party in the developed world (and that includes the Chinese Communist Party) that doesn't accept that climate change is man-made and needs a policy solution.
Second, it demonstrates how poorly news organizations can handle bad news in Trumpistan. This is a big deal. It's about...everything. It comes on the heels of a major catastrophe in California. It comes a few months after catastrophic hurricanes hit Florida. There is context galore for major stories about the impact of climate change.
But simultaneous to this, you have a GOP Senate candidate exposed as a literal neo-Confederate; the ongoing outrage of Khashoggi's murder; the ongoing feud between Trump and Chief Justice Roberts; another migration crisis on our borders and...well, let's just see what Monday brings, shall we?
The complete overloading of the puke funnel with terrible stories is having an impact. I believe that those formerly GOP leaning suburban women who flipped on Election Day were influenced by the steadily rising flood of bad stories. It creates a feeling detached from specifics of a world gone shitty. What it doesn't necessarily do is create focus on certain issues. Right now there are probably two major policy concerns: in the short term, Trump's corruption, in the long term, climate change. Neither one can hold any one's attention for more than a few hours before something else horrible comes along to distract us.
Remember: "May you live in interesting times" is a curse.
Saturday, November 24, 2018
The Irreconcilable Issue
Abortion has long been the issue that divides Americans in truly irreconcilable ways. For opponents, it's infanticide. For supporters, it's about the autonomy of woman over her own body. For obvious reasons, it hasn't been a "hot button" issue for me, though I've been pro-choice my whole life.
Mostly, I'm sympathetic to the argument that those who demand that pregnancies be carried to term are simply demanding that women be vessels for childbearing. Almost invariably, those who oppose abortion also oppose meaningful sex education or support for birth control. Abortion isn't a first choice for birth control, it is - by definition - the last option. Ideally, both the information and education about sex and the financial means to support birth control options would be in place to reduce the need for abortions. That would seem to be a common ground. The fact that it hasn't become common ground is the tell.
Some of this is the fault of the Roman Catholic church's insistence that birth control is immoral. Given the moral quagmire on sexual issues that typifies the Catholic church, it's disappointing that a bunch of pedophile-defending old men can define this issue. But even if Francis were to reverse fully that decision, evangelicals in this country will likely cling to forced child birth.
If there was a way to make this issue "go away" through a meaningful compromise, that might improve aspects of our politics. But this is a legitimate difference in principles that can't be bridged.
Like so many other things in our country.
Mostly, I'm sympathetic to the argument that those who demand that pregnancies be carried to term are simply demanding that women be vessels for childbearing. Almost invariably, those who oppose abortion also oppose meaningful sex education or support for birth control. Abortion isn't a first choice for birth control, it is - by definition - the last option. Ideally, both the information and education about sex and the financial means to support birth control options would be in place to reduce the need for abortions. That would seem to be a common ground. The fact that it hasn't become common ground is the tell.
Some of this is the fault of the Roman Catholic church's insistence that birth control is immoral. Given the moral quagmire on sexual issues that typifies the Catholic church, it's disappointing that a bunch of pedophile-defending old men can define this issue. But even if Francis were to reverse fully that decision, evangelicals in this country will likely cling to forced child birth.
If there was a way to make this issue "go away" through a meaningful compromise, that might improve aspects of our politics. But this is a legitimate difference in principles that can't be bridged.
Like so many other things in our country.
Friday, November 23, 2018
JFK
This is an interesting read on some of the facts surrounding the Kennedy assassination. A few things pop out.
First, it should be said that Kennedy was something of a moral sewer. Great image: young, handsome, eloquent, both Harvard and Irish. But underneath it all was someone who was perfectly comfortable using others, especially women for sex. His younger brother, Teddy, obviously inherited that behavior, I'm not sure how much Robert did, though he, too, clearly cheated on his wife. The constant nostalgia for the Kennedys is a great example of how vacant celebrity politics are, whether it's the glamorous Kennedy clan or a reality TV vulgarian. Kennedy spent most days medicated beyond belief on a cocktail of illegal drugs. That was the guy who helmed the country through the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Second, the fever swamps of right wing paranoia have deep roots. Dallas in 1963 was basically a geographic expression of InfoWars today. In '63, the John Birch Society was considered the lunatic fringe of American politics, yet it was a vibrant presence in Dallas and other Southern cities. These were the nutjobs who believed flouridation was a Communist plot. Of course today, we have nothing like that. The year after Kennedy's death, Richard Hofstadter would write The Paranoid Style in American Politics, which remains a critical piece of scholarship in looking at the fringes - especially on the right - of American politics.
JFK's assassination was widely considered to be the kick-off of the craziness of the 1960s. His administration was the last of the 1950s, whereas LBJ oversaw the dramatic expansion of civil rights and public goods that radicalized white resentment and led to Nixon. Vietnam and the fissures it tore in American society were real, but as we see today, it was largely the backlash to civil rights and the providing of public goods to "those people" that powered the rise of the Reagan Revolution and modern conservatism. Kennedy's death in and of itself wasn't the reason why this happened, except to the degree it lead to LBJ having large majorities to pass the legislation that created the white racial backlash.
First, it should be said that Kennedy was something of a moral sewer. Great image: young, handsome, eloquent, both Harvard and Irish. But underneath it all was someone who was perfectly comfortable using others, especially women for sex. His younger brother, Teddy, obviously inherited that behavior, I'm not sure how much Robert did, though he, too, clearly cheated on his wife. The constant nostalgia for the Kennedys is a great example of how vacant celebrity politics are, whether it's the glamorous Kennedy clan or a reality TV vulgarian. Kennedy spent most days medicated beyond belief on a cocktail of illegal drugs. That was the guy who helmed the country through the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Second, the fever swamps of right wing paranoia have deep roots. Dallas in 1963 was basically a geographic expression of InfoWars today. In '63, the John Birch Society was considered the lunatic fringe of American politics, yet it was a vibrant presence in Dallas and other Southern cities. These were the nutjobs who believed flouridation was a Communist plot. Of course today, we have nothing like that. The year after Kennedy's death, Richard Hofstadter would write The Paranoid Style in American Politics, which remains a critical piece of scholarship in looking at the fringes - especially on the right - of American politics.
JFK's assassination was widely considered to be the kick-off of the craziness of the 1960s. His administration was the last of the 1950s, whereas LBJ oversaw the dramatic expansion of civil rights and public goods that radicalized white resentment and led to Nixon. Vietnam and the fissures it tore in American society were real, but as we see today, it was largely the backlash to civil rights and the providing of public goods to "those people" that powered the rise of the Reagan Revolution and modern conservatism. Kennedy's death in and of itself wasn't the reason why this happened, except to the degree it lead to LBJ having large majorities to pass the legislation that created the white racial backlash.
Thursday, November 22, 2018
I'm Thankful For Badass Women
Encapsulated in this blurb is a tweet by Ocasio-Cortez. Basically, the Five White Guys revolt against Nancy Pelosi has predictably fizzled on the fact of the facts. Pelosi is a bad ass. She will mess a fool up. Seth Moulton has almost certainly earned himself a primary challenge for his troubles. She will be the next Speaker, because she was always going to be the next Speaker, because...bad ass.
The tweet is instructive, too, because if Pelosi is smart - and she is - she will get AOC in front of the cameras frequently. AOC is smart, especially about media. There are a few of these younger generation legislators who are proficient in social media - Brian Schatz and Beto O'Rourke come to mind, too - and Pelosi needs to leverage those skills.
There is a generation of Democratic politicians, and here I'm thinking of Chuck Schumer and Steny Hoyer, who were conditioned by the 1980s. The country lurched rightward and the Democratic party entered a minority period in the House in 1994. Their reflex is to crouch against a coming blow and to "reach out" across the aisle for some sort of "bipartisan comity" that simply doesn't exist anymore. Pelosi is from that same era, but she learned the important lesson that comity died. It was Pelosi who saved Social Security in 2005.
Find a new Majority Leader and stick that person in front of a camera. I like Ted Leiu on social media, but there has to be someone under the age of 60 with the chops to take on bullshit talking points on Press the Meat. Adam Schiff has his lane, but they need someone to be the face of the party while Nancy smashes the Republicans behind closed doors.
The tweet is instructive, too, because if Pelosi is smart - and she is - she will get AOC in front of the cameras frequently. AOC is smart, especially about media. There are a few of these younger generation legislators who are proficient in social media - Brian Schatz and Beto O'Rourke come to mind, too - and Pelosi needs to leverage those skills.
There is a generation of Democratic politicians, and here I'm thinking of Chuck Schumer and Steny Hoyer, who were conditioned by the 1980s. The country lurched rightward and the Democratic party entered a minority period in the House in 1994. Their reflex is to crouch against a coming blow and to "reach out" across the aisle for some sort of "bipartisan comity" that simply doesn't exist anymore. Pelosi is from that same era, but she learned the important lesson that comity died. It was Pelosi who saved Social Security in 2005.
Find a new Majority Leader and stick that person in front of a camera. I like Ted Leiu on social media, but there has to be someone under the age of 60 with the chops to take on bullshit talking points on Press the Meat. Adam Schiff has his lane, but they need someone to be the face of the party while Nancy smashes the Republicans behind closed doors.
Wednesday, November 21, 2018
Welcome To The Party
Max Boot was a neo-conservative cheerleader of the Iraq War. Recently, he announced that he was switching parties as one of the few meaningful Never Trump conservatives. If you read his column today, you might be struck by how much he sounds like some leftists college professor. His basic criticism - that economic dislocations have led to anti-democratic Populism - is hardly a controversial one in some circles, but I doubt that Boot held these positions five years ago.
He does bring a certain narrow lens to his argument. He neglects to mention the climate when he talks about the refugee crises that have led to racist demogoguery in Europe and the US, but he's right about the political destabilization in the border between the developed and underdeveloped world leading to massive immigration that seems to have no amiable solution.
What was interesting to me was not his argument (I could have made a similar one myself if the WaPo wants to give me a job), but rather that Boot was the one making it. As I said, I doubt he would be making those arguments about wealth inequality five to ten years ago.
It's almost like leaving the Republican Party has lead to him opening himself up to a world of evidence that he was blind to before.
I've seen repeated arguments that white people, but especially white women, are being terrible racists for voting against Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum. I think there's a great deal of truth to that, but I also don't think that calling them racists is going to change one freaking person's mind.
Instead, if my observations of people like Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Joe Walsh is correct, the reason all these white people voted against Abrams and Gillum (and Bill Nelson and Beto O'Rourke) is because they are Republicans. And Republicans are heavily invested - as a matter of their core political beliefs - that racism barely exists anymore. It's just a made up weapon to use against Republicans. I mean, what else is Cindy Hyde-Smith going to say?
However, if I'm right (and there's a first time for everything), I think that once you strip people away from the GOP, they open themselves up to a bigger range of opinions. Not all of them. Joe Walsh is still a gun-humping ammosexual, for instance. But being a Republican is about being angry and defensive about everything. The changes in the country, brown people not knowing their place, factory jobs disappearing, gay people being all gay and stuff... To be a Republican in 2018 is be engaged in a long and vocifreous tantrum against the 21st century.
Once you get them out of that mindset...who knows where that might lead us? What happens if those college educated suburban women never return to the GOP? What happens if the GOP loses half of college educated white men? Or more?
Once you're out of the Fox News hermetically sealed bubble, suddenly there is a world of compelling information you can assimilate. Global climate change isn't just about hotter summers, it's about natural disasters and refugee crisis, but it has a policy solution. Critical levels of economic inequality is incompatible with a functioning democracy and expanding the welfare state, especially education opportunities and health care availability, can reduce those strains on society.
The essential glue that (barely) holds progressives together is the idea that we can make a better world through collective action. The essential glue of conservativism is that this is wrong, and therefore we just need to hunker down amidst the old ways. When the world convulses - as it is doing now - we can expect a last, desperate surge of conservatism like we saw at the end of the 19th century. But in the end, we will need to embrace options to manage change.
If we can flip enough of the population to see this, we can usher in a generation of progressive change in this country and perhaps around the world.
He does bring a certain narrow lens to his argument. He neglects to mention the climate when he talks about the refugee crises that have led to racist demogoguery in Europe and the US, but he's right about the political destabilization in the border between the developed and underdeveloped world leading to massive immigration that seems to have no amiable solution.
What was interesting to me was not his argument (I could have made a similar one myself if the WaPo wants to give me a job), but rather that Boot was the one making it. As I said, I doubt he would be making those arguments about wealth inequality five to ten years ago.
It's almost like leaving the Republican Party has lead to him opening himself up to a world of evidence that he was blind to before.
I've seen repeated arguments that white people, but especially white women, are being terrible racists for voting against Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum. I think there's a great deal of truth to that, but I also don't think that calling them racists is going to change one freaking person's mind.
Instead, if my observations of people like Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Joe Walsh is correct, the reason all these white people voted against Abrams and Gillum (and Bill Nelson and Beto O'Rourke) is because they are Republicans. And Republicans are heavily invested - as a matter of their core political beliefs - that racism barely exists anymore. It's just a made up weapon to use against Republicans. I mean, what else is Cindy Hyde-Smith going to say?
However, if I'm right (and there's a first time for everything), I think that once you strip people away from the GOP, they open themselves up to a bigger range of opinions. Not all of them. Joe Walsh is still a gun-humping ammosexual, for instance. But being a Republican is about being angry and defensive about everything. The changes in the country, brown people not knowing their place, factory jobs disappearing, gay people being all gay and stuff... To be a Republican in 2018 is be engaged in a long and vocifreous tantrum against the 21st century.
Once you get them out of that mindset...who knows where that might lead us? What happens if those college educated suburban women never return to the GOP? What happens if the GOP loses half of college educated white men? Or more?
Once you're out of the Fox News hermetically sealed bubble, suddenly there is a world of compelling information you can assimilate. Global climate change isn't just about hotter summers, it's about natural disasters and refugee crisis, but it has a policy solution. Critical levels of economic inequality is incompatible with a functioning democracy and expanding the welfare state, especially education opportunities and health care availability, can reduce those strains on society.
The essential glue that (barely) holds progressives together is the idea that we can make a better world through collective action. The essential glue of conservativism is that this is wrong, and therefore we just need to hunker down amidst the old ways. When the world convulses - as it is doing now - we can expect a last, desperate surge of conservatism like we saw at the end of the 19th century. But in the end, we will need to embrace options to manage change.
If we can flip enough of the population to see this, we can usher in a generation of progressive change in this country and perhaps around the world.
Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Khashoggi
The moral and foreign policy disaster that is Trump's handling of the Khashoggi murder is a Rosetta Stone of the Trump "Administration."
First, there is the reflexive sucking up to a dictator. Trump's credulity whenever a strongman is questioned is a feature of his foreign affairs. It goes something like this: Strongman does something terrible, World cries out in outrage. Trump meets with Strongman who denies it. Trump "believes" the Strongman with a "Whaddya gonna do" shrug. Trump admires dictators, and he admires their ability to avoid consequences.
Second, is his disdain for the press, which is part of Trump's admiration for dictators' ability to avoid consequences. Khashoggi was a staunch critic of the Saudi regime, and he was forced to leave the country, because of his criticism. Trump is a coward, but he would love to have a Good Squad who would go around beating up or even murdering the press. His cowardice is evident in his refusal to listen to the tape. Trump had a Rich Boy's life of skating across the friction points most of us face. The press is currently the greatest factor holding Trump accountable, with the courts a close second. If a journalist gets killed, why would that upset Trump?
Finally, there is the rank corruption. Part of Trump and Kushner's fondness for bin Salman is the fact that Saudi money has flowed into their properties since inauguration. The Saudis know that the way to Trump is through his wallet, and they have been lavishing events on Trump properties around the globe.
All of this is fair game for House Democrats in six weeks. Smart Republicans should know this and get out front of this. Anyone seen any smart Republicans?
First, there is the reflexive sucking up to a dictator. Trump's credulity whenever a strongman is questioned is a feature of his foreign affairs. It goes something like this: Strongman does something terrible, World cries out in outrage. Trump meets with Strongman who denies it. Trump "believes" the Strongman with a "Whaddya gonna do" shrug. Trump admires dictators, and he admires their ability to avoid consequences.
Second, is his disdain for the press, which is part of Trump's admiration for dictators' ability to avoid consequences. Khashoggi was a staunch critic of the Saudi regime, and he was forced to leave the country, because of his criticism. Trump is a coward, but he would love to have a Good Squad who would go around beating up or even murdering the press. His cowardice is evident in his refusal to listen to the tape. Trump had a Rich Boy's life of skating across the friction points most of us face. The press is currently the greatest factor holding Trump accountable, with the courts a close second. If a journalist gets killed, why would that upset Trump?
Finally, there is the rank corruption. Part of Trump and Kushner's fondness for bin Salman is the fact that Saudi money has flowed into their properties since inauguration. The Saudis know that the way to Trump is through his wallet, and they have been lavishing events on Trump properties around the globe.
All of this is fair game for House Democrats in six weeks. Smart Republicans should know this and get out front of this. Anyone seen any smart Republicans?
Monday, November 19, 2018
UGH, Both Sides
Read this Washington Post story and see if you can tell me who won the midterm elections. Democrats won at least 37 seats, and there could be a couple more that flip. The GOP got wiped out in the suburbs and with emerging demographic groups. You could walk from Puget Sound to El Paso and pass through one GOP held district.
The media's constant pre-occupation with Trump's base is appalling. Yes. Old white people like him. Time to move on.
The media's constant pre-occupation with Trump's base is appalling. Yes. Old white people like him. Time to move on.
Sunday, November 18, 2018
What It Looks Like
Any number of people have identified global warming as the premier long term crisis. They are often derided by "very serious thinkers" on the right, because...tree hugging hippies, I guess.
The disasters in Puerto Rico, North Carolina and now California are of course difficult to pin solely on climate change. Hurricanes and forest fires are natural events that would happen with or without a warming globe. What climate change does is amplify and intensify these events.
The Camp Fire is an unbelievable tragedy. The speed and intensity of the event has led to who knows how many deaths.
Needless to say, we are not equipped with leadership that will address this issue. Every year, every day counts in trying to get a handle on this, and we are failing the future. Thanks Republicans.
The disasters in Puerto Rico, North Carolina and now California are of course difficult to pin solely on climate change. Hurricanes and forest fires are natural events that would happen with or without a warming globe. What climate change does is amplify and intensify these events.
The Camp Fire is an unbelievable tragedy. The speed and intensity of the event has led to who knows how many deaths.
Needless to say, we are not equipped with leadership that will address this issue. Every year, every day counts in trying to get a handle on this, and we are failing the future. Thanks Republicans.
Saturday, November 17, 2018
Tricky
Many people have rightly chided Trump and other Republicans for saying that people like Bill Nelson are trying to "steal an election" by requiring that all votes be counted. Counting votes is the essential component of democracy. Martha McSally was lauded for clearing the lowest possible bar: acknowledging math.
Stacey Abrams has a plausible but not irrefutable case for voter suppression. She is in the position of having to prove a negative, namely that if Brian Kemp had not done what he did, she would be the rightful winner. Frankly, I have some doubts. Stacey Abrams is a very impressive figure, but Georgia is still Georgia. Quite a few otherwise sympathetic "White Liberals" will still cling to the Angry Black Lady tropes and have their doubts about black politicians in general. Exit polls certainly suggest that Abrams didn't do well enough with the same sort of voters that flipped GA-6.
Both Abrams and Andrew Gillum very likely came up against a racial wall. They were running in the South, with populations that contain more than their share of aging whites.
Abrams ended her bid without conceding, which is more than just a rhetorical device. My hope is that she would run for Senate against David Perdue in two years, but to win, she will need two things. First, she will need a more credible Secretary of State than Brian Kemp who will work to make sure that voting is easier than it is now, especially for people of color. Second, she will need to win more white votes. There are some who are taking a "fuck white people" approach, but again that is a misreading of how elections work. Yes, white Georgians overwhelmingly voted for Kemp. But Abrams doesn't have to win white voters; she has to win enough white voters.
My worry is that she will need to build bridges to communities who won't be happy with the non-concession. If she doesn't, her statewide career won't go anywhere. That would be a shame. Same goes for Gillum, though he has conceded, and he doesn't deal with the double edged sword of gender that Abrams labors under.
It is very hard to win statewide election as an African American anywhere, especially in the South. In order to win, candidates of color will have to win "enough" white votes. I'm not sure how they get there.
Stacey Abrams has a plausible but not irrefutable case for voter suppression. She is in the position of having to prove a negative, namely that if Brian Kemp had not done what he did, she would be the rightful winner. Frankly, I have some doubts. Stacey Abrams is a very impressive figure, but Georgia is still Georgia. Quite a few otherwise sympathetic "White Liberals" will still cling to the Angry Black Lady tropes and have their doubts about black politicians in general. Exit polls certainly suggest that Abrams didn't do well enough with the same sort of voters that flipped GA-6.
Both Abrams and Andrew Gillum very likely came up against a racial wall. They were running in the South, with populations that contain more than their share of aging whites.
Abrams ended her bid without conceding, which is more than just a rhetorical device. My hope is that she would run for Senate against David Perdue in two years, but to win, she will need two things. First, she will need a more credible Secretary of State than Brian Kemp who will work to make sure that voting is easier than it is now, especially for people of color. Second, she will need to win more white votes. There are some who are taking a "fuck white people" approach, but again that is a misreading of how elections work. Yes, white Georgians overwhelmingly voted for Kemp. But Abrams doesn't have to win white voters; she has to win enough white voters.
My worry is that she will need to build bridges to communities who won't be happy with the non-concession. If she doesn't, her statewide career won't go anywhere. That would be a shame. Same goes for Gillum, though he has conceded, and he doesn't deal with the double edged sword of gender that Abrams labors under.
It is very hard to win statewide election as an African American anywhere, especially in the South. In order to win, candidates of color will have to win "enough" white votes. I'm not sure how they get there.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)