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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)