Tuesday, December 18, 2018


This was the headline at Breitbart an hour ago:

I can't imagine worse optics for a president whose support derives overwhelmingly from white nationalism and xenophobia, although it seems as if he has no choice:
President Trump on Tuesday retreated from his demand for $5 billion to build a border wall, as congressional Republicans maneuvered to avoid a partial government shutdown before funding expires at the end of Friday....

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders on Tuesday said Trump did not want a government shutdown and that the administration had identified “other ways” to fund a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border....

With Democrats near-unanimously opposing Trump’s demand for $5 billion for the wall, Republicans lacked a path to pass it because they could not assemble the 60 Senate votes needed to advance a Homeland Security spending bill.
I don't know what "other ways" there are to fund the wall -- wall bonds? crowdfunding? cryptocurrency? -- but Trump's unshakable base might finally begin to abandon him if he can't persuade them that he'll get it built eventually. Investigations and associates' guilty pleas seem to be the biggest threats to Trump, but his approval numbers are likely to be unbudgeable as long as the deplorables think he'll deliver on his promises, with the wall being Promise #1. If they lose faith in him on this subject, his support within his party may drop so fast that even GOP lawmakers will be willing to defy him.

And on the same day Trump is caving on the wall, there's also this:
The Trump administration on Tuesday issued a final rule that bans so-called bump stocks, devices that allow semiautomatic weapons to fire more rapidly, saying tens of thousands of them around the country must be destroyed or surrendered to federal law enforcement....

The rule will take effect after 90 days, a senior Justice Department officials told reporters, explaining, “At that point, it will be illegal to have a bump stock–type device. They will be considered a machine gun.”

“We expect most owners will comply with the law and follow instructions or hand them in to ATF," the official added.
Many gun owners don't even like bump stocks, but when it comes to guns and shooting accessories, they despise being told what to do, especially when the law seems to require confiscation. Here's some of the reaction at Free Republic:
Practically no one will turn them in.


Ultra-socialist Massachusetts did the same thing — letter in the mail (to every license-holder since they didn’t know who even had bumpstocks) ordering you to turn it in at the local PD. No option for reimbursement.

Admirable move, Donald. Following in the footsteps of Mass.


Is he King now?


Shame on Trump for doing anything to appease the gun takers. What is needed is for licensed holders to be able to travel interstate without committing a crime.


He is officially a one term president.


He's doing something so illegal even the Obama Administration refrained from doing it.


We have gone from “Every time a bell rings an angel gets his wings” to “Every time a nut commits Murder using a Gun we lose our God Given Rights”.


The couple of times I used a friend’s, I was very unimpressed, so I don’t know why serious owners were buying them.

With that said, I expect more than a few owners will claim they were stolen from their trucks or were accidentally dropped into a lake or pond.


This will cause many otherwise law abiding American citizens to become felons by default. Next thing likely to harm Americans is the new bill to allow violent and career thugs to be released from prison early and many newly minted criminals to not be sent to prison when Trump signs the pending Prison Sentencing guideline reform legislation and reportedly costing tax payers an additional $850,000,000 yearly.

Is Trump trying to knock himself out of the next election? I for one am having to reevaluate just how much I can continue to support this President with his growing penchant for supporting liberal positions and causes.
Donald Trump isn't a smart man, but I thought he was better that this at keeping his base satisfied. He's really slipping.


Robert Reich believes he's found the key to Donald Trump's pathology:
After two years of Trump we may have overlooked the essence of his insanity: His brain sees only private interests transacting. It doesn’t comprehend the public interest.

... absent a public interest, there can’t be conflicts of interest.

So when lobbyists representing the Saudi government paid for an estimated 500 nights at Trump’s Washington, D.C., hotel within a month of his election, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman rented so many rooms at the Trump International Hotel in Manhattan that its revenues rose in 2018 after years of decline, Trump saw it as half of a private transaction.

The other half: Trump would continually go to bat for Saudi Arabia and the Crown Prince, even after the Senate passed a resolution blaming the Crown Prince for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi....

So someone donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee and subsequently received a $5 billion loan from the Energy Department. What’s the problem? Both parties got what they wanted....

Collusion means joining together in violation of the public interest. If Trump’s brain comprehends only private interests, even a transaction in which Putin offered explicit help winning the election in return for Trump weakening NATO and giving Russia unfettered license in Ukraine wouldn’t be collusive.
I think that's an accurate assessment of what motivates Trump. His business interests. His ego. Not the national interest.

But how different is that from the thinking of ordinary Republican officeholders who haven't been CEOs? Trump cares about himself, and about the Trump Organization, which he regards as an extension of himself. Republicans care about the Republican Party -- not as a vehicle through which to govern America effectively, but as a path to power, and to even greater wealth for the rich people who fund them.

Paul Krugman writes:
... on Friday, Reed O’Connor, a partisan Republican judge known for “weaponizing” his judicial power, declared the [Affordable Care Act] as a whole ... unconstitutional. Legal experts from both right and left ridiculed his reasoning and described his ruling as “raw political activism.”

... the Republican assault on health care is just the leading edge of an attack on multiple fronts, as the G.O.P. tries to overturn the will of the voters and undermine democracy in general.

... a growing number of positions in government agencies are being occupied by right-wing partisans who care nothing, or actively oppose, their agencies’ missions. The Environmental Protection Agency is now run by people who don’t want to protect the environment, Health and Human Services by people who want to deny Americans health care.

... Remember when the role of the Senate was supposed to be to “advise and consent”? Under Republican control it’s just plain consent — there is almost literally nothing Trump can do, up to and including clear evidence of corruption and criminality, that will induce senators from his party to exercise any kind of oversight.

... When Democrats threaten to win elections, they rig the voting process, as they did in Georgia. When Democrats win despite election rigging, they strip the offices Democrats win of power, as they did in Wisconsin. When Democratic policies prevail despite all of that, they use apparatchik-stuffed courts to strike down legislation on the flimsiest of grounds.

As David Frum, the author of “Trumpocracy,” warned a year ago: “If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” That’s happening as we speak.
In 1987, Margaret Thatcher said, "you know, there's no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look after themselves first." It's been argued that the quote is less harsh when read in context, but context doesn't help. She believed in individuals, in families, and in charity. But she strongly implied that there's no public interest, no public stewardship that's the government's responsibility.

If you believe that, as most modern Republicans in America seem to, then why not destroy public institutions? It starts with the institutions of the welfare state, but after that, why assume that any long-standing institution meant to preserve the common good deserves not to be trashed?

Donald Trump doesn't care about the common good, in a way that seems pathological, but the reason he's risen from nowhere to become the leader of his party is that his philosophy doesn't differ very much from contemporary mainstream conservatism. There is no such thing as society. There is no such thing as the public interest. So take whatever you can grab.

Monday, December 17, 2018


The biggest story of the day is this:
The Russian influence campaign on social media in the 2016 election made an extraordinary effort to target African-Americans ... according to a report produced for the Senate Intelligence Committee....

The report says that while “other distinct ethnic and religious groups were the focus of one or two Facebook Pages or Instagram accounts, the black community was targeted extensively with dozens.”

... Whether such efforts had a significant effect is difficult to judge. Black voter turnout declined in 2016 for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election....
It turns out that African Americans were targeted with more Facebook ads than any other group, including conservatives.

Three of the four most-liked Facebook posts put up by the Russian influence effort came from an account called Blacktivist that urged the community to be more cynical about politics. African Americans were urged to vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein throughout the month before the 2016 election. A post on Oct. 29 that year declared: “NO LIVES MATTER TO HILLARY CLINTON. ONLY VOTES MATTER TO HILLARY CLINTON.” A message on Nov. 3 added: “NOT VOTING is a way to exercise our rights.”

On Twitter, four of the Russian agency’s five most‐retweeted accounts catered exclusively to African Americans.

On Instagram, all five of the most-liked posts created by the Russians were aimed at African American women. They included the hashtags #blackpower, #blackpride, #unapologeticallyblack, #blacklivesmatter, #icantbreathe, #riot and #blackgirlskillingit.
Now, perhaps it would be rash to conclude that the Trump campaign colluded in this effort, but as Jennifer Palmieri reminds us, the campaign bragged about extremely similar vote suppression efforts in a Bloomberg story published in October 2016:
Instead of expanding the electorate, [Steve] Bannon and his team are trying to shrink it. “We have three major voter suppression operations under way,” says a senior official. They’re aimed at three groups Clinton needs to win overwhelmingly: idealistic white liberals, young women, and African Americans.... [Clinton's] 1996 suggestion that some African American males are “super predators” is the basis of a below-the-radar effort to discourage infrequent black voters from showing up at the polls—particularly in Florida.

On Oct. 24, Trump’s team began placing spots on select African American radio stations. In San Antonio, a young staffer showed off a South Park-style animation he’d created of Clinton delivering the “super predator” line (using audio from her original 1996 sound bite), as cartoon text popped up around her: “Hillary Thinks African Americans are Super Predators.” The animation will be delivered to certain African American voters through Facebook “dark posts”—nonpublic posts whose viewership the campaign controls so that, as [Brad] Parscale puts it, “only the people we want to see it, see it.” The aim is to depress Clinton’s vote total. “We know because we’ve modeled this,” says the official. “It will dramatically affect her ability to turn these people out.”

The Trump team [is making an] effort to ... drive down black turnout in Miami’s Little Haiti neighborhood with targeted messages about the Clinton Foundation’s controversial operations in Haiti....
Funny how the Russians and the folks in the Trump campaign -- who, I'll remind you again, never colluded -- had precisely the same idea. Great minds think alike!


Democratic leaders in the New Jersey state legislature are scrapping a plan that would have gerrymandered the state on their party's behalf, in response to objections that came from fellow Democrats as well as Republicans:
Legislative leaders in New Jersey announced this weekend they would not move forward with a proposal to redraw legislative districts that would have essentially written gerrymandering into the State Constitution....

The proposal was opposed by numerous political factions: Republicans, progressives, nonpartisan pollsters, Gov. Philip D. Murphy, who is a Democrat, and Eric H. Holder Jr., the former attorney general under President Barack Obama who is the current leader of a national group combating gerrymandering.
When news stories about the gerrymandering proposal appeared last week, Kevin Drum, with tongue in cheek, expressed support for the plan, for a very specific reason:
I am all for this. Is that because I’m a political hack who eagerly looks forward to giving Republicans a taste of their own medicine? Of course not. It’s more that ... it would ... oh hell. Yes, that’s part of it. The prospect of watching Republicans whine and moan about this is really pretty delightful.

But here’s the real reason: this is the only thing that will ever get the Supreme Court off its butt to do something about gerrymandering. I’m dead serious here. Conservatives on the Supreme Court aren’t likely to ever address gerrymandering until it’s crystal clear that Democrats can be every bit as ruthless and shady as Republicans. As long as red-state Republicans pass bill after bill screwing Democrats, while blue states like California and New Jersey and New York do nothing, there will always be a majority on the Supreme Court to shrug it off as a “political” question and do nothing.
There's a case before the Supreme Court right now, concerning a pro-GOP gerrymander in Wisconsin and a pro-Democratic gerrymander in Maryland. Would a New Jersey gerrymander have tipped the Court toward rejection of gerrymandering across the board?

I doubt it. Even if New Jersey Democrats had gone ahead with their plan, there are far more opportunities nationwide for Republicans to gerrymander, because Republicans, even after the 2018 midterms, have a "trifecta" -- control of the governor's mansion and both houses of the state legislature -- in more states than Democrats, as Ballotpedia notes:
Entering the 2018 midterm election, Republicans had a [+18] state trifecta lead: of 34 states with trifectas, 26 were Republican and eight were Democratic. But after the votes were counted, Democrats increased their trifecta total with a net gain of six, and Republicans declined to 23 trifectas (a net loss of three).
Republicans still have a 23-14 lead in trifectas. And even though Democrats now have trifecta control in New York State as well as California, more Americans (42.1%) still live in GOP trifecta states than in Democratic trifecta states (34.4%). Republicans continue to have trifectas in some big purple (and potentially purple) states -- Florida, Ohio, Texas. Therefore, if the Supreme Court upholds gerrymandering, Republicans will have more opportunities to take advantage of it.

If you want to argue that rejecting the New Jersey gerrymander hurt the anti-gerrymander cause in the courts, you might also have to argue that anti-gerrymander referendums hurt the cause. Four of them passed this year -- in Michigan, Colorado, Missouri, and Utah. That's a good thing -- but it's likely to lead the High Court to conclude that gerrymandering is a problem that the system can solve on its own, through normal democratic processes, without judicial intervention.

I'd still like the Supreme Court to intervene, but I don't think that was likely even before New Jersey scrapped its gerrymander. Better to just keep fighting them all, on behalf of democracy.

Sunday, December 16, 2018


I'm a few days late getting to this clip, but it seems to be going semi-viral, so I'll just say a few words about it. It's Donny Deutsch on MSNBC this past Wednesday, talking about Donald Trump's legal troubles:

Deutsch says:
The word "blood" is important, and what's interesting, we've been focusing, rightfully so, on Russia, on the payments to these women. Let me say this unequivocally, as a guy who spent most of his career in business in New York, in the advertising business, in the real estate business, in the fashion business. It's a small world. Donald Trump, in the industry of real estate developers, which is kind of a -- bit of a slimy business to begin with, was known as the bottom of the bottom of the bottom of the food chain. I have heard story after story. This is a criminal guy. You have to do a dotted line to Letitia Jones [sic], the [incoming] attorney general of New York, who came out today and said, "Oh, we're just starting with this foundation, we're starting with the organization." Russia and Stormy Daniels are the least of his problems. To your point: What is going to put him in jail eventually, what is going to destroy everything he has ever built and his children, is a thirty-year dishonest criminal enterprise. That is what -- one thing will take him out of the presidency. The other thing will ruin him forever.
Deutsch may not know the name of the state's newly elected attorney general (it's Letitia James), but he's in a position to know about Trump's career -- and I think he's right, at least, that this is what should destroy Trump, what really might take him down, more than Russia or adulterous affairs. I continue to believe that this is America and we don't punish the folks in the upper echelons anyomre, but maybe we'll make an exception for Trump and his family.

However, I have some disagreements with what Deutsch says next:
And on top of that, the political incentive for every U.S. attorney in New York or in Virginia to do it is: This guy showed up and tried to undo what 250 years of people have been dying for in this country -- who we are, what we stand for. So there is a moral imperative. What we are about. What our grandfathers died for. Democracy. He single-handedly is the first guy in our lifetime to try to undo that, and he is going to pay for that the rest of his life as they pick apart his criminal enterprise. This is the very, very beginning of the story.
I agree with this characterization of Trump -- he really is a guy who's willing to take America down, though it's not clear if this is because he's loyal to foreign autocrats who might throw him some business or because his politcal philosophy is a crackpot stew of isolationism and compulsive fight-picking with foreign governments. He's also an illiterate narcissist who thinks that the work and thought that his predecessors put into their stewardship of America was a lot of hooey, and was no substitute for the unerring genius of his gut. And his narcissism prevents him from caring about institutions the rest of us rely on, from NATO to birthright citizenship.

But it's odd for Deutsch to describe the anti-Trump fight in terms of patriotism, because in America it's never considered patriotic to challenge the Republican Party. Ever since 1968, or maybe 1964, or maybe the McCarthy Era, it's been an article of faith in Heartland America that the GOP is the party of patriotism and its opponents are all dissenters and rootless cosmopolitans, if not outright traitors. Right now, the Democrats, anti-Trump Republicans, and non-politcal investigators seeking to bring Trump to justice really are the patriots -- but much of the country doesn't believe that, and never will. It ought to be the case that Trump's opponents are seen now as the people with the monopoly on patriotism -- but I think the exact opposite is still closer to our political reality. That's why The New York Times keeps interviewing all those old white men in Pennsylvania diners. It's why so much of the politcal press is concerned about the fate of The Weekly Standard and the possibility of a 2020 primary challenge to Trump. They're rooting for a revival of the American party, as they see it -- the GOP.

New York and Virginia are parts of blue America. It's good politics in those states to go after Trump. But the effort should be seen as more -- as an attempt to save America. Deutsch is right about this -- but I don't think America gets it.


Charlie Pierce has a point:

It's too soon to take Iowa polling seriously. Do you know who was leading the GOP field in Iowa a year or so before the 2016 caucuses? According to one poll, it was Mike Huckabee:
Mike Huckabee has a slight lead with 17%, followed by Rand Paul at 14%, Jeb Bush at 13%, Chris Christie and Ted Cruz at 10%, Paul Ryan at 9%, Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal at 7%, and Marco Rubio at 3%.
That was a Public Policy Polling survey in February 2014; the current Democratic numbers are from the Des Moines Register and CNN. The PPP numbers really didn't come close to predicting the outcome of the caucuses, and not just because Donald Trump was excluded. Here were the results:

Very, very different from the polling a year early. So we should all remain calm.

Saturday, December 15, 2018


The Iowa caucuses won't happen for a year, but some progressives are determined to sandbag Beto O'Rourke now, as Politico notes:
Now that Beto O’Rourke is looking at a presidential campaign, he is coming in for a flurry of hits from the left.

The criticism — ranging from O’Rourke’s membership in the centrist New Democrat Coalition to his acceptance of campaign money from oil industry employees — has so far been confined largely to social media, newspaper opinion pages and online message boards. But as O’Rourke considers running for president in 2020, his potential opponents are quietly taking stock, plotting lines of attack they believe could weaken the Texas congressman in a crowded primary field....

O’Rourke simultaneously shrugged off — but further fueled — the criticism Friday by sidestepping the opportunity to embrace the progressive mantle after a town hall meeting here....

Asked if he is a progressive Democrat, O’Rourke told reporters, “I don’t know. I’m just, as you may have seen and heard over the course of the campaign, I’m not big on labels. I don’t get all fired up about party or classifying or defining people based on a label or a group. I’m for everyone.”

O’Rourke’s supporters ... point to his support for Medicare for All and for leftist drug, military and immigration policies. And they were buoyed by the release of a straw poll by the progressive advocacy group Mo
We should have real discussions about all of these things if O'Rourke runs --we should seriously weigh everyone's positions, obviously. A possible risk, however, is that one candidate will be defined by the purist left as the most offensive sellout candidate -- and that person might wind up on the ticket anyway, because the Democratic Party is much more than a collection of Jacobin-reading social democrats. And then the purist outrage will be cranked up to maximum levels.

O'Rourke could be the candidate these folks decide they love to hate. Here's a Twitter poll from Howie Klein:

As for me, I'll vote for whichever Democrat makes it through the primaries. I'd prefer a progressive, but the candidates I'd fight the hardest against would be the hardcore corpocrats -- Mike Bloomberg, of course, and a name you're not hearing yet, but you will: Howard Schultz, who has a book coming out in February with the very campaign-y title From the Ground Up: A Journey to Reimagine the Promise of America and who's probably thinking very seriously of running, in all likelihood on the "we have more will than wallet" platform he articulated in June on CNBC:
Without naming names, Schultz said in a "Squawk Box" interview: "It concerns me that so many voices within the Democratic Party are going so far to the left. I say to myself, 'How are we going to pay for these things,' in terms of things like single payer [and] people espousing the fact that the government is going to give everyone a job. I don't think that's realistic." ...

"I think the greatest threat domestically to the country is this $21 trillion debt hanging over the cloud of America and future generations," Schultz said. "The only way we're going to get out of that is we've got to grow the economy, in my view, 4 percent or greater. And then we have to go after entitlements."
O'Rourke, Biden, and maybe a couple of other probably 2020 Democratic aspirants from the world of politics are a few steps to the right of serious progressivism, but they're not talking like this. I'm comfortable with the idea of any of them at the top of the ticket. But if the nominee is Schultz or Bloomberg, I'll really have to hold my nose to vote Democratic. (I'll do it, though, because the Republican Party is a sinkhole of awfulness and it has to be removed from power.)

The demonization campaigns against O'Rourke, Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, and others have the potential to put a lot of votes in Jill Stein's column in 2020. I hope the purist energy is divided several ways, so we don't have the level of outrage during the general election campaign that we had in 2016, when the hate was concentrated on one person -- please, no fart-ins at the convention this time, folks.

Maybe Jill Stein will simply get the same number of too-good-for-the-Democrats votes no matter who tops the Democratic ticket, assuming it's not Bernie Sanders. Maybe every other candidate will inspire approximately the same amount of purist contempt. It'll just be something we'll have to work around in order to win.

Friday, December 14, 2018


So now we're talking about the inaugural:
... President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee ... paid the Trump Organization for rooms, meals and event space at the company’s Washington hotel, according to interviews as well as internal emails and receipts reviewed by WNYC and ProPublica.

During the planning, Ivanka Trump, the president-elect’s eldest daughter and a senior executive with the Trump Organization, was involved in negotiating the price the hotel charged the 58th Presidential Inaugural Committee for venue rentals. A top inaugural planner emailed Ivanka and others at the company to “express my concern” that the hotel was overcharging for its event spaces, worrying of what would happen “when this is audited.”

If the Trump hotel charged more than the going rate for the venues, it could violate tax law....

“The fact that the inaugural committee did business with the Trump Organization raises huge ethical questions about the potential for undue enrichment,” said Marcus Owens, the former head of the division of the Internal Revenue Service that oversees nonprofits.
The criminal probe by the Manhattan U.S. attorney’s office ... is examining whether some of the committee’s top donors gave money in exchange for access to the incoming Trump administration, policy concessions or to influence official administration positions....

Giving money in exchange for political favors could run afoul of federal corruption laws. Diverting funds from the organization, which was registered as a nonprofit, could also violate federal law.
Federal prosecutors are examining whether foreigners illegally funneled donations to President Trump’s inaugural committee and a pro-Trump super PAC in hopes of buying influence over American policy, according to people familiar with the inquiry.

The inquiry focuses on whether people from Middle Eastern nations — including Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — used straw donors to disguise their donations to the two funds. Federal law prohibits foreign contributions to federal campaigns, political action committees and inaugural funds.
This seems ... corrupt. And illegal. But as I regularly say, President Trump will probably weather all scandals until his poll numbers start to drop from the levels where they've been for months; they're holding steady despite a wave of recent revelations. Trump's supporters don't think he's a saint and have factored a certain amount of corruption and immorality into their assessment of him from the beginning. Is there any reason to believe any of them will start wavering now?

The Stormy Daniels/Karen MacDougal payoffs were never likely to upset them. They've known from the beginning that Trump is a horndog, and the notion that rich horndogs pay money to conceal infidelities probably gives them a secret thrill -- oooh, this is how the superrich live! I know that campaign finance laws were violated, but our campaign finance laws make absolutely no sense to average Americans -- when you can give millions anonymously to a super PAC but only $2700 directly to a candidate, don't expect ordinary citizens to even try comprehending campaign finance logic. The payoffs should be the subject of one article of impeachment, but they won't turn anyone pro-Trumpers against him.

This is a bit more likely to upset them. It's self-dealing and palm-greasing. Ordinary people can understand that. Unfortunately, I'm not sure it will strike most Americans as worse than the usual level of corruption (even though it is). The idea that a president shouldn't make money from being in office ought to be a core element in our sense of how America works, but it isn't. And the inaugural isn't one of the patriotic ceremonies we cherish. If Trump were to skim profits off a Memorial Day ceremony at Arlington National Cemetery, then maybe the national conscience would be shocked. But inaugural corruption doesn't rise to that level.

I think at some point Trump will have to be held accountable, even though there won't be a single Republican willing to remove him from office until his poll numbers drop further. I still hope public opinion will change -- but I doubt this will have much effect.


Donald Trump's ex-lawyer Michael Cohen has now been sentenced to hard time, and the guy who's currently Trump's personal lawyer believes the process has been unfair:
... the president’s current lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, contends that the scandal is overblown entirely.

“Nobody got killed, nobody got robbed... This was not a big crime,” Giuliani told The Daily Beast on Wednesday. He added, sardonically, “I think in two weeks they’ll start with parking tickets that haven’t been paid.”
That's an odd thing to hear from a guy who, as mayor of New York City, made his name by ordering crackdowns on minor crimes.
Giuliani and his [first] police commissioner, William Bratton, ... sent hundreds of police officers into the subways to crack down on turnstile jumpers and vandals....

Police ramped up misdemeanor arrests for things like smoking marijuana in public, spraying graffiti and selling loose cigarettes.
Bars without cabaret licenses were fined thousands of dollars if people were caught dancing. There was a twenty-five-fold increase in the fine for jaywalking, part of a crackdown that was so contrary to the spirit of New York that even the cops objected to it.

So Rudy didn't always think it was a bad idea to focus on crimes that were not "big."

It was all part of the "broken windows" theory of law enforcement.
The broken windows theory is a criminological theory that visible signs of crime, anti-social behavior, and civil disorder create an urban environment that encourages further crime and disorder, including serious crimes. The theory thus suggests that policing methods that target minor crimes such as vandalism, public drinking, and fare evasion help to create an atmosphere of order and lawfulness, thereby preventing more serious crimes.
There's reason to believe that the theory was seriously flawed -- crime went down dramatically in Giuliani's New York, but at the same it decreased significantly in cities across the country, including cities where similar policies weren't in force.

But I'm sure Giuliani still believes in "broken windows." And if you believe in the theory, you know that one of the arguments made in favor it could apply to Trump World. Here's George Kelling, one of the authors of an influential Atlantic article that helped popularize the theory:
Going after petty crime led the police to violent criminals, says Kelling: "Not all fare beaters were criminals, but a lot of criminals were fare beaters. It turns out serious criminals are pretty busy. They commit minor offenses as well as major offenses."
That's similar to what's happening now -- you nab people for relatively minor offenses and you're led to much worse crimes by those people and their associates, and the associates of their associates. Doesn't Rudy Giuliani want to stand up for the forces of law and order and civilization, and against the forces of societal decay?

Thursday, December 13, 2018


You may have seen this yesterday:
Christine Blasey Ford made her first public statement since testifying against Brett Kavanaugh in September to present Sports Illustrated's Inspiration of the Year Award to Rachael Denhollander, the first woman to publicly accuse former USA Gymnastics and Michigan State University doctor Larry Nassar of sexual abuse.

"Rachael Denhollander, I am in awe of you and I will always be inspired by you," Ford said in the video. "In stepping forward you took a huge risk and you galvanized future generations to come forward even when the odds are seemingly stacked against them."

"The lasting lesson," Ford continued, "is that we all have the power to create real change and we cannot allow ourselves to be defined by the acts of others."

The video posted late Tuesday by Sports Illustrated is the first time Ford has spoken out since she testified in September in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee about her allegation that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her when they were both in high school.
To certain right-wingers, the video proved one thing: Blasey Ford wasn't really emotional during her Senate appearance -- her emotions were utterly fake.

Here's Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker:
Blasey-Ford's scared little girl voice has disappeared in first public statement since her Senate testimony

When Professor Christine Blasey-Ford testified against the Supreme Court nomination of then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh, my very first impression was that her voice sounded fake. She sounded like a scared little girl, her voice tremulous, creating an impression of sadness and vulnerability – just the thing to create sympathy. I immediately wondered if this was some sort of act, or if her mental state was somehow altered for her performance on national television. As a former professor myself, I wondered how on Earth she could command a classroom with that scared little girl voice.

For the first time since her testimony, we now have the opportunity to hear her voice, and guess what! She doesn't sound at all like the witness whose fear and suffering moved so many Democrats and feminists. She sounds like a grown-up, a professor, indeed.
As evidence, Lifson presents the video of Blasey Ford's opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee ...

... and her Sports Illustrated video:

I listen to the first few seconds of each video -- and Blasey Ford sounds exactly the same. The only difference in the Senate video is that her voice quavers and changes pitch as she tells her story. This is called -- oh, what's the technical term? -- human emotion. She's recalling her own trauma, before a room that includes many people hostile to her. She's on a national stage for the first time in her life. In the SI video, none of this is true. She's on tape, presumably working with a sympathetic crew. She's months past her national debut.

Right-wingers really say these things, and while the people who create the propaganda may not believe them, the audiences do.

Rush Limbaugh seconded this notion on the radio today. I don't have the audio, and that's probably just as well, because the transcript is pretty awful:
This is totally different! Let me read this the way Blasey Ford would have said it during the Kavanaugh hearings, okay? As best I can, anyway.... Okay. Three, two, one. (impression) “In stepping forwaaard? You took a huge risk? And, uh, you galvanized future generations to come forwaaaard EVEN when the odds are (Gasp!) seemingly stacked against them? (panting) The lasting l-l-lesson is that we all have the poweeer? To create real change, and we cannot allow ourselves to be defined by the acts of others?”

... [Not] one word on the uptick. Not one.
Maybe this wouldn't be plausible to the Lifson and Limbaugh audiences if the audiences were capable of feeling human emotion, apart from rage and self-pity. As it is, they absolutely believe this crap.


President Trump is an unindicted co-conspiracy, hounded by the special counsel and the Southern District of New York. He was owned this week in a televised metting with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. His party lost forty seats in the House. He's struggling to find a chief of staff.

His presidency seems to be falling apart -- but public support for that presidency isn't. This is from Fox News:
Overall, 46 percent of voters approve of the job Trump is doing and 52 percent disapprove. In January, it was 45-53 percent. Moreover, approval has barely budged all year, staying within the narrow range of 43 to 47 percent.
I know, I know -- it's Fox. But Fox, as I've said for years, oversees a respectable poll. The Fox poll isn't Rasmussen. Its results are very close to the results of other pollsters.

Trump's Real Clear Politics average hasn't really budged since late spring. Look at the right side of this chart:

On May 1, Trump's approval and disapproval numbers, according to Real Clear Politics, were 43.3%/52.8%. On July 1, they were 43.4%/51.9%. On September 1, they were 42.2%/54.1%. Now they're 43.1%/52.2%.

CNN's latest poll is worse for Trump than Fox's -- job approval is 39%/52% -- but the CNN poll has always been one of Trump's worst polls, and his numbers have remained fairly steady since spring:

Emerson has Trump at 43%/47% -- in October it was 43%/50%, in August 38%/53%. NPR/Marist has Trump at 43%/49% -- in October it was 41%/53%, in early September it was 38%/54%.

And the Gallup approval numbers are even more shockingly steady:

So if you're waiting for the moment when it dawns on Trump's supporters, or at least his soft supporters, that he's a crook, a traitor, and incompetent, and that they'd be better off unloading him, that's just not happening yet. Maybe it will happen in a week or a month, but for now the fans, including the ones who are supposedly not superfans, seem unmovable.

Here are Nixon's Gallup numbers, by the way:

They're steady, like Trump's -- until just after the second inaugural, at which point they undergo a severe, irreversible slide.

Will that happen to Trump now? Maybe if Democrats in the House can package their findings in a more vivid way than Robert Mueller and the Southern District. Maybe if there are new revelations that are shocking and easy to grasp.

I continue to believe that this time is different -- if we drive Trump from office, it won't be at a time when even supporters are abandoning him. We'll have to roll right over them. And in the future, they'll never accept the notion that Trump deserved it.

Wednesday, December 12, 2018


I'm reasonably certain that the Trump family would have steered clear of anything with the Bush name on it prior to George H.W. Bush's funeral. But the Bushes graciously invited President Trump and his wife to Poppy's funeral -- and now the Trumps are returning the favor by using a naval vessel named after Bush as a backdrop for some self-serving propaganda on Fox:
WEDNESDAY: FLOTUS Sits Down With Hannity for Exclusive Interview Aboard USS George HW Bush

First lady Melania Trump will sit down with Sean Hannity Wednesday for an exclusive interview aboard the USS George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier.

Hannity will also take viewers behind the scenes with Mrs. Trump as she visits military bases and speaks with personnel....
They know that Bush the Elder is much more widely admired than President Trump. They want reflected glory, and they're shameless enough to go out and grab it. And, of course, the shameless sycophant Hannity is on call and ready to help.


Is Paul Krugman right about this?

I'm not sure about this. One of Krugman's commenters is right, I think:

I don't think Trump wants the wall just because he regards it as a macho response to unauthorized immigration. I think he's a genuine racist who believes that non-Europeans live in shithole countries and need to be contained so they won't kill or otherwise harm us, violently or by means of the diseases they inevitably spread to us. On that level, I think Trump's hardline immigration policies are, in his mind, "things that Trump does because they're actually in the national interest."

There's also what he learned from mentors, starting with his father -- meanness generally, and specifically, I think, the notion that all counterparties screw you, so you should screw them first. (That's a big reason Trump loves tariffs and always wants to terminate and renegotiate deals made with other countries.)

And there's -- I'm straining for an "m" word here -- methodical predecessor erasure:

Although maybe that's about manhood -- how can Trump be the alpha among alphas if there have been other presidents and they've accomplished stuff?

Beyond that, I'm stumped. Is there anything that doesn't fall into these categories?


Nancy Pelosi negotiates and talks trash like a boss:
Nancy Pelosi was on fire with her fellow Democrats.

Minutes after a very public showdown with Donald Trump on Tuesday over his border wall with Mexico, the House minority leader returned to the Capitol and railed against the president in a private meeting with her colleagues.

... she went for the most sensitive part of Trump’s ego.

“It’s like a manhood thing with him — as if manhood can be associated with him,” Pelosi deadpanned. “This wall thing.”
And although many conservatives think Trump won yesterday's livestreamed Oval Office session, as I noted yesterday -- and Trump has gotten more rave reviews since then, from, among others, Rush Limbaugh, Fox's Kayleigh McEnany, and the Daily Beast's Matt Lewis -- it's widely conceded that he failed yesterday, and reports say even he knows it:
On Tuesday night’s edition of Hardball, [Eli] Stokols [of the Los Angeles Times] told host Chris Matthews that Trump was “frustrated” following the meeting, during which Trump reportedly ignored the advice of his aides, and was goaded into taking ownership of any government shutdown that might occur.

“It sort of spiraled out of control, and when the President left the Oval Office after Pelosi and Schumer left,” Stokols said, “a number of people saw him, he stormed out of the Oval, walked into an anteroom just off the Oval Office, and had in his hand a folder of briefing papers, and he just scattered them out of frustration, threw them across the room and expressed frustration to the people who were present.”
If there was any doubt as to whether Pelosi would lock up the speakership, that's gone now.

So is it time for a new Pelosi narrative? I don't understand why Democrats and lefty commentators and activists have never tried to make Pelosi a broadly popular feminist heroine, the way they've championed Ruth Bader Ginsburg as "the Notorious RBG." For years they've allowed conservatives and the mainstream press to characterize Pelosi as a witchy, shrewy harridan. There's been no pushback.

Now there seems to be pushback.

Pelosi is smart, tough, fearless, and effective. She should have been someone the Resistance championed. Maybe that will finally happen now.