Tuesday, April 25, 2017


The Wall Street Journal's Gerald Seib has written an alternate history of Donald Trump's first hundred days, and it's no different from every other naive attempt to imagine Trump as a genuine middle-of-the-roader:
... let’s imagine a presidency that attempted from the outset to take advantage of the fact that Donald Trump isn’t an ideological conservative or a traditional Republican, but rather a radical centrist who should be able to create unconventional, bipartisan coalitions....

This presidency wouldn’t have started with polarizing issues guaranteed to back both parties further into their corners: aiming to repeal the Democrats’ signature health-care law and imposing a ban on travel from a set of Muslim-majority countries as the first step in fighting terrorism. Rather, it would have opened with two big initiatives in which at least a few Democrats would have been willing—maybe even eager in some cases—to cooperate: rebuilding American infrastructure and changing the nation’s inefficient tax code.

This alternative presidency would have set out from the beginning to build bridges to the 10 Democratic senators up for re-election in 2018 from states Mr. Trump carried, and the 12 House members who represent districts Mr. Trump carried in 2016. In this Trump presidency, the cabinet he chose would have been populated with fewer ideological conservatives and instead would have included some moderate Democrats.
This fantasy Trump bears no resemblance to the Fox-obsessed Republican who actually occupies the Oval Office, but go ahead Gerald, dream big dreams.

Now, if you've read enough centrist punditry, you know that the flip side of "Why can't Democrats and Republicans get along?" is always "Aren't Democrats and Republicans equally at fault, with Democrats probably more at fault?" Needless to say, Seib goes there, citing the new Wall Street Journal/NBC poll -- and then asking whether it's the Democrats who turned Trump into a reluctant ideologue. I'm not joking:
Only one in 10 Americans in the poll sees Mr. Trump as a typical Republican. The vast majority in both parties consider him a different kind of Republican, and they are more likely to say that’s a good thing rather than a bad thing.

This picture raises a couple of pertinent questions. The first is whether it really was possible to move down a nonpartisan path—or whether anti-Trump passions at the base of the Democratic Party would have made it impossible to do so. In other words, did Mr. Trump drive away Democrats, or did Democrats drive him further into the arms of fellow Republicans?

It’s impossible to know for sure, of course, and certainly both forces were at work to some extent.
The one thing that seems clear is that some of Mr. Trump’s more divisive early actions, decisions and priorities made it easier for Democratic activists to create pressure on their representatives to take a never-cooperate position.
(Emphasis added.)

Some of Trump's early actions were divisive? Name me one that wasn't. He picked a climate change denier to head the EPA. He picked a public school hater to run the Department of Education. He picked a bigot as attorney general. He picked an oilman pal of Putin as secretary of state. He picked the former head of Breitbart as his chief strategist. And on and on.

But Trump wasn't a blank slate the morning after Election Day. Long before he announced his presidential candidacy, he conducted a years-long effort to delegitimize the black Democrat who was president. During his campaign he made repulsive statements and gestures toward women, the disabled, blacks, Muslims, and undocumented immigrants. He made no effort to distance himself from racist and anti-Semitic supporters. He encouraged Russian saboteurs to interfere with the election. So it doesn't matter how reluctant Democrats were to work with him. They had every reason to be reluctant. It was all on him to dissipate "anti-Trump passions," assuming he had any interest in doing so. Those "passions" were entirely justified.

I feel as I'm making absurdly obvious points. But I guess they aren't obvious to much of the pundit class.


The House Oversight Committee is focusing its attention on Mike Flynn:
President Donald Trump's former national security adviser did not properly disclose payments from Russia and does not appear to have complied with the law, House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz and ranking Democrat Elijah Cummings said Tuesday after reviewing Michael Flynn's application for a security clearance.

Chaffetz and Cummings announced their findings to reporters on the Hill following a classified gathering of the committee in which they reviewed documents that Cummings described as "extremely troubling."

"I see no data to support the notion that Gen. Flynn complied with the law," Chaffetz said, referring to whether Flynn received permission from the Pentagon or the State Department or that he disclosed the more than $45,000 he was paid for a speech he gave to RT-TV in Russia.
Chaffetz has been a Trump toady, but now that he's leaving Congress, he seems to have changed his approach -- at least with regard to Flynn. And although he and Elijah Cummings appeared together today, he's getting more of the headlines, and not just at conservative sites like The Right Scoop ("Chaffetz: Flynn may have violated the LAW when he took money from Russia and Turkey"). The Twitter "Moment" for this story goes to Chaffetz ("Rep. Jason Chaffetz calls out Flynn over Russia payments").

The Trump administration is still stonewalling:
... the White House declined to provide documents related to Flynn that the panel investigating him had requested, according to a letter obtained by CNN.

White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short outlined in a letter to the House oversight committee how it would not complete the request from the panel, referring some requests to the Department of Defense, saying the office doesn't have custody of some of the other documents or simply stating "we are unable to accommodate" others.
However, at least one Trump-affiliated media organization has been selling the notion that, yes, there's something to Russiagate, but no, it's all the fault of Flynn and other former Trump aides.

That media organization is The National Enquirer, which is run by Trump pal David Pecker, and which ran many stories helpful to Trump during the campaign, including fake-news reports on Hillary Clinton's supposedly poor health and Ted Cruz's father alleged involvement in the JFK assassination. Back in March, John Aravosis noticed that the Enquirer was describing Flynn as a Russian spy "caught" by Trump:

Now the Enquirer's "dragnet" has expanded -- but only to people outside the Trump White House, with Trump still the innocent party in all this:

I know the Enquirer is just a tale-spinning tabloid friendly to Trump -- but I suspect that this will be the fallback message if a real investigation closes in on Trump: that he's an innocent man who regrettably fell in with some bad characters.

That's how most scandals end in this country, of course. The CEO never goes to jail. The underlings plead guilty as the politician they serve remains unindicted (hello, Governor Christie). I think it's possible that there'll be convictions in Russiagate. But I'm betting that none of the people convicted or forced out of office will be named Trump -- or Kushner.


The president seems to be backing away from a wall-driven impasse that could lead to a government shutdown:
President Donald Trump stepped back Monday from demanding a down payment for his border wall in must-past spending legislation, potentially removing a major obstacle to a bipartisan deal just days ahead of a government shutdown deadline.

Trump told a gathering of around 20 conservative media reporters Monday evening that he would be willing to return to the wall funding issue in September, according to two people who were in the room.
What happened here? I know that Trump is a terrible negotiator and that he often backs down when he's dealing with people who see through his BS and aren't afraid of him. But this is the wall, dammit! It's remarkable that he's compromising on that.

I can only assume that someone told him he'd have bad stories written about him if his first hundred days ended with a government shutdown. Even though he would have tweeted that the "lying" media was unfairly blaming the shutdown on him rather than the Democrats, we know that he's exquisitely sensitive to criticism from the reporters and pundits he calls liars. That must have been what persuaded him to back away from the confrontation -- I'm sure it wasn't an increasingly sophisticated understanding of the budgeting process or legislative gamesmanship. He just wanted CNN and Morning Joe and The New York Times not to be mean to him.

With another president, I'd assume that the unpopularity of the wall was a factor -- several recent polls have shown that 60% or more of the public opposes it. But Trump doesn't seem to care about the public at large. He disbelieves polls that are bad for him and cherry-picks good results. He does no outreach to liberals or moderates. He seems to look for any excuse to hold a campaign-style rally, like the one he'll be holding this weekend, in which he can commune with base voters exclusively.

But he can't stand bad news stories, and he's obsessed with the hundred days. So he caved.

Monday, April 24, 2017


There might be a government shutdown soon, and conventional wisdom says that this will be a disaster for the GOP, especially for Donald Trump, because America will realize it's all his fault. Here's Newsweek's Emily Cadei:
Republicans, Democrats and outside experts agree that there’s little political logic to the Trump White House’s threat to shut down the government this week because it insists that funding for a border wall be included in the budget. Yet that’s exactly the scenario the White House appears to be entertaining as it holds a hard line on funding negotiations. In the process, the president and his budget team may be setting up Republicans for a bigger defeat than if they’d just gone along with a slimmer than desired spending bill in the first place.

... As was the case with the two most recent government shutdowns—in 1995 and 2013—partisans are now playing a game of chicken, betting that the other side will cave and vote for a spending bill it doesn’t like, rather than be blamed for the dysfunction.

... Yet this time around, there’s an important difference. Unlike 1995 and 2013, when a Republican-led Congress and Democratic presidents were in the White House, Republicans now hold all levers of power. So it will be much more difficult to point the finger at the other side if the government does shut down.
Republican leaders in Congress don't want a shutdown, and are willing to compromise with Democrats to avoid one. But Trump wants to play hardball. The New Republic's Brian Beutler also thinks this is self-sabotage:
The White House has offered to pay out [Obamacare] subsidies only if the bill also funds the border wall. If Trump gets what he wants, everyone will be fine; if Trump doesn’t get what he wants, he will take insurance away from millions—and the government might shut down! Defeat me, he intones darkly, and I will pants myself.
But is that how the public is likely to apportion blame? First, let's not assume that most Americans know which party controls Congress. Recall that in 2014 Pew found that only 40% of Americans could correctly identify the majority party in both the House and the Senate. The fact that Democrats have any leverage at all (because of the filibuster in the Senate) confuses the issue for voters who know a little but not a lot.

It was obvious who the antagonists were in 2013 -- everyone knew that the president was a Democrat, and everyone knew that his enemies in Congress were Republicans. Well, Trump is known to be a Republican, even by low-information voters -- so if he doesn't get what he wants, and it's not because fellow Republicans are complaining (as with the original Obamacare replacement bill), then who gets the shutdown blame? It's likely to be Democrats, who'll very visibly be the Party of No.

Democrats feel they can risk this because Republicans had a great 2014 election cycle after shutting the government down in 2013. That could be the long-term result for Democrats -- but in the short term, they really could pay a price, and Trump might not. Recall the polling in 2013:
Perceptions of the way Republicans handled the budget negotiations grew steadily worse through the weeks of confrontation, rising from 63 percent disapproval on the eve of the 16-day shutdown, which began Oct. 1, to 77 percent disapproval by the time it ended. Nearly three in five Republicans disapprove of their party’s handling of the negotiations.
And even if Democrats don't get the majority of the blame, it's likely that both parties will suffer some short-term hit to their approval, as in 2013:
Congressional Democrats also sustained damage to their image. More than six in 10 respondents disapprove of how they handled budget negotiations, and unfavorable ratings of the party have risen to a record high of 49 percent.
In 2013, the president came out unscathed:
Still, President Obama’s overall ratings have held steady. Almost half of all Americans approve of the way he has handled his job, and an almost identical number disapprove.
I know, I know: Congressional Republicans were obviously the hotheads during the 2013 shutdown. Obama was the calm, even-tempered voice of reason. This time around, Trump is going to be angry and volatile and make it all about him.

But Americans might conclude that he's a legitimate president who deserves not to have his agenda blocked by the folks who lost. In which case, voters aren't going to think he pantsed himself.

Republican poll numbers recovered quickly after the 2013 shutdown because it was followed by the botched Obamacare rollout. Given Trump's ineptitude, Democrats might be similarly lucky.

If there's a shutdown, we have no idea how long it will last. We have no idea whether Trump will accept the compromises necessary to return the government to full functioning, especially if those compromises embarrass him, or block his precious wall. So predictions are hard. But if a shutdown happens, we shouldn't assume that Trump and the GOP will get all the blame.


Hot Air's Allahpundit flags one data point from a Washington Post/ABC poll released over the weekend:
Poll: Trump would beat Clinton in a rematch among 2016 voters

Good lord. It’s one thing to blow an election once, but to lose hypothetically to a guy with a 42 percent approval rating again? Is there no limit to the humiliation the Clintons will suffer at Trump’s hands?

... given the option of a do-over, virtually no Trump voters would switch their votes. Clinton voters, on the other hand...
While just 4 percent of Trump’s supporters say they would back someone else if there was a redo of the election, fully 15 percent of Clinton supporters say they would ditch her.

That 15 percent is split up between those who say they would vote for Trump (2 percent), Gary Johnson (4 percent), Jill Stein (2 percent), and either other candidates or not voting (7 percent).
Clinton loses, 43%-40%. But is this surprising? A lot of Trump's press coverage is critical, but there's still a large segment of the media, over on the right, that treats him as a conquering hero whose reign is glorious, and in the mainstream there's a lot of coverage that, despite some skepticism, is still awestruck. (Why is he so good at manipulating us? Who are his voters, and will we ever truly understand America if we don't interview all of them?)

But virtually no one in the media likes Hillary Clinton -- not on the right, not in the center, not on the left. Some of this is normal -- as a rule, failed presidential candidates don't get much respect. But most failed candidates are ignored. Clinton is being actively vilified. And even though her opponent is broadly unpopular, no one interviews her voters to plumb the depths of their souls. The negative coverage of Clinton implies that harboring good feelings for her is shameful. So to me it's remarkable that she lost in this poll by only 3.


Allahpundit notes one more weekend poll result, from a Wall Street Journal/NBC survey:
Not all the news is bad for liberals, though. Who’s winning the battle of ideas? NBC offers a clue:

The 57 percent who say government should do more is the highest number NBC has recorded in 20 years of polling, higher even than it was in 2007 at the height of Bush malaise following the Democratic takeover of Congress. And the trend towards more active government is found in all three partisan groups. Republicans are still strongly opposed to the idea at 28/69, but that’s up from 17/79 shortly before the GOP took back the House in 2010. The real sea change, though, has come among independents, who were net -22 in October 2010 on the idea of government doing more and are now ... net +22.
Why is this happening? Allahpundit has a couple of theories that can't both be true:
Is that mostly a reaction to the party in power, i.e. when a Democrat is president indies perceive government as being too big whereas when a Republican is president they perceive it as too static? Or is it part of the Trumpian drift towards making big government great again on the right?
I think Trump has made government action seem more acceptable to at least some on the right. I think white voters are seeing dysfunction in white communities and saying, "Now I believe in government assistance." (The media helps by covering drug addiction in white communities much more sympathetically than in non-white communities.) I think Bernie Sanders has made a strong case for government help aimed at the 99%. But I also think the Democratic Party deserves some credit -- Obamacare happened, and even though, yeah yeah yeah, it was a corporatist neoliberal pseudo-Republican fraud, it persuaded many Americans that health care should be available and affordable, and now even (some) Republican are forced to pay lip service to that idea. Score one for incrementalism.

Message to Democrats (and too-cool-for-the-Democratic-Party Sandersites): Stop fighting with one another and unite around an agenda of helping Americans. The agenda is likely to be Sandersite, but that shouldn't cause a conflict -- Hillary Clinton's platform was Sandersite. (Her problem with many Sanders voters was that they refused to believe she endorsed her own platform.) It won't happen, though -- some mainstream Democrats won't want to commit to every Sanders goal exactly the way he does, and so Democrats and Sandersites will, alas, keep fighting.

(Which leaves me wondering, after a French presidential election in which no establishment party made the final round: What happens in America if both parties are experiencing a crack-up, but the structure of our elections, unlike that of France, makes it next to impossible for any third party to win elections? Are we now going to alternate Republican presidents who can't get legislation passed even when their party controls Congress and Democratic presidents who have the same problem?)

Sunday, April 23, 2017


I Never Thought

I never thought I had
the ability
to not watch
what is unpleasant,

if it's about me. Or

But when I see it's
such false reporting
such bad reporting
false reporting

that I've developed
an ability
that I never
thought I had.

I don't watch things
that are unpleasant.
I just
don't watch them.

--Donald Trump, interview with AP's Julie Pace, full transcript published April 23, 2017


Liz Spayd, the public editor of The New York Times, is proud of the paper's outreach to Donald Trump's America, and she thinks you're a narrow-minded bubble-dweller if you have a problem with any aspect of it, regardless of the merits.
IN THE days following Donald Trump’s White House victory, The New York Times’s executive editor and its publisher signed an unusual joint letter to readers, promising in the wake of a startling election to report “without fear or favor, striving always to understand and reflect all political perspectives and life experiences in the stories that we bring to you.”

An admirable goal, considering the hermetic bubble that The Times and other news media are often accused of living in, one that blocked the sightline to a swelling despair in Middle America.

Now, as the 100-day mark of the Trump administration approaches, it’s time to ask: Is The Times following through on its promise to put an outstretched hand toward Red America? And, just as crucially, are readers ready for it?
She proudly cites a new podcast that "often features voices from the heartland," and a story about an Ohio farmer whose two children died after developing heroin habits.

Do Times readers have a problem with this? She says they do -- and as evidence she points to criticism of the paper's decision to hire Bret Stephens of The Wall Street Journal as an opinion writer:
At this particular moment in history, that doesn’t always go down easy. A day of reckoning along that path came earlier this month, when editorial page editor James Bennet did his part to broaden reader horizons by naming conservative Bret Stephens to the prestigious — and mostly liberal — roster of Times columnists.

Stephens’s coronation produced a fiery revolt among readers and left-leaning critics.
I'm not sure what the hiring of Stephens has to do with whether the Times audience appreciates stories about struggling heartlanders -- not only is Stephens a right-wing Trump critic, he has a biography that marks him as far more cosmopolitan and elitist than even many Times readers:
Stephens was born in New York City, ... the son of Xenia and Charles J. Stephens, a former vice president of General Products, a chemical company in Mexico.... He was raised in Mexico City.... In his adolescence, he attended boarding school at Middlesex School in Massachusetts. Stephens received an undergraduate degree in political philosophy from the University of Chicago before earning a master's degree in comparative politics ... at the London School of Economics.

Stephens began his career at The Wall Street Journal as an op-ed editor in New York. He later worked as an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal Europe, in Brussels....

In 2006, he took over the "Global View" column after George Melloan's retirement. In 2009, he was named deputy editorial page editor....

From 2002 to 2004, he was editor in chief of the Jerusalem Post.... Stephens was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum.... He is also a frequent contributor to Commentary magazine.
Salt of the earth, this guy.

Spayd is appalled at the narrow-mindedness of Stephens's critics:
They rummaged through his columns for proof that he is a climate change denier, a bigot or maybe a misogynist.
They rummaged! How dare they! What an appallingly narrow-minded thing to do -- judging an opinion writer on the opinions he's expressed!

Spayd wags her finger at Stephens's critics for several paragraphs. Then she writes:
After reading many of his past columns I, too, am wary about some of his more inflammatory language on climate change, Muslims, even campus rape. Are we to consider his more intemperate phrases “rhetorical flourishes,” or does he really mean them?
I'm reminded of the Monty Python sketch about the gangster siblings known as the Pirahna Brothers:
Interviewer: I've been told Dinsdale Piranha nailed your head to the floor.

Stig: No. Never. He was a smashing bloke. He used to buy his mother flowers and that. He was like a brother to me.

Interviewer: But the police have film of Dinsdale actually nailing your head to the floor.

Stig: (pause) Oh yeah, he did that....

Interviewer: I understand he also nailed your wife's head to a coffee table....

Stig: Well he did do that, yeah. He was a hard man. Vicious but fair.


Spayd also scolds the Times audience for failing to appreciate an interview with a Harlan County coal miner featured in one of the paper's podcasts:
Another flash point in this debate came after a recent episode of The Daily, the highly popular podcast anchored by Michael Barbaro, a former Times political writer. The subject of the podcast was climate change and the guest was Mark Gray, who spent 38 years of his life working in the coal mines of southern Kentucky.

Gray has black lung, and you can hear him struggling to breathe as he defends the Appalachian coal industry against what he sees as efforts by environmentalists to shut it down. As the conversation continues, Gray asks Barbaro whether he has ever stepped foot in a coal plant. Thinking about that question, Barbaro chokes with emotion, and listeners hear several seconds of silence before the host speaks again.

It was a powerful 12 minutes of audio, sentimental and empathetic toward a Trump voter to a degree one might not expect from The Times. Too sentimental for some listeners, who took after Barbaro on social media, on blogs and in my inbox.

Here’s one complaint from Drew Magratten of New York City: “Barbaro lets a coal miner spout assertions about the economics of the industry and regulations unchallenged. I can almost hear the NYT’s East Coast liberal guilt guiding the kid-glove treatment of a white, blue collar man who proudly voted for Trump.”
To Spayd, this segment is beyond criticism, and any complaints are clearly efforts to silence non-liberal views. But listen to the segment, which begins at 8:46 of the podcast. Magratten is absolutely correct: Barbaro does let Mark Gray, who mined coal for 38 years in Harlan County, Kentucky, make "assertions about the economics of the industry and regulations unchallenged." Here's Gray explaining thew decline of coal in Harlan County:
BARBARO: What was the big turning point where it all started to seem to go down?

GRAY: The big turning point was when the Obama administration put out regulations on coal. They just put restrictions on coal so hard that the companies couldn't mine it, and it was either shut down or go broke, you know?
Here are the facts about coal mining in Harlan County:
Demand dropped after the railroads stopped using coal to drive locomotives, and factories switched to oil and natural gas for their needs.

Production in Harlan County fell throughout the 1950s, hitting a near 50-year low in 1960 of 1.3 million tons...

Employment in Kentucky's underground mines fell 70 percent from 1950 to 1965; in Harlan County, mining employment dropped from 13,619 to 2,433 in that time....

A Middle Eastern oil embargo caused a spike in coal demand during the 1970s and 80s, and mining employment rose to 4,419 in 1981, the most recent employment peak.

There were 1,780 people employed in mining in the county in 2009....
So employment in the industry was 13% of what it was in 1950 the year Obama took office. He didn't cause coal's decline in Harlan County.

Barbaro does object that Obama's regulations were never even put into effect. But Gray is adamant: It's all the fault of Obama's EPA. And there the matter rests.

Later, Gray insists that the government uniquely targeted coal for regulation:
GRAY: How many cars have you got out on the United States right now? How many cars have you got out here that you're throwing out carbon dioxide and throwing out the stuff that people are saying that's so dangerous? They picked on one thing, specific thing -- that was coal. They picked on coal. They didn't go ahead and pick on the oil companies, saying, "Oh, look, do this, do that" for oil. They didn't do that. Coal.
Well, they did do that, with fuel efficiency standards and restrictions on oil drilling and pipelines. But Gray just gets to say this. Later he gets to say that, yes, coal absolutely can make a comeback -- as if mining coal makes him an expert on energy economics. Is Barbaro, or Spayd for that matter, an expert on media economics? Do we all automatically develop this sort of expertise just by being grunts in our industries?

Of course he's proud of the work he did. Of course he defends his way of life. Of course he has hope for a renewal of what he recalls as a better past (even if the industry he praises is literally killing him). But none of this gives him insights into the bigger picture -- the science of climate change, the economics and politcs of energy. So why do I have to applaud the Times for this story?

Saturday, April 22, 2017


This, from The New York Times, is no surprise:
As Mr. Trump’s White House advisers jostle for position, the president has turned to another group of advisers — from family, real estate, media, finance and politics, and all outside the White House gates — many of whom he consults at least once a week.

The media mogul Rupert Murdoch is on the phone every week, encouraging Mr. Trump when he’s low and arguing that he focus on the economy rather than detouring to other issues.... Sean Hannity tells the president that keeping promises on core Republican issues is crucial.
This raises a question: Why does Fox News have press credentials in official Washington?

Remember this, from last month?
On Monday morning, the Standing Committee of the Senate Press Gallery denied Breitbart’s request for permanent press credentials for Capitol Hill, stating that they needed “more answers” before considering the right-wing website’s request again. The committee discussed a request letter sent to them by Breitbart’s Larry Solov late Thursday that was said to show White House chief strategist Steve Bannon had severed ties from Breitbart as of November. Beyond the letter ... a committee member pointed out that beyond “us trusting Larry” there was no other evidence that Bannon had in fact completely cut himself off from the site he previously ran.... Other details and clarification the committee will seek from Breitbart ... [include] clarification on news reports that [Trump funder and transition team member] Rebekah Mercer is involved in Breitbart editorial decisions....
There were a couple of other reasons that Breitbart's permanent press credentials were denied, and temporary credentials were issued. Still -- it's a problem that the former head of Breitbart and its top funder are affiliated with the White House? So what about he boss at Fox and one of its top on-air hosts being unpaid advisers to the president of the United States?

Fox's alleged independence from the Republican Party has been a myth the political world has agreed to live by for years, even though the notion is preposterous. And now top people at Fox give regular advice to the president.

Fox is not a news organization. It's part of the GOP, and it should be treated that way.


As we all should have predicted, Milo Yiannopoulos's disappearance was brief and temporary -- he's got a comeback in the works:
Milo Yiannopoulos is plotting his comeback, allegedly to take place at UC Berkeley, whether university administrators like it or not.

"In light of recent controversies, I am planning a huge multiday event called Milo's Free Speech Week in Berkeley later this year. We will hold talks and rallies and throw massive parties, all in the name of free expression," Yiannopoulos said on his Facebook page Friday.

Yiannopoulos wouldn't say who is backing the effort, financially or otherwise....
This story is from The Hollywood Reporter, and I'm struck by the fact that the key question is "Which wingnut billionaire is bankrolling your comeback, Milo?" Of course, "Who's your sugar daddy?" is a key question throughout conservative politics. Are you a pet project of the Koch brothers? Of Sheldon Adelson? Of Robert and Rebekah Mercer? (Breitbart and the current president of the United States answer yes to that last one.)

All Yiannopoulos needs to stage a comeback is the Internet and an infusion of cash. That's the advantage he has over Bill O'Reilly. The Murdoch family wasn't O'Reilly's patron -- the Murdochs needed O'Reilly to continue generating a pile of advertising revenue, and now O'Reilly is an embarrasment because the Murdochs need to look like reasonably well-behaved corporate citizens if they want the British government to let them buy the portion of Sky TV that they doesn't already own.

A Net-based O'Reilly would have been impossible to uproot -- we'd have never been rid of him. So we'll probably never be rid of Yiannopoulos.

Friday, April 21, 2017


Charlie Pierce advances the radical notion that maybe Donald Trump is a good politician:
... one of the more interesting sidelights of what certainly will be a deluge of post-mortems regarding the 2016 presidential campaign is the widely held notion that Hillary Rodham Clinton was gifted with a uniquely easy opponent. This idea is central to the narrative that holds that HRC's campaign was a uniquely bad one, and she a uniquely bad candidate.

... The fact is that the current spate of Clinton-bashing completely ignores one undeniable fact: Donald Trump was a helluva candidate. In fact, for the cultural and political context within which that election took place, he might have been a perfect candidate.

... Trump took on a Republican field composed of what was alleged to be the best that party had to offer, the deepest part of its allegedly deep bench, and he utterly destroyed it....

That Trump never paid a price in the eyes of his voters for ... meretricious goonery is the best evidence there is that, in 2016, anyway, he was in every sense a formidable political force. And, let it not be forgotten that he brought with him a Republican Senate, a Republican House, and massive gains out in the states as well.
We're talking about this because of a new book, Shattered by Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes, which dissects the real and alleged failures of the Clinton campaign. From the left-center, Michiko Kakutani of The New York Times has given it a rave review; from further to the left, so has Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi. By contrast, Scott Lemieux puts it in the category of " 'random inside baseball campaign anecdotes that assume without argument that the degree of campaign infighting is the most important variable determining the outcome of elections' books," while The Washington Post's Steven Ginsburg questions the book's focus:
Does it really matter who was pissy at whom in Brooklyn when we still don’t know what role the Russians played in the election or why FBI Director James Comey publicly announced a reopening of the email investigation in late October? Those questions are largely left unexplored here, other than as targets of Clinton’s post-election ire.

Staying inside Clinton’s inner circle also keeps the story oddly away from Trump, who is absent from much of the book even though he was the dominant force throughout the election.
Clinton won the primaries despite competing against a much more natural politician with a compelling message, and she decisively won the general-election popular vote. But she's the failure, and maybe Trump is a genius.

Since we're judging Clinton, I want to post a brief insider-opinion clip from the past that was surfaced today as part of an unrelated argument. We all know what Attorney General Jeff Sessions said about the judge who blocked the Trump administration's second Muslim ban:
"I really am amazed that a judge sitting on an island in the Pacific can issue an order that stops the president of the United States from what appears to be clearly his statutory and constitutional power."
In response to that, Jim Newell posts this:

I want you to watch it not for its relevance to what Sessions said, but for its relevance to the question of campaign competence. Notice the date: August 10, 2008. You may recall that as a moment when Barack Obama was on a glide path to electoral victory. But here's what Cokie Roberts said as Obama vacationed in Hawaii, the state of his birth, jyst rior to the Democratic convention:
COKIE ROBERTS: He has certainly come nowhere near closing the deal, as we've talked about before. In this year that should be such a Democratic year given all the other indices, he is tied in the polls and stays tied in the polls. And going off this week to vacation in Hawaii does not make any sense whatsoever. I know his grandmother lives in Hawaii, and I know Hawaii is a state. But it has the look of him going off to some sort of foreign, exotic place. He should be in Myrtle Beache, you know, if he's going to take a vacation at this time. I just think, you know, this is not the time to do that.
Sure, this is ridiculous ("I know Hawaii is a state") -- but this is the thinking of the pundit/insider journalist class, the class to which Allen and Parnes belong, a class whose conclusions even the self-styled rebel Taibbi endorses. And this is the kind of thing that would have been said about Obama if he actually had lost in 2008. It would have been noted that Clinton defeated him in primaries all over the country -- in New York, California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Ohio. The rejection of the PUMAs would have been regarded as decisive. Or the Jeremiah Wright controversy. Or the "cling to guns and religion" controversy.

Instead, the reviews after the election said that Obama ran a "near-perfect campaign," or even a "perfect campaign." We don't know how the Obama campaign would have looked if, for instance, the financial implosion hadn't happened, or if John McCain had chosen a better VP candidate (although maybe the Palin pick was eight years ahead of its time).

All campaigns are flawed. The Clinton campaign might have been more flawed than most, but circumstances always make winners look like geniuses.

If you want my pet theory, it's simply that we elect the more charismatic, mediagenic candidate every four years, and we've done that in every election since at least 1976, if not earlier. (Johnson-Goldwater might be the last obvious exception to the rule.) I don't really agree with Charlie Pierce that Trump was a great candidate, but he was the more compelling one. And maybe that was enough. Maybe campaign savvy doesn't matter as much as we think.


I think The Atlantic's Michelle Cottle is almost serious about this:
Let the betting pools begin: What will be the next policy issue that Donald Trump suddenly discovers is way more complicated than “anyone” ever imagined?

... It’s hard not to be unnerved by the level of on-the-job training Trump requires.

... That said, what if some good could come from Trump’s cluelessness? What if, as he slammed head first into the real-world complexity of the problems he so blithely vowed to fix, he tried to bring his voters along with him in his education—at least part of the way?

... it’s precisely because of his anti-establishment, know-nothing persona that Trump may well be uniquely suited to the delivering such lessons of politics and government.

... With Trump’s Policy-for-Dummies speaking style, the difficulties of even eye-glazing issues could be laid out without voters’ feeling patronized. Better still, Trump would be delivering the tutorials as information that he himself had only recently learned. (“As my good friend President Xi shared with me just last week ...”) Everyone would be in more or less the same boat, so no one would need to feel belittled.

... he’s almost childlike in his delight at learning something new—even when it’s something most adults would be too embarrassed to admit they hadn’t long known.
It's true -- he's very open about the fact that he's just learned a fact he should have known well before he ran for president, and that can seem surprising given the rest of the rhetoric, which largely focuses on his own omnipotence.

But this wouldn't work. Cottle writes:
For Trump, sharing with voters a bit of the intricacies of governing would have the added benefit of making him look like less of a loser when some debate or issue doesn’t go his way. When Trump boasts that all it takes to solve Problem XYZ is instinct and toughness, he looks all the worse when negotiations break down or Congress gives him the finger or he has to do a policy 180. (Of course China is isn’t a currency manipulator!) But if he could unpack his discovery that the situation is, in fact, much more complicated, then maybe everyone’s understanding of government could improve.
But Trump will never concede that he failed because a problem his administration tried to solve was difficult. He still has a compelling emotional need to be perceived as all-powerful. So he'd much rather blame other people when he fails.

As for turning his presidency into a civics tutorial, that would require Trump to actually remember what he learned when he lived through all these learning experiences. Do you think he can still tell you anything Xi Jinping told him in that famous ten-minute tutorial about China and Korea? Apart from "It's complicated," do you think he recalled any of it even two hours later?

I think Trump unabashedly recounts obvious facts -- health insurance is complicated, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican -- not because he's humble enough to confess earlier ignorance, but because he thinks the facts are obscure bits of insider knowledge to which he, as the ultimate insider, now has access. He thinks recounting them shows he's smarter and savvier than the people he's talking to. I think he literally believes that the reporters in the press pool didn't know the obvious facts until he told them.

Cottle is imagining a peculiar version of Undercover Boss, in which Trump, as a former citizen (and thus technically a taxpaying boss of officeholders, assuming he paid any taxes), now gets the job of president and sees that it's harder than it looks. But I can't imagine this ending with hugging and learning. Trump isn't being humble when he tells us what, to us, is blindingly obvious. He thinks he's being superior.

Thursday, April 20, 2017


I wasn't going to write about Sarah Palin, Ted Nugent, and Kid Rock at the White House -- by now I'm bored with all of them -- but there was a lot of talk about the visit, so I think Trump gets to count it as a successful troll. He hasn't gotten any significant legislation passed in the first hundred days, but hey, he has this.

Now, whose idea do you suppose it was? My money's on this guy:

He made a documentary about her. She was reportedly his first pick for president. It must have been his idea.

Either this was planned before Bannon went into the doghouse or it's his way of trying to work himself back into Trump's good graces. I'm guessing he told Trump that the deplorables love Palin and Nugent and that CNN and The New York Times really, really hate them, but would feel compelled to cover them. And Trump went for it.

Of course, when the photos were being taken, Bannon was nowhere to be found, and Palin got her picture taken with Jared. That, I'm guessing, was Trump trolling Bannon. Can't be too nice to him, right? He's not even family.


You probably think the downfall of Bill O'Reilly was terrible for conservatism. Silly liberal! Breitbart's Joel Pollak wants you to know that this is just another lie from the lie-beral media:
Bill O’Reilly’s Secret: He Was a Centrist, Not a Conservative

The mainstream media are celebrating the ouster of Bill O’Reilly from Fox News, with CNN offering virtually wall-to-wall coverage. But they are overstating his political importance. MSNBC’s Chuck Todd called O’Reilly a “leader” in the conservative movement, which is more wishful thinking than reality.

In truth, the secret of O’Reilly’s success was that he was a centrist.
And we know this is true how exactly? Science!
Professor Tim Groseclose (formerly of UCLA, now of George Mason), who is the best authority on political leanings in the media, used data analysis in Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind in 2011 to show that not only were most media outlets left of center, but also that public opinion was further left than it would have been were it not for the media’s effect. On a scale of 0 to 100 — zero being most conservative, and 100 most liberal — the true center of the American public, absent media influence, was around 25, Groseclose argued. And O’Reilly, on the same objective scale, registered as exactly that: 25.
Except, um, O'Reilly wasn't measured on an "objective scale," as Groseclose admitted in his book:
The Political Quotient is a device that I construct to measure political views in a precise, objective, and quantitative way. A person’s PQ indicates the degree to which he is liberal. For instance, as I have calculated, the PQs of Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.) are approximately 100. Meanwhile the PQs of noted conservatives Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) are approximately 0.

Two other people whose PQs are approximately 25 are Bill O’Reilly and Dennis Miller.
And, in fact, when you get to the book's endnotes, Groseclose admits that he pulled this rating for O'Reilly (and Miller) completely out of his ass:

(Groseclose also gave a 25 rating to Ben Stein, who's so centrist he blames Charles Darwin for the Holocaust.)

Which is not to say that Groseclose does much better when he relies on hard numbers rather than"my estimate ... based on anecdotal research." He labels Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi as maximally liberal. In fact, in 2012, the last year when both were in the House, National Journal ranked Pelosi the 66th most liberal House member and Frank the 79th. This was based on 118 votes in the House. Perhaps surprisingly, 79 members of the House were more conservative than Bachmann; that ranking makes more sense when you see some of the names ahead of Bachmann -- Mike Pence, Steve King, Todd Akin, Devin Nunes, Trey Gowdy, Darrell Issa, and Joe "You Lie" Wilson.

I don't trust Groseclose's methodology in any case. As Paul Waldman explained when the book was published, Groseclose's method of ascertaining media bias is convoluted and preposterous:
... Groseclose and [co-author Jeffrey] Milyo attempted to "measure media bias by estimating ideological scores for several major media outlets" based on the frequency with which various think tanks and advocacy organizations were cited approvingly by the media and by members of Congress over a 10-year period. In order to assess media "bias," Groseclose and Milyo assembled the ideological scores given to members of Congress by the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action; examined the floor speeches of selected members to catalog which think tanks and policy organizations were cited by those members; used those citations as the basis for an ideological score assigned to each think tank (organizations cited by liberal members were scored as more liberal, whereas organizations cited by conservative members were scored as more conservative); then performed a content analysis of newspapers and TV programs to catalog which think tanks and policy organizations were quoted. If a news organization quoted a think tank mentioned by conservative members of Congress, then it was said to have a conservative "bias." ...

In other words, the study rests on a presumption that can only be described as bizarre: If a member of Congress cites a think tank approvingly, and if that think tank is also cited by a news organization, then the news organization has a "bias" making it an ideological mirror of the member of Congress who cited the think tank. This, as Groseclose and Milyo define it, is what constitutes "media bias."
If you can't wrap your head around that, just look at some of the results Groseclose and his partner arrived at for think tanks and other organizations:
* National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a 45.9, making it "conservative" -- but just barely.

* RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization (motto: "OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.") with strong ties to the Defense Department, scored a 60.4, making it a "liberal" group.

* Council on Foreign Relations, whose tagline is "A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis" (its current president is a former Bush administration official; its board includes prominent Democrats and Republicans from the foreign policy establishment) scored a 60.2, making it a "liberal" group.

* American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), bête noire of the right, scored a 49.8, putting it just on the "conservative" side of the ledger.
Their odd categorizations led to some startling conclusions, including the result stating that The Wall Street Journal has more "liberal bias" than any news outlet they surveyed.
In other words, Groseclose and Milyo are incompetent hacks.

Want to know whether O'Reilly was a conservative? Let's go to a 2012 Pew survey:
The regular audiences for Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly continue to be dominated by conservatives: About seven-in-ten or more of each of these audiences describe their political views as conservative, compared with 35% of the general public. And while Republicans comprise just 24% of the public, they make up half or more of the regular audiences of these three news outlets.

Conservatives, do us a favor: Don't attempt science. This is what happens.


The Washington Free Beacon reported this yesterday:
Socialist Venezuelan Leader Steps Up Arming of Supporters After Outlawing, Confiscating Civilian Guns

The socialist leader of Venezuela announced in a speech to regime loyalists his plan to arm hundreds of thousands of supporters after a years-long campaign to confiscate civilian-owned guns.

"A gun for every militiaman!" Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro said to uniformed militia members outside the presidential palace, Fox News reported on Tuesday. The Bolivarian militias, created by Maduro's predecessor Hugo Chavez, already number in the hundreds of thousands and are being used to supplement the regime's armed forces. Maduro is boosting the number of armed supporters in hopes of keeping control over the country from what he labels "imperialist aggression."

The arming of Maduro's supporters comes five years after Venezuela's socialist regime outlawed the commercial sale and civilian ownership of firearms. Only the military, police, and groups like security companies can buy guns and only directly from one state-run arms company under the law passed in 2012, according to the BBC. The country recently doubled down on its gun ban through a combination of gun buybacks and confiscations in the summer of 2016.
Breitbart adds:
The law has prevented most civilians from keeping firearms, though they are readily available on the black market....
Wait -- I'm confused. Venezuelan citizens had guns, but the arming of these citizens was curtailed by new laws, buybacks, and now confiscations? Isn't that the exact opposite of what's supposed to happen when citizens own guns?

I thought the point of private gun ownership was that when the government tried to take the guns, citizens would automatically rise up against jackbooted tyranny. You mean that doesn't inevitably happen? You mean gun ownership doesn't inevitably protect citizens' freedom? Are you saying that, in the real world -- as opposed to gun owners' fantasy world -- a government confronted with an armed population can simply disarm that population, using a combination of persuasion and state power? And then arm itself until it has unquestionably superior firepower?

American gun advocates have been lying to us all this time. Who'd have thought?

Wednesday, April 19, 2017


Hillary Clinton's not around anymore to act as an everyday punching bag, so how will New York Times politics writers stay in fighting trim? Well, it looks as if they're found someone new to pound on:

Bonus points for that swipe at Chelsea Clinton -- anyone know if Peters has harrumphed in response to the suggestions that Donald Trump Jr. might run for mayor or governor of New York, where his father is wildly unpopular? -- but the new target of choice, at least today, is Jon Ossoff.

Also see Peters's colleague Glenn Thrush:
On Wednesday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” New York Times White House Correspondent Glenn Thrush reported, “my inbox this morning’s been flooded by Democrats who are sort of saying Ossoff was a terrible candidate.”

... Thrush added, “[H]e was not electric. He was more static electric. But I think, in general, that is an issue. Look, the other thing is, look how deep the bench was down there. There were a lot of people who wanted that seat. I think the larger issue that we’re dealing with here right now, is the fact that the Democrats just don’t have a lot of candidates, not just in Georgia, but around the country in general. There’s not a lot of people to kind of catch this Trump wave.”
Here's a clue to which Democrats -- or "Democrats" -- are badmouthing Ossoff:

Times alum Frank Rich, now at New York magazine, also puts the boot in:
This little race was fun while it lasted, and may have been the most successful jobs program (albeit for journalists) of the Trump presidency. But even if Ossoff had actually won it’s hard to see how this contest was a bellwether for 2018 or much else. Georgia’s sixth district, we keep being reminded, is “ruby red” and hasn’t sent a Democrat to the House since the state’s native son Jimmy Carter was president. But it is also a wealthy suburban Atlanta district in which Trump beat Clinton by barely a single percentage point (as opposed to Mitt Romney crushing Obama by 23 points in 2012). With a war chest of $8.3 million and facing a divided field that included 11 Republicans, Ossoff performed a shade better than Clinton (who received 47 per cent of the vote to Trump’s 48) but couldn’t put it away.
So no Democrat has won a House seat there since the disco era -- but Ossoff should have won a majority yesterday, since Hillary Clinton almost won the district. In other words: Ossoff and everyone who thought he would win outright yesterday were naive to think that was a posibility, and Ossoff was inept because winning should have been a gimme. Makes perfect sense!

In fact, as we learn from Rich's New York magazine colleague Ed Kilgore -- a veteran of Georgia politics -- this was a big deal:
Jon Ossoff won a higher percentage of the vote than any Democratic congressional or presidential candidate in the sixth since it was established as a north Atlanta suburban district in 1992.

What makes that a bit hard to grasp is that the second highest percentage was posted just last year by Hillary Clinton, who won 46.8 percent. More typical were Barack Obama’s 38 percent in 2012 and 40 percent in 2008. The last Democratic presidential candidate to carry Georgia as a whole, Bill Clinton in 1992, won just 29 percent in the sixth that year. No Democratic congressional candidate has topped 40 percent of the vote in this district since 1996.
But what about all that money Democrats spent?
... pro-Republican outside groups running attack ads against Ossoff, and the Republican candidates themselves, enjoyed heavy financial backing as well.... Two national GOP groups (the NRCC and Paul Ryan’s leadership PAC) spent a combined $3.9 million going after Ossoff. Karen Handel received $700,000 in ad support from the Ricketts family’s Ending Spending PAC. The Club for Growth spent a half-million attacking her and backing its endorsed candidate Bob Gray. Fourth-place finisher Dan Moody spent about $2 million of his own money. The GOP claim that Ossoff was trying to “buy” the election on an uncontested wave of money is more than misleading: there’s been plenty of money to go around.
Also see "How Ryan's Super PAC Stopped an Ossoff Upset" by David Drucker, at the Washington Examiner.
"If we had waited another couple of weeks, it would have been too late," said Corry Bliss, executive director of Congressional Leadership Fund, in an interview in which he shared the super PAC's strategy.

... Ossoff, boosted by a combination of President Trump's middling approval ratings, the collapse of the GOP healthcare bill, and millions of dollars of in unchallenged advertising on local television, was at 42.4 percent "and gaining" momentum.

Bliss said that CLF would have preferred to husband its resources for what it presumes could be a tough midterm election, as is often the case for the party that holds the White House. Instead, the group budgeted more than $3 million, since spent, on advertising and field operations, for a rescue mission.
Jeremy Peters calls Ossoff "unelectable," but FiveThirtyEight's Harry Enten says the general election is a tossup. That's good. As Enten has noted, this isn't even a district where Democrats should be expected to win in a majority-shifting election cycle:
We know from past House elections that our best bet for measuring the political lean of a district is a weighted average of the last two presidential elections, with the most recent election weighted a bit more. By this weighted average, Georgia 6 is about 9.5 percentage points more Republican than the nation as a whole. (That is, if there were a tie in the national popular vote, a Republican would be expected to win Georgia 6 by 9.5 points.)

According to this measure, 47 Republican-held House seats are more Democratic-leaning than Georgia 6 is. Democrats need to pick up only 24 seats to win back the House, so even though this is the type of seat that Democrats probably want to be competitive in, taking Georgia 6 is not a necessity for taking back the House.
So stop sneering, current and former Times writers. Ossoff did fine. And even if he doesn't win in June, it's likely that Democrats in much more competitive districts will.

Meanwhile, if we want to find media voices critical of the GOP in this race, I guess we have to turn to ... Fox News. Here's Fox's Todd Starnes:
I’d like to know who in their right mind thought it was a good idea to run eleven Republicans in Georgia’s sixth congressional district race.

Instead of a decisive victory, Republican Karen Handel is now faced with a summer runoff against Democrat Jon Ossoff.

It’s as if Republican leadership fell out of the stupid tree and hit every branch on the way down.

When a political novice gets the most votes in a historically Republican district – there’s a big problem....

Does anyone at the RNC seem terribly concerned that Republicans are having a difficult time winning in Republican districts?
You don't get it, Todd. It was Democrats who screwed up in this race. Don't you read the liberal media?


Breitbart's Ian Mason tells us today that Sarah Palin believes Elizabeth Warren stole her intellectual property:
Exclusive–Sarah Palin Shreds Liz Warren for Ripping Off Her ‘Fight Like a Girl’ Quote

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) tweeted “fight like a girl” to her followers Tuesday. She later used the same phrase in an interview with National Public Radio promoting her new book.

The line may seem familiar. It was a popular catch-phrase of ... former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.... when Governor Palin learned of Warren cribbing her line, she told Breitbart News, “I don’t know. Coming from liberals who urge women to claim victimization, ‘Fight like a girl’ just doesn’t sound the same as when legit fighters for equality say it, mean it, live it, and will never give it up.”
The basis for Palin's claim? She used it in 2011, according to Mason:
In more than a mere tweet, the self-described “hockey mom” belted the phrase out in front of the Wisconsin State Capitol in Madison, Wisconsin after thousands of public sector union members threatened to shut the state down....

... Palin used “fight like a girl” in the “Tea Party Spring” of 2011....
Fox News Insider follows up with a post titled "Sarah Palin Calls Out Elizabeth Warren for Stealing Her 'Fight Like a Girl' Line."
Palin was quick to point out that if the "fight like a girl" line seems familiar, it's because she said it first.

The former governor of Alaska used the line during a speech in Madison, Wisconsin, in 2011.
Really? Palin was the first person ever to say "Fight like a girl"? In 2011?

I don't think so. Here's a 2008 book by Lisa Bevere called Fight Like a Girl: The Power of Being a Woman. Here's a 2007 book by Megan Seely called Fight Like a Girl: How to Be a Fearless Feminist. Here's another 2007 book by Lori Hartman Gervasi called Fight Like a Girl...and Win: Defense Decisions for Women.

There have been several songs called "Fight Like a Girl," but one -- by Bomshel -- was released in 2009, two years before Palin went to Wisconsin.

The Fight Like a Girl Club and Fight Like a Girl Foundation support cancer awareness. They trademarked "Fight Like a Girl" in 2007.

And according to a 2007 New York Times story, "Fight Like a Girl" was also the slogan of a Toronto pillow-fighting league:
''We're not being all fluffy with ribbons and nighties,'' Ms. Zachariah said. She added: ''A lot of these fights are really brutal. Fighters have gotten nosebleeds. Boozy Suzy wrenched her elbow, and she was out for two months.''
But the phrase has been used as a rallying cry since the last century. In the 1990s, a Winnipeg zine publisher named Stefanie Moore created a poster called "I Fight Like a Girl," which is still quoted:

Two issues of a comic by Winnipeg's Tamara Rae Biebrich, titled Fight Like a Girl and inspired by Moore, were published in 1997.

So unless you coined the phrase in 2011 and took it back to the twentieth century using a time machine, you have no claim on this phrase, Sarah. Stop pretending you do.


I should be writing about Bill O'Reilly or the Georgia special election, but I want to draw your attention to this New York Times story, which seems likely to get lost:
Since the United States dropped the “mother of all bombs” on an Islamic State cave complex in eastern Afghanistan on Thursday, American military officials have been circumspect about the bomb’s damage....

The reluctance of the United States to discuss casualties and other damage from the 22,000-pound bomb concerns local officials in Nangarhar Province....

“I and other people have this concern — that why American forces are not letting anyone visit the scene of the bombing?” said Zabihullah Zmarai, a member of the council in Nangarhar Province who held a post-bombing news conference to announce his support. “The U.S. authorities should provide an answer to this question.”
The estimated death toll was 96, but an Afghan security official "provided no proof of the deaths or information on how officials reached the number of 96," according to the Times. And "There are ... reports that the American military has kept even Afghan forces from the bombing site."

ISIS radio in the region, which was wiped out in a pre-Trump drone attack last year but was subsequently reconstituted, was not damaged by the MOAB:
The Islamic State’s local radio outlet, which was unaffected by the bombing, continues to broadcast into Jalalabad, the urban center in the east. It broadcasts half-hour programs during the day and an evening program that often lasts more than an hour.

As early as the day after the bombing, it broadcast a call-in program in which voices of men who claimed to be fighters in the area who were not affected by the powerful bomb could be heard between rhyming Islamic chants.

“The media was expecting that this bomb would have killed all the Islamic State fighters or forced them to flee, but that is not the case,” the program’s anchor said. “After the big bomb, our warrior, brave youth became a shield in front of them.”
And local Afghan forces aren't making any more progress in the fight against ISIS as a result of the MOAB:
Naser Kamawal, another Nangarhar provincial council member, said the bomb did not seem to have succeeded in its mission. Afghan forces had not advanced past the areas they had cleared repeatedly long before the bombing.

“Why the bomb with such a big destruction had such few casualties?” Mr. Kamawal said. “If there was some 90 Islamic State militants, then why were our own Afghan forces not able to eliminate them in a military operation — what was the need for using such a big bomb?”
Well, we know what "the need for using such a big bomb" was: It was a public relations stunt aimed at juicing Donald Trump's polls, and maybe it was a warning to Kim Jong-un. Only after that was it part of any overall war-fighting strategy in the war zone where it was dropped.

Maybe the MOAB wasn't a flop. But we just don't know.