ANGRY ABOUT YOUR SHITTY HEALTH INSURANCE? YOU'RE ON THE "FAR LEFT," ACCORDING TO "POPULIST" FOX NEWS

I'm not 100% certain that we know the motive for the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson. The obvious answer is that he was killed by a policyholder who was denied coverage, although it also seems possible that the shooting is connected to an insider trading investigation of Thompson and other executives. If so, evidence pointing to an angry customer might be deliberate misdirection, especially one of the melodramatic clues in the case -- shell casings found at the scene with the words "deny," "defend," and "depose" on them. (A 2010 book on the insurance industry is titled Delay, Deny, Defend: Why Insurance Companies Don't Pay Claims and What You Can Do About It.) The shooting seems to have been a more professional job than you'd expect from a customer at the end of his rope. Nevertheless, the obvious theory is probably correct.

I won't defend the shooting, but I understand it. I've felt for years that it might be impossible to use ordinary means to get out of the doom loop we're in -- Republicans massively redistribute money to the rich and the tax burden to the non-rich, while Democrats only tinker at the margins when they're in power, and so inequality never stops increasing. People have to run harder and harder just to stay in the same place, as healthcare, education, and housing become more and more expensive. To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, if changing this through non-violent means is impossible, efforts to change it through violent means might be inevitable.

I'm saying this from a left-liberal perspective, but I don't believe that the many people who are making snarky comments about the Thompson murder are leftists, liberals, or Democrats. I'm not sure the shooter will turn out to be a Democrat. Hey, haven't pundits been telling us for years that the Republican Party under Donald Trump is a populist, pro-working-class party that despises "elites"?

Funny thing, though -- the Trump GOP's ministry of information, otherwise known as Fox News, doesn't seem particularly sympathetic to Americans with porous health coverage. Here's the headline for Fox's story on the snark:

Culture of life? UnitedHealthcare CEO's murder mocked and celebrated by far-left

Yup -- if you were on social media and wrote (or liked) a comment such as “I would offer thoughts and prayers but I’m gonna need a prior authorization first,” you're part of the "far left."

More from the Fox story:

In one post, left-wing journalist Ken Klippenstein quipped that he hoped Thompson's ambulance ride "was in network."

... The comment section on MSNBC's post included "thoughts. But prayers require prior authorization first" and "my prayers are denied for now," was posted in the thread of The New York Times's post.

... "I think this encapsulates the far left's worldview: If you run a company that isn't to their liking, you deserve to die," Fox News contributor and columnist Joe Concha shared with Fox News Digital.

Given how fond the right is of the expression "liberalism is a mental illness," it's no surprise that Fox trots out a regular guest who's a shrink:

Manhattan-based psychotherapist Jonathan Alpert said the ghoulish reactions belied progressive values.

"For progressive movements that often advocate for compassion, equality, and justice, such reactions are particularly contradictory and counterproductive, but again, not surprising," he told Fox News Digital. "I saw a similar phenomenon following the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. Many clients expressed disappointment over the shooter not succeeding in his mission. It brings front and center the question: why is it that the party that supposedly is all about acceptance seems to be rejecting of people who might think differently than them?"

No one is feeling schadenfreude about this death because Thompson used to think differently from the rest of us. They're feeling schadenfreude because his company denied their medical claims. They're feeling schadenfreude because the decisions that made him wealthy hurt ordinary people.

But, of course, that's not the takeaway at the one news source trusted by dedicated voters for the party of the working class.

SHOULD NEW MEDIA OUTLETS DO THEIR OWN HEARTLAND SAFARIS?

In The New York Times yesterday, Thomas Edsall published a piece titled "Trump’s Project 2025 May Not Be What It Seemed. It’s Worse." Despite the headline, it's not really a detailed look at Project 2025 -- it's primarily an effort to imagine a Project 2025 target list:

In this struggle, who are the targets?

The list is long, often focusing on academia, especially on elite universities like Harvard, Yale and Stanford; fields such as sociology and psychology; sanctuary cities; the nonprofit sector, which employs 12.8 million people, with an annual payroll of $873.1 billion; the roughly 11 million unauthorized immigrants; the three major television networks that are not Fox; the top ranks of the Justice Department, the C.I.A. and the armed forces; the array of civil rights enforcement departments embedded throughout the public and private sectors; and the already faltering diversity, equity and inclusion nests in corporations across America.

This seems to be a list of all the groups we identify as liberal "elites." Apart from immigrants, there seem to be no ordinary people on this list. We're given an employment count for the non-profit sector, but that seems to Edsall's way of saying, Look at how vast the world of liberal elitism is. (In fact, most non-profit workers are employed in hospitals or have other healthcare jobs. They're not in liberal organizations that are trying to change the culture, as Edsall apparently wants you to believe.)

This is what we talk about when we talk about liberalism these days: People who've ascended to the commanding heights in government, in academia, in the media, in the non-profit sector, in the HR departments of private corporations. People with big brains and lots of degrees who tell everyone else what to do and how to talk. This is who we think voted for Democrats this year: elitists, and only elitists.

But that's not true. Nearly 75 million people voted for Kamala Harris. America simply doesn't have that many college professors, non-profit executives, and chief diversity officers. Not everyone who voted for Harris is a liberal, but there are clearly millions of ordinary liberals in America -- people who have no control over the culture, people who don't have mutiple degrees from the finest colleges, people who just want a tolerant, generous, decent country. They're teachers, librarians, blue-collar workers, baristas, retirees. They want a higher minimum wage, they want abortion to be legal, they want police brutality to end, they want medical bankruptcy to be a thing of the past, they want gay and trans people's rights to be respected, they want people of all ethnic backgrounds and belief systems to coexist peacefully, they want slavery and the civil rights era to be taught honestly in schools, they want libraries not to be targeted...

Yet they're invisible. They're invisible because commentators across the political spectrum believe that they don't exist, that all Democrats are elitist winners of the meritocracy's Hunger Games.

It would be pointless to wish that the mainstream media might start sending reporters out looking for these invisible liberals. That didn't happen after Donald Trump won in 2016 and it didn't happen after Republicans struggled in 2018, 2020, and 2022. After every election, the media safaris go only one way: toward the rural diners where Trumpers hang out.

There are new media outlets -- ProPublica, for instance, or Judd Legum's Popular Information -- but they concentrate on hard news that's being ignored by bigger news outlets. Right now, the lead story at ProPublica is "Missouri Voters Enshrined Abortion Rights. GOP Lawmakers Are Already Working to Roll Them Back." At Popular Information, the lead story is "North Carolina Supreme Court Candidate Seeks to Disqualify 60,000 voters — Including His Opponent's Parents." That's what these outlets do best. That's the best use of the scarce resources they have.

But I wish someone in the new media had enough resources to report the news that ordinary liberals exist. It's clearly not something our political culture understands, and that's distorting our understanding of America.

THERE ARE PEOPLE IN WASHINGTON WHO AREN'T OBEYING IN ADVANCE, BUT THEY DON'T SEEM TO BE DEMOCRATS

As we approach Inauguration Day, many Trump critics are quoting this passage from Timothy Snyder's On Tyranny:

Lesson 1: Do not obey in advance. Thread of lessons from my book #OnTyranny. Written in 2016.

[image or embed]

— Timothy Snyder (@timothysnyder.bsky.social) November 23, 2024 at 8:43 AM

There are people who Washington who are openly refusing to obey every command from Donald Trump in advance ... but they mostly seem to be Republicans. Here's a list of setbacks Trump has had since Election Day:

Over the last 24 hours, Donald Trump lost his pick to lead the Drug Enforcement Administration. His choice for Defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, is struggling to gain support from Senate Republicans....

And these shake-ups to his not-yet-formed administration come after former Rep. Matt Gaetz withdrew from consideration as Trump’s choice for attorney general.

You might have missed the DEA story:

On Tuesday, Chad Chronister, Trump’s choice for DEA administrator, abruptly withdrew from consideration just days after being announced, saying in a post on X he made the decision “as the gravity of this very important responsibility set in,” without citing a specific reason.

Chronister is the sheriff of Hillsborough County, Florida. Why did he withdraw? Because he offended right-wingers:

Opponents on the political right pointed to the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office’s arrest of Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne in March 2020 for holding a church service in violation of lockdown rules....

The Libertarian Party of Mississippi posted on X below the announcement of Mr. Chronister, “Trump’s nominee for DEA arrested a pastor for having the audacity to...checks notes...hold church service.”

Rep. Thomas Massie, Kentucky Republican, responded to the Mississippi Libertarian Party’s statement by saying Mr. Trump’s DEA pick should be excluded from being nominated to lead the DEA based on the arrest of the pastor.

“I’m going to call ’em like I see ’em. Trump’s nominee for head of DEA should be disqualified for ordering the arrest of a pastor who defied COVID lockdowns,” Mr. Massie wrote on X.

(Here's as reminder: There were more than a thousand COVID deaths in the U.S. every single day in April 2020. Public officials were right to try to limit public gatherings in March.)

As for Hegseth, some Republicans are making it clear that his nomination is in trouble:

As many as six Senate Republicans, perhaps more, are currently not comfortable supporting Hegseth's bid to lead the Pentagon as new revelations about his past continue to be made public, three Republican sources with direct knowledge of his nomination process said....

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, who is on the Armed Services Committee, would not commit to support Hegseth's nomination and said she planned to grill him about news accounts of allegations of alcohol abuse, mistreatment of woman and financial mismanagement....

After his first round of meetings on Capitol Hill last month, Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., the chair of the Armed Services Committee, said he expected Hegseth to be confirmed. On Tuesday, after a series of other reports about Hegseth’s past but before NBC News reported on allegations concerning drinking at Fox News, Wicker sounded more cautious.

“I think there are questions that some members have, and we’re going to be looking for an answer,” Wicker said....

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he is still open to supporting Hegseth and believes he deserves a fair vetting, but he said Tuesday that Hegseth must explain media reports about his past conduct in a way that would make senators comfortable voting to confirm him.

And prior to this, Trump dumped Matt Gaetz as his attorney general nominee when "between four and six" Republican senators made clear to him that they wouldn't vote for him. (Trump can afford to lose only three Republicans if every Democrat votes no.)

Republicans are letting it be known that they won't rubber-stamp every nominee. Democrats will presumably vote no as a bloc on the worst picks, but they're being very quiet about any objections. That seems to be by design.

Senate Democrats staged dramatic showdowns to protest nominations during President-elect Donald Trump’s first term in office. This time around, Democrats are shifting tactics, reluctant to pick endless battles with Trump Cabinet picks that are unlikely to succeed....

“The mood is slightly different than the last time and there is a sense that if you are freaking out about everything, it becomes really hard for people to sort out what is worth worrying about,” Sen. Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii, told CNN.

Is that your memory of how those confirmations went? I looked it up, and thirteen Democratric senators voted for a majority of Trump's initial Cabinet picks, as did Angus King, who caucuses with the Democrats. Schatz himself voted for 9 of them (out of 22).

Obviously, Democrats are in the minority and can't make or break a nominee. But they can say something. They can do what Mike Bloomberg did this week:

Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor, launched a lengthy broadside on Tuesday against Robert F. Kennedy Jr., using his opening remarks at a public health conference to warn that installing Mr. Kennedy as health secretary would be “beyond dangerous,” and tantamount to “medical malpractice on a mass scale.”

Mr. Bloomberg, speaking at the two-day Bloomberg American Health Summit in Washington, called on Senate Republicans to persuade President-elect Donald J. Trump to “rethink” his choice of Mr. Kennedy for health secretary. If Mr. Trump cannot be persuaded, he said, the Senate has “a duty to our whole country, but especially to our children,” to vote against confirming him.

Mr. Bloomberg also assailed Mr. Kennedy for discouraging measles vaccination during an outbreak in the island nation of Samoa, where 83 people died.

“Parents who have been swayed by vaccine skepticism love their children and want to protect them, and we need leaders who will help them do that,” he said, “not conspiracy theorists who will scare them into decisions that will put their children at risk of disease.”

By saying nothing, Democrats are reinforcing the notion that they have no moral authority and a political position becomes valid only when Republicans embrace it. (Democrats also reinforce this message every time they sing the praises of bipartisanship and tell us that Republican endorsements are proof that they're worthy of our votes.)

Democrats need to talk about the unfitness of Hegseth, Kennedy, and other Trump appointees. If they speak up in a compelling way, those of us who are dyed-in-the-wool Democrats will feel that they're fighting for us, while voters in the middle might start getting used to the idea that Democrats have valid opinions (and might get used to hearing Republican ideas rebutted). But elected Democrats seem to think voters won't like them unless they say as little as possible.

PARDON-GHAZI: BLAME "THE MOMMY PARTY" FOR THE FAILINGS OF DADDY

I'm thinking about two stories this morning -- and in some sense they're the same story.

One story is President Biden's pardon of his son Hunter, which continues to be the media's obsession. The other story is one that won't get the attention it deserves: Amanda Marcotte's report on Pete Hegseth's church. Marcotte reports that in the late 2010s, Hegseth

became deeply involved with the Association of Classical Christian Schools (ACCS), moving to Tennessee to enroll his children in a branch of this fundamentalist organization. He also joined the associated denomination, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches. Both are led by Doug Wilson, an untrained and self-proclaimed pastor who advocates for Christian nationalism and has become famous for his trollish promotion of his far-right political views.

But Wilson isn't just a wingnut Christian nationalist.

At the center of Wilson's philosophy is a misogyny so overt that it's sometimes hard to believe he's serious....

In one famous passage from his book on marriage, Wilson suggests that sexual violence is women's fault for not being submissive enough. "[T]he sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party," he writes. "A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts." The alleged failure of women to submit, he continues, leads men to "dream of being rapists," deprived of the "erotic necessity" found in women's submission....

Hegseth has blamed sexual assault in the military on "equality," claiming that the issue was "exacerbated" by letting women enlist in the first place. This aligns with CREC teachings that male sexuality is ravenous and the tendency to blame victims for "immodesty" when sexual violence happens.

Hegseth paid off a woman who once accused him of rape, and his own mother called him "an abuser of women," so it seems fitting that he chose a church whose leader believes that women are responsible for male sexual violence.

But in a non-sexual way, the mainstream reaction to President Biden's pardon of Hunter resembles Hegseth and Wilson's response to male sexual violence. Hegseth and Wilson believe it's unnatural to deny men's natural rampant sexuality. The political world believes that norm-breaking and corruption are essential elements of Donald Trump's nature, so when Trump corruptly gave pardons or clemency in his first term to Roger Stone, Steve Bannon, Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, Dinesh D'Souza, and Charles Kushner, among others, the executive actions were one-day stories at best. "Trump is just being Trump" is the political equivalent of "boys will be boys."

And just as Hegseth and Wilson blame women for male sexual violence, the political world is prepared to blame Biden for corrupt pardons in Trump's second term, even though Trump has been loudly telegraphing his intent to use the justice system in a corrupt way for years. In particular, Trump has talked about pardoning the January 6 insurrectionists since early 2022.

The Washington Post's editorial board writes:

To be clear: Mr. Biden had an unquestionable legal right to pardon his son Hunter. But in so doing on Sunday, he maligned the Justice Department and invited Mr. Trump to draw equivalence between the Hunter Biden pardon and any future moves Mr. Trump might take against the impartial administration of justice.

Outgoing Michigan senator Gary Peters, a Democrat, says:

This was an improper use of power, it erodes trust in our government, and it emboldens others to bend justice to suit their interests.

And:

"With this decision, Biden has now made it easier for Trump to abuse the clemency power again," Jeffrey Crouch, a legal expert from American University, told CBS.... "If presidents from both political parties feel free to abuse clemency without consequence, the pardon power becomes less a tool of grace and more of a political instrument."

Let me say it again: In a second term, Trump was always going to "feel free to abuse clemency without consequence." Jonathan Last is right:

Will pardoning Hunter “embolden” Trump to break more norms? LOL no.

Will pardoning Hunter make it “easier” for Trump’s defenders?

They are having an easy time already. They defend everything Trump says/does. Because Hunter was pardoned, they will include this in their daily litanies. Had Hunter not been pardoned, the litanies would include something else.

Back in 1991, Chris Matthews called the Democratic Party "the Mommy party," writing:

There’s an accepted division of chores in American politics. Republicans protect us with strong national defense; Democrats nourish us with Social Security and Medicare. Republicans worry about our business affairs; Democrats look after our health, nutrition and welfare. Republicans control the White House; Democrats provide a warm, caring presence on Capitol Hill.

The paradigm for this snug arrangement is familiar. It’s the traditional American family. “Daddy” locks the doors at night and brings home the bacon. “Mommy” worries when the kids are sick and makes sure each one gets treated fairly. This partition of authority and duty may seem an anachronism from the “Leave it to Beaver” era, but it’s an apt model for today’s political household.

Now Republicans win the male vote by double digits, while Democrats win the female vote. Republicans openly brag about their toxic masculinity -- they're the frat party, not the Daddy party.

We conclude that we can't expect them to go against their essential fratty nature, or hold them accountable if they do harm as a result. So we blame the female party for male failings, as nature and God apparently intended.

ON THE HUNTER BIDEN PARDON AND POLITICAL "PICK ME"S

On the subject of the Hunter Biden pardon, I don't think we should dismiss this theory:

After spending some time wondering what could have tipped the balance leading to the Hunter Biden pardon, I finally started to think that the fascists may have been planning to use Hunter as their first ginned-up treason charge followed by execution.

— Jim "Not a Football Presenter" White (@jimwhitegnv.bsky.social) December 2, 2024 at 8:04 AM

In June, just after Hunter Biden was convicted on felony gun charges, The New York Times noted this:

During the final 11 days of the 2020 campaign, Mr. Trump referred to Hunter Biden more than five dozen times at rallies, during interviews and in social media posts. Instead of focusing on an argument for why he deserved a second term, he repeatedly posted the question, “Where’s Hunter?”

“It’s treason, or whatever you want to call it,” Mr. Trump said on the last day of the 2020 race. “We caught the whole thing. The son — where’s Hunter? Where’s Hunter?”

The Times story pointed out that Trump expressed more sympathy for the president's son during the 2024 campaign (“I had a brother who suffered tremendously from alcoholism and alcohol...”). But the story also noted that this was pure cynicism on Trump's part:

In a meeting last year, Mr. Trump acknowledged privately to an associate that attacks against the president’s son had the potential to backfire politically, according to a person who attended the meeting who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private conversation. Mr. Trump said Republicans needed to be careful, the person said, “not to go overboard” on the Hunter Biden attacks, especially on the drug addiction issue, because it could elicit sympathy and make people view the president as a caring father.

The campaign is over, so that strategy is no longer relevant. And in any case, future FBI director Kash Patel hasn't mellowed on Hunter, even strategically. Patel clearly wants to bring new charges against Hunter. He mentions the Foreign Agents Registration Act in the clip below, but who knows what else he has in mind?

One year ago, Kash Patel, while sniffling repeatedly as he does in every interview (he just can’t shake that cold) promised to prosecute Hunter for new crimes. Then Trump names him FBI Director. He told you ahead of time he’s going after Hunter. So tired of the pearl clutchers.

[image or embed]

— Ron Filipkowski (@ronfilipkowski.bsky.social) December 2, 2024 at 12:26 PM

I won't be surprised if Trump, Patel, and Attorney General Pam Bondi try to bring President Biden up on treason charges, now that Hunter appears to be out of their reach. Right-wingers don't just believe that Hunter was trading on his family name for cash. They believe both Bidens were cashing in, and selling America out to China and Ukraine. The proof they've amassed is as nonexistent as the proof that Democrats rigged the 2020 election. But they might feel they're bulletproof now and can pursue any case they find emotionally satisfying.

I've seen condemnations of the pardon described as "pearl clutching," but what I'm seeing in those condemnations is a self-righteousness that's almost gleeful. I like this response to the increasingly insufferable Nate Silver, from a former legislative candidate in New York State:

Remember, kids: Democrats must meet a peak and unbreakable sense of morality.

Republicans don’t have to meet any of those standards. There are no consequences.

But if Democrats falter, even for a moment, they must pay the price. https://t.co/XEdfj08K7n

— Skyler Johnson (@SkylerforNY) December 2, 2024

I'm sure it will astonish you to know that Silver was much more tolerant of presidential pardons during the previous administration:

Really, Nate? Now this is a red line for you? https://t.co/dE1tUUoi0D pic.twitter.com/7LYxUuzjiw

— Skyler Johnson (@SkylerforNY) December 2, 2024

Nate Silver has no ties to the Democratic Party. I can't say the same for Colorado governor Jared Polis:

Trump pardoned Jared Kushner's dad while Jared worked in the White House, then yesterday appointed Jared's dad as an ambassador, but Polis didn't have the same energy for that. Pathetic stuff that I for one won't soon forget.

[image or embed]

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) December 1, 2024 at 8:52 PM

Polis was last seen saying nice things about the man who wants to Make Polio Great Again:

I’m excited by the news that the President-Elect will appoint @RobertKennedyJr to @HHSGov. He helped us defeat vaccine mandates in Colorado in 2019 and will help make America healthy again by shaking up HHS and FDA. I hope he leans into personal choice on vaccines rather than… pic.twitter.com/cILtTYplcn

— Jared Polis (@jaredpolis) November 14, 2024

The young have a name for people like Polis: he's a "pick me." It's a name that isn't political, and is sometimes regarded as offensive. Urban Dictionary says:

A pick me is a woman that is willing to do anything for male approval. She will embarrass or throw other women under the bus to achieve this goal.

That's Polis, except he's a Democrat willing to throw other Democrats under the bus for the approval of Republicans (and members of the media, and other self-hating Democrats). Nate Silver isn't a Democrat, but he built an audience full of Democrats when he was making his name as a politcal forecaster, and now he wants to be noticed every time he slags a Democrat. It's the surest path to widespread approval in the world of politics.

Our politcal culture thinks genuine Democrats are pathetic and disgusting. It's always polite to insult Democrats. Fox News will praise you. James Carville will praise you.

The only people who won't praise you are ordinary committed Democratic voters. Unfortunately, very people in the world of politics care what we think.

WHY PETE HEGSETH WILL SURVIVE THAT EMAIL FROM HIS MOTHER

This New York Times story was published a couple of days ago, and it already seems like old news:

The mother of Pete Hegseth, President-elect Donald J. Trump’s pick for secretary of defense, wrote him an email in 2018 saying he had routinely mistreated women for years and displayed a lack of character.

“On behalf of all the women (and I know it’s many) you have abused in some way, I say … get some help and take an honest look at yourself,” Penelope Hegseth wrote, stating that she still loved him.

She also wrote: “I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.”

When I read the story and the email, it seemed possible that Hegseth would quickly withdraw his name from consideration for the job. But he hasn't done that, and there are no signs that he might.

And between then and now -- remember, it's been only two days -- Trump has given us two utterly batshit appointments: Jared Kushner's felon father, Charles Kushner, as ambassador to France, and Kash Patel as a replacement for Christopher Wray at the FBI, even though Wray was a Trump appointee and his term has three years to go. Kushner's awfulness has been attested to by Chris Christie, who prosecuted him as a U.S. attorney:

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie said that “one of the most loathsome, disgusting crimes” he prosecuted more than a decade ago when he was a US attorney was committed by the father of President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and top adviser Jared Kushner....

Christie was referring to an elaborate revenge plot that the older Kushner hatched in 2003 in order to target his his brother-in-law, William Schulder, a former employee turned witness for federal prosecutors in their case against Kushner, who was under investigation at the time for making illegal campaign contributions.

As a part of the plot, Kushner hired a prostitute to lure Schulder into having sex in a Bridgewater, New Jersey, motel room as a hidden camera rolled. A tape of the encounter was then sent to Kushner’s sister and Schulder’s wife, Esther.

Ultimately, the intimidation stunt failed. The Schulders brought the video to prosecutors, who tracked down the call girl and threatened her with arrest. She promptly turned on Kushner.

In a plea deal negotiated by Christie, Kushner pleaded guilty to 16 counts of tax evasion, one count of retaliating against a federal witness – his brother-in-law – and another count of lying to the Federal Election Commission.

Trump pardoned Kushner in 2020.

Patel has made support for Trump his entire personality. He's written three children's books about Trump. He's made clear that he'll use the job to punish Trump's enemies, both within the Bureau and elsewhere in politics, law enforcement, and the media.

Presto! We've all forgotten about the Hegseth email. If it's brought up in his hearings, it'll seem like a tired old tale that's been litigated and forgotten.

The Times seems to have done the responsible thing with this story: it was apparently run as soon as it was ready. But if the parties were reversed and Fox News had a story like this on a Democratic appointee, I don't believe it would have run the piece on the Friday of a four-day holiday weekend. I think Fox would have saved the story until Monday morning.

I don't think the Times ran this story over a holiday weekend as a favor to Hegseth or the incoming Trump administration. The real favor would be not running the story at all. But the timing means the story will be lost.

Maybe this wouldn't be happening if some Democrats were making noise about the unfitness of Trump's worst picks -- Hegseth, Patel, Kushner, Robert Kennedy, Tulsi Gabbard. But they seem to be waiting until next year. It really might be too late then.

DEMOCRATS CAN PRAISE SETH MOULTON ALL THEY WANT -- THE RIGHT WILL STILL CALL THEM COMMIES

D.C. Democrats are largely maintaining radio silence about Donald Trump's incoming administration. But Republicans are still messaging. Take a look at the reaction to an innocuous story by The Hill's Amie Parnes: "Ranking the Democrats: Here’s Who the Party Could Nominate Next as President." Parnes's list of potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidates is, in order:

Kamala Harris
Gavin Newsom
Gretchen Whitmer
Josh Shapiro
Pete Buttigieg
JB Pritzker
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Boring, right? Not to the right-wing media. Right-wingers have seized on the list's seventh name and have synchronized their message to suggest to the Republican-base audience that DEMOCRATS WILL NOMINATE A COMMUNIST IN 2028!!!1!1!!!

And I mean literally a communist. Here was one reaction to this story on Fox:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) could prove to be a formidable candidate if she decides to run for president in 2028, according to Monica Crowley.

Crowley, who served as a top public affairs official in the Department of Treasury under former President Donald Trump, appeared on Fox News on Friday, where she was asked about AOC’s presidential prospects....

Crowley ... claimed that the 2024 election was a rejection of “communism” and “wokeness,” but that nevertheless, Republicans should not dismiss Ocasio-Cortez.

“However, just a word of warning to the Republicans, to my party,” she added. “Do not underestimate AOC. She’s young, she’s vibrant, she’s attractive. I think she’s wrong on everything, but she does have real grassroots support. And all of the energy and activism in the Democrat party remains with the revolutionary left, of which she is a part. So, every time the Republicans have underestimated the Democrats, we ended up with Bill Clinton, Barack Obama,

All of the energy and activism in the "Democrat Party" remains with the revolutionary left! Did you know that?

Pollster and fake Democrat Doug Schoen also appeared on Fox and weighed in:

A former adviser to President Bill Clinton, Doug Schoen, said it would be a “disaster” if Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) runs for president in 2028.

“I believe the Democratic Party needs to move to the center on cultural issues and on fiscal issues, and be more fiscally disciplined and AOC represents the opposite,” said Schoen, who is a Democratic pollster and strategist, during a Friday appearance on The Ingraham Angle.

He continued, “I think if she runs, it would be a disaster for the party....”

The Democrat Party is the party of AOC! The entire right-wing media delivered this message in perfect sync. RedState: "‘Lost and Rudderless’ Democrats See AOC as 2028 Presidential Contender." Daily Mail: "AOC for President in 2028? Furious Speculation Sweeps Social Media That the Squad Member Could Be Running." Gateway Pundit: "Socialist Starlet AOC Could Make a Run for President in 2028 Along with Other Radical Leftists." John Solomon's Just the News: "As Democrats Search for Next Leadership, AOC Put on Venerable Hill Newspaper's '28 Presidential List." Townhall: "Will AOC Run for President in 2028?" Breitbart: "The Hill Floats AOC as Potential 2028 Presidential Candidate."

I don't see this. I see far more top-level Democrats embracing the message of Seth Moulton's recent Washington Post op-ed, which is "tack to the center and sell trans people out."

Two days after Donald Trump’s victory, I gave an example of how Democrats spend too much time trying not to offend anyone, even on issues where most Americans feel the same way. Speaking as a dad, I said I didn’t like the idea of my two girls one day competing against biological boys on a playing field. My main point, though, is what I said next: “As a Democrat, I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.”

The blowback, which was swift, included the chair of a local Democratic committee calling me a Nazi “cooperator” and about 200 people gathering in front of my office to protest a sentence....

What has amazed me, though, is what’s happening behind the scenes. Countless Democrats have reached out, from across the party — to thank me. I’ve heard it again and again, from union leaders to colleagues in the House and Senate; from top people from the Obama, Biden and Harris teams to local Democrats stopping me on the street; from fellow dads to many in the LGBTQ+ community: “Thank you for saying that!”

Kamala Harris, of course, didn't stick up for trans people on the campaign trail this year, though pro-trans statements from her 2020 campaign were dredged up by Donald Trump's campaign. On immigration, Harris embraced a bill that was largely written by Republican hard-liners and repeatedly pledged to sign it if elected. Moulton pretends that never happened:

Two years ago, I asked a House colleague who wanted to lead our messaging strategy how we should address the southern border. “We should not talk about immigration!” I was told. Republicans are just “weaponizing” the issue, so, if we respond, we are “playing into their hands.” Another version: Trump is “just tapping into fear and resentment.”

But it turns out that voters knew better, and wanted answers. When 94 percent of Americans said they worried about the border crisis, Trump said he’d fix it.

But the coordinated "BEWARE THE RED MENACE!" message from the right-wing media makes clear that tacking to the right while selling out parts of the Democratic coalition is an exercise in futility. Republicans will still portray Democrats as left-wing extremists.

Most Democrats seem to believe that the party can't possibly out-message the GOP -- there's no Fox News on our side, and Democrats don't have a large enough network of partisan news sites or podcasts. If that's the case -- and it might be, although I think Democrats give up too easily -- then loud rejections of progressivism by Democrats like Moulton are utterly futile. Republicans will always be louder, and they'll always say that Democrats' real leaders are far to the left.

Kamala Harris raised a lot of small-donor cash this year. Maybe it's time to crowdsource the financing of a new Democratic media apparatus, if left-leaning billionaires won't do it. Meanwhile, the right-wing media and Seth Moulton seem to agree on one thing: Democrats are too far to the left. Seth Moulton may think that message helps Democrats, but it doesn't.