Sunday, December 23, 2018

The non-general in his labyrinth

Screenshot from Jim Henson's Labyrinth, 1986.

A lot of people roll their eyes when journalists like Haberman and Baker file another story about Trump's "increasing isolation"—how much more could it have increased since the last time they wrote it? Is it getting near bottom yet?
WASHINGTON — When President Trump grows frustrated with advisers during meetings, which is not an uncommon occurrence, he sits back in his chair, crosses his arms and scowls. Often he erupts. “Freaking idiots!” he calls his aides. Except he uses a more pungent word than “freaking.”
For two years, Mr. Trump has waged war against his own government, convinced that people around him are fools. Angry that they resist his wishes, uninterested in the details of their briefings, he becomes especially agitated when they tell him he does not have the power to do what he wants, which makes him suspicious that they are secretly undermining him.
Personally, I've long thought such stories were appropriate to the Trump administration, in the same way the protocol trivialities and sly portraiture of the memoirs of the Duc de Saint-Simon were appropriate to the reign of Louis XIV, because that's the kind of administration it is, based on the day-to-day lurches in the emperor's mood and how he bestows his favor. Yesterday he was praising the newly resigned General Mattis for his distinguished service, today somebody's explained to him what the resignation letter said and he's demanding Mattis leave by New Year, instead of sticking it out through February:

Understood that he wouldn't have worked through those long paragraphs himself—he's never in his life read enough to learn that you can learn things that way—and the staff was afraid to tell him, or grateful he didn't ask the right questions, so he got it from hate-watching CNN.

Something else he did this morning got me thinking in this context about "his generals", of whom Mattis is pretty much the last one (Keith Kellogg is still in the administration, but in a safe perch as Pence's national security adviser since April):

I would have been surprised if Trump knew what Obama had dumped him for, not that he'd have disapproved of it (he wasn't actually fired, but rotated a few months early out of the top spot in Central Command, in January 2013, because he was just this side of insubordinate on the subject of the administration's conclusion that Iran had no plans to produce a nuclear weapon), but I wasn't at all surprised that he'd remembered the Obama dustup; that's why Trump hired him, and Flynn, and tried to hire Keane (who turned him down but advised him to hire Mattis), because they had some reason to blame Obama for messing up their careers (whereas Kellogg, McMaster, and Kelly did not). Carly Fiorina had trotted them out in her campaign, December 2015, as an icon of Republican complaints about Obama's relations with the military, and Trump sort of took them up as she flamed out.

Flynn, as we know, acted on his resentment in a fairly spectacular way, attaching himself not only to the Trump campaign but also to the Russian and Turkish governments, which may have given Trump false expectations about what he could get out of a general if he squeezed hard enough; Mattis did not, and although I was not among those who rejoiced at his hiring—I'm against breaking the tradition of having the Pentagon run by a civilian, and I really dislike his views on Iran, and as Professor Cole points out he's got worse to answer for just in recent months—but he may have prevented a war or two by deliberately disobeying Trump, if the story in the Woodward book is true:
Woodward depicts an agitated Mattis explaining to Trump in a meeting that the United States maintains a military presence on the Korean peninsula to “prevent World War III” and later deriding the president as “a fifth or sixth grader.” Woodward also claims that when Trump called up Mattis and suggested the United States “fucking kill” Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for using chemical weapons against civilians in 2017, Mattis played along but then hung up the phone and told an aide, “We’re not going to do any of that,” and instead drew up plans for more limited air strikes that Trump ultimately authorized. 
Or worse:

So, thanks for your service, and Merry Christmas.

But Mattis's departure, and the end of "my generals", underlines the theme of Trump's isolation in a poignant way. These constituencies that thought there was something to support, or something to defend, are all falling away. With a 65% turnover rate, his shop is running out of institutional memory as his own individual memory seems to seep away, and he's especially feeling unloved, and under attack by his closest allies, taking compliments he feels should be reserved for him:
More recently, the president has told associates he feels “totally and completely abandoned,” as one put it, complaining that no one is on his side and that many around him have ulterior motives. That extends even to his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who was credited for helping push through the criminal justice bill, praise that Mr. Trump took note of.
Longtime associates said Mr. Trump’s relationship with his children has grown more removed and that he feels he does not have a friend in the White House. He disagrees with Mr. Kushner and Ivanka Trump much of the time, but cannot bring himself to tell them no, leaving that instead to Mr. Kelly, according to former aides. That made Mr. Kelly the heavy, they said, and therefore the target of their ire until he was finally forced out.
Baker and Haberman also find some sources to say things are going just fine,
“It’s absolutely fair to say that it’s better to have Nancy Pelosi as a foil than Paul Ryan as a foil,” said Marc Short, the president’s former legislative affairs director. “It’s better for the party and it’s better for unity.” He added, “The reality is the Democrats could overplay their hand.”... “When he’s talking about the economy, he’s gotten a much more positive reaction,” said David Winston, a Republican pollster.... Fred Fleitz, who worked for nearly six months this year as chief of staff for John R. Bolton, the current national security adviser, said the new team is more cohesive and better suited to Mr. Trump than one constantly undermining him.
(Fleitz has actually fled the White House, in the wake of the Trump mismanagement of the Khashoggi murder, and gone home to Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, but I'm glad he found something nice to say.)

But he really is significantly more isolated every time they write it, and the picture of a president going to work later every day, and keeping the TV on in the office so he can be watching Fox whenever an ongoing meeting gets boring or irritating, and seeing himself surrounded by enemies even inside the family, really is a picture of someone getting less and less capable of coping, and more and more alone. A non-general in his labyrinth. And it is getting near bottom, as failure succeeds failure.

Cross-posted at The Rectification of Names.

Saturday, December 22, 2018

BACK AFTER CHRISTMAS

I'll be away over Christmas. The usual gang will be here, however, so stop by. I'll be back on December 28. Thanks for reading my rants all year, and have a merry and a happy....

DONALD TRUMP: AN IDEOLOGICAL-BUBBLE GUY WHO THINKS HE'S A MASS-MARKET GUY


Yesterday, President Trump tweeted this:



It was a follow-up to an earlier attempt to sell the wall:



And there was also this:
... Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen ... speaking before the House Judiciary Committee on Thursday, responded to a question from Representative Tom Marino by saying, “From Congress I would ask for wall. We need wall.”

... Just last week, DHS was roundly mocked for a press release that used wall in a similar manner. When it was originally published on the department’s website, the release began, “DHS is committed to building wall and building wall quickly.”
It's regularly argued that the president doesn't even bother to do outreach to voters outside the Republican base -- I say that on a regular basis. But here are several attempts to try to persuade non-Republicans that we'd like the wall if we just gave it a chance. Maybe we don't like it because it's called "the wall" rather than just "wall." The policy isn't unpopular -- it's just badly branded!

And that must really upset Trump, because he's the King of Branding. (I don't think he has ever actually called himself that, though I'm sure if you asked, him he'd agree that he absolutely deserves the title.)

Trump's election seems to be what you get when we're all allegedly in separate political bubbles -- but he grew up in a mass-market era, and it seems as if he still believes he can persuade the masses that the wall is a swell idea. It may be that he usually doesn't do outreach to the rest of us because his constant diet of Fox News persuades him that he is reaching out to the masses -- in the America described by Fox, everyone thinks like him, except for a few crazy college professors, Hollywood celebrities, soy boys, and undocumented immigrants (who get to vote, of course, in blue states -- that's why he didn't win the popular vote despite how obviously beloved he is).

Trump has lousy poll numbers, but it's clear that he believes only in the relatively positive polls (nearly all from Rasmussen). He also obviously believes that the segment of America that disapproves of him only does so because "the fake news" has us deceived about his greatness. I'm sure he thinks the mainstream media is in the same business he's been in for years -- bending the truth in order to achieve a winning outcome. He believes that, to the MSM, a win equals the triumph of liberalism and the Democratic Party. He can't let the media outbrand him! He's Donald Trump! So he'll keep trying to sell the wall to us, and he's certain he'll find the magic marketing bullet that will make us want to buy it.

Friday, December 21, 2018

A REMINDER: CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS AREN'T AFRAID OF TRUMP -- THEY'RE AFRAID OF THEIR OWN VOTERS

Republican cowards are still cowardly:
New York Times reporter and CNN contributor Maggie Haberman appeared on New Day Friday morning and revealed insight into the current turmoil in Washington D.C.

... Haberman reported that there was waning support for Trump from the right, saying “A number of conservatives who worked on the campaign and supported the president and now say, you know, I regret doing that, and this was a mistake, this administration is, you know, off the rails, and all of these investigations that are coming to a head will be a huge problem.”

She adding that these conservatives “disgusted” with details that have emerged from the Michael Cohen plea deal. In her eyes, investigations into Trump’s campaign are ”going to intensify as we get into the year” before bringing up impeachment. “It takes 20 Republican senators to vote in favor of impeachment. This could be a critical moment.”
Axios's Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen make the same point:
Another reason this is a historic week — and what President Trump should really worry about — is that lots of different Republicans have been turning on him over different topics.

Why it matters: A former Trump aide who asked to be described as "a Trump ally" told Axios that the sudden wave of criticism from the Hill over Syria and Mattis should scare the president because he would desperately need these lawmakers' support during a possible impeachment battle.
However, VandeHei and Allen add:
We talked all day yesterday with Republican officials, operatives and advisers who are truly scared for America.

But it's telling that few have the courage to say it publicly.
If they're all still terrified to speak out in public, then there's no way twenty of them will vote to convict in the Senate after an impeachment in a few months' time. Unless, of course, the Republican voter base gives them permission.

It still isn't happening. This week's polls are no different from last week's. Trump job approval among Republicans in the latest Economist/YouGov poll is 86%. It's 83% in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll and 82% at Quinnipiac.

And the deplorables will probably rally around Trump once the government is shut down. There's still nothing that's likely to end this love affair.

So the fretful congressional Republicans have a choice: Risk your job or risk the safety and stability of the country. I know which choice I expect them to make.

OBAMA MADE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SAFE FOR ISOLATIONISM

President Trump is pulling U.S. troops out of Syria and Afghanistan, and while the moves led to the resignation of Trump's defense secretary and upset congressional Republicans, I'm not seeing the kind of alarm in right-wing media that we all saw when Trump temporarily gave up on the wall.

Fox & Friends found a double-amputee Afghanistan veteran to back Trump's Syria withdrawal:
A wounded Marine veteran is supporting President Trump's plan to withdraw U.S. forces from Syria despite harsh criticism from many Republicans.

... Marine Staff Sgt. Johnny "Joey" Jones (Ret.) -- who lost both of his legs and suffered other permanent injuries in an IED explosion in Afghanistan -- said Trump is making the right move and it's completely on-brand with his campaign messaging.
Breitbart used this juxtaposition of headline and photo to make clear what it thinks of Trump's detractors:



It's very strange to me. I'm old enough to have lived through Vietnam; then we all lived through a succession of Republican wars -- Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq again -- each of which was accompanied by a heavy-handed propaganda campaign to compel support. It's hard for me to believe that so much of the right is comfortable with not being the war party.

But the president seems to have found the sweet spot: have an enormous military, but never use it. (It's reminiscent of the way many gun owners in America amass huge arsenals of powerful weapons and then never use them except for target practice.)

But Democrats were caricatured on the right as the sandal-wearing, daisies-in-gun-barrels, peacenik appeasement party for so long -- what led to the change? The answer is the Obama presidency. Barack Obama retreated from George W. Bush's wars, but he never disengaged from the war on terror. Drone strikes! Bin Laden dead! Obama and his base boasting about bin Laden being dead!

If Democrats are for it, Republicans have to be against it. And so here we are.

Thursday, December 20, 2018

TOP RIGHT-WING BLOG COMPARES MICHELLE OBAMA TO A PROSTITUTE

Michelle Obama wore quite an outfit on Wednesday night in Brooklyn:
Michelle Obama literally dazzled at her Barclays Center appearance in Brooklyn, New York, on Wednesday night to promote her bestselling memoir, Becoming.

The former first lady, who spoke alongside moderator Sarah Jessica Parker, wore a gorgeous, bright yellow gown from Balenciaga’s spring/summer 2019 collection....

Obama’s silk dress featured large sleeves and a massive slit in the front, which showed off her showstopping, thigh-high boots. The $3,900 stilettos, also from Balenciaga, shimmered in metallic gold.



That's from a Huffington Post story titled "Michelle Obama Wore The Glittery, Thigh-High Balenciaga Boots Of Your Dreams." Other sites are equally impressed: Allure called the boots "show-stopping" and the outfit "stunning." Australia's Advertiser said that photos of the boots "might break the Internet."

This isn't really my area of expertise, but obviously a lot of people are impressed by what Michelle wore.

And then there's Cristina Laila of Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit, who concluded that the boots made Obama look like a sex worker.
OMG! Fashion Don’t: Michelle Obama Flaunts Thigh-High Sequin Streetwalker Boots on Book Tour

No. Just no.

... What a highly inappropriate pair of boots for a former First Lady.

POLL: Better First Lady – Melania Or Michelle? VOTE NOW!

If you are a working girl and are in the market for these boots, but you don’t have $4,000 to burn, you can go to UpscaleStripper.com for the cheap imitation.
What were we just hearing from the media critic at Fox News?



Look, I don't care that the current First Lady used to pose for nude photos. That's a work choice you should be entitled to. But don't lavish praise on Melania, as Gateway Pundit regularly does, and then say that Michelle Obama looks like a hooker.

THE NEXT LEADER OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY WILL PROBABLY BE A RIGHT-WING MEDIA HACK

In between horrible headlines for the president and the GOP, right-wing commentators this week have been discussing the question of what the post-Trump GOP will look like. On Monday, National Review's Jim Geraghty wrote:
... it’s fair to ask at this moment: Who’s equipped to hold the Trump coalition together? ... it is easy to picture some Trump supporters finding [Mike] Pence too nice, too vanilla, too establishment and too boring to truly continue “Trumpism” as a political agenda.

... Almost everyone leaves the cabinet on bad terms, plenty have left tainted by spending scandals, and some cabinet members became outright critics, like Rex Tillerson.

Most high-level Trump supporters who try to emulate the president fall flat on their face when they try to be a separate leader, like Steve Bannon....

There is no natural ideological successor....
Power Line's Paul Mirengoff responded on Monday by suggesting Senator Tom Cotton. Today, Townhall's Kurt Schlichter names, among others, Cotton, Nikki Haley, Ted Cruz, and eyepatch-wearing congressman-elect Dan Crenshaw -- though he finds some of them lacking (Cotton's a lousy speaker; Haley and Crenshaw might actually -- horrors! -- work with Democrats).

But the next Trump probably won't be part of the political system. If you're a politician, the difficulty in trying to be the spiritual leader of the Republican base is that, well, you're a politician -- you've probably lost a few votes, which means you've failed to induce liberal tears on a number of occasions. In fact, liberals may have induced your tears once or twice. You are held accountable because you've been in office and yet you've failed to crush liberalism and the Democratic Party into dust.

The people who don't have that problem are the bloviators of the right-wing media. They can't be blamed for the fact that liberalism still exists, because they're not in office. Unlike officeholders, they can go on the air every day, urge Republicans in D.C. to be unyielding purists, and never have to deal with the fact that this frequently doesn't work.

Earlier this week, President Trump seemed ready to sign a stopgap budget measure with no money for his precious wall -- and with good reason: The votes for the wall aren't there in the Senate, and if a stalemate and shutdown carry over into next month, the newly Democratic House will reject wall funding.

But right-wing media voices have said it's time for Trump to dig in his heels. The president was harangued yesterday morning on Fox & Friends. In the evening, the first ten minutes of Hannity were devoted to Trump's wall concession. Ann Coulter wrote a column titled "Gutless President in Wall-less Country." And now Trump is insisting on wall funding again. Rush Limbaugh says Trump "got word to me" personally that he won't back down now.

If this ends in disaster for Republicans, the bloviators will be fine -- it won't be their loss. And that's why the post-Trump leader of the GOP, or at least the first one to truly inspire the base, will be a media figure. Media figures never lose to the opposition. They never have to count votes. They just have to pretend that victory is always within reach if you eschew compromise while yelling "Wolverines!" and reciting speeches from Braveheart and Animal House.

Donald Trump was a part-time Fox bloviator before becoming president. The next truly inspiring figure in the GOP will probably be a full-timer.

SOME DANGEROUS IDEAS ARE INVISIBLE IN THE SAFE LITTLE WORLD OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

Over the weekend, readers of the print edition of the Sunday New York Times opened the Book Review and found Alice Walker recommending And the Truth Shall Set You Free, a book by David Icke. Some of us knew that Icke is a notorious crackpot who believes that "reptilian entities" run the world; others knew that Icke is a bone-deep anti-Semite. If there was any doubt about Icke's bigotry, Tablet's Yair Rosenberg subsequently laid it to rest; in a long piece, he quotes from several of Icke's works, including the one Walker recommended in the Times, and there's no disputing the anti-Semitism. Rosenberg also noted that Walker had recommended other anti-Semitic works by Icke on previous occasions.

Slate's Laura Miller writes:
Chances are, no one at the Review knew about Walker’s more dubious intellectual enthusiasms before deciding to interview her for the column, and once she’d sent back her response, no one bothered to Google the authors she recommended.
I think this is the problem. Walker wasn't exactly interviewed; she was given a standard set of questions for a regular Book Review feature called "By the Book"; she answered the questions, as is standard practice, via email, and the answers were presented unedited, apart from verification of book titles and authors' names (also standard practice). The editor of the Book Review, Pamela Paul, explains all this in a follow-up interview in the Times. Paul says she has no regrets about publishing the interview without edits or additional context. She also explains why Walker was interviewed:
Why did you choose Alice Walker for this column?

The editor of By the Book chose her because this column was for a thematic Book Review issue on poetry and politics. She is both a poet and someone known to be very political in her work.
And there's the problem: One political poet needed to be chosen, and the choice was Walker, even though she's been open about her profound admiration for anti-Semitic writer.



But Laura Miller is right -- Walker was probably chosen because no one at the Times knew this. The Icke recommendation probably went to press because no one there knew who Icke was.

I'm thinking back to the 1990s, when the right-wing book industry really took off. Bestseller lists, including the one in the Times, were regularly topped by crackpot works such as Gary Aldrich's Unlimited Access, which alleged that then-first lady Hillary Clinton decorated a White House Christmas tree with condoms and syringes. This was the when authors such as Ann Coulter rose to fame. Books were a favored delivery system for the most scurrilous right-wing propaganda.

But the Times and other elite publications rarely reviewed these books. I understand that -- who wants to give crazy ideas oxygen?. But that was a mistake. These books represented a way of thinking that took over conservatism and the Republican Party. At the time, conspiracies dominated right-wing talk about Bill and Hillary Clinton. A decade later, the phony Swift boat conspiracy took down John Kerry's presidential campaign. Conspiracies hounded the Obamas. And now a Republican conspiracy nut is president of the United States.

The Times and other elite media outlets didn't want to pay attention to the fringes then, and the Times doesn't seem to want even a passing familiarity with someone like Icke, even when a much-admired mainstream author embraces his ideas. But being too prim and proper to acknowledge the persistence of unsavory fringe ideas already burned us once. The mainstream media needs to pay more attention to the fringe, because it's impossible to say what ideas won't, in a generation, be fringe ideas anymore.

Wednesday, December 19, 2018

YUP, IT'S A CULT

This makes no sense:
The South Carolina Republican Party could cancel its marquee presidential nominating contest in 2020 in a move to protect President Trump from any primary challengers.

Drew McKissick, chairman of the South Carolina GOP, said he doesn’t anticipate Trump would face a primary challenge and emphasized that the state party executive committee hasn’t held any formal discussions about the contest, dubbed “first in the South” and usually third on the presidential nominating calendar. But McKissick would pointedly not rule out canceling the primary, indicating that that would be his preference....

Trump’s Republican allies in the state, including Gov. Henry McMaster, aren’t likely to complain.

“Pigs will fly before the South Carolina GOP allows Trump to have opposition,” said Matt Moore, McKissick’s predecessor as chairman of the state party.
The quoted story points out that South Carolina canceled the primary in 2004, but in '04 the incumbent president, George W. Bush, had only token opposition throughout primary season, including such political heavyweights as the guy who played the title character in the 1971 cult film Billy Jack. That doesn't seem comparable to canceling the primary to prevent Trump from facing a challenger. The story notes that the Iowa GOP caucuses in 1992 didn't have a presidential ballot, at a time when the incumbent president, George H.W. Bush, was facing a primary challenger, Pat Buchanan -- and we know how that turned out. Buchanan did quite well against Bush in the next contest, the New Hampshire primary, and Bush went on to lose in November.

If you have an incumbent who looks beatable, why would you want to proclaim to the world that he's too weak to survive a challenge without embarrassment? The result would be like a primary version of the Streisand effect -- the message you're trying to suppress would be magnified. It's hard right now to imagine Trump ever losing favor among Republican voters -- in South Carolina, GOP voters now give him an 83% approval rating -- but if things have changed by 2020 and GOP voters are genuinely disillusioned by Trump, why not give them a chance to vote for someone who might have a better chance of winning a general election?

If Trump is weakened, you won't be able to hide the fact -- there are 49 other states, after all. This just seems like an effort to protect Trump's precious ego, at the possible expense of the party's chances in 2020. Not that we should complain.

BACKLASH POLLING AT NPR

NPR commissions a poll and gets a result centrist journalists dream of: an admonition to Democrats that they're going too far.
Heading into the 2020 Democratic primaries, a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll has a warning for Democrats: Americans are largely against the country becoming more politically correct.

Fifty-two percent of Americans, including a majority of independents, said they are against the country becoming more politically correct and are upset that there are too many things people can't say anymore. Only about a third said they are in favor of the country becoming more politically correct and like when people are being more sensitive in their comments about others.

That's a big warning sign for Democrats heading into the 2020 primaries when cultural sensitivity has become such a defining issue with the progressive base.
Let's stop right there. First of all, the question is poorly worded:
In general, are you in favor of the United States becoming more politically correct and like when people are being more sensitive in their comments about others or are you against the country becoming more politically correct and upset that there are too many things people can't say anymore?
I had to read that three times before I realized how the word "like" was being used. Structurally, it's "are you [a] in favor of the United States becoming more politically correct and [b] like when people are being more sensitive in their comments about others" -- but "like" doesn't work with "are you," so "like" should be "pleased" or a similar adjective. Marist, hire some copy editors.

But the real problem is this.



"Politically correct" is like "feminist" or, until recently, "liberal" -- so many people use these terms in a pejorative fashion that there's reluctance to claim the labels, even among people they'd seem to describe. However, "feminist" and "liberal" are words seen positively in some circles, whereas no one uses "politically correct" in a non-pejorative way.

And yet there are subgroups that broke with the majority. Surprise: Some of them are female.
There's ... a big gender divide by place and education. Women who live in small cities or the suburbs say people need to be more sensitive by a 52-to-37-percent margin. But just a quarter of men who live in the same place say so (27 to 57 percent), making for what have to be some very divided dinner tables.

White women with college degrees are split, but slightly more of them than not say people should be sensitive by a 46-to-43 percent margin. Nearly two-thirds of white men with college degrees, however, say the country is becoming too politically correct. (Roughly the same percentage of white men without a college degree feel the same way.)

What's more, Americans are split 47-to-47 on whether they feel they can speak their minds more freely compared to a few years ago.... Those same suburban/small city kitchen tables are split — with a 27-point gender gap on this question in those places. (Men in those areas are 20 points more likely to say they feel censored, while women there are 7 points more likely to say the opposite.)

About half of Republican men (52 percent) and Republican women (55 percent) say they feel they cannot speak their minds as freely as a few years ago, but so do Democratic men (50 percent). Among, Democratic women, though, 51 percent say they can speak their minds more freely now.
Why, If I didn't know better, I'd imagine that the war against "political correctness" was a war defending men's right to be colossal dicks.

I'm reading this as we learn that a news executive who left NPR after a #MeToo scandal has teamed up with two former Fox News execs, one dismissed after a racist op-ed, to create a new news platform:
One was ousted from NPR amid allegations of sexual harassment. The other left Fox News shortly after writing a column widely panned as racist and anti-gay. Now they’ve been recruited to help launch a digital news startup with the stated goal of restoring faith in media.

Another former Fox News executive, Ken LaCorte, has enlisted former NPR news boss Michael Oreskes and former Fox News executive editor John Moody to join him in creating LaCorte News, which he said will be a truly “fair and balanced” alternative in these polarized times....

LaCorte said he’s not worried about Oreskes or Moody’s histories, arguing that some men have been dispatched from their jobs too quickly and easily in the #MeToo era....

When [Oreskes] left NPR in November 2017 amid allegations of inappropriate advances and sexual comments over decades, he said in a statement that his behavior was “wrong and inexcusable.” LaCorte said he did not think the allegations — which included an NPR employee reporting as recently as 2016 that Oreskes invited her to his beach cottage for career counseling — were substantial.

Moody declined to discuss the February column in which he said the U.S. Olympic team should take as its motto “darker, gayer, different.” Fox pulled the column after its initial posting....
(The Moody column has been preserved here, if you want to read it.)

Hey, just say that these guys were victims of "political correctness" and everything will probably be fine as far as most of America is concerned, or at least non-educated-female America -- and also non-white America and under-30 America, according to that NPR poll. But you'll probably need all those groups to make your news site successful.

Too many people in the mainstream press -- and too many men in general -- want all the genies back in the bottle, particularly #MeToo and diversity, especially diversity in politics. How does this affect Democratic politics? Well, no one actually campaigns in favor of "political correctness," but many Democrats campaign on being decent to people across the spectrum. Try polling decency next time, NPR.

Tuesday, December 18, 2018

TRUMP CAN SURVIVE MULTIPLE INVESTIGATIONS MORE EASILY THAN HE CAN SURVIVE NO WALL

This was the headline at Breitbart an hour ago:



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

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

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

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

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

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

****

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

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

****

Is he King now?

****

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

****

He is officially a one term president.

****

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

****

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

****

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

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

****

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

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

TO REPUBLICANS, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS THE PUBLIC INTEREST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monday, December 17, 2018

REMEMBER, THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BRAGGED IN 2016 ABOUT TRYING TO SUPPRESS THE BLACK VOTE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DID ANTI-GERRYMANDER NEW JERSEY DEMOCRATS JUST MAKE REPUBLICAN GERRYMANDERS MORE LIKELY?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sunday, December 16, 2018

IF YOU'RE NOT A LOYAL REPUBLICAN, ARE YOU ALLOWED TO BE AN AMERICAN?

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



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

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

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

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

JUST A REMINDER OF WHO LED THE POLLING A YEAR BEFORE THE LAST IOWA CAUCUSES

Charlie Pierce has a point:



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



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

Saturday, December 15, 2018

DOES BETO 2020 EQUAL MORE VOTES FOR JILL STEIN?

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Friday, December 14, 2018

THE OUTRAGE METER MIGHT BE ABOUT TO MOVE, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE THERE YET

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I GUESS RUDY NO LONGER BELIEVES IN "BROKEN WINDOWS"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, December 13, 2018

HERE COME THE CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD EMOTION TRUTHERS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



... and her Sports Illustrated video:



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

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

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

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