Tuesday, May 21, 2019

WHY NO ONE ASKS REPUBLICANS TO DO OUTREACH

Paul Waldman is right:
We may discuss the demographic challenges the GOP faces as the party of white people in an increasingly diverse America, and what effect it might have on the next election.

But what mainstream journalists and commentators almost never do is suggest that Republicans have a moral obligation to reach out to liberals, to assure them that the party understands them, cares about them and wants what’s best for them.

We talk about Democrats that way all the time. Reaching out to those “heartland” voters, those salt-of-the-earth Middle Americans, those working-class whites — in short, anyone who hasn’t voted for Democrats in a while — is framed as both strategically vital and just the right thing to do.

... when was the last time you heard a sage pundit opine that Trump is making a terrible mistake by not speaking more directly to the needs and desires of African American women or people who live in large cities or college students or any other group whose members are more likely to vote for Democrats?

You’ve never heard it. Yet it’s a lecture given constantly to Democratic politicians and the voters who support them.
Why the double standard? Waldman has some thoughts:
One explanation: Republicans don’t even bother to pretend that they care about the votes of liberal Americans, or even about their fate. Democrats try to get health insurance for people in red states and write environmental plans that include help for coal communities, but Republicans don’t ask how their policy choices might hurt people who don’t vote for them — unless it’s to figure out how they screw those voters even more. They don’t try to show “respect” for liberals, and they don’t publicly agonize about their inability to “connect” with them.

After a while, it stops even occurring to people in the media to ask whether Republicans need to do more “reaching out,” and they don’t chastise those Republicans for not doing it. Democrats, on the other hand, act like they have a responsibility to represent all Americans, so they're constantly told that they're falling short in fulfilling that responsibility.
What he says is correct -- but it's not the reason Republicans aren't told to do outreach. They aren't because they've been "working the refs" for decades, persuading mainstream journalists that they have a liberal bias simply because they're not ordinary heartlanders. They've sold the members of the mainstream press on the notion that they're not real Americans -- and that the liberal or non-white or coastal citizens in their audience aren't real Americans either.

Journalists have, to a large extent, internalized that worldview. They don't expect Republicans to reach out to people like us because they believe that we're not Americans -- and that they themselves aren't, either.

It's induced self-hate. And it's working.

COULD SMART POLLING CHALLENGE BIDEN'S INEVITABILITY?

I think Michelle Goldberg is right to be concerned about this:
What worries me about Biden — above and beyond policy disagreements — is that, in contemporary politics, the quest to find an electable candidate hasn’t resulted in candidates that actually win....

“My heart still belongs to Howard Dean because of his passion, but my head says Kerry is the one who can get elected,” a voter told The New York Times in 2004....

Four years later ... Republicans ... went with John McCain, who’d often infuriated the party’s base, but whose campaign emphasized his general election viability. A poll in January 2008 showed that he was seen as the most electable of the Republican candidates, and one of his advertisements claimed that he could “rally the conservative Reagan coalition while appealing to independent voters to win in November.” ...

“The only reason I’m supporting Romney is because he can win the election,” a conservative voter in Iowa told The Washington Post in 2011.
None of those candidates really were electable. Barack Obama didn't seem electable, but he was. The same was true for Donald Trump.

Democratic voters think Joe Biden is the most electable. But is he? Do they really like him? If he's not the candidate they really want, will he inspire enough enthusiasm to win?
On Saturday afternoon, at Joe Biden’s official campaign kickoff rally in Philadelphia, I asked every attendee I met why they were supporting, or at least considering supporting, the former vice president. Often, they mentioned other people whom they thought Biden might appeal to. Again and again, they said they cared about beating Donald Trump above all else.

“On my list of 10 things, 1 to 10 is beat Donald,” said Shyvette Brown, 63. “Health care is 11. And everything else comes after that.” Brown said that she likes Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, but 2016 made her think that Americans aren’t ready to elect a woman. “I don’t like it,” she said. “I don’t think it’s fair.” But given the stakes, she wants the surest possible bet. “We can’t play. This is all or nothing. This is the end game right here.” ...

“There’s two parts of me,” said Shelby Ferguson, a 22-year-old who just graduated from Temple University. “The political science major part of me that is trying to be as rational as possible,” and figure out who can rally Middle America to beat Trump, she said. “That part of me is saying Joe.” But she’s also someone who just left school and is worried about student loans and health care, and that side of her thrills to Warren and Bernie Sanders.
Is it possible to poll this phenomenon? After asking Democrats which candidate they'd vote for, could a pollster please ask them who their favorite candidate is? Or find some other way to determine their preferences if they weren't trying to second-guess everyone else?

Is there unacknowledged support for Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders? For Kamala Harris or Cory Booker? Is support for Biden passionate or pragmatic? Can't we find answers to these questions?

It might not matter -- the debates are coming up, then voter interest will increase as the first contests approach. Someone new might break through.

But it would be nice to challenge the narrative that Biden has this in the bag, because the longer we say that, the truer it'll be. That's a problem if he's not really the most electable.

THE MEDIA CAN'T CONTAIN ITS ADMIRATION FOR TRUMP'S TRASH TALK

Margaret Sullivan, the former public editor of The New York Times who's now a media analyst at The Washington Post, wrote this last week:
Trump won’t stop coining nasty nicknames for his foes — but the media must stop amplifying them.

... Journalists may not be able to ignore these nicknames altogether, but they should stop doing Trump’s dirty work for him: amplifying their power through prominent placement and frequent, unquestioning repetition.

... Cover them as part of a story? Examine and analyze them? Sure.

But don’t constantly repeat them, don’t treat them as “all in good fun.”

And don’t give them prominence without context.
Sullivan's criticism is limited to the media's coverage of Trump's schoolyard-bully nicknames. But what about his other forms of trash talk? Shouldn't the press think twice about amplifying those?

And while Sullivan believes it's fine to cover Trump's nicknames if your aim is to "analyze them," what if you're "analyzing" Trump's insult comedy and the conclusion you reach is "Trump is really awesome at this"? That's what happened yesterday in the Post, in a piece by Ashley Parker and Robert Costa:
The narrator in chief: Trump opines on the 2020 Democrats — and so much more

President Trump assessed the 2020 Democratic primary field in the unvarnished style of a cable news pundit — or as a brash sports radio host belittling the opposing team’s roster.

He dismissed former Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke as “made to fall like a rock,” asking: “What the hell happened?”

He reduced Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) to an offensive nickname and a single sentence: “Pocahontas, I think, is probably out.”

And he opined on the relative merits of former vice president Joe Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.): “Bernie’s crazy, but Bernie’s got a lot more energy than Biden, so you never know.”

... Trump’s handicapping of the Democratic presidential race is one part of his much broader role as the country’s de facto narrator in chief — inserting himself into nearly every major cultural moment or controversy, and putting his own commentary and jeers at the center of the conversation.

... Trump’s desire to capture the nation’s collective attention can make him seem inescapable — a cascade of alerts on a phone, the all-caps headline on cable news, and the unavoidable presence at work and family gatherings alike. Voters may love him, they may hate him, they may even mute him — but he never disappears.

... Nonstop, bite-size news cycles, along with social media platforms like Twitter, allow Trump to dominate the nation’s discourse in a way that his predecessors could not.
And at Sullivan's old paper, there was Peter Baker, writing this:
... President Trump has grown increasingly willing in recent months to say in public what most of his predecessors tried to keep behind closed doors.

His is the profanity presidency, full of four-letter denunciations of his enemies and earthy dismissals of allegations lodged against him. At rallies and in interviews, on Twitter and in formal speeches, he relishes the bad-boy language of a shock jock, just one more way of gleefully provoking the political establishment bothered by his norm-shattering ways.
This story, from Glenn Thrush of the Times, at least puts Trump's trash talk in the context of a partywide campaign of ostracism:
President Trump attacked Representative Justin Amash as a “total lightweight” and “loser” on Sunday, a day after the Michigan Republican said Mr. Trump’s behavior as president had reached the “threshold for impeachment.”

The president’s attacks reinforced Mr. Amash’s isolation within his party, as even the Republican lawmakers who might be most sympathetic to his position avoided stepping forward to join him....

“Never a fan of @justinamash, a total lightweight who opposes me and some of our great Republican ideas and policies just for the sake of getting his name out there through controversy,” Mr. Trump wrote in a midmorning Twitter riff that included, among other things, criticism of the “Fake News Sunday Political Shows” and boasts about his judicial appointments and health care policies.

“Justin is a loser who sadly plays right into our opponents hands!” he added.
We're told about a primary challenge to Amash and a statement of denunciation from Ronna Romney McDaniel, head of the Republican National Committee. We're also told that Ronna's uncle Mitt has distanced himself from Amash's talk of impeachment, and that no other congressional Republican has endorsed Amash's comments.

But in that case, why is the headline "Trump Calls Representative Justin Amash a ‘Loser’ Over Impeachment Talk"? Amash is being shunned by most of the Republican Party -- but the press regards Trump's insults as uniquely powerful, so they're the focus.

Sullivan wrote about media coverage of Trump's nicknames. Unfortunately, the problem is much bigger than that -- and it's not getting better.

Monday, May 20, 2019

A JUSTIN AMASH THIRD-PARTY RUN WON'T DEFEAT TRUMP

After reading the Mueller report, Congressman Justin Amash of Michigan declared that President Trump has committed impeachable offenses. Naturally, he's now persona non grata in his party:
A Republican state representative plans to challenge U.S. Rep. Justin Amash....

State Rep. Jim Lower, R-Greenville, announced this morning that he would run for the 3rd Congressional District seat Amash has held since 2011 and would forgo a race for a third term in the state House....

Amash became the first Republican to voice support for impeachment. Trump attacked Amash on Sunday on Twitter, calling him a "loser" and saying Amash only made the remarks to get attention....

Lower described himself as "pro-Trump" in making his announcement.
Jonathan Chait believes that Amash could end Trump's presidency:
... Amash is contemplating a presidential candidacy with the Libertarian Party. “I would never rule anything out,” he said in March. A real right-wing third-party challenge, by a Republican (who hails from a swing state) would be a nightmare for Trump’s reelection. And the more Republicans attack Amash, the more they close the door on any chance he can return to Congress, where he mostly votes with them, and push him instead to run against Trump. The short-term goal of discrediting Trump’s critics may bring with it a much larger long-term cost.
It would be nice to believe this, but the overwhelming majority of Republican voters would not consider Amash a "real" right-winger, especially not after Trump and the GOP noise machine began publicizing these apostasies:
Amash voted "present" rather than "yes" or "no" on the 2011 Full Year Continuing Appropriations Act, which provided for the cessation of federal funding to Planned Parenthood. He explained, "Legislation that names a specific private organization to defund (rather than all organizations that engage in a particular activity) is improper and arguably unconstitutional" ...

Amash supports decreasing U.S. military spending, and believes there is significant waste in the military spending of the U.S. Department of Defense....

In 2014 he was one of eight members of Congress who voted against a $225 million package to restock Israel's Iron Dome missile defenses, which passed with 398 members in support....

Amash joined 104 Democrats and 16 Republicans in voting against the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which specified the budget and expenditures of the Department of Defense ... calling it "one of the most anti-liberty pieces of legislation of our lifetime".... Amash co-sponsored an amendment to the NDAA that would ban indefinite military detention and military trials so that all terror suspects arrested in the United States would be tried in civilian courts....

Amash has expressed opposition to political gerrymandering. He said in 2018, "I firmly believe there should be an independent process for drawing districts. They should be based on geographic considerations, and they should be as compact and contiguous as possible...I always felt the maps should be drawn in a way that is less political and more based on geographic considerations." ...

In July 2018 House Republicans introduced a resolution supporting the officers and personnel of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Amash was the only Republican in the chamber to vote against the resolution.... He tweeted, "The House voted today on an inane resolution regarding ICE. The resolution makes several dubious claims and denounces calls to abolish ICE. I wouldn't abolish ICE without an alternative, but there's no reason to treat a federal agency as though it's beyond reproach and reform." ...

Amash supported a repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, saying that the "real threat" to traditional marriage and religious liberty is government, not gay couples....

Amash has been a frequent critic of the National Security Agency's anti-terrorism surveillance programs....

He voted against the 2011 reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act....
Oh, and did I mention that he's of Palestinian and Syrian descent?

Amash will win the votes of a few #NeverTrumpers in the commentariat. He'll also win the usual libertarian voters, and maybe a few disaffected lefties. (He wants to end federal marijuana prohibition.) But he won't be seen as a genuine conservative alternative. It would be nice to think so, but that won't happen.

CANDIDATES, TALK TO REPUBLICAN VOTERS IF YOU LIKE -- DON'T TALK TO PARTY HACKS IN THE MEDIA

Last Friday, Pete Buttigieg was a guest on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. One exchange from that show has received a lot of attention:
HH: ... Let’s go to policy now. A very blunt question, because you talk about going to every Jefferson-Jackson dinner in Indiana when you were running statewide. Should Jefferson-Jackson dinners be renamed everywhere because both were holders of slaves?

PB: Yeah, we’re doing that in Indiana. I think it’s the right thing to do. You know, over time, you develop and evolve on the things you choose to honor. And I think we know enough, especially Jackson, you know, you just look at what basically amounts to genocide that happened here. Jefferson’s more problematic. You know, there’s a lot to, of course, admire in his thinking and his philosophy. Then again, as you plunge into his writings, especially the notes on the state of Virginia, you know that he knew that slavery was wrong.

HH: Yes.

PB: And yet, he did it. Now we’re all morally conflicted human beings. And it’s not like we’re blotting him out of the history books, or deleting him from being the founder fathers. But you know, naming something after somebody confers a certain amount of honor. And at a time, I mean, the real reason I think there’s a lot of pressure on this is the relationship between the past and the present, that we’re finding in a million different ways that racism isn’t some curiosity out of the past that we’re embarrassed about but moved on from. It’s alive, it’s well, it’s hurting people. And it’s one of the main reasons to be in politics today is to try to change or reverse the harms that went along with that. Then, we’d better look for ways to live out and honor that principle, even in a symbolic thing.
Notice the setup for that question: "Let’s go to policy now." Doesn't "policy" suggest that Hewitt is about to ask a question about war with Iran or financial regulation or health care? Instead, it's about what Democrats call their intraparty gatherings. Hewitt is such a dishonest person.

Buttigieg gives the right answer: Jackson is a bad guy. Jefferson is, by turns, great and a deeply flawed. In the case of the dinners, can't they be named after someone else? It doesn't tear down the monuments or rewrite the history books. It's just a reconsideration of who deserves to be honored at these events.

Why did Hewitt ask this question? Does he seriously believe this is one of the key issues of the 2020 campaign? No. He thinks it's a useful gotcha for the right-wing character assassination machine.

He's right. On Saturday, the New York Post published this:
Pete Buttigieg wants Thomas Jefferson events and buildings renamed

Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg called for everything honoring Thomas Jefferson to be renamed.

“Yeah, we’re doing that in Indiana. I think it’s the right thing to do,” Buttigieg, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, said in a Friday radio interview with conservative host Hugh Hewitt.
"Everything"? That's not what he said. But that's how the right-wing press chews up and spits out nuance.

Cut to last night, when Buttigieg appeared on a Fox News town hall. Of course he was asked about this again -- it's such a burning issue -- and of course his answer was distorted on Fox & Friends this morning:



Brian Kilmeade: "What a clown. Should we really be trying to erase our country's history? Would we be a country without those men we're trying to erase?"

In a follow-up, a guest says says of Buttigieg's opinion on this subject, "it showns how radical the Democratic base has become that this is what constitutes pandering to them."



And for good measure, the main Fox story about the town hall carries this headline:
Buttigieg takes on Trump, pitches four new tax hikes in Fox News Town Hall
And what are the "four new tax hikes"?
On fiscal policy, Buttigieg pushed for four distinct tax hikes when asked about the deficit, saying he favored a "fairer, which means higher" marginal income tax, a "reasonable" wealth tax "or something like that," a financial transactions tax, and closing "corporate tax loopholes."
Not one of these would be paid by the average Fox viewer. But that's the key takeaway from town hall, according to this story.

Democrats, don't do this. Don't prostrate youselves before these bastards. At best, they'll pretend to be civil and then stab you in the back, or set you up to be stabbed in the back by their fellow GOP apparatchiks.

Talking to Republican voters is fine. Many of them may listen respectfully. Some will hear a perspective on the country they've never heard before. Generally speaking, they won't regard it as an opportunity to turn you into a propaganda pinata for the next several days. So do outreach to voters directly -- not through the right-wing press.

Sunday, May 19, 2019

TO AMERICANS LIKE TRUMP, THERE ARE NO WAR CRIMES, JUST LIKE THERE'S NO POLICE BRUTALITY

I was momentarily surprised when I read this, but I shouldn't have been. We should have seen it as inevitable.
President Trump has indicated that he is considering pardons for several American military members accused or convicted of war crimes, including high-profile cases of murder, attempted murder and desecration of a corpse, according to two United States officials.

The officials said that the Trump administration had made expedited requests this week for paperwork needed to pardon the troops on or around Memorial Day.
I'm surprised he didn't want to do this during his upcoming Trumpified Fourth of July celebration. But Trump is emotionally a child, and children are never very good at deferred gratification.
One request is for Special Operations Chief Edward Gallagher of the Navy SEALs, who is scheduled to stand trial in the coming weeks on charges of shooting unarmed civilians and killing an enemy captive with a knife while deployed in Iraq.

The others are believed to include the case of a former Blackwater security contractor recently found guilty in the deadly 2007 shooting of dozens of unarmed Iraqis; the case of Maj. Mathew L. Golsteyn, the Army Green Beret accused of killing an unarmed Afghan in 2010; and the case of a group of Marine Corps snipers charged with urinating on the corpses of dead Taliban fighters.
In modern America, I think this will delight the armchair warriors of Trump's Fox News base. (The right-wing media regularly covers such cases as monstrous injustices.) I don't think it will impress the rest of the public, and it will horrify a lot of citizens, including many servicemembers and veterans.

But Trump is old enough to have been part of the overwhelming majority of adults in 1971 who backed William Calley:
The American people believe that First Lieut. William L. Calley Jr. was made the scapegoat for the massacre of civilians in the South Vietnamese village of Mylai, according to a poll conducted for the American Broadcasting Company.

The poll of 3,000 persons in all sections of the country by the Harris organization showed that 77 per cent believed Lieutenant Calley was singled out for court‐martial and punishment although the Mylai incident involved others including his superior officers....

Only 24 per cent agreed with the verdict of guilty.
As Rick Perlstein noted in his book Nixonland, letters to the Nixon White House ran 100 to 1 in favor of Calley's release. Nixon ordered Calley transferred from the Fort Leavenworth prison to house arrest while he appealed his life sentence; he eventually served only three and a half years of house arrest.

Calley had the backing of some critics of the war, who believed that the My Lai massacre was ultimately the responsibility of higher-ups. But for the rest of Calley's backers, this story played into the notion that -- as many of them would say in subsequent years -- Americans fought in Vietnam "with one hand tied behind our backs."

The domestic equivalent of this message, in the early 1970s and for many years afterward, was the notion that liberal politicians and judges had made it impossible for the police to fight crime effectively. Hollywood movies glamorized cops who took the law into their own hands, often in Trump's New York. Today, even as urban crime continues to decline and urban populations become more liberal on most issues, the notion persists that cops are being hamstrung by legalistic restrictions on their ability to do their jobs.

Trump's apparent plan to pardon war criminals comes at a time when a disciplinary proceeding is finally taking place in the case of Daniel Pantaleo, the white cop who in 2014 applied a chokehold while arresting Staten Island's Eric Garner, an African-American who was overweight and asthmatic and who died while repeating the words "I can't breathe." The disciplinary proceeding is not a criminal trial because Pantaleo has never been indicted and never will be:
A grand jury on Staten Island declined to indict Officer Pantaleo in 2014. A federal civil rights inquiry has dragged on for years without charges being filed. The statute of limitations expires on July 17, the fifth anniversary of Mr. Garner’s death.
That seems just fine with most white Americans. As an AP-NORC poll noted in 2015,
Black Americans are nearly four times as likely as whites to describe violence against civilians by police officers as an extremely or very serious problem.

... More than 80 percent of blacks say police are too quick to use deadly force and they are more likely to use it against a black person. Two-thirds of whites label police use of deadly force as necessary and nearly 6 in 10 say race is not a factor in decisions to use force.
These are ideas Trump has absorbed throughout his life. His most high-profile lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was a great apologist for violent cops as mayor of New York.

So we really should have seen these Trump pardons coming.

Saturday, May 18, 2019

SO WHAT'S THE DRINKING AGE NOW IN FETAL PERSONHOOD STATES?

Carliss Chatman, a law professor, believes our new abortion laws have ramifications in areas outside reporoduction:
We ought to take our laws seriously. Under the laws, people have all sorts of rights and protections. When a state grants full personhood to a fetus, should they not apply equally?

For example, should child support start at conception? Every state permits the custodial parent — who has primary physical custody of the child and is primarily responsible for his or her day-to-day care — to receive child support from the noncustodial parent. Since a fetus resides in its mother, and receives all nutrition and care from its mother’s body, the mother should be eligible for child support as soon as the fetus is declared a person — at conception in Alabama, at six weeks in states that declare personhood at a fetal heartbeat, at eight weeks in Missouri, which was on the way to passing its law on Friday, but at birth in states that have not banned abortion.

And what about deportation? Can a pregnant immigrant who conceived her child in the United States be expelled? Because doing so would require deporting a U.S. citizen....

Once the life is established, can a mother insure a six-week fetus and collect if she miscarries? Will the tax code be adjusted in these states to allow parents to claim their unborn children as dependents at conception? If so, can a woman who suffers more than one miscarriage in a fiscal year claim all of her children?

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires a census every 10 years to count all persons residing within the United States. If a fetus is granted personhood, it should be included in the count.... There is the potential to unfairly skew census data and disproportionately apportion representatives and resources to those states.

These questions highlight the unintended and potentially absurd consequences of sweeping abortion bans.
I think young people should demand their full rights under these laws. If a state declares that life begins at conception, then the young should fill out voter registration forms at seventeen years and three months. Sue the bastards if they turn you down.

Your state says life begins at conception and you have to wait until you're sixteen to get a driver's license? Nope. You deserve a license at fifteen years and three months. Again, lawsuits are in order if this logic is rejected -- it's "natural law," isn't it?

And at twenty years and three months, the bar and the liquor store should take your ID. Sue them, too.

How will this will work out in the courts? I suspect we'll have Schrödinger's personhood, with, as Chatman predicts, personhood states getting credit for fetuses on the census (the Roberts court will certainly approve that) while the same states deny that life begins at conception for the purposes of child support, deportation, insurance, drinking, and driving. (Most people in these states will be conservative, so the folks who run these states might change the voting laws.)

Remember the doublethink the Bush administration demanded when it sent prisoners to Guantanamo (because it was U.S. territory) while claiming that they couldn't be held to U.S. law (because it's not really part of the U.S.)? We'll have something like that with personhood. Eventually, we'll be expected to accept that it all makes sense.

Friday, May 17, 2019

I WELCOME DE BLASIO TO THE RACE IF HE CAN RATTLE TRUMP

Like everyone else who was paying attention, I groaned when I learned that the mayor of New York, Bill de Blasio, had entered the presidential race. No one wants him to run -- hell, I voted for him twice and I don't want him to run.

As Jennifer Senior of The New York Times noted yesterday, de Blasio started his run with a trolling effort that went spectacularly wrong:
On Monday, the mayor tried to hold a stunt news conference at Trump Tower. Ostensibly, it was to tout a new city bill that would fine building owners, like our president, if they ran afoul of new greenhouse gas emissions standards. But really, it was to hold a proto-campaign rally on Trump’s turf.

De Blasio couldn’t handle even that. A handful of protesters dominated the proceedings (“Worst Mayor Ever” read one of their signs), and the management pumped loud music, including “Rags to Riches” by Tony Bennett, into the lobby. The mayor had to shout above the din.
But it appears that de Blasio is unfazed and unshameable. (Having an immunity to shame is a useful trait when taking on Trump.) De Blasio trolled Trump in his introductory campaign video, Trump trolled back, and de Blasio just kept trolling:
President Trump and New York Mayor Bill de Blasio traded barbs in dueling videos Thursday after the liberal mayor announced he was running for president -- and told his fellow New Yorker: “We’re coming for you.”

De Blasio, who has taken repeated shots at Trump before, launched another salvo in his campaign announcement video, where he called Trump a “bully.”

... Trump responded with a video from Air Force One, in which he called de Blasio “the worst mayor in the history of New York City” and “the worst mayor in the United States.” He also predicted that de Blasio’s White House dream will “never happen.”

“If you like high taxes and if you like crime, you can vote for him. But most people aren't into that, so, I wish him luck -- but really, you'd be better off if you get back to New York City and did your job for the little time you have left,” he said. “Good luck, do well.”

De Blasio responded a few hours later with an apparent attempt to mimic Trump’s habit of giving his political opponents a nickname.

“Hey, Con Don I saw your video and man you looked really low energy. And you were getting your facts wrong 'cause crime actually has gone down in New York City five years in a row, and our economy is booming, we have the most jobs we’ve ever had in our history. So you obviously aren’t getting your facts straight, and I really think you better rest up because you’re going to need it for the election ahead,” he said.

“We’re coming for you,” he added.
"Con Don"? I would have gone with "Don the Con" myself, although "Con Don" has the benefit of sounding like "condom." But I really like "low energy" and "we're coming for you." De Blasio might be capable of drawing Trump into a pointless beef, one that won't fire up his base any more than they're fired up already (they're at maximum fired-up-ness at all times), but might remind swing voters that Trump is a 72-year-old with the emotional makeup of a third-grade bully (which is what people hate most about Trump).

Do I think de Blasio could win the nomination this way? Or even make his way into contention? No, not a chance. What comes to mind is this Wikipedia page:
Enforcer (ice hockey)

Enforcer is an unofficial role in ice hockey. The term is sometimes used synonymously with "fighter", "tough guy", or "goon". An enforcer's job is to deter and respond to dirty or violent play by the opposition. When such play occurs, the enforcer is expected to respond aggressively, by fighting or checking the offender. Enforcers are expected to react particularly harshly to violence against star players or goalies.

Enforcers are different from pests, players who seek to agitate opponents and distract them from the game, without necessarily fighting them. The pest's primary role is to draw penalties from opposing players, thus "getting them off their game", while not actually intending to fight the opposition player (although exceptions to this do occur). Pests and enforcers often play together on the same line, usually the fourth line.
I don't know if de Blasio qualifies as an enforcer or a pest -- but whichever it is, I hope he keeps it up.

I've been thinking for a while that Democrats need a presidential candidate who can rattle Trump and force himself into pointless fights -- not a candidate who's a serious contender for the nomination, but one who softens Trump up for the eventual winner. De Blasio never seemed like the guy who could do it -- he's generally quite soft-spoken, and even his trash talk is a tad listless (see below). But de Blasio is the mayor of Trump's city and he doesn't like Trump, which means that Trump can't resist getting into a dick-swinging contest with him.

Keep it up, Mr. Mayor. Land a few while you're still in the race.


DON'T BLAME YOURSELF FOR BIDEN'S SUCCESS, ONION GUY (update: or blame Alec Baldwin for Trump's)

Joe Garden, formerly of The Onion, is apologizing for the satire site's portrayal of Joe Biden:
I worked at The Onion for 19 years as a writer and features editor. By the time I left in 2012, the publication had developed its take on Vice President Biden: “creepy but harmless,” with the emphasis on “harmless.”

... I didn’t take him seriously enough to think we were doing anything wrong. I thought of him as little more than a political necessity: the older, more conservative white guy who softened Barack Obama’s image in regions where the prospect of a black president was too radical. A deeper dive on Biden never felt necessary.

I’ve since changed my mind. Today, Biden is the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.... As I watch him campaign as an old (-fashioned, -school, -old) centrist, I realize how badly we screwed up. Instead of viciously skewering a public figure who deserved scrutiny, we let him off easy.

... I wish we had looked more at his actual career in politics ... and tried to really puncture him, rather than just turning him into a clown. We helped make him more likable by inventing a version of Biden that never existed.
I understand the concern, but I wonder how much effect The Onion's treatment of Biden had on the voters who are supporting him now. Here's a 2016 demographic breakdown of the readership of The Onion and its spinoff sites (ClickHole, A.V. Club, StarWipe and Onion Studios):



More than half of the sites' readers were under the age of 34. Now look at Biden's numbers.

In a recent Emerson poll, Biden was trailing Bernie Sanders in the 18-to-29-year-old age range by 41% to 11%, and trailing among 30-to-49-year-olds 29%-26%. Biden's 8-point lead in the Emerson poll was all from people over 50.

The Onion's readership skews male. Yet in a recent Quinnipiac poll, Biden had more support among Democratic women (46%) than among Democratic men (40%).

Biden's core supporters are older whites and (especially) non-whites. Does that sound like The Onion's readership?

I realize that The Onion's treatment of Biden influenced the way the mainstream media covered him. But a much greater influence was the imprimatur imparted by Barack Obama. He said Biden was okay, so the press didn't delve into Biden's past.

The Onion was a factor in Biden's rise. But I think he'd be in first place now even if The Onion had never existed.

****

And now here's Politico's Peter Canellos arguing that Alec Baldwin's Donald Trump impression is a gift to the president:
... to look back over the full Baldwin/Trump oeuvre since 2016 is to realize just how tame it is—and, in an important way, what a favor it does the president. Baldwin’s Trump bears a closer resemblance to the befuddled governor on the old “Benson” sitcom than it does “Dr. Strangelove” or “The Manchurian Candidate” or any other of the darker historical figures to whom he’s been compared. In Baldwin’s hands he’s foolish and self-deluded, all right, but he also sometimes seems abashed by the reactions he provokes and the trouble he accidentally stirs up. (“It’s awful. Everything’s falling apart. Sometimes I wish I had never been president,” he moans at the start of an “It’s a Wonderful Life” parody; “All alone again. No one understands me,” he sighs in a skit on his trip to South America.)

By giving Trump qualities he’s shown little evidence of in public—conscience, introspection, even regret— “SNL” does him an enormous favor. It offers a glimmer of sympathy about his motives, inviting the generous assumption that there’s a better and more self-aware man lurking behind the Twitter feed.
There's a fair amount of truth in this assessment, although it jumps the shark in the next sentence:
In portraying the president as a beleaguered figure, it even allows the conclusion that the real threat to democracy isn’t Trump’s venomous rhetoric or disregard for constitutional norms, but the ruthlessness of the Washington system that confronts this blustering, fumbling uncle.
No one reads Baldwin's Trump as a hapless victim of a ruthless system. Those of us who despise Trump don't think he's a hapless victim, and the fans who think the system is out to get him believe he's a capable and powerful superman.

I agree that Baldwin's Trump has too many endearing qualities (if Trump were portrayed appropriately, he wouldn't have any at all). But a Saturday Night Live portrayal of a president isn't what keeps his approval numbers out of the 30s or 20s. The softest presidential imitation in SNL history was Dana Carvey's "wouldn't be prudent at this juncture" portrayal of George H.W. Bush. It was kind enough to the president that he embraced it, striking up a friendship with Carvey that lasted long after Bush's presidency.

And yet Poppy Bush is the only incumbent president to have lost a reelection bid in the past 35 years. So this isn't how we choose our presidents.

Thursday, May 16, 2019

ON THE DEFENSIVE? OR BAMBOOZLING US?

Jennifer Rubin believes that extremist abortion laws are backfiring on the GOP:
You can tell which side of the aisle is optimistic about the politics of the abortion bans in Alabama, Georgia, Missouri and elsewhere. When asked about the Alabama ban, Sen. Martha McSally (R-Ariz.) (who lost her race for Senate but was then appointed to the seat originally held by the late senator John McCain) ducked. “That’s a state issue. I’m focused on my work here," she insisted....

Meanwhile, the House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) went so far as to publicly oppose the law.... “I believe in exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother, and that’s what I’ve voted on,” he said. The Republican leader who has been hollering for years that Roe must be reversed insisted, “Look I’m not an attorney. I’m not on the Supreme Court.”

One wonders how long it will be before President Trump recognizes this as a political disaster, one that will tie him to the most cruel, farthest-reaching and (from a national standpoint) least-popular abortion law in recent memory.
I can see why Rubin might argue this. It's not just McSally and McCarthy -- there's also Fox's Tomi Lahren:



(It should be noted that Lahren was fired by Glenn Beck's Blaze a few years ago for being pro-choice.)

Pat Robertson also said the Alabama law has "gone too far," although he's making a strictly political calculation:
“They want to challenge Roe vs. Wade, but my humble view is I don’t think that’s the case I’d want to bring to the Supreme Court because I think this one will lose,” Robertson told his viewers on Wednesday....

“God bless them, they’re trying to do something,” Robertson said of Alabama legislators.
Nevertheless, there's seems to be some anxiety about the law on the right. But the apparent concern about these laws is also a form of bamboozlement.

This is how the GOP used to work in the pre-Trump era: Right-wing commentators and certain Republican politicians would advocate (and, where possible, pass) extreme laws, all while using inflammatory rhetoric about their enemies (us) and generally tossing the base the reddest of red meat. Then, particularly on Sunday mornings, the "respectable" Republicans would appear on TV, and their dulcet tones would reassure the rest of public (and nearly all mainstream pundits) that the party was made up of sober, responsible right-centrists who could always be trusted with governance. Extreme laws were passed, extreme narratives were advanced, but mostly on the down low.

Under Trump, Republicans across the board have learned to say the quiet parts out loud (hello, Lindsey Graham) -- but these abortion laws are inspiring them to revert to the old ways. McCarthy wants his party to win back the House in 2020, and the path to that end runs through a lot of suburban swing districts; McSally wants to win her seat outright in a purple state.

So they're saying, "Look, most Republicans are reasonable ladies and gents, not like those awful folks in Alabama (and Ohio, and Missouri and Kentucky and Georgia and ...)." It won't prevent any new state from passing a draconian abortion law. But if they're lucky, it will persuade your swing-voting relatives that most Republicans aren't like this.

They are like this. They voted for Kavanaugh and Gorsuch and Alito and Thomas. When pressed for a favorite Supreme Court justice of all time, they all say Scalia. They just don't want you to think about the implications of that, especially in the voting booth.

MORE EVIDENCE THAT GOP VOTERS WILL WANT ANOTHER INSANE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 2024

The headline statistic here is noteworthy:
Extended term for Trump? No way, most Americans say

The lion’s share of Americans believes that respecting the results of elections and the peaceful transfer of power are essential elements of American democracy, according to a new national poll conducted by Ipsos in conjunction with the University of Virginia Center for Politics.

By a 77%-16% margin, respondents did not think that the 2020 election should be delayed and President Donald Trump given an extra two years in office.
And I suppose we should feel grateful that the people who think Trump's term should be extended include only about a third of Republicans:
There were partisan differences on this question: Democrats said no overwhelmingly, 89%-9%, while Republicans said no by a smaller 62%-31% margin.
And hardly anyone thinks it would be okay for Trump to barricade himself in the Oval Office if he loses:
Just 7% of respondents said that if Trump loses the 2020 election, he should ignore the results and stay in office.
(The total for Republicans is a surprisingly low 11%.)

But I find this unsettling:
Just 33% of respondents agreed with the somewhat authoritarian proposal that to fix the United States, “we need a strong leader willing to break the rules.” Less than a quarter of Democrats (23%) agreed with that statement, but about half of Republicans did (53%).
A majority of Republicans feel this way. That's why we can't change minds on Trump. Every time we point out one of his bad acts, we remind that majority of Republicans precisely why they like him. We think we're criticizing Trump, but what his base hears is that, yes, he is "a strong leader willing to break the rules." When we say he's an obstructor of justice or a taker of emoluments, we're affirming the notion that he's the kind of leader they want.

Also:
69% (64% Democrats, 74% Republicans) agreed that “traditional parties and politicians don’t care about people like me.”
It's odd that voters from the party in power are more dissatisfied with "traditional parties and politicians" than voters from the party out of power -- or it would be odd if the head of the in-power party weren't Trump. This tells me that Republican voters are wary even of traditional pols from their own party, which might explain why so many of those pols want to be seen as unsocialized Trump clones (see, e.g., Lindsey Graham at the Kavanaugh hearings).

This and the rule-breaking "strong leader" result above are more evidence that Republicans won't be picking Nikki Haley, John Kasich, or Larry Hogan in 2024. They'll want either an angry outsider (Donald Trump Jr., Laura Ingraham) or someone from within politics who seems willing and able to break the rules and smash the furniture (Tom Cotton, Dan Crenshaw).

In other words: No, the fever won't break.

REPUBLICANS: THOSE DEFECTIVE PLANES WOULDN'T HAVE CRASHED IF STUPID WOGS WEREN'T FLYING THEM

You might have seen this headline at The Washington Post:
After two faulty Boeing jets crash, the Trump administration blames foreign pilots
If you never went on to read the piece itself -- it's a column by Dana Milbank -- I want to inform you that the headline is deceiving.

Milbank doesn't say that the Trump administration blamed foreign pilots for two fatal crashes. He says that the Trump administration and Republican congressmen blamed foreign pilots for those crashes.

In other words, the racist rot in the GOP extends far beyond the Executive Branch.

Milbank reports on the congressional hearing:
“I’m trying to be respectful because they’re deceased,” Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-Mich.) said of the doomed crews. But, “do we not have concerns not only with the training of pilots in other nations, but the reliability of their logs?”

The acting FAA administrator, Daniel Elwell, shared this skepticism and said he “absolutely” wants to “take a hard look at the training standards globally.”

Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.) voiced concern about “the maintenance programs, the pilot experience requirements, the pilot training programs of the air carriers involved.”

And Rep. Sam Graves (Mo.), ranking Republican on the House transportation committee and a pilot (as he repeatedly mentioned), criticized the deceased: They “never pulled the throttles back,” they “were simply going too fast,” they followed “no operating procedure that I have heard of.”

“You have to know how to fly the plane!” Graves said, faulting “pilot error” and “a lot of misidentification” by the crew.

Elwell concurred that the problem should have been “immediately recognizable” to the pilots, but there was “apparent lack of recognition.” He blamed the Indonesians for failing to disable the system and said the Ethiopian crew “didn’t adhere to the emergency [advisory] we put out” and “never controlled their air speed.”

Such basic knowledge is “taught at the earliest stages,” Elwell lectured. “You don’t pull out a checklist.... It is memorized, and you’re tested on it all of the time.”

Sam Graves rejoined the denunciation. “I hate to disparage another country and what their pilot training is, but that is what scares me in all of this: climbing on an aircraft or airline that is outside U.S. jurisdiction,” he said. “It just bothers me that we continue to tear down our system based on what has happened in another country.”
Here's the reality:
The Wall Street Journal reported this week that senior FAA officials failed to review key safety assessments of the MCAS system and that Boeing failed to label the stall-prevention system as a critical component whose malfunction could be catastrophic. MCAS wasn’t even originally mentioned in the plane’s manual. In addition, Boeing had disabled a safety feature designed to warn pilots about malfunctioning sensors related to the system — but it allegedly didn’t inform airlines. Boeing didn’t inform the FAA until 13 months after it discovered it had offered the safety feature as an add-on option instead of standard.
Pay no attention to all that bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo! It's much easier to blame melanin.

What a bonanza for Republicans -- the opportunity to let their racist flag fly and cover up bad behavior by a giant corporation. If these folks could simultaneously bash gays and deny women abortions, this would embody the entire governing philosophy of the GOP.


Wednesday, May 15, 2019

THIRTY YEARS AGO, DID TONY SCHWARTZ SAVE US FROM WAR WITH IRAN NOW?

I'm a congenital pessimist, but Yastreblyansky has me persuaded that President Trump isn't on the verge of going to war with Iran. It's not just that Trump disputed a report that said his White House is considering deploying 120,000 troops to Iran. There's also this:
Retired four-star Gen. Jack Keane blasted the report that the Trump administration has updated plans to send more than 100,000 troops to counter Iran if necessary.

“It’s a distortion of what really happens,” he said on “The Story with Martha MacCallum.” “The president doesn’t even know what they are talking about.”

... Keane said the Trump administration isn’t looking for a regime change or a war, and that the president wants to negotiate with Iran and make better diplomatic deals.

He added, “President Trump is measured in dealing with Iran.”
Yastreblyansky writes:
That absolutely fits the Art of the Deal pattern: violent threats against Mexico and Canada provoking the NAFTA renegotiation, "fire and fury" talk on North Korea leading to the Singapore summit, even his behavior over the Affordable Care Act, which is meant to lead Congress to create something like Obamacare only with lots of marble and gold, the design of which is their problem, not his. [Trump's] fundamental playbook is really that narrow: scream until you get what you want or, more likely, an opportunity to pretend you got what you wanted, and what he basically wants from the presidency is just to get rid of Obama, obliterate him from human memory, and to have some self-esteem.

... He himself just wants to do his own deal, with his name on it, that will be the best deal ever made.

... he really wants to fall in love with old Khamenei, take pictures in one of those exquisitely furnished rooms, and sign a document. Not that Khamenei ever will, but Donald is full of hope....
That really might be what's on Trump's mind: I beat my chest, I scare the other side, then I make the greatest deal of all time, not like that wuss Obama. George W. Bush, after spending decades of his life being told that he was the black sheep of the family and wouldn't amount to anything, decided that war would prove he was a consequential person. You'd think Trump, who's never sure he's living up to what his father expected of him, would want to prove his worth by fighting a war, but instead he seems to prefer acting as if he's the world's greatest dealmaker.

If that's really what's going on -- if that's why we're not at war now -- were we spared thanks to the work of Tony Schwartz thirty-odd years ago?

You remember Tony Schwartz. He wrote a very negative story about Trump for New York magazine in the mid-1980s, but Trump inexplicably loved it. Eventually Schwartz was asked to write about Trump again, for Playboy. A 2016 New Yorker story by Jane Mayer explains what happened next:
... to [Schwartz's] frustration Trump kept making cryptic, monosyllabic statements. “He mysteriously wouldn’t answer my questions,” Schwartz said. After twenty minutes, he said, Trump explained that he didn’t want to reveal anything new about himself—he had just signed a lucrative book deal and needed to save his best material.

“What kind of book?” Schwartz said.

“My autobiography,” Trump replied.

“You’re only thirty-eight—you don’t have one yet!” Schwartz joked.

“Yeah, I know,” Trump said.

“If I were you,” Schwartz recalls telling him, “I’d write a book called ‘The Art of the Deal.’ That’s something people would be interested in.”

“You’re right,” Trump agreed. “Do you want to write it?”
Trump the Consummate Dealmaker was Schwartz's invention. Mayer goes on to explain how Schwartz massages the truth to make Trump seem brilliant and "palatable" to readers. (Schwartz thought he was odious.) But Schwartz succeeded, and now much of the world believes that Trump is the greatest dealmaker on the planet. Trump believes it.

I suppose we also need to thank whoever inspired Trump to acquire a taste for the company of strongmen and thugs. (Roy Cohn?) They're the only people (apart from his eldest daughter) Trump seems to love.

In any case, a man you'd think would be itching to go to war might not be, for these reasons. Thank you, Tony Schwartz -- and maybe Roy Cohn as well.

I'M NOT AGAINST STUNTS, BUT YOU COULD DO A LOT BETTER THAN THIS ONE (updated)

I have doubts about this:
More than 20 House Democrats will stage a marathon public reading of the entire redacted Mueller report beginning Thursday at noon, and likely ending in the early morning hours of Friday.

“We’ve been saying for weeks that if you think there was no obstruction and no collusion, you haven’t read the Mueller report. So the ongoing quest has been, ‘How do we get that story out there while we are waiting for the witnesses to come in?’" said Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.) who has been organizing the effort since Friday.

Scanlon is the vice chairwoman of the House Judiciary Committee....

The reading of all 448 pages of the report will take an estimated 12 to 14 hours, Scanlon said. Shifts will be divided up among the readers, including Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), who will follow Scanlon as the second reader.

“I’d be amazed if even 1 percent of the American people have read the Mueller report, in part or in its entirety,” said Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who has specifically volunteered to read the last few pages. “We have to catch up the American people any way we can. I would hope this would spur reading of the Mueller report all over the country.”
This might get some attention -- although at a moment when Alabama is outlawing abortion, a trade war is heating up, and we're inching toward war with Iran, it doesn't seem to be getting a lot. It might pique the interest of a few people, but I Democrats could do better.

If you say that most Americans aren't reading the report because it's long and written in legalistic language, why would a marathon oral presentation of the same text be more compelling? And the readers are House Democrats? Look, Jerry Nadler is my congressman and I love him to death, but he's not exactly Olivier. Get some celebrities to do the reading -- or, if you think that's tacky, find ordinary Americans who've suffered in the Trump years. Give the event a sense of drama. Hell, if you got Hillary Clinton to do it for real it would at least draw more attention, though the "sore loser" whining (in the mainstream as well as right-wing media) would probably negate any benefit.



I accept the premise that the style and length of the Mueller report prevent its findings from being easily digestible by the general public. So boil the findings down. We need an elevator-pitch summary of each of the most damning charges in the report, all presented in well-made TV ads or Web ads, one outrage per ad. Where appropriate, the crimes should be compared to the crimes of Richard Nixon, so it's clear that this is serious stuff. Hasn't the argument in favor of further hearings in the House been that if the information in the Mueller report is restated in more vivid language, the public will outraged? Well, do that outside the halls of Congress. Get the word out in the most compelling manner possible. Oh, and every TV appearance by a Democrat talking about this subject should focus on a specific bad act by Trump. (If the parties were reversed, Fox News would have expended considerable energy boiling the report down this way, and rolling out the allegations one at a time, in easily processed form.)

The marathon reading is something. But we need more.

****

UPDATE, THURSDAY. And no, this isn't the answer:



This ad is only secondarily about how bad Trump is. It's primarily about how bad Democrats are, because they're not pursuing impeachment. Impeachment can't lead to conviction given the makeup of the Senate, as even Tom Steyer knows, though in theory it can educate the public about Trump's crimes. But this ad doesn't educate. It whizzes through Trump's misdeeds, impatient to get to the indictment of the real enemy, the Democratic Party. It's worse than useless, and I say that as someone who's a frequent critic of the Democrats.

Tuesday, May 14, 2019

EVEN A FURIOUS RANT FROM ELIZABETH WARREN HAS SUBSTANCE

Elizabeth Warren angrily rejected a Fox News offer of TV time today:
Elizabeth Warren turned down a Fox News invitation Tuesday for a televised town hall and denounced the cable network as a “hate-for-profit racket that gives a megaphone to racists and conspiracists.”
Some people have argued that it's payback for all the Pocahontas talk on Fox. Others say it's a shrewd play for base votes:



Sure -- it's all that. But Warren didn't just lash out in a politically savvy, base-pleasing way. Even in anger, she's a teacher:





She could have just said that Fox is racist. She could have said it's conspiratorial. She could have said it offers a token hour to Democrats now and again, but lashes out at them the other 23 hours of the day.

Instead she explained how Fox works. It's not just a hate-and-conspiracy channel -- it recklessly peddles right-wing hate and conspiracies to distract voters from the real agenda of the Republican Party, which is to make the rich richer at the expense of everyone else. She explained that advertisers won't advertise on Fox if the channel seems like a loony bin all day and night, so legitimate-seeming news coverage is worked into the mix to gull ad buyers into thinking that their products are being seen on a high-class broadcast. Democratic town halls are part of the window dressing that bamboozles advertisers (and, I'd add, most media critics from the mainstream press), while the real work of Fox goes on.

These tweets are short and could use more detail, and I hope someone asks Warren to provide it, because I'm sure she'd have no trouble elaborating on what she's written. But this is good. She's rebuffed Fox while outlining a Theory of Fox. Good for her.

THEY JUST CAN'T STOP NORMALIZING TRUMP

Peter Baker of The New York Times tells us that Jimmy Carter is doing fine after his most recent health scare:
Former President Jimmy Carter underwent surgery for a broken hip on Monday after falling at his home in Plains, Ga., his office said.

Mr. Carter, 94, the longest-living president in American history, was recovering from the operation at Phoebe Sumter Medical Center in Americus, Ga., with his wife, Rosalynn, at his side, the office said in a statement.

The statement, issued by Deanna Congileo, his press secretary, quoted his surgeon as saying the operation was successful.
What was Carter doing when he had the fall? Baker tells us:
Mr. Carter was leaving home to go turkey hunting when he fell, according to the statement.

“President Carter said his main concern is that turkey season ends this week, and he has not reached his limit,” the statement said. “He hopes the State of Georgia will allow him to roll over the unused limit to next year.”
I'm impressed.

But then we're informed that the current president of the United States has weighed in -- and Peter Baker just can't help himself. He has to normalize Trump:
President Trump, who has said good things about Mr. Carter in the past, posted a message on Twitter expressing hope for the former president.
(Emphasis added.)

Oh yeah, Trump has been very nice to Carter. He regularly says wonderful things about the Carter presidency.








Yes, there was this:



But that was after Carter criticized media coverage of Trump:
“I think the media have been harder on Trump than any other president certainly that I’ve known about,” Carter told New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd. "I think they feel free to claim that Trump is mentally deranged and everything else without hesitation.”

Carter also defended Trump against claims that the current president's aggressive style is souring U.S. relations with the world. “Well, he might be escalating it but I think that precedes Trump,” he told the Times. “The United States has been the dominant character in the whole world and now we’re not anymore. And we’re not going to be. Russia’s coming back and India and China are coming forward.”
Trump would be temporarily nice to his worst enemies -- Hillary Clinton or Rosie O'Donnell -- if they were quoted in the media this way.

If Baker wants to bring up Trump's previous opinions of Carter, he shouldn't limit himself to the positive ones. This is a light story, but that doesn't mean a New York Times reporter should have license to get it warong.



Monday, May 13, 2019

HOW HARD IS IT TO IMAGINE ARMED AMERICANS ATTACKING DOCTORS IN A MEDICAL CRISIS?

NPR had a story this morning about attacks on healthcare professionals treating Ebola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo:
When Ebola hit last August, rumors started swirling that the disease is a hoax — or brought by the government and foreigners as a way to make money and even kill off people in an area that's been a hotbed of government resistance....

While frontline Ebola workers have faced assaults on the job throughout the outbreak, beginning around February, the attacks have become more brazen. Ebola treatment centers have been repeatedly attacked. In late April, gunmen stormed in while a local response team was meeting and shot an epidemiologist with the World Health Organization.

And increasingly, even regular health workers ... are being targeted. Often at home.

The head of the area doctors' association has described multiple incidents to NPR — including one in February when attackers broke into the house of a government nurse while he was sleeping and made his wife watch as they shot him dead with a bow and arrow.
Maybe you think that's the reaction of superstitious, backward people from the Third World who have nothing in common with the citizens of our First World country. I'm not so sure. Around the time I was listening to the NPR report, I was reading this story in The New York Times:
A town in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada recently found itself at the center of a baseless conspiracy theory that predicted an attack on a school fund-raiser.

All because of an innocuous tweet from James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director.

Scott Maddock, the principal of the Grass Valley Charter School in Grass Valley, Calif., was unaware of the conspiracy theory when he arrived at work on a normal-seeming Monday morning late last month. But when he checked his voice mail, he heard from a man identifying himself as “a patriot,” alerting Mr. Maddock to the “threat.”

“He was warning us that something was going to happen at our Blue Marble Jubilee school fund-raiser and that we should contact the authorities,” Mr. Maddock said. “He kept saying that he is not behind it, but he has a credible source.”

... Two days earlier, on April 27, Mr. Comey had shared a tweet listing a handful of jobs he had held in the past alongside the hashtag #FiveJobsIveHad.

Hundreds of others had done the same before and since, but a small fringe group of conspiracy theorists seized on the tweet, claiming that it contained a coded message.

By removing letters, the hashtag could be shortened to “Five Jihad,” they argued. And a search for the abbreviation formed by the first letters of the jobs he listed, G.V.C.S.F., led to the Grass Valley Charter School Foundation, whose fund-raiser was scheduled for this weekend.

Mr. Comey, they concluded, was broadcasting an attack, perhaps as a distraction from other pending news.
People actually believed this convoluted theory about Comey's response to the #FiveJobsIveHad hashtag (which seemed extremely innocuous while it was trending). Eventually the fundraiser had to be canceled -- in part because officials feared that someone might show up strapped in response to the completely imaginary threat:
Mr. Maddock and Wendy Willoughby, the president of the foundation, had started to hear from parents who were worried not about the predicted attack, but about the people who believed in it.

What if one of them showed up, armed, to protect against a threat that simply did not exist, as had happened at a popular Washington pizzeria two years ago?
The Russians know that America is full of uninformed, credulous people, as another Times story notes:
The cellphones known as 5G, or fifth generation, represent the vanguard of a wireless era rich in interconnected cars, factories and cities. Whichever nation dominates the new technology will gain a competitive edge for much of this century, according to many analysts. But a television network a few blocks from the White House has been stirring concerns about a hidden flaw.

“Just a small one,” a TV reporter told her viewers recently. “It might kill you.”

The Russian network RT America aired the segment, titled “A Dangerous ‘Experiment on Humanity,’” in covering what its guest experts call 5G’s dire health threats. U.S. intelligence agencies identified the network as a principal meddler in the 2016 presidential election. Now, it is linking 5G signals to brain cancer, infertility, autism, heart tumors and Alzheimer’s disease — claims that lack scientific support.
QAnon ... the anti-vaxx movement ... are we sure Americans are more sophisticated than the Congolese?

The NPR story suggested that the standard procedure for Ebola treatment, which involves removing patients from the community, might be part of the problem. (It may no longer be appropriate because it's possible now to vaccinate family members and other contacts.)

Now, can you imagine an outbreak of a disease in America about which people already have suspicions? Now imagine that the outbreak takes place in a community of skeptics, especially skeptics who are wary of outsiders. Maybe the members of the community already believe in arming themselves, as so many Americans do. And maybe the treatment involves removing people from their homes.

Would the reaction to the outbreak in America be similar to the anger in the Congo? I wish I could say I couldn't imagine it, but I can.

HOW OUR PERMANENT CAMPAIGN IS HELPING A LAWLESS PRESIDENT

Elie Mystal believes that President Trump is getting away with extraordinary violations of laws, rules, and norms in part because the justice system isn't prepared to deal with someone like him: Robert Mueller files a report that he expects Trump's attorney general will deal with in good faith, courts allow Trump to buy time by not hearing cases involving him on an expedited basis, and so on.

Mystal also blames us:
... I fear that we, the people of the United States, are the ultimate problem.

What do we do that suggests we are facing a unique threat to democracy and the rule of law? Bitch and moan on Twitter? Write columns? Donate money? Vote? That’s what I do, and it’s all kind of normal, isn’t it? I said to my wife, on Election Night 2016: “If I make it through four years of this mother[jumper] without getting arrested, I didn’t try hard enough.” Well it’s been three, and here I still sit behind this useless keyboard, without being so much as fingerprinted.

Everybody wants to see the “un-redacted” Mueller report, but nobody is outside of Bill Barr’s house right now demanding that he release it. Chief Justice John Roberts could be sitting right next to you as you read this, and most of you wouldn’t notice him, and those that do wouldn’t scream “I can’t believe you voted for the Muslim ban, you accomplice to bigotry” right in his face. The “resistance” should be near revolt, but instead we’re dithering about whether the normal process of impeachment is “worth it.”

The courts will regard Trump as a unique threat to the normal operation of government just as soon as we make the normal operation of government impossible while he reigns.
One reason for this is our near-permanent campaign season. Americans were out in force protesting Trump in the first few months of his presidency. Eventually, however, much of that energy was transferred to midterm elections. Then as soon as the midterms were over, many Democrats began declaring themselves presidential candidates. One election season flowed seamlessly into another.

No wonder there are no protests demanding impeachment, the release of the unredacted Mueller report, or Trump's tax returns -- and for that matter, no wonder there aren't protests supporting abortion rights, even though they're more at risk than at any time since the Roe v. Wade decision, as red states take advantage of Trump's appointment of two Supreme Court justices.

We keep falling for the lie that we'll have a presidential election "soon." The election is a year and a half away. Remember how much damage Trump did between January 20, 2017, and the middle of 2018 -- his first year and a half?

Trump is very good at leveraging his MAGA rallies -- and the mainstream media's inclination to treat heartland white working-class voters as our most representative citizens -- to create the impression that America is on his side. We've become a silent majority. A little noise would be helpful.

VOTERS WHO HATE PAUL RYAN ECONOMICS MIGHT GUARANTEE US FOUR YEARS OF IT

Here's a depressing story from Axios:
Some of President Trump's supporters in Sioux City, Iowa love liberal populist proposals. They just don't love the 2020 Democrats as the messengers.

... A focus group of swing voters .... strongly supported a student loan debt plan that would cancel up to $50,000 in student debt for people whose families make less than $100,000 per year. (That's Elizabeth Warren's proposal, though her name wasn't mentioned in the question.)

They also want to tax American corporations, specifically big banks, to pay for Trump's infrastructure plans.

This was the main takeaway from the Engagious/FPG focus group of swing voters I watched last week, which included 11 voters who supported Barack Obama and then Trump....

Taxing big banks was the most popular idea to pay for infrastructure, beating out an increase in the federal gas tax or borrowing money from other countries.

Eight of the 11 respondents said that managing student loan debt is a problem for them or someone they know....

And although half of the respondents thought the national economy is booming, no one said they've seen an increase in their own wages or financial situation.
But:
All but one said they would re-elect Trump if it were him versus Hillary Clinton again.

... Warren's own policies are more popular with these voters than she is, given that the voters were skeptical of the entire Democratic field.

... They're not excited about any of the 2020 Democrats running for president, and they only really recognized Warren, Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders. "The presidency is a man's job," said 44-year-old Jamison P.
We're told:
This could give Trump an opportunity to tailor his economic message in Iowa for voters who want more focus on student loan debt and infrastructure.
Maybe it doesn't matter -- as these voters become more familiar with the Democratic candidates, some might be drawn to them. It probably wouldn't take too many swing-voting defectors to defeat Trump, given his tiny 2016 margins of victory in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

But for now, the Democratic brand looks terrible to these voters, even though they like Democratic ideas.

And they might vote for those ideas if Trump runs on them again. (Remember, in 2016 he ran on universal health care and preserving Medicare and Social Security.) But if he wins again, what those voters -- and the rest of us -- will actually get will be very different, if another Axios story is credible:
Some of President Trump’s top aides, who assume he will be re-elected, are already planning for an epic 2021 spending battle.

... Senior administration officials — including acting Office of Management and Budget director Russ Vought and fiscally conservative chief Mick Mulvaney — have told Republicans that the president doesn't want Congress to strike a spending deal in September when current funding runs out. Instead, Team Trump wants a short-term solution to preserve the ability to fight for massive spending cuts in the fifth year of a Trump presidency....

Some senior administration officials envision a newly re-elected Trump liberated to slash spending. They view 2021 as the year to have that fight — the final year in which the president can threaten hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of automatic spending cuts known as the sequester....

Aides say Trump wants to spend more on the military, veterans’ programs, NASA, infrastructure and border security.

... Trump will entertain cutting almost anything else. "The president feels like he's had to give up ransom" to Democrats, who pressured him to increase domestic spending in exchange for more spending on the military and border security, an administration official told me.
This might just be Mick Mulvaney and other advocates of Paul Ryan-style budgets using the media to portray themselves as having more influence over Trump than they actually do. On the other hand, we know Trump doesn't read his own bills or care much what's in them beyond certain specific priorities. So why wouldn't he run as an unorthodox, populist Republican again, then advocate for drastic, unprecedented cuts in important programs as president?

Thus, voters who want Warrenomics might guarantee us Ryanomics. That's democracy in America.

Sunday, May 12, 2019

ON OUTREACH, BUTTIGIEG SCOLDS, WHILE WARREN ACTS

Onlty a few weeks ago, we were regularly being told that Democratic presidential candidates were ruining the party's chances at a 2020 victory by trying to out-progressive one another. Well, now Joe Biden is in the race and leading, so I guess it was inevitable that some candidates would be seeking to out-"centrist" one another, attempting to prove that they're even less progressive than Uncle Joe by stereotyping and slandering fellow Democrats.

Here's Pete Buttigieg:
Pete Buttigieg ... call[ed] out fellow Democrats on Saturday for playing “identity politics” and pitting one group’s grievances against another’s.

In a risky speech to the Human Rights Campaign, a major LGBT rights group, Buttigieg warned of a “crisis of belonging in this country,” arguing it was exacerbated by “so-called identity politics” that emphasize how one person hasn’t walked in another’s shoes — “something that is true, but it doesn’t get us very far.” ...

“What I worry about is not the president’s fantasy wall on the Mexican border that’s not going to get built anyway,” Buttigieg said. “What I worry about are the very real walls that we are putting up between us as we get divided and carved up.”

... In doing so, Buttigieg offered the most pointed critique of his own party so far in the campaign, in a moment that had echoes of Bill Clinton’s “Sistah Souljah” moment in 1992 when he distanced himself from a black political activist who had made controversial comments about race.

“When an auto worker, 12 years into their career, is no longer sure how to provide for their family, they’re not part of the country we think of ourselves as all living in together. That’s why we can’t seem to get on the same page,” Buttigieg said.

Such "divisive lines of thinking” have entered Democrats’ mindset, Buttigieg said, adding: “Like when we’re told we have to choose between supporting an auto worker and a trans woman of color, without stopping to think about the fact that sometimes the auto worker is a trans woman of color, and she definitely needs all the security she can get.”
Meanwhile, instead of scolding her opponents on the subject of outreach and inclusion, Elizabeth Warren is simply doing it -- and, according to Politico, doing it successfully:
KERMIT, W. Va. — It was a startling spectacle in the heart of Trump country: At least a dozen supporters of the president — some wearing MAGA stickers — nodding their heads, at times even clapping, for liberal firebrand Elizabeth Warren....

She went full prarie populist, telling people their pain and suffering was caused by predatory pharmaceutical barons.

The 63-year-old fire chief, Wilburn “Tommy” Preece ... said after the event that he voted for Trump and that the president has revitalized the area economically. Bt he gave Warren props for showing up.

“She done good,” he said.

Others agreed.

LeeAnn Blankenship, a 38-year-old coach and supervisor at a home visitation company who grew up in Kermit and wore a sharp pink suit, said she may now support Warren in 2020 after voting for Trump in 2016.

“She’s a good ol’ country girl like anyone else,” she said of Warren, who grew up in Oklahoma. “She’s earned where she is, it wasn’t given to her. I respect that.”
Warren wants significantly more money for addiction treatment. She wants to use money from her proposed wealth tax to pay for it. She also wants to come down harder on pharmaceutical industry executives who profited from the crisis. If you have ideas for solving problems that matter to people outside your base, and you talk about them with those people, you don't have to prattle on about "identity politics."

Warren is a white woman who was a Harvard professor and is now a senator from a state most people think is full of Eastern elitists. She also grew up without a lot of money in Oklahoma, and when she talks about that, people understand -- this group of whites in Trump country now, a group of black female activists at She the People last month.

You want to bring people together? Go outside your comfort zone and show them you have something to offer. Do the outreach instead of scolding other people. Talk is cheap.