Tuesday, September 13, 2022

THE AMERICAN FATWA THAT WASN'T

Graeme Wood's moment in the sun came in 2015, when The Atlantic published his article "What ISIS Really Wants." It chided then-president Barack Obama and other Western liberals for what Wood regarded as a naive approach to the Islamic State. Members of the exterminate-the-brutes right -- whose cynical transformation into cheerleaders for Trumpian isolationism would come a year or two later -- made use of the article in their ongoing campaign to portray Obama as a morally relativistic hater of Western civilization and a pro-jihad fifth columnist. They overlooked (or probably never read) the part of Wood's piece where he warned against an American invasion to overthrow ISIS and instead recommended "continuing to slowly bleed it, through air strikes and proxy warfare." Obama essentially agreed with, and successfully pursued, the "slow bleed" strategy; the right mostly dropped the subject (Hillary Clinton's emails were a far more tempting target), and the ISIS book Wood published just after the 2016 election was decidedly not a bestseller.

Wood, unsurprisingly, is now trying to rebrand himself as a critic of Western "cancel culture." Because it's 2022 and takes have to be truly spicy to cut through the clutter, he argues that there's essentially no difference between cancel culture here and the ongoing fatwa that nearly cost Salman Rushdie his life a month ago. It's inconvenient for Wood that the cultural establishment in the West supports Rushdie, but he plows ahead anyway in a recent Atlantic piece:
No one is saying, as Jimmy Carter did in 1989, that Rushdie had committed a great evil by offending Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. But that is because they still have a sense of shame, and the near-murder has silenced them. Rushdie’s sin is decades old. A fresh evil, unaccompanied by bloodshed, would attract a freshly craven response, dinging the author for the offense caused and if possible banishing his novel to the great reject pile in the basement of Random House.
Let's overlook the fact that Wood mischaracterizes the New York Times op-ed Jimmy Carter wrote about The Satanic Verses in 1989. (Carter's concern was that the book offended Muslims, not the ayatollah. He's been criticized for the op-ed ever since.) And let's also overlook the fact that Random House has kept The Satanic Verses in print since 2008, and continues to do so. (Random House, it should be noted, was the publisher of Wood's unsuccessful book.)

Now, take a look at the phrase "great reject pile" in the above quote. Each word has a link, intended to inform the reader of the chilling climate in American culture today.

The first link goes to a story about how cultural sensitivity complaints and social media eruptions have led to the cancellation of several young-adult books that were on the verge of publication. I agree with Wood that this is not a good trend. Censoriousness in children's publishing seems excessive to me.

The third link goes to a story about Woody Allen's memoir. Yes, Grand Central, a part of the Hachette media empire, canceled the book in 2020. But it was then picked up and immediately published by Arcade, an imprint of Skyhorse, which also quite successfully publishes Alan Dershowitz, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and other best-selling reprobates. Simon & Schuster is Skyhorse's distributor. The Woody Allen memoir was widely available and made the New York Times bestseller list.

And then there's the middle link -- an NBC story from April 2021 about protests at Simon & Schuster after the company signed Mike Pence's memoir. I bring this up because Axios today is helping to begin the publicity blitz for Pence's book, more than two months before its publication date. Wood portrays the Pence protests as cancel culture, but the book wasn't canceled. Simon & Schuster rejected employees' critiques of Pence and scheduled publication just before Thanksgiving and Christmas, when book sales are highest. The book is getting the treatment a publisher provides when it expects a major bestseller.

The book won't sell like an Obama memoir, but there'll be plenty of legitimate buyers. And whatever happens to it in the marketplace, please note that it will be in the marketplace. Pence hasn't been silenced. Yet Graeme Wood thinks there's a fatwa against Pence, simply because people protested his book deal. To Wood, that's the equivalent of a death sentence.

Monday, September 12, 2022

WHY IS THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR OF ARIZONA HANDING THE ELECTION TO A TRUMPIST LUNATIC?

This is politcal malpractice:
Democrat Katie Hobbs’ campaign announced Sunday that she would not debate Republican Kari Lake as the two battle for the Arizona governor’s office....

The decision came after more than a week of efforts by Hobbs, currently secretary of state, to change the debate into separate half-hour interviews with the moderator. The Citizens Clean Elections Commission, which has held debates for two decades featuring candidates for statewide and legislative offices, flatly rejected that proposal on Thursday.
Hobbs's campaign spokesman said Hobbs -- who also refused to debate during the Democratic primary campaign -- simply thinks it's pointless to debate Lake.
“Unfortunately, debating a conspiracy theorist like Kari Lake – whose entire campaign platform is to cause enormous chaos and make Arizona the subject of national ridicule – would only lead to constant interruptions, pointless distractions, and childish name-calling,” Hobbs’ campaign manager Nicole DeMont said.
Lake is a crackpot, but she's a polished crackpot -- she was a local TV news anchor for 22 years. I'm sure his would give her a natural advantage in a debate -- and I'm sure she'd Gish-gallop her way through it, making so many wild, unfounded claims that Hobbs would struggle to keep up.

But you have to make the effort. Voters expect it. And Hobbs can't win unless at least half of Arizona voters find batshit-crazy Trumpism and conspiratorialism at least somewhat off-putting. So let Lake rant -- and be the public champion of everyone offended by her ideas, rather than ceding the airwaves to her. (Lake will now get to turn the debate into her own town hall.)

Here's a taste of what Lake is like, from Wikipedia (the link numbers have been deleted):
In August 2021, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Lake led anti-mask rallies, calling on Arizona State University students to go against the university's mask mandates. Lake said that as governor she would not tolerate mask and vaccine mandates of the COVID-19 pandemic. In November 2021, Lake told a group of Republican retirees that she was taking hydroxychloroquine to prevent COVID-19 infection. She stated that, as governor, she would work to have hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin produced in the state to "make it easier for us to get these lifesaving drugs." Lake questioned the science behind COVID-19 vaccines and said that she had not been vaccinated....

Lake ... described herself in 2022 as a "Trump candidate." ... She accused President Joe Biden and Democrats of harboring a "demonic agenda." ...

Lake said in 2022 that she considers abortion to be "the ultimate sin" and praised the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.... She expressed support for banning both surgical abortions and medication abortions in Arizona....

Lake has opposed legislation to create non-discrimination protections for people based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and opposing restrooms accommodating transgender people.

... in a tweet ... Lake said that if elected governor, she would not "recognize" federal gun laws....

Lake falsely claimed President Joe Biden did not receive 81 million votes and that Arizona (which was won by Biden in the 2020 presidential election) was actually won by Trump. After the 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit found no evidence of election fraud, she demanded the election be "decertified" ... She endorsed a false assertion by Trump spokeswoman Liz Harrington that Democrats use mail-in ballots to rig elections. Lake tweeted quotes made by Sidney Powell on Lou Dobbs Tonight falsely asserting there was a sweeping election fraud conspiracy. She has advocated imprisoning Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (who is running for governor in 2022 as a Democrat) on baseless and unspecified allegations of criminality related to the 2020 election. Lake also called for imprisoning journalists.
If you're the opposing candidate, you have to stand up and confront a demagogue like Lake -- especially when she's said you should be imprisoned. You have to do what Hillary Clinon and Joe Biden did when they debated a TV star turned fascist demagogue in 2016 and 2020.

It can be savvy to duck debates when you have a large lead, but FiveThirtyEight says Hobbs is leading in the polls by less than a point.

Lake will be one of the worst governors in America if she's elected. It will be impossible for the Democratic ticket to win the state's electoral votes in 2024 if she's governor, no matter how the state's citizens vote. Hobbs is making a bad mistake. This is the kind of blunder that could decide the election.

SO THEY'RE USING MAGGIE HABERMAN TO TRY TO KEEP TRUMP OUT OF PRISON?

CNN reports:
Former President Donald Trump repeatedly told aides in the days following his 2020 election loss that he would remain in the White House rather than let incoming President Joe Biden take over, according to reporting provided to CNN from a forthcoming book by New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman.

"I'm just not going to leave," Trump told one aide, according to Haberman.

"We're never leaving," Trump told another. "How can you leave when you won an election?" ...

Haberman writes that in the immediate aftermath of the November 3 elections, Trump seemed to recognize he had lost to Biden. He asked advisers to tell him what had gone wrong. He comforted one adviser, saying, "We did our best." Trump told junior press aides, "I thought we had it," seemingly almost embarrassed by the outcome, according to Haberman
.
But at some point, Trump's mood changed, Haberman writes, and he abruptly informed aides he had no intention of departing the White House in late January 2021 for Biden to move in.

He was even overheard asking the chair of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, "Why should I leave if they stole it from me?"
Is this what really happened? It's possible. Or it's possible that this is just what Trumpworld wanted Haberman to write, because her reporting becomes conventional wisdom, and Trump's circle wants the public -- including potential jurors in any Trump trial -- to think Trump really believed he'd won the election.

For some of the possible charges against Trump related to the post-election period, it will be necessary to prove corrupt intent in order to convict. (Or at least that's what high-minded legal analysts say. I think what's necessary is finding twelve jurors who never watch Fox News. If even one is a regular viewer, the government can present days and days of smoking-gun evidence and Trump will still avoid conviction.)

The "corrupt intent" standard makes me furious. It appears that even if a reasonable person should have known that Joe Biden won the election, and a reasonable person who is a prominent government official, in fact the most prominent government official, really should have known that Joe Biden won the election, Trump can still get away with claiming lack of corrupt intent if he says that he didn't know, even if he once knew and then stopped knowing, under the influence of Sidney Powell, the My Pillow guy, the Overstock.com guy, and other fine legal minds.

This comes at a time when, as I recently noted, it appears that ordinary people who have voted illegally get much harsher sentences if they didn't know they were breaking the law than if they did know and tell the authorities that, hell yeah, they cheated (on behalf of the Republicans) because they were sure the evil Antichrists of the Democrat Party were already cheating. In that case, corrupt intent seems to get you a reduced sentence, or maybe I'm confusing that with white skin.

In any case, I haven't read Haberman's book, which goes on sale October 4, so maybe this is not what she's telling us. But for now it seems that her sources fed her the line that Trump's intent wasn't corrupt, and she's dutifully retransmitting it.

Sunday, September 11, 2022

DEAR REPUBLICANS: DUMP TRUMP AND MAYBE THE PUBLIC WILL CARE ABOUT HUNTER BIDEN

The Washington Examiner has published a lengthy review of the new right-wing attack film My Son Hunter. The piece, which is 2500 words long and seems longer, is by Dominic Green, a Very Serious conservative pundit -- he's written for The Atlantic, The Wall Street Journal, and The Economist, among other publications. Green dislikes the movie but largely accepts the right-wing Hunter Biden narrative it's based on; he laments that the narrative will never be widely accepted in America, blaming a conspiracy of silence:
Hunter Biden’s business activities are a powder trail, yet most American media are unwilling to strike a match. Perhaps it might shed an unflattering light on their partisan efforts to suppress the story before the 2020 elections. Perhaps an unexpected detonation might damage a Democratic president who is floundering in the polls. Perhaps it would help former President Donald Trump, who threatens to run in 2024, or the Republicans, who promise to step up their inquiries if they recover Congress in the November midterm elections.

Hunter Biden is untouchable. Where once Dr. Faustus, busy with his pipes and decoctions in his home lab, cut a deal with Mephistopheles, Hunter, the Faust of Generation X, has done one better. He may have mortgaged his soul, but he enjoys near-unique privileges where it really matters, down here on the ground. This crackhead and whoremonger amassed millions as an influence-peddler. Hunter peddled as hard as he partied, and he peddled to pro-Putin oligarchs in Ukraine and party-adjacent squidillionaires in China. He was under the influence of a shopping list of illegal substances and a raging sex addiction, too, but his connection to his father was strong enough for his clients to believe that when they put Hunter on the board and the payroll, they were buying access and influence to Joe Biden.
Outside the right-wing bubble, no one cares. Perhaps the rest of America will care if Republicans take the House and/or Senate, because they'll start the first committee hearing on the president's son about ten minutes after they're sworn in next January, and hearings will still be taking place when the polls open in November 2024. But I think even this saturation coverage of the story won't matter.

That's for many reasons, but one of them is obvious: the existence of the Trump family. Many politically engaged Democratic voters can, in great detail, expound on the many corrupt acts the Trumps have engaged in. But even voters who haven't paid much attention can see the obvious: Donald Trump lives surrounded by the spoils of wealth. He owns gaudy estates. He sits on gold-plated toilets. Joe Biden's life in Delaware seems ... simple. Here he is taking a bike ride! Here he is hanging out with a German shepherd! Biden's day-to-day habits seems the opposite of corrupt, while Trump and his family seem to be telling us: We may or may not be amoral serial felons surrounded by ill-gotten gains, but we sure want it to look as if we are.

The life of Hunter Biden has been decadent, but all his escapades seem to head in the same direction: straight toward the gutter. Maybe he had ill-gotten gains, but they weren't gotten for very long. As soon as Hunter acquired them, they appear to have departed, either up his nose or in a prostitute's cleavage. By contrast, even when Donald Trump was nearly a billion dollars in debt thirty years ago, his message was: I've still got it all, and nobody can take it away from me!

I despise Ron DeSantis with every fiber of my being, but there are no pictures of him like this:


Republicans should dump Trump if they want to have any chance of persuading Americans outside their base that Hunter Biden got away with something.

Saturday, September 10, 2022

THE PREDICTABLE REPUBLICAN FREAKOUT IF DEMOCRATS EXCEED EXPECTATIONS IN NOVEMBER

Tom Bonier is the CEO of TargetSmart, a Democratic data firm. He's been telling people that voter registration since the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision has heavily favored Democrats. Last week he wrote this in a New York Times op-ed:
In my 28 years of analyzing elections, I had never seen anything like what’s happened in the past two months in American politics: Women are registering to vote in numbers I never witnessed before. I’ve run out of superlatives to describe how different this moment is, especially in light of the cycles of tragedy and eventual resignation of recent years. This is a moment to throw old political assumptions out the window and to consider that Democrats could buck historic trends this cycle....

Election prognostication relies heavily on precedent. Yet there is no precedent for an election centered on the removal of a constitutional right affirmed a half-century before. Every poll we consume over the closing weeks of this election will rely on a likely voter model for which we have no benchmark.
Then on Thursday there was this in the Houston Chronicle:
A new analysis from political data and polling firm TargetSmart found that while Texas’ new voter registrants are evenly split between men and women, they are younger and more Democratic than before the June ruling.

“It’s not that we’re not seeing a surge from women but that in Texas, we’re somewhat uniquely also seeing a surge from men, particularly younger, more progressive men, who are matching the surge from women,” said the firm’s CEO Tom Bonier....

According to TargetSmart, Democrats now have a 10-percentage point advantage among new registrants since Dobbs, making up 42 percent to Republicans’ 32 percent. Prior to Dobbs, Republicans had a five-point advantage.

The state’s young voters — defined as those under age 25 — are also leaning more blue, the analysis found. Democrats now make up 47 percent of young Texas voters, up from 34 percent. The Republican share has remained the same at just under 30 percent.

That’s in line with what TargetSmart is seeing in 25 states that report party registration.
I don't know if what Bonier is saying is accurate, and if so, I don't know if it's enough to overcome the usual GOP voter enthusiasm and other advantages that regularly lead to Republican victories in states like Florida, Texas, Georgia, and Arizona.

But what if Bonier is right? What if the polls we're seeing are based on likely-voter models that don't take this surge of pro-Democratic enthusiasm and anger into account? What if Democrats beat expectations in November and win not only the races where they're seen as competitive, but a few where they aren't?

That would be awesome. It would also make Republicans' heads explode.

In 2016 and 2020, the polls underestimated Republican turnout. Regardless of what the GOP will tell you, Democrats never questioned that those votes were real. In 2016 we complained about leaks, disinformation, and psychologically manipulative ads microtargeted to voters based on corruptly obtained Facebook user data. We blamed the Russians. We blamed James Comey for his last-minute announcement that the Hillary Clinton investigation was being reopened. But we never doubted that the votes were real. We acknowledged that Trump won the Electoral College in 2016, and nearly won it in 2020, because, to a greater extent than we'd anticipated, eligible voters had cast lawful ballots for Donald Trump (and, in 2020, for candidates we'd expected to lose, such as Susan Collins).

Republicans won't react that way this year if polls are underestimating Democratic strength. They'll cry fraud. And where they control the electoral process, they'll say that the difference between the polls and the election results is all the evidence they need to show that fraud happened.

After the votes were counted in 2016, Democrats beat themselves up: How did we underestimate this right-wing anger? Were we unable to perceive it because we live in an elite bubble? The media sources we relied on churned out endless pieces, most of them written in diners, that tried to identify the voters we'd overlooked and explain how they thought.

Nothing like that will happen if Democrats overperform in November. I worry that the same mainstream media will take Republicans' claims of fraud seriously, because the Republicans making the allegations will be seasoned pros like Ron DeSantis and Brian Kemp, not amateurs and clowns like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell.

In my last post, I predicted widespread cheating by Republicans in the midterms. I think it's likely that many Republicans will try to cheat, but honest election officials -- the ones who haven't been driven to retire -- could still prevent serious fraud from taking place. But then these same honest officials might be accused of dishonesty for counting real Democratic votes. It might get ugly.

Friday, September 09, 2022

REPUBLICAN ELECTORAL FRAUD WILL BE RAMPANT THIS YEAR, WON'T IT?

Greg Sargent flags a CNN story about poll-worker training in Michigan:
The evening before Michigan's state primary, Wayne County GOP leaders held a Zoom training session for poll workers and partisan observers -- warning them about "bad stuff happening" during the election and encouraging them to ignore local election rules barring cell phones and pens from polling places and vote-counting centers.

"None of the constraints that they're putting on this are legal," former state senator Patrick Colbeck told trainees on the August 1 call.

As far as cell phones, "I would say maybe just hide it or something, and maybe hide a small pad and a small pen or something like that because you need to take accurate notes," Cheryl Costantino, the GOP county chairwoman and host of the call, told participants.

Some participants raised concerns about being tossed out if they broke the rules. "That's why you got to do it secretly," Costantino replied.
Sargent writes:
These Republicans aren’t just urging rule-breaking at the polls. They’re also justifying it by claiming in advance that Democrats are the real cheaters, per CNN, thus pre-fabricating a phony rationale for their own chicanery.

This self-justifying ruse — Democrats will inevitably cheat, so pretty much anything goes to set things right — is absolutely foundational to right-wing efforts to corrupt democracy across the board, including laying the groundwork to steal future elections.
Also see this detail from a recent New York Times story about the wide range of punishments meted out in recent cases of voter fraud (generally speaking, if you're middle-class and cheated deliberately, you get a slap on the wrist, but if you're poor and genuinely believed you were entitled to vote, you get the book thrown at you):
An Iowa woman, Terri Lynn Rote, said she cast two ballots for Mr. Trump in 2016 because she believed her first vote would be switched to favor Hillary Clinton. “I wasn’t planning on doing it twice — it was spur of the moment,” she later told The Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier. “The polls are rigged.”

A judge fined her $750 and sentenced her to two years’ probation.
This comes at a time when the new hotness on the right is the argument that Democrats want to criminalize being a Republican (or being a Trumpist, which to most Republicans is the same thing). Last week, right-wing commentator Matt Taibbi told readers of his Substack that President Biden, in his Philadelphia speech, "sure sounded like a man preparing to criminalize Trumpism." Today, FrontPage Magazine's Daniel Greenfield warns of "The Coming Outlawing of the Republican Party":
Republicans want to hold the majority and co-exist with Democrats, while Democrats, under the influence of the Left, want to eliminate Republicans.

This fundamental difference between the two sides was on display during Biden’s fascist rant in Philadelphia where he denounced half the country as a threat to democracy.
Greenfield's evidence is a court ruling affecting precisely one (1) Republican officeholder, a New Mexico county commissioner and convicted January 6 insurrectionist who has now been removed from office under a provision of the Fourteenth Amendment prescribing that penalty for those who have "engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the United States government. Prior to his removal, the commissioner, Couy Griffin, showed his respect for democracy by refusing to certify the results of the county's primary election this year, even under a court order, citing no reason to doubt their accuracy except "my gut feeling and my own intuition."

The message being sent to Republicans is that they'll all be put in camps soon by the fascist supervillain Joe Biden (who apparently is no longer an addle-pated dementia sufferer). So how scrupulous do you think they're likely to be about following election laws? I assume that they'll regard double-voting, harassment of Democrats at the polls, and probably all the chicanery they claim Democrats engaged in two years ago -- voting-machine manipulation, dropbox-stuffing, boxes of fake ballots -- as necessary to save America and freedom.

I see that Virginia, under that nice Governor Fleecevest, is starting a copycat version of Ron DeSantis's "election integrity" unit.


Maybe it's time for some Democratic governors and attorneys general to do the same thing. They might actually find quite a bit of fraud, from the Republican side, especially this year.

Thursday, September 08, 2022

QUEEN ELIZABETH IS DEAD, AND RIGHT-WING CRAZIES ARE HAVING A NORMAL ONE

Queen Elizabeth has died, and the reaction at some right-wing comments sections is a bit unhinged.

At TheDonald (aka patriots.win):
She's fucking 97 years old...

****

A fucking 97 year old can still die from the Clot Shot.

****

Guarantee you she didn't get the shot.

****

Elites got Harmless Saline Solution for the cameras. Think about it .... The secret service protects Potatus even if there is a on in a million chance something will happen to him. You think they are gonna put a real shot of experimental gene therapy treatment into him? the truth is so obvious it hurts

****

I think the globalists never told her it was poison. She definitely got the shot. They want to abolish the monarchy so what better way.

****

I don't think any lizard got the shot.

****

It is hilarious that we pretend the clot shot only kills healthy people under 50 because anyone else gets another excuse attached nearly every time.

****

As long as she is queen, Charles is not a king. Charles is a globalist puppet. For all her faults, the Queen is not.

****

I have never heard this. Can you give an example of when she has stood up against the globalist agenda? Not saying you're wrong just surprised to hear this.

****

its more that she didn't push any of the globalist wank

when you are in a position such as that and you realise the globalist wank is all around you there is little you can do without fear of repercussions (an accident down the stairs ending her reign a few years early for example)

charles has been pushing the globalist wank with gusto in recent years

with the queen dead this is the beginning of the end of the monarchy as far as i am concerned
So to sum up: The queen either died from receiving the coronavirus vaccine ("the clot shot") or she was given a fake shot to fool the rubes. She wasn't really a globalist but Charles is, so goodbye monarchy. Got it?

(By the way, she was 96, not 97.)

What's up at Gateway Pundit? Let's take a look....
Good riddance to the jab pusher who murdered tens of thousands by saying the jab was harmless.

Doesnt matter whether she knew or was stupid. She was too influential to make such a statement without knowing for sure.

****

You mean what she did in the shadows with Jimmy Seville to her country.

****

And ted heath, lord Mountbatten, Rolf Harris and the school kids that disappeared on a picnic with her in Indonesia in the 70's.

****

And the native Canadian orphans who disappeared with her and Philip on a picnic.
Anyone with a brain knows she and her reptilian relatives are/were E V I L.

****

The numbers are massive . A death cult leader gone today ! Woot!

****

I don't doubt that adrenochrome helped keep that old bag alive.

****

This monarchy will die with her! Charles or Willian do not have the strength, character, faith, or integrity to withstand the woke mob and the WEF!

****

withstand? They are PART of the woke mob!
So are the surviving members of the royal family pawns of the World Economic Forum? Are they "lizard people"? Were they and the queen personally responsible for Jimmy Savile's pedophilia at the BBC? Apparently so!

A Free Republic thread directs us to this Substack post by Jordan Shachtel, which I believe represents the consensus right-wing opinion regarding Charles (I expect to hear many of these points on Fox in the next few days):
[Queen Elizabeth's] successor ... can best be understood as the WEF (World Economic Forum) king. King Charles is truly a king for our times, in the worst possible way imaginable. He is a perfect representation of the western ruling class and its pernicious agenda.

Charles, to put it bluntly, is an anti-human reprobate, who has lived a life of disgrace, hypocrisy, and corruption. But his lifestyle is the least of the issues at hand. Charles is a king who has embraced and promoted the most destructive causes of our times.

Most notably, Charles is both a climate catastrophist and an advocate for the depopulation agenda. Last year, he demanded a “war-like footing,” in calling for the sabotage of reliable energy resources to tackle the so-called climate crisis. Charles’s initiatives, and his promotion of the destructive Paris Climate Accords and the U.N.’s Climate Change Conference objectives, has helped position the U.K. on the precipice of energy disaster....

The newly minted king is also an avowed proponent of depopulation, having on multiple occasions called for population control of broader civilization....

At the onset of COVID Mania, Charles sat down with World Economic Forum leader Klaus Schwab, in which the pair excitedly championed a “Great Reset” to “solve the climate crisis and restore the natural world.” In a podcast with Schwab, Charles advocated “carbon pricing” of goods and a “net zero” agenda, which, of course, would result in mass human suffering....

Charles doesn’t actually care about the environment. It serves as window dressing for his true aims. His advocacy for the “green” agenda, through Davos talking points, is part of a campaign to usurp more power for the “elite” circles that he travels within. Charles has spent the last several years dedicating lots of time and energy to promoting the ESG agenda, which acts to cartelize industry and create financial monopolies in the name of the environment.

Finally, I can get a sense of what it feels like to be a Patriot in the time of the American Revolution. Charles is a king worthy of our disdain. He has embraced the evil ideologies of our times. He represents a series of radical movements that seek to impose ruin upon the masses, to the benefit of the ruling class. Charles is no king of the people. He is the WEF king.
So that's how the right is mourning Queen Elizabeth. You can't help but admire their quiet dignity and tact.

A SPOILED BRAT IS NOT A NIHILIST

At The Atlantic, Tom Nichols writes about President Biden's recent Philadelphia speech and accuses the MAGA movement of nihilism:
... Biden got one big thing right, and that one thing explains why Donald Trump and the MAGA World apologists are reacting with such fury. The president outed them as anti-American nihilists:
... MAGA Republicans have made their choice. They embrace anger. They thrive on chaos. They live not in the light of truth but in the shadow of lies.
This, as Biden pointed out, is what makes the MAGA movement so dangerous. It has no functional compass and no set of actual preferences beyond a generalized resentment, a basket of gripes and grudges against others who the Trumpists think are looking down upon them or living better lives than they are....

These citizens do not want a discussion or a compromise. They don’t even want to “win,” in any traditional political sense of that word. They want to vent anger over their lives—their personal problems, their haunted sense of inferiority, and their fears about social status—on other Americans, as vehemently as possible, even to the point of violence....

The MAGA movement isn’t interested in politics, or policies, or compromises. It is interested in destruction and seeing others made as miserable as its followers are. MAGA is a movement of people who seem to be, in so many ways, deeply and profoundly unhappy, and suffering from an emptiness and anger deep in their spirit.
But MAGA does have a "functional compass" and a "set of actual preferences": We get what we want and people who don't like us are owned. Elsewhere in the piece, Nichols says precisely this:
How do any of us, and especially the president, engage with such a movement, when every discussion includes the belief that the only legitimate outcomes are ones in which the MAGA choice wins?
Say what you will about "We should win 100% of the time," but it's a belief system. It's not nihilism -- it's infantilism. It's the belief system of a child in the back seat of a car throwing a temper tantrum.

A child throwing a temper tantrum wants what he wants now, and doesn't care about any other possible consequences -- you should pull the car over and attend to his needs right away. This is how spoiled children see the world. It's also how billionaires see the world, which is why MAGA and mainstream Republicanism work so well together. Billionaires don't care whether endless tax cuts for their class and increasing inequality and the dismantling of the regulatory state make the country unable to function for the rest of us -- they want what they want, and they assume their money will shield them from any negative societal consequences. The MAGAs think nothing bad will ever happen to their kind if they remake the world to their specifications -- they won't get slaughtered in a mass shooting, they won't get long COVID, they won't have a gay or trans child who's persecuted, they won't have an ectopic pregnancy the state considers suspicious.

And in the worst case, they prepare for doomsday. MAGA is full of doomsday preppers, but their prepping isn't nihilism or the result of being "deeply and profoundly unhappy." Whether they admit it to themselves or not, they want the apocalypse. They think they'll thrive in it -- and we won't. They want an America in which they're dominant and we're submissive, and they're convinced that a Mad Max world in which they have bunkers and we don't would be the ultimate in lib-owning.

And as Douglas Rushkoff recently wrote, billionaires are engaging in doomsday prep too, although their bunkers are much more luxe. You can say that their desire to drive the planet to an irreversible catastrophe is nihilism, but I see them as a class of spoiled brats who focus on nothing except always getting their way. And that's a belief system.

Wednesday, September 07, 2022

REPUBLICANS REALLY MIGHT LOSE THE SENATE BECAUSE THEY'RE ASSHOLES

John Fetterman, still recovering from a stroke, has told Politico that he intends to debate his opponent in the Pensylvania Senate race, but not until October:
“We’re absolutely going to debate Dr. Oz, and that was really always our intent to do that,” Fetterman told POLITICO in an exclusive interview. “It was just simply only ever been about addressing some of the lingering issues of the stroke, the auditory processing, and we’re going to be able to work that out.”

Fetterman declined to specify which debate he will attend or provide an exact date for it, though he said it will “be sometime in the middle to end of October” on a “major television station” in the state.
Fetterman has been limiting his campaign appearances, and seems somewhat halting in his speech in recent clips. Republicans, of course, want to take advantage of his infirmity in order to win the election. The outgoing Republican senator, Pat Toomey, has a conventional approach to the situation: He's insinuating that Fetterman can't serve while disguising the message as concern:
“I’ve worked with senators in both parties, sadly, who have seriously diminished intellectual or communication capabilities, and I can tell you, that’s a very different thing,” said Toomey. “It’s really hard to be an effective voice for your constituents if you cannot engage in that way.”
But the message from Dr. Oz's campaign is pure assholery:
Asked for comment on Fetterman’s debate commitment, Oz spokesperson Barney Keller said, “Is it possible to quote somebody laughing?”
This follows another campaign spokesperson's statement: “If John Fetterman had ever eaten a vegetable in his life, then maybe he wouldn’t have had a major stroke and wouldn’t be in the position of having to lie about it constantly.”

These aren't slip-ups. These are calculated moments of assholism. It's standard behavior for Republicans in this campaign. Oz isn't the only GOP Senate candidate in a winnable race who's (a) acting this way and (b) trailing in the polls. Here's Ron Johnson, who's up for re-election, attacking the media for asking him questions and attacking his fellow Wisconsin senator, Tammy Baldwin, who was the first openly gay person elected to the Senate:


And here's Blake Masters attacking his opponent in the Arizona Senate race for ... being an ex-astronaut (but not, apparently, the really cool kind of astronaut):


Republicans are struggling to retake the Senate because women are furious about the end of Roe v. Wade, because Donald Trump can't be silenced, and because the party's extremism is rampant all over the country. But they would be in a much better position to win seats if so many of them hadn't decided that being an asshole is what voters really want. I realize that it's what Republican voters really want, but this just might be the year when Democrats and independents vote in sufficent numbers to defeat Republicans who lean into assholism.

I'm not sure Republicans will be able to abandon assholism even if they struggle in the midterms -- their two top presidential contenders, after all, are two of the proudest assholes in America. But it looks as if they'll pay a price for rampant assholism this year.

IT'S THE LIBERALISM, STUPID

Amy Walter of the Cook Political Report is baffled by the apparent contradiction between President Biden's poll numbers and the Democrats' numbers for the midterms:
In [a recent] Pew survey, 37 percent of voters said they either strongly or somewhat approved of the job Biden was doing in office. Not surprisingly 93 percent of those who strongly approve and 86 percent who somewhat approve say they are voting Democratic this fall. Among the 43 percent of voters who give Biden "very unfavorable" marks, 82 percent of those voters say they are supporting a Republican for Congress.

But, among the 17 percent of voters who say they "somewhat disapprove" of Biden, 43 percent say they are planning to vote Democratic this fall, compared to 29 percent who say they'll vote Republican.

In other words, those who are "meh" about Biden are voting for Democrats. This is not something that we've seen before.
At Politico, Republican pollster Patrick Ruffini expresses skepticism about the possibility that Democrats can do well in the midterms, because the party in the White House nearly always loses seats in Congress:
The Democratic argument, I guess, would be that this is something of an election almost like ’98 or ’02, where you had kind of a historical event happen that disrupts that midterm pattern. I think that the burden of proof is maybe a little bit higher on Democrats here, because that doesn’t happen very often. The counter-examples are small, right? The ’98 midterm with the Monica Lewinsky scandal and the ’02 midterm after 9/11. Is there a possibility that overturning Roe v. Wade was kind of a historical event or a disruption on the level of those things? Yeah, it’s possible. But Biden is not necessarily sitting at a 60 percent plus approval rating as we’re having this conversation.
Ruffini's point is that, yes, Democrats did well in the 1998 midterms, but Bill Clinton was a very popular president. George W. Bush was very popular in 2002 in the aftermath of 9/11. Joe Biden's numbers are going up, but he's not popular.

The simple explanation: It's the Dobbs decision. But Democrats' numbers were better than Biden's even before Dobbs. On May 1, the day before the draft Dobbs decision leaked, Democrats were only 2.4 points behind Republicans on the generic congressional ballot, according to FiveThirtyEight. Biden's approval number at the time was 10.3 points below his disapproval number.

It's the liberalism, stupid. Many voters want what they thought a Biden presidency promised: relief on health care and college costs, efforts to curb gun violence, policies to reduce climate change, tax increases for the rich, seriousness on COVID. But some voters who now say they disapprove of Biden think he hasn't delivered.

When they were in office, Donald Trump, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush were seen as doing what they set out to do -- if you didn't like them, it was because you didn't like their policies. With Biden, it's different -- some people don't like his policies, but others think see him as struggling to get the country where he wants it to go. They see a Republican Supreme Court and corporatist pseudo-Democrats blocking his agenda. They see Donald Trump walking free. They see radical Republicans at the state and local level terrorizing teachers and librarians. But Biden hasn't seemed like the solution to those problems.

Amy Walter writes:
There's plenty of reason to think that a good chunk of these "somewhat disapprovers" are Democrats. [A] pollster who shared [a] non-profit survey with me said their survey showed these voters to be overwhelming Democratic and 'skew young.'
That was certainly true when Biden's numbers were at their worst in midsummer.


The liberal agenda isn't everyone's agenda. We're still more or less a 50-50 nation. But we're a 50-50 nation with a 40-60 skew on the president. That's because of how Biden's competence has been perceived. But he's not on the ballot this year.

Tuesday, September 06, 2022

YOU DON'T HAVE TO LET THEM LIE

NPR's David Folkenflik has a fairly good story on the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit against Fox News. The breaking news is that a Fox producer, who's not named, sent an email warning that one Fox host's claims of fraud after the 2020 presidential election were toxic:
The November 2020 email from an anguished Fox News news producer to colleagues sent up a flare amid a fusillade of false claims.

The producer warned: Fox cannot let host Jeanine Pirro back on the air. She is pulling conspiracy theories from dark corners of the Web to justify then-President Donald Trump's lies that the election had been stolen from him. The existence of the email, confirmed by two people with direct knowledge of it, is first publicly disclosed by NPR in this story.
The NPR story provides some examples of Pirro's on-air commentary:
On Nov. 14, 2020, for example, the day that Biden clinched his victory, Pirro questioned why vote counts shifted against Trump over the course of Election Night in such states as Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. (Some counties were counted later than others; ballots cast the same day were often tallied before those cast by mail.) "The Dominion Software System has been tagged as one allegedly capable of flipping votes," Pirro told viewers, as she promoted Trump campaign attorney Sidney Powell's "findings" on Dominion. (A federal judge in Michigan later officially sanctioned Powell for her actions in court on Trump's behalf after the elections, while the Texas state law bar is seeking to have her formally punished.)
Folkenflik reached out to Fox for its side of the story. Here's what Fox said:
"Freedom of the press is foundational to our democracy and must be protected," a senior spokeswoman for Fox News said in a statement to NPR. She called the damages claims "outrageous, unsupported and not rooted in sound financial analysis, serving as nothing more than a flagrant attempt to deter our journalists from doing their jobs."

"All you're reporting to the public is that somebody - in this case, the president of the United States - has made the allegation of voter fraud by Dominion," Dan Webb, Fox News' outside attorney on the case, tells NPR. "I don't know how anything could be more newsworthy than the president of the United States making the allegation, and his lawyers making the allegations in court, because that's so fundamental."
Does Folkenflik explain that that's not "all" Fox was "reporting to the public"? Does he point out that there was far more in the disputed broadcasts than just a recounting of what President Trump was saying about the election?

No. And while you might say it's obvious that the Fox statement is at odds with the facts, Folkenkflik should have said so explicitly. I get it: The mainstream press believes that the subject of a negative story has a right to respond. But the right to respond is not a right to inject an unchallenged lie into the discussion.

As Dominion's complaint against Fox makes clear, Pirro, Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, and other Fox hosts repeatedly hosted such conspiratorialists as Sidney Powell and Rudy Giuliani -- Powell was a regular guest on Fox well after the Trump White House cut ties with her. The Fox hosts reported their outlandish claims even after state and federal government bodies rejected them. This wasn't neutral reporting. Fox went out of its way to put conspiratorialists on the air. So why let the Fox spokesman lie about this now?

Folkenflik does tell us:
In conducting the first interview of Trump after the election, Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo told Trump and her viewers, "This is disgusting, and we cannot allow America's election to be corrupted." In mid-December, Bartiromo announced that "an intel source" told her that Trump had won the election. She never followed up with any further material to substantiate that reporting.
And:
In December 2020, while still a Fox Business host, [Lou] Dobbs said opponents of President Trump throughout the government had committed "treason," and later suggested that any Republican who upheld President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the Electoral College may be "criminal."
That implicitly rebuts the Fox statement -- but readers sould still be told that the statement is false.

There's also this in the story:
Asked by NPR whether Fox still considers Bartiromo a news anchor, and thus part of Fox's news and reporting division, rather than its opinion side, a network spokeswoman declined to comment. It is the first known time Fox has not identified Bartiromo as a news-side journalist.
This is nonsense framing that Fox has been getting away with for years. Fox backs critics down by claiming that it's a first-rate news outlet that also happens to broadcast a few hours of opinion a week. The implication is that you can't blame the "real" Fox -- the news side -- for what a few peripheral opinion hotheads say in prime time. Even if we were to ignore the fact that those opinion-mongers make Fox most of its money, what difference does it make whether a false and defamatory statement is made by an opinion-side host or a news-side host? If Tucker Carlson or Jeanine Pirro falsely described you on the air as a child molester, would you be any less defamed than if Bill Hemmer said the same thing?

Let's watch how this case unfolds. I'm not expecting much, but maybe we'll be pleasantly surprised.

Monday, September 05, 2022

WHY THERE'S NO CIVIL WAR YET

In The Washington Post, Thomas Ricks tells us that he no longer fears a civil war in America:
Five years ago, I began to worry about a new American civil war breaking out.... I am less concerned by that prospect now.

... I worried that there would be a spate of assassination attempts against politicians and judges. I thought we might see courthouses and other federal buildings bombed. I also expected that in some states, right-wing organizations, heavily influenced by white nationalism, would hold conventions to discuss how to defy enforcement of federal laws they disliked, such as those dealing with voting rights. Some governors might vow to fire any state employee complying with unwanted federal orders. And I thought it likely that “nullification juries” would start cropping up, refusing to convict right-wingers committing mayhem, such as attacking election officials, no matter what evidence there was.

... Oddly enough, the main things that give me hope arise from former president Donald Trump’s attack on the electoral process, culminating in the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.

... Again and again, both federal and state courts rejected claims of election fraud. Now those who alleged fraud without substantial evidence are themselves being investigated. Hundreds of people who invaded the Capitol, attacked police and threatened lawmakers were tracked down and charged with crimes. It was as if the American system had been subjected to a stress test and, albeit a bit wobbly, passed.
Ricks thinks we're still at some risk, but he's less concerned than he used to be -- and I think he has a point. But is it just that the system appears to be capable of pushing back?

I don't think so. I think right-wing radicals haven't declared war primarily because they believe the establishment, as soon as it's controlled by Republicans, might really deliver for them. There's not a lot of ideological daylight between most right-wing radicals and electable (or, in many cases, actually elected) GOP politicians, in the way that there's serious distance between radical leftists and elected Democrats. Republicans really can deliver abortion bans. Republicans really can crack down brutally on immigrants. Republicans really can throw non-white voters who didn't realize they were ineligible to vote in prison. Republicans at the local level really can terrorize trans people, and intimidate librarians and teachers who are deemed "woke."

When you know the system can give you what you want, why wouldn't you assume that voting rather than revolution is the way to go?

Ricks writes:
... the Capitol invaders turned out to lack the courage of their convictions. Having broken the law, they shied away from the consequences. Unlike the civil rights activists of the 1960s, they did not proudly march into jails, certain of the rightness of their cause, eager to use the moment to explain what they had done and why. They lacked the essentials that gave the civil rights movement and others sustainability: training, discipline and a strategy for the long term.
They don't really have a goal like the civil rights activists of the 1960s, do they? The civil rights activists wanted nothing less than full citizenship for Black Americans. The right-wing radicals are happy just to own their enemies. Disney got spanked in Florida -- we won! The judge said Trump gets a special master -- suck it, MSNBC!

It was only when the system seemed to be completely failing the radicals, after the 2020 election, that they rioted. They might riot again if the midterms don't go their way, or if a Democrat beats Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis in 2024. But for now, betting on the political process to deliver for them seems perfectly reasonable, so they're mostly holding their fire.

TRUMP IS KILLING THE REPUBLICAN PARTY? IF ONLY.

I'm about to take a Megan McArdle column seriously. Many of you will wonder why anyone would ever do that. In this case, I'm doing it because she's expressing a belief shared by much of the commentariat and by many ordinary citizens who are politically engaged, including, I suspect, quite a few of you.

In the column, McArdle writes about Donald Trump:
For six years, Trump has been systematically — okay, unsystematically — wrecking the [Republican] party. At every juncture, Republicans made the same excuses for keeping quiet about it: The media was biased, so no need to actually deal with the outrageous substance of what was going on in the Oval Office. Besides, Trump’s voters would primary any Republican who stood up to him. Better to quietly work against him where possible, and otherwise bide their time until Trump passed from the scene.

Reality check, friends. Donald Trump isn’t going away unless you make him. And unless you make him, he will continue sullying the party with his scandals, sacrificing its standards and, increasingly, its electoral chances on the altar of his rapacious ego. However temporarily expedient cooperation might seem, in the long run, it’s the most dangerous course.
I don't think anyone reading my blog believes that by continuing to be a pro-Trump party, the GOP is "sacrificing its standards" (whatever those are). But the belief that Trump has harmed the GOP electorally is widespread. In a post at The Atlantic yesterday, David Frum wrote:
Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. He lost control of the House in 2018. He lost the presidency in 2020. He lost both Senate seats in Georgia in 2021. Republicans had good reason to dread the havoc he’d create if he joined the fight in 2022.
But you could have compiled a similar list after the presidency of Barack Obama: the presidency and both houses of Congress lost, many governors' mansions and state legislatures in Republican hands (and gerrymandered to stay in Republican hands forever). Does anyone believe that Democrats would dominate American politics if they cut all ties with Obama? Wouldn't Black voters regard this as a slap in the face, while white voters would just be told by GOP propagandists that the party's true evil resided in whites such as Nancy Pelosi and the Biden family?

McArdle writes:
Trump is already turning GOP membership into a single-issue referendum on Trump: How far will you go to defend his erratic, self-centered and pointlessly belligerent behavior? How slavishly will you proclaim the lie that Trump actually won the 2020 election? This litmus test has alienated a lot of moderate voters, and produced a lot of weak, inexperienced candidates who don’t understand how elections work, and look likely to lose them come November.

This is one major reason that the “red wave” that seemed to be shaping up earlier this year is now looking more and more like a ripple — possibly even a mildly good year for Democrats, despite a troubled economy and record-low presidential approval ratings.
Some of those "weak, inexperienced candidates" are doing poorly -- FiveThirtyEight has Dr. Oz down by 8.1 in the Pennsylvania Senate race and Blake Masters down by 7.8 in the Arizona Senate race. But some have pretty good numbers. In Georgia's Senate race, Herschel Walker trails by only 1.7. In the Senate race in Ohio, Tim Ryan leads J.D. Vance by just 0.6 points. (Real Clear Politics says Vance is winning by 3.7.) And incumbent Democrats are in tight Senate races in Nevada and New Hampshire. Meanwhile, Democrats can't seem to get close in races against the nastiest governors in America, Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott, while one of the worst gubernatorial aspirants, the uber-Trumpist Kari Lake in Arizona, trails her Democratic opponent -- the current secretary of state, who helped keep the 2020 election honest in Arizona -- by less than 2.

It's possible that we should believe the recent New York Times op-ed by Democratic strategist Tom Bonier, which is headlined "Women Are So Fired Up to Vote, I’ve Never Seen Anything Like It." Bonier says there's been a recent surge of voter registrations among women, which means that the polling we see now presumes a mix of voters much less Democratic than the one we're likely to have. That may be correct -- but if it is, then it will be the Supreme Court's Dobbs decision, not Trump's crimes and rants, that prevented a "red wave" election.

For much of the public, Trump is just background noise, and is primarily seen as a generic Republican. The non-GOP public doesn't like Trump, but many will vote for him in 2024 anyway, because he's not Joe Biden or Kamala Harris. (According to Real Clear Politics, Trump leads Biden by 0.8 and beats Harris in nearly every poll.)

McArdle says that the GOP is at risk of becoming "a rump party optimized for flattering [Trump's] vanity rather than winning elections." But the party continues to have a strategy for winning: endless appeals to tribalism and the careful maintenance of multiple narratives of demonization. (The IRS is hiring 87,000 armed agents waiting to kick down your door and point an AR-15 at you! Yesterday's undocumented border crossers are being registered to vote Democratic today! Transsexuals want to molest your daughter and then beat her in a swim meet!) Maybe they're finally pushing it too far this year, but we still don't know that, and if they are, the fault lies primarily with anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, and pro-assault-weapon movements, and only secondarily with Trump. The red wave might not happen, but we shouldn't assume we're beating them until the votes are counted.

Sunday, September 04, 2022

TRUMP, BIDEN, AND THE "THEY"/"YOU" GAP

I liked the speech Joe Biden delivered in Philadelphia on Thursday night, but I can think of a couple of ways it could have been improved. I think he could have avoided any suggestion that Trump voters are a major threat to democracy (even though they are), which has put him and his defenders in the position of having to deny that Biden attacked every Trump voter (which he quite specifically didn't). Even people who should know better, like ABC Martha Raddatz, are accusing Biden of besmirching everyone who voted for Trump:


Biden's speech would have been attacked unfairly no matter what he said, but he might have sidestepped this attack if he'd specified that pro-Trump politicians and activists are the biggest problem. This could have set up a contrast between people who have power within the system (or who might acquire that power) and ordinary citizens who are at risk of being victimized by Trumpist abuses of power.

Right-wingers know how to set up this sort of contrast. They routinely do it dishonestly. The key words are "they" and "you." As a New York Times report noted this past spring, Tucker Carlson regularly addresses his audience as "you" and says that "they" want to hurt "you."

Use the Fear, Tuck.


In his speech on Thursday, Biden attempted to do this, but he didn't lean into the word "you."
MAGA Republicans do not respect the Constitution. They do not believe in the rule of law. They do not recognize the will of the people.

They refuse to accept the results of a free election. And they’re working right now, as I speak, in state after state to give power to decide elections in America to partisans and cronies, empowering election deniers to undermine democracy itself.

MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards — backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love.

They promote authoritarian leaders, and they fan the flames of political violence that are a threat to our personal rights, to the pursuit of justice, to the rule of law, to the very soul of this country.

They look at the mob that stormed the United States Capitol on January 6th — brutally attacking law enforcement — not as insurrectionists who placed a dagger to the throat of our democracy, but they look at them as patriots.

And they see their MAGA failure to stop a peaceful transfer of power after the 2020 election as preparation for the 2022 and 2024 elections.

They tried everything last time to nullify the votes of 81 million people. This time, they’re determined to succeed in thwarting the will of the people.
In that passage, the word "you" shows up only once.

By contrast, Donald Trump, in his Pennsylvania speech last night, went to absurd and implausible lengths to tell his audience that they -- "you" -- were the real targets of legal efforts to hold him accountable:
They rifled through the First Lady's closet drawers and everything else, and even did a deep and ugly search of the room of my 16-year-old son, leaving everything they touched in far different conditions than it was when they started. Can you believe it?

The FBI and the Justice Department have become vicious monsters. controlled by radical left scoundrels lawyers and the media who tell them what to do ... and when to do it.

They're trying to silence me and more importantly, they are trying to silence you. But we will not be silenced, right. We will never stop speaking the truth. We have no choice because we're not going to have a country love. The evil and malice of this demented persecution of you and me should be obvious to all entities.
And after a long diatribe about the Russia investigation:
But this battle is not about me. This is a struggle for the very fate of our republic. Our movement is fighting against a corrupt group of unelected tyrants who believe they can wield absolute power over you, with the help of a willing and very corrupt media.

They think the deep state, not the citizens should be the true masters of this country.
And in attack on Josh Shapiro, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate:
Shapiro supports sanctuary cities, and he sided with Marxist anti-American BLM radicals and Antifa, and he's a vicious hater of free speech and a hater of your Second Amendment. So he's gonna let criminals roam your streets, and he's not gonna let you have a gun to protect yourself. Shapiro is also using his office to shut children's schools and force masks to be strapped to your children's faces, doing unimaginable harm.
And on mail-in voting:
Right here in Pennsylvania, Democrats are still trying hard to rig your elections.

Act 77 clearly violates your state Constitution encouraging widespread abuse of mail-in ballots, and your radical left state Supreme Court just violated the Constitution a second time by overturning a decision by an unbiased lower court.
I don't think there's anything wrong with "they"/"you" framing if you're honest. Carlson isn't honest. Trump isn't honest. Democrats could do follow this formula, too. It would reinforce the sense that Democrats are fighting against abusers of power on behalf of people who don't have power. Republicans -- who aren't doing that at all -- use this formula to make it seem as if they are. Democrats could learn from them.

Saturday, September 03, 2022

HOW TO BAMBOOZLE A CREDULOUS COLUMNIST (AND HIS CREDULOUS READERS)

There was a glaring error in yesterday's David Brooks column, although if you didn't read it at the Times site until today, you won't know about it. In the column, Brooks does PR for No Labels, which says it's preparing to run a candidate for president in the event that Republicans nominate Donald Trump and -- more horrifying to both No Labels and Brooks -- "Democrats nominate some progressive," perhaps history's greatest monster, Bernie Sanders. Brooks imagines the fresh, vital ticket No Labels might put together:
The big question is: Is this a good idea? To think this through I’ve imagined a 2024 campaign in which the Republicans nominate Trump, Biden retires and the Democrats nominate some progressive and the No Labels group nominates retired Adm. William McRaven and former PepsiCo CEO Indra Nooyi. (I’m just grabbing these latter two names off the top of my head as the sort of people who might be ideal for the No Labels ticket).
I realize that the Times is a small, struggling newspaper that can't afford to pay anyone to fact-check its opinion pieces, but you might think Brooks himself would take the trouble to confirm that Nooyi is eligible to be on a presidential ticket. (She isn't -- she was born in Chennai, India.) The paragraph has been corrected at the Times site -- it now ends
... and the No Labels group nominates retired Adm. William McRaven. (I’m just grabbing his name off the top of my head as the sort of person who might be ideal for the No Labels ticket.)
However, there's no acknowledgment of the error, either on the page where the column appears or on the paper's corrections page. Where's the transparency?

(The Baltimore Sun has the column in its original form.)

But there's so much wrong with this column -- the bashing of progressivism, the tired suggestion of a general and a CEO as ideal candidates. (A few decades ago, the names might have been Norman Schwarzkopf and Lee Iacocca.) And then there's Brooks's uncritical acceptance of data that readers never get to see, and that he probably never saw either. He tells us that No Labels plans
to create a database on those Americans who would support a unity ticket. The group’s research suggests there are 64.5 million voters who would support such an effort, including roughly a third of the people who supported Donald Trump in 2020 and 20 percent of the Democrats who supported Joe Biden in that year, as well as a slew of independents.

The group has identified 23 states where they believe a unity ticket could win a plurality of the vote, including Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, Texas, Minnesota and Colorado. If the ticket gained a plurality in those 23 states, that would give its standard-bearer 279 electoral votes and the presidency.
Brooks provides these numbers with no links. If No Labels has ever published any of this data, I can't find it at the group's website, on its Facebook page, or in its Twitter feed.

And the bamboozlement doesn't even work on its own terms. No Labels says it could win enough states to get 279 electoral votes, 9 more than it would need to elect a president.

I think the 279 number is 279 more than a No Labels ticket is likely to get -- no third-party candidate has won even a single electoral vote since George Wallace in 1968, and no non-segregationist third-party candidate has won an electoral vote in nearly a century. (Strom Thurmond won four states in 1948; before that, you have to look to the progressive Robert La Follette, who won his home state of Wisconsin in 1924.)

But let's take No Labels claim seriously. The group is claiming this as the upper bound -- the most electoral votes it could possibly get. That's meant to impress the gullible Brooks and his gullible readers -- ooh, more than the magic number 270!. But if you're saying that 279 is the best you can possibly do, you're also saying you'd have to run the table, winning every state you could possibly win, in order to elect a president.

The two major parties don't set upper bounds that low, except in years when they're clearly favored to lose. The 2016 Republican ticket won 306 electoral votes, and the Democratic ticket won the same number in 2020; in addition, Republicans in 2016 lost New Hamphire by less than a point and Minnesota by less than two points, while Democrats in 2020 lost North Carolina by less than two points. A winning ticket can't just be competitive in a bare minimum of states.

And what are the No Labels numbers based on? The major parties know they can win certain states because they've won them in the past, or at least come close. No Labels has no data of this kind backing its numbers. It's all speculation.

I think a third-party candidate who is a celebrity or has the potential to become one could make inroads in 2024, particularly if both major-party candidates are polling poorly. But I'm talking about The Rock or Mark Cuban or Matthew McConnaughey, not someone who's well known to regular attendees of the Aspen Ideas Festival but unknown to the average voter. And even a celebrity candidate would probably just muddy the waters enough to throw the election into chaos. But if you want to believe, the Brooks column is there for you.

Friday, September 02, 2022

AFTER BIDEN'S SPEECH, REPUBLICANS PLAY TO LOW-INFORMATION VOTERS, AS USUAL

Last night, Joe Biden called out Donald Trump and his followers in a fiery speech. He was quite specific about the targets of his criticism:
Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic.

Now, I want to be very clear — (applause) — very clear up front: Not every Republican, not even the majority of Republicans, are MAGA Republicans. Not every Republican embraces their extreme ideology.

I know because I’ve been able to work with these mainstream Republicans.

But there is no question that the Republican Party today is dominated, driven, and intimidated by Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans, and that is a threat to this country.
Ballotpedia tells us that in the states that allow voters to register with a party affiliation, 29.2% registered as Republicans in 2021. The rest were Democrats, independents, or members of minor parties.

So Biden is talking about less than half of less than a third of the country -- not even 15% of American voters, by his reckoning. And even if you think he's referring to Trump's 2020 voters, remember than Trump got 46.8% of the vote. Less than half of that is a bit more than 20% of America.

But here are typical Republican responses:


They know that Biden didn't criticize "half the country" -- but they constructed their propaganda on the assumption that their target market didn't watch the speech and doesn't know this. And there are no "grown-ups," no "mainstream Republicans" (to use Biden's phrase), who acknowledge what Biden actually said, just as there are none who'll acknowledge that the IRS isn't really hiring 87,000 armed agents prepared to use deadly force, and just as there are none who'll admit that the Justice Department didn't label parents "domestic terrorists" merely for speaking out at school board meetings.

Of course, six years ago Hillary Clinton said half of Trump supporters were "deplorables," which became, in the Republican retelling, an attack on all of them. Nothing changes. GOP messaging routinely rewrites reality, and Republicans nearly always get away with it.

Thursday, September 01, 2022

TRUMP'S VOW TO PARDON JANUARY 6 RIOTERS ISN'T NEWS, AND HE PROBABLY WON'T BE THE ONLY ONE TO PROMISE THIS

This is being treated as news:
Former president Donald Trump said he would issue full pardons and a government apology to rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, and violently attacked law enforcement to stop the democratic transfer of power.

“I mean full pardons with an apology to many,” he told conservative radio host Wendy Bell on Thursday morning. Such a move would be contingent on Trump running and winning the 2024 presidential election.
It's not news. Here's a Reuters story from late January:
U.S. former President Donald Trump said on Saturday if he were to run for president and win in 2024, he would pardon people charged with criminal offenses in connection with the deadly Jan. 6 assault by his supporters on the U.S. Capitol....

"Another thing we'll do, and so many people have been asking me about it, if I run and if I win, we will treat those people from Jan. 6 fairly," Trump said to applause. "We will treat them fairly. And if it requires pardons we will give them pardons. Because they are being treated so unfairly."
And here's a June story from in The Hill:
Former President Trump said on Friday that he would look “very, very seriously” at pardoning those charged in connection with storming the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, if he ran for and became president again.

Speaking during a Faith and Freedom event in Nashville, Tenn., Trump said the defendants charged in the Capitol riot were “having their lives totally destroyed and being treated worse than terrorists and murderers,” claiming that most had been “charged with parading through the Capitol.”

“And if I become president, someday if I decide to do it, I will be looking at them very, very seriously for pardons. Very, very seriously,” he added.
He may have been less ambiguous this morning than he was in those earlier statements, but this is obviously a promise he intends to carry into the campaign, and nobody should be surprised.

And if Trump is indicted and doesn't run for president, it's quite likely that one or more members of the 2024 GOP field will say they'll pardon the rioters -- and Trump as well. Maybe the first candidate to make the promise will be Donald Trump Jr., who in a recent McLaughlin & Associates poll trailed Ron DeSantis by only 8 in a 2024 field excluding his father. If not, I'm sure Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz will make the vow. Under the circumstances, could Ron DeSantis get away with not promising pardons?

The only really news today is this:
Trump, during his conversation with Bell on Thursday morning, also said he met with some Jan. 6 defendants in his office this week and that he is helping some financially.

“I am financially supporting people that are incredible and they were in my office actually two days ago, so they’re very much in my mind,” Trump said. “It’s a disgrace what they’ve done to them. What they’ve done to these people is disgraceful.”

A spokesman for Trump did not immediately respond to a request for comment about how the former president is financially supporting the rioters.
Is Trump really offering financial support to any of the rioters or their families? I doubt it -- although this won't prevent him from announcing the existence of a January 6 financial support fund, which will be flooded with donations, all or most of which will go straight into his pocket. Also, he might never get around to those pardons if he runs and wins, because what does he personally get out of fulfilling the promise? But making the promise is very good for his campaign.

The right says that convicted January 6 insurrectionists are political prisoners in an "American Gulag." This is a mainstream GOP belief. So of course pardons will be promised.

RANKED-CHOICE VOTING DIED YESTERDAY

So Alaska will now send a Democrat to the House:
Democrat Mary Peltola is projected to win the Alaska special general election for the state’s sole House seat....

Peltola defeated two Republicans -- former Republican Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Nick Begich -- and will be the first Democrat to represent the state in the House in nearly half a century....
This was the first House election in the state to use ranked-choice voting (RCV), which became Alaska's election method after it was approved in a state referendum in 2020. Peltola won because many Begich voters didn't like Palin:
Peltola took 40 percent of the first-choice votes to Palin’s 31 percent and Begich’s 28.5 percent. But given that Alaska is a red state and that both Palin and Begich are Republicans, it stood to reason Palin should pick up most of his voters. Nearly 6 in 10 voters picked a Republican first, after all.

In the end she did, but barely — and not nearly enough. Almost as many Begich voters picked Peltola as their second choice (15,445) or didn’t rank one of the two finalists (11,222) as ranked Palin behind Begich (27,042). In other words, only about half of Begich voters were willing to also rank Palin ahead of a Democrat.
That's how RCV tends to work -- it winnows out extremist candidates and favors more moderate ones. Which explains why Republicans, who have gone all in on radicalism for many years, are flipping out. Here's Senator Tom Cotton:


And here's Jim Hoft at Gateway Pundit:
The Gateway Pundit previously reported earlier this month that Republicans in Alaska passed rank-choice voting in 2020. This confusing system is only being pushed by RINOS and radicals in conservative red states. It allows Democrats to even the playing field when they have no chance of winning.

Republicans also passed mail-in voting.

These Republican lawmakers in state after state are straight from hell!

ALASKA IS LOST!

... These new rule changes will ensure the state becomes the next Oregon or California.
Tyler Bowyer, who's affiliated with Charlie Kirk's Turning Point USA, has been fulminating against RCV for weeks:


When I asked Bowyer how he arrived at the preposterous conclusion that Tennessee (where Donald Trump won two years ago by 23 points) and Utah (where Trump won by 20) were a few mere election reforms away from turning blue, he replied:


This is lunacy. Liberalism in Boise and Salt Lake City hasn't made those states even vaguely purple. The states won't be taken over by "progressive radicals," no matter how elections are conducted.

But RCV does seem to make it harder for extremists to win, and since extremists dominate the GOP, Republicans fear RCV. And so they're going to bamboozle their voters into believing that RCV is one of those devious ways Democrats cheat to win elections, even though the procedures under RCV are completely transparent and legal. For Republicans, anything that causes them to lose winnable elections is cheating.

Which means that except in very blue states and cities, ranked-choice voting is dead in America now. "RCV is election fraud" will now be a frequent talking point on Fox News. GOP officeholders and candidates will talk about RCV the way they talk about allowing undocumented immigrants to vote. They'll unite in opposition to RCV wherever they have the numbers to block it. They'll persuade all GOP voters that RCV is evil and is part of the Democrat socialist globalist Soros Antifa BLM CRT plan to steal America from its rightful right-wing owners. Reformers won't be able to expand the use of RCV, nor will aspiring third parties (sorry, Andrew Yang). RCV is dead, and success -- plus the GOP's commitment to extremism -- killed it.