Sunday, January 08, 2017

MEMO TO DEPLORABLES: YOUR PARTY STILL HATES YOU

A report at The Hill has the man-bites-dog headline "Red States Mull Higher Taxes." What?! Republican states have broken with long-standing GOP policy after realizing that tax cuts for the wealthy don't cure all ills?

Well, not exactly:
Legislators in some of the nation’s most conservative states are considering new ways to boost revenue -- including tax increases....

It is a reversal, in many ways, of recent trends toward deep tax cuts, led by states like Kansas, where Gov. Sam Brownback (R) and the Republican-dominated legislature slashed rates on individuals and businesses in hopes of spurring economic growth. Kansas now faces a $350 million budget hole this year, and a likely $600 million gap next year.
So what are they doing in Kansas?
This year, a coalition of centrist Republicans and Democrats are plotting new tax hikes to plug those holes. The legislature is likely to roll back a tax cut on small businesses Brownback signed in 2012, while also raising gas taxes.
Oh -- so they're not reversing the income tax cuts of recent years, which benefit the wealthy the most? Nahhh, you can't do that in a red state.
... At least eight other states, including Tennessee, Arizona and Missouri, are considering raising gas taxes...

In Oklahoma, legislators must come up with enough revenue to close a $1.4 billion budget shortfall.... Gov. Mary Fallin (R) has reversed her earlier opposition to raising the gas tax. She has also floated the possibility of raising taxes on tobacco, and of broadening the sales tax base to include some services.
Can we talk about gas tax increases? There are some on the left who say they don't hit poor and working people hard, but much of the data on which that conclusion is based is more than a decade old. It's believed that wealthier people buy more SUVs and gas guzzlers. But it's likely that poor and working-class people buy fewer hybrids and other fuel-efficient vehicles, and keep old beaters on the road longer. A 2015 report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a group whose board members include Robert Reich and Robert Kuttner, tells us this:
Overall, state excise taxes on items such as gasoline, cigarettes and beer take about 1.6 percent of the in­come of the poorest families, 0.8 percent of the income of middle-income families, and just 0.1 percent of the income of the very best-off. In other words, these excise taxes are 16 times harder on the poor than the rich, and 8 times harder on middle-income families than the rich.
And those are the taxes these red states want to raise.

More from The Hill:
In Indiana, where Vice President-elect Mike Pence (R) made tax cuts a priority during his term as governor, his successor, Gov.-elect Eric Holcomb (R), has also proposed raising the gas tax and adding some new vehicle fees.

Nebraska legislators are debating a deeper shift in the state’s tax code. One faction in the ostensibly nonpartisan unicameral legislature wants to reduce income taxes while raising sales taxes. Another wants to shift emphasis from property taxes to sales taxes. Gov. Pete Ricketts (R) has said he would like to cut both property and income taxes, though the state faces a $900 million shortfall.
Republicans have two approaches to taxes: Cut them all drastically (while slashing social services), and if there's an income tax, make it less progressive, i.e., less burdensome to the wealthy. Then, if that blows a hole in the budget, raise the taxes that hit the poor and middle class the hardest, and never, ever restore those income-tax cuts for the rich. Raise taxes on everyone else instead.

Republicans know this doesn't lead to fiscal health or general prosperity. They don't care. They keep doing it, because they serve only the wealthy, and have nothing but contempt for the poor and middle-class whites who keep voting for them.

And in a way you can't blame them for how they operate, because, well, those non-rich voters keep voting for them. And even after this next round of tax changes, I'm sure they still will.

HOW MANY DIVISIONS DOES JENNIFER LAWRENCE HAVE?

Right-wingers are upset about celebrities again:



That's in response to a Daily Mail story about a White House farewell party Friday night:
Dozens of celebrities turned out to party until 4am at the White House in a farewell bash that saw the likes of Paul McCartney, Meryl Streep and SJP tear up the dancefloor....

The bash was well attended by artists, philanthropists, activists, and executives, many of whom made the trip to Washington D.C. just to saw their farewells.

Guests snacked on chicken and waffles until 4am while the likes of Bradley Cooper and Magic Johnson chatted beneath a portrait of Abraham Lincoln.
(If you're as out of touch as I am, I'll save you a trip to Google: SJP is Sarah Jessica Parker.)

At Legal Insurrection, Aleister harrumphs:
This was a fitting end for Obama and his party. Some have suggested that the Democrats have become the party of wealthy, coastal elites. What could reinforce that image better than an exclusive White House party for A-listers?
He also writes:
No president in recent memory has been more embraced by America’s celebrity class than Obama.
Depends on what you mean by "recent memory." My memory of this is quite vivid:











And over at the New York Post, Kyle Smith is upset because celebrities aren't showing sufficient deference to our Dear Leader-elect:
At the Golden Globes Sunday night, and the Oscars next month, expect lots of gold-plated bitching about Donald Trump. Honorees will mourn the “dark times in America” in their $20,000 frocks. Or they’ll mutter “fight the fascists” as they head back to their Malibu estates....

Jennifer Lawrence, who wasn’t strongly identified with liberal politics before the election, wrote an angry open letter after it, telling America, “Do not let this defeat you -- let this enrage you! Let it motivate you! Let this be the fire you didn’t have before.” ...

“RISE UP” and “THE REVOLUTION IS COMING” tweeted Katy Perry in defiance of Trump’s election. “This is an embarrassing night for America. We’ve let a hatemonger lead our great nation,” agreed Captain America, Chris Evans, whose tweet virtually tagged 46 percent of American voters as supporters of the hate that Trump supposedly mongered.
That's one of Smith's key points: that, as he says elsewhere in the column, these entertainers protesting Trump "might as well have told 46 percent of their audience to take their business elsewhere." (Below Smith's column, the Post teases an opinion piece titled "The 5 Key Things Trump Must Do to Crush His Critics." I could argue that the Post is telling 54 percent of Americans to take their business elsewhere, but I mustn't forget that it's OK if you're a Republican.)

More from Smith:
Michael Shannon -- General Zod in “Man of Steel” -- joined fellow actors Debra Messing and Rosie O’Donnell in signing an open letter published in The New York Times exhorting, “Fill the streets of DC with millions, millions more demonstrate in every major city and small town all over US and the world, demanding that Trump-Pence be prevented from taking office before January 20.” It was an open call for mob rule to overturn the results of an election. And somehow Trump is the fascist?
(Um, Trump will wield state power starting in two weeks. I'm pretty sure that's a precondition for fascism, one that Michael Shannon and Rosie O'Donnell don't meet.)

Smith adds:
Possibly the craving of performers to be taken seriously is understandable when you consider how intellectually insecure they can be. Lawrence has been acting since she was 14 and didn’t attend college. Shannon is a high-school dropout. Perry left high school at age 15. Evans did not attend college.
Gosh, I thought we'd just spent the last few months being told that Democrats and the media are anti-elitist bigots because we don't respect Trump's less-educated voters. Again, though, I need to remember: it's OK if you're a Republican.

Look, I don't think we're going to bottle up Trump because celebrities are shaking their fists at him. The words and gestures of celebrities don't have that much political power.

But that's just the point. Celebrities aren't going to overthrow Trump -- and yet, while the right-wing press always attacks anti-Republican celebrities, there's the likelihood of a significant increase in such attacks once Trump is president.

The reason is simple: Republicans will control everything in Washington, but they don't want to take ownership of anything bad that happens to America. So they'll try to persuade their base that Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have all the power. Or the "liberal media." Or left-leaning professors and college students. Or celebrities.

Republicans will be in control, but they'll continue to insist that they're the rebels, they're the outsiders, they're the guerrillas fighting to retake America from the power structure. Pay no attention to the fact that they are the power structure.

Saturday, January 07, 2017

KATHLEEN PARKER HAS MADE SOME PROGRESS SINCE 2008

Kathleen Parker's latest column is titled "If Obama Is a Muslim, Is Trump a Russian Spy?" She starts with that glib premise -- hey, if conservatives could call Barack Obama a Kenyan-born Muslim all those years, shouldn't liberals return the favor and make the equally absurd charge that Donald Trump a spy for the Russkies? -- but as the column progresses, she expresses increasing alarm at the fact that Trump really does seem to be acting in Russia's best interest rather than America's:
Obviously, Trump wants to preserve the narrative that he won fair and square. And, clearly, claims of Russian interference would muss his ego. But is that it? Ego and narrative?

Consider further: Trump would rather make common cause with our fiercest geopolitical adversary (hat tip Mitt Romney) than take the word of our best people. Moreover, he has said he won’t receive daily security briefings and reportedly plans to reduce our security agencies.

Pray tell, whose side is this man on? When was the last time you had to ask that question about a president-elect?

... when the president-elect persists in a state of denial, siding with the enemy against his own country’s best interests, one is forced to consider that Trump himself poses a threat to national security.

In Russia, they’d just call it treason.
But I'm focusing on the fact that Parker sets this up by heaping scorn on birtherism and the rumors about Obama's religious identity -- something I don't think she would have done when Obama first became a national figure:
First, a history refresher: For the past nine years, a smattering of Americans, most recently led by our now president-elect, have insisted that Barack Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya.

For years, Donald Trump was unrelenting in his insistence that Obama prove beyond existing proof that he was born in Hawaii and not in the African country of his biological father. That Obama said he is a Christian wasn’t enough to persuade Trump’s followers, who apparently know a Christian when they see one.

Further, there is no logical basis for assuming that a young person briefly raised in a given country -- say, Indonesia -- necessarily would adopt the dominant religion of that country. He might, however, observe that though people worship in different ways, we’re all essentially the same. Never mind the cruel and absurd assumption that being a Muslim means that one is, ipso facto, a “bad person.”

Respecting others despite differences is, generally speaking, the hallmark of an enlightened soul, as well as a desirable disposition in a leader.
That's a sign of real progress for Parker, because during the 2008 presidential campaign she was writing this:
"A full-blooded American."

That's how 24-year-old Josh Fry of West Virginia described his preference for John McCain over Barack Obama. His feelings aren't racist, he explained. He would just be more comfortable with "someone who is a full-blooded American as president."

... Full-bloodedness is an old coin that's gaining currency in the new American realm. Meaning: Politics may no longer be so much about race and gender as about heritage, core values, and made-in-America. Just as we once and still have a cultural divide in this country, we now have a patriot divide.

Who "gets" America? And who doesn't?

... It's about blood equity, heritage and commitment to hard-won American values. And roots.

Some run deeper than others and therein lies the truth of Josh Fry's political sense.

... so-called "ordinary Americans" ... know ... that their forefathers fought and died for an America that has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. What they sense is that their heritage is being swept under the carpet while multiculturalism becomes the new national narrative. And they fear what else might get lost in the remodeling of America.
Now Parker says that "Respecting others despite differences is ... the hallmark of an enlightened soul, as well as a desirable disposition in a leader." In 2008 she said that important virtues might be lost in a "remodeling of America" caused by "multiculturalism," strongly suggesting that that regrettable "remodeling" would be greatly advanced by an African Muslim's son whose stake in America had insufficient "blood equity." She told us that those who worried about the level of Obama's "blood equity" were in touch with an important "truth."

I still read Parker warily. But I much prefer the 2017 Parker to the 2008 edition.


THAT FEELING WHEN A HORRIBLE MASS SHOOTING FAILS TO CONFORM TO YOUR ISLAMOPHOBIC MASTER NARRATIVE

A man opened fire at the airport in Fort Lauderdale yesterday, killing five and wounding eight others before surrendering to police. The suspect, Esteban Santiago, was born in New Jersey, grew up in Puerto Rico, and served in the National Guard before moving to Anchorage, Alaska. Given his name and background, right-wingers eager to blame the shooting on the usual targets of conservative hate didn't seem to have much to work with.

However:



The right was off on a wild goose chase, looking for evidence that Santiago was a secret jihadist. A Gateway Pundit headline announced that Santiago "Lived Within Walking Distance From Only Mosque in Alaska." Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch said that a photo of Santiago depicts him "making the one-finger sign that signifies belief in the Islamic concept of tawhid, the absolute unity of the godhead."



Pam Geller quoted a claim that "ISIS terrorist channels knew Esteban’s name before some news corporations reported it." And:



But it's become increasingly obvious that Santiago is mentally ill:
The suspect in the Fort Lauderdale shooting was a U.S. military veteran who "lost his mind" after a tour of duty in Iraq, his aunt said Friday.
More:
The 26-year-old New Jersey-born Iraq veteran accused of executing five people and wounding eight others at a Florida airport claimed just two months ago that he was hearing voices.

It was part of a difficult adjustment to civilian life after serving overseas.

... Santiago spiraled down a dark descent that included a less than honorable discharge, arrests for domestic violence and now the first mass shooting on U.S. soil in 2017....

In November, the Army vet walked into an Anchorage FBI office and unleashed a torrent of conspiracy theories.

A law enforcement official says he told the FBI that the government was controlling his mind and was forcing him to watch ISIS videos.

Santiago appeared incoherent at times, a source told ABC News...

Maria Ruiz [his aunt] told “Noticias Telemundo” Santiago was hospitalized for two weeks after he visited the FBI.

“They had him in an isolated room because he was a little wrong in the head and he started to like hear things,” Ruiz said....

“It was like he lost his mind,” Ruiz said of his return from Iraq. “He said he saw things.”
ISIS wasn't an ideological lodestar for Santiago -- it was a demon that his damaged mind felt had seized control of him. He's not a jihadist.

So what are all the right-wingers saying now? Mostly, they've buried what they wrote yesterday. The Drudge Report still has a "JIHAD COMES TO FORT LAUDERDALE?" headline, but Pam Geller has moved on to a fire at a refugee home in Germany. At Jihad Watch, the Fort Lauderdale story has been buried under stories such as "UK: Lawyer for jihad killer says he was 'confused by vehicles driving on different side of road than he was used to.'"

And most of the big guns have also turned to other stories, and are downplaying the terrorism angle in their Fort Lauderdale coverage. Breitbart's headline is surprisingly non-alarmist: "Fort Lauderdale Shooter Esteban Santiago, A Troubled Man Known to the FBI." At Fox News, there's this:



Wow -- Fox is giving us permission to say Santiago's motive is unclear? When the right-wing media is certain that a violent act is terrorism, investigators, journalists, and politicians are excoriated for waiting even an hour or two before shouting "Terrorism!"

Shorter right-wing media: Nothing truly narrative-affirming to see here. Move on.

Friday, January 06, 2017

NOT EXACTLY A GISH GALLOP -- MAYBE WE SHOULD CALL IT A TRUMP TROT

Donald Trump spoke to Michael Shear of The New York Times this morning about Russia's sabotage of the presidential election. Let's watch how nimbly Trump dances around the relevant facts.

Trump says we shouldn't focus on Russia because other countries hack:
“China, relatively recently, hacked 20 million government names,” he said, referring to the breach of computers at the Office of Personnel Management in late 2014 and early 2015. “How come nobody even talks about that? This is a political witch hunt.”
He says inadequate attention has been paid to other political hacks:
On the issue of Russia’s hacking, Mr. Trump noted that there have been prior successful hackings of the White House and Congress, suggesting it was unfair that those attacks on American institutions have not received the attention that the Russians have....

“With all that being said, I don’t want countries to be hacking our country,” Mr. Trump said. “They’ve hacked the White House. They’ve hacked Congress. We’re like the hacking capital of the world.”
He blames the victims:
The president-elect also noted the news this week, first reported by BuzzFeed News, that the D.N.C. had refused to give the F.B.I. access to its computer servers after it was hacked.

“The D.N.C. wouldn’t let them see the servers,” Mr. Trump said. “How can you be sure about hacking when you can’t even get to the servers?”
He says that Democrats leaked secrets:
He also said that the hacking of emails from the D.N.C. and top campaign officials for Mrs. Clinton had revealed that Mrs. Clinton received advance notice of debate questions and “many, many other things that were horrible.”

“How come nobody complains about that?” Mr. Trump said, referring to a tip that a CNN commentator and Clinton supporter, Donna Brazile, gave to Mr. Podesta ahead of a Democratic Party presidential debate in Flint, Mich.
He cites previous errors he ascribes to the intelligence community:
... he said that “a lot of mistakes were made” by the intelligence community in the past, noting in particular the attacks on the World Trade Center and saying that “weapons of mass destruction was one of the great mistakes of all time.”
And he says the attention being paid to the Russian hack is the result of Democratic shame:
Asked why he thought there was so much attention being given to the Russian cyberattacks, the president-elect said the motivation was political.

“They got beaten very badly in the election. I won more counties in the election than Ronald Reagan,” Mr. Trump said during an eight-minute telephone conversation. “They are very embarrassed about it. To some extent, it’s a witch hunt. They just focus on this.”
Did you notice the time readout on this call? Trump got in all these irrelevant, distracting points in eight minutes. He's really a wizard at this.

To be fair, he's made a lot of these points before. And he was doing this on the phone, so he could have been reading from notes. (Or, given his aversion to reading, he could have been repeating lines fed to him by aides. He's president-elect now, so he has a lot of aides to do that sort of thing for him.)

Still, that's a lot of bamboozlement in eight minutes. Should we call this a Gish Gallop?
Duane Gish is a famous scientist known as a staunch Creationist. His debate style was so remarkable that it eventually got its own name: “The Gish Gallop”. Here’s how Wikipedia explains it:
His debating opponents said that Gish used a rapid-fire approach during a debate, presenting arguments and changing topics quickly. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, dubbed this approach the Gish Gallop, describing it as “where the creationist is allowed to run on for 45 minutes or an hour, spewing forth torrents of error that the evolutionist hasn’t a prayer of refuting in the format of a debate.”
The Urban Dictionary is a bit more direct:
Named for the debate tactic created by creationist shill Duane Gish, a Gish Gallop involves spewing so much bullshit in such a short span on that your opponent can’t address let alone counter all of it. To make matters worse a Gish Gallop will often have one or more ‘talking points’ that has a tiny core of truth to it, making the person rebutting it spend even more time debunking it in order to explain that, yes, it’s not totally false but the Galloper is distorting/misusing/misstating the actual situation. A true Gish Gallop generally has two traits.
The difference here is that many of Trump's points have some truth to them -- the China hack really happened; the FBI did say that the DNC refused to give the Bureau access to its servers (but only after the DNC said the FBI never asked for access); and Donna Brazile did inform the Clinton campaign about debate questions (though this happened during the primaries, long before Clinton was running against Trump). However, none of this is relevant to the question of whether the Russians did serious damage to electoral democracy in the U.S. It's like trying to get out of a speeding ticket by saying your next-door neighbor is a drunk and your cousin is having an affair. Even if both assertions are true, you were still speeding.

So this isn't exactly a Gish Gallop. Let's call it the Trump Trot instead. Trump lies incessantly, as we know, but he's deceitful even when he's not lying. He bombards the media with truths and half-truths that are irrelevant and meant to confuse. And he's going to keep doing this for the next four years.

HILLARY FOR MAYOR? I GUESS FAKE NEWS BECOMES REAL IF THE RIGHT PEOPLE BELIEVE IT.

A New York Times story coauthored by right-wing hack Amy Chozick takes seriously a rumor with a dubious provenance:
From political circles in New York City to cocktail parties on Capitol Hill, on right-of-center Facebook pages and among left-of-center donors, two of the biggest untethered threads in New York politics are being drawn together around a single question.

Would Hillary Clinton run for mayor?

... A run for mayor of New York this year would pit Mrs. Clinton against Mayor Bill de Blasio, a fellow Democrat who managed her Senate campaign in 2000....

The suggestion that Mrs. Clinton might run for mayor has been bubbling up for weeks. It appeared on a right-wing website in the days after the election and was then floated by a Fox Business Network commentator.
Right -- the story appeared at Right Wing News, a site that seemed semi-credible in the early days of blogging but is now devoted to clickbait and lots of all-caps headline words. Under the header "News Of A Possible Hillary Run For Mayor In THIS State Is BREAKING THE INTERNET!" we read this at Right Wing News on November 19:
... now it is looking like there is another rumor out there that just might be the biggest surprise of all. Rumors are flying around that Hillary Clinton might be considering running for mayor of New York City. I honestly do not see this ever happening. But people are still talking about it.
But there are no links to "people ... still talking about it" anywhere in the story. There's just a screenshot of two tweets:



The first one is from this in-the-know insider:



Gene has a whopping seven followers on Twitter -- though one follower, curiously, is the account for the Koch group Americans for Prosperity.

The second tweet in the screenshot is from a pro-Trump Twitter egg with 157 followers.

A post actually appeared a day earlier at the website of former congressman and war criminal Allen West; it also had no supporting links, but it included the same screenshot that's in the Right Wing News story, plus this one:



The first tweeter is a lawyer named Michael Wm. Lebron who tweets and podcasts under the Madonna-esque single name Lionel. According to the bio on Lionel's website,
9/11 ... [is] indelibly seared on Lionel’s conscious [sic] and it marked a drastic change and course correction in his view of the roles of geopolitics, globalism, central banking, the media’s role in framing issues. It forged an appreciation into the darker aspects of history and has made him, as Gore Vidal suggested, an avowed conspiracy analyst versus theorist. Lionel is an ardent and voracious consumer of alternative and foreign news sourcing....
Yeah, he seems reliable.

The other tweeter is one more Trumper.

The clip cited in the Times story is from just after Thanksgiving. It's a discussion between Stewart Varney of Fox Business and faux-Democrat hatemonger Tammy Bruce.



Bruce tells Varney that this hot scoop comes from "a discussion amongst people who, uh, would know." Authoritative enough for me!

But Chozick and coauthor J. David Goodman insist the story should really be taken semi-seriously now:
... the speculation mounted on Thursday, after a conservative media outlet, Newsmax, reported that some Democrats were urging Mrs. Clinton to run. Newsmax is owned by Christopher Ruddy, a former opponent of Mr. Clinton’s who became a friend and donor, joining the former president on a Clinton Foundation trip to Africa and at other times.
Of course, Clinton is out of the Senate, out of the Obama administration, and unlikely ever to be president, so former enemy Ruddy has no reason to butter her up anymore. Why not go back to old-fashioned clickbait-y right-wing rumormongering?

Or maybe the fake news in the November stories actually took on a life of its own and Clinton is seriously thinking about it, or at least trying to convey the impression that she's thinking about it, for whatever reason. The Newsmax story claims actual insider sources, though they're anonymous, of course:
she is being urged by major Democratic donors and leaders to make a bid ...

"She's talking about it," a former city Democratic elected official admitted to Newsmax over the weekend, saying the idea has not been dismissed by the former first lady's inner circle.
The Chozick-Goodman story says:
... supporters of Mrs. Clinton and former members of her staff appear to have been happy to let the speculation spread from closed-door gatherings of donors and allies, where it has been discussed among the many hypothetical future jobs Ms. Clinton might pursue, to more public forums.
So maybe she's having fun with this now.

And we're supposed to take the story seriously because political insiders now take it seriously, even the ones who'd have no idea whether it's true:
It was also being discussed in Washington as Congress convened this week.

“I heard it three times in the two days I was on the Hill,” said Bradley Tusk, a former top aide to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg who has been actively courting potential challengers to Mr. de Blasio.
Well, sure -- people on the right think Fox is a legitimate news source. And many GOP Congress members and staffers are avid, gullible consumers of right-wing media propaganda. So it's no surprise that a lot of them believe (and may have persuaded some Democrats to believe).

It's not going to happen, as Chozick and Goodman acknowledge:
... the answer would almost certainly be no....

Mr. Tusk ... said he did not believe she would run.

“The reality is that she’s not going to,” Mr. Tusk said....

People close to Mrs. Clinton said that she had not given much thought to what she would do next, but that she was almost certainly not interested in being mayor. They cited Mr. Bloomberg’s suggestion, before the 2013 mayoral race, that she run to succeed him as mayor. It was an idea, they said, that she politely, but promptly, dismissed.
Nevertheless, we're now supposed to believe fake news spread by some randos on Twitter -- either on their own or because they were asked to, in order to generate right-wing clickbait or to stir dissension among Democrats.

Let's not forget that Chozick went viral in 2008 with a Wall Street Journal story in which she questioned whether Barack Obama was too skinny to be elected president -- a hypothesis she cadged from a John McCain press release, and which she supported by citing message-board commenters she actively solicited, then cited as if their comments were spontaneously expressed opinions. Fake news wasn't invented yesterday.

Thursday, January 05, 2017

SO I GUESS ALL THE GOP'S PIOUS "SUBSIDIARITY" TALK IS A LOAD OF HOOEY

Republicans talk a lot about the evils of the big central government in Washington, D.C. They tell us that it's much better when things are controlled at the local level.

But apparently they prefer it if control doesn't become too local:
After consolidating power in Washington, D.C., and state capitals under President-elect Donald Trump, Republicans are moving to prevent large cities dominated by Democrats from enacting sweeping liberal agendas.

Republican state legislatures are planning so-called preemption laws, which prevent cities and counties from passing new measures governing everything from taxes to environmental regulations and social issues....

In just the last month, legislatures in Michigan and Wisconsin have passed laws preempting local governments from banning plastic grocery bags. In the last few years, courts have upheld the rights of Colorado and Texas legislators to prevent municipalities from banning hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, within their borders. Ohio is the latest state to preempt local efforts to raise the minimum wage, after Cleveland tried to boost wages for its lowest-paid workers....

Even the controversial HB2 law, passed last year by North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature, is a preemption law: It blocked the city of Charlotte from enforcing anti-discrimination measures that were stronger than statewide laws already on the books....

Legislators in other Republican-led states are likely to target so-called sanctuary cities, which give shelter to undocumented immigrants. Pennsylvania Republicans are likely to consider ways to preempt a new tax on sodas and sugary beverages in Philadelphia.
When Democrats control the White House, we hear a lot from right-wingers about the evils of centralization. This can sound like principled talk, but it's really just a way to make it easier for fat cats to get what they want. Folks like the Koch brothers know that it's much cheaper to buy an election at the state level, which is one big reason so many state legislatures are GOP-controlled now. If decisions are made at the state level, a much smaller outlay buys the necessary electoral victories, and thus the results the rich want.

But Republicans never admit that that's the plan. Some even give the notion of devolving responsibility to lower levels of government a religious tinge. Here's the sanctimonious Paul Ryan in 2012:
To me, the principle of subsidiarity, which is really federalism, meaning government closest to the people governs best, having a civil society of the principal of solidarity where we, through our civic organizations, through our churches, through our charities, through all of our different groups where we interact with people as a community, that’s how we advance the common good. By not having big government crowd out civic society, but by having enough space in our communities so that we can interact with each other, and take care of people who are down and out in our communities.
(Emphasis added.)

This is Ryan in pretending-to-be-a good-Catholic mode, as Wikipedia explains:
Subsidiarity is a principle of social organization that originated in the Roman Catholic Church. In its most basic formulation, it holds that social and political issues should be dealt with at the most immediate (or local) level that is consistent with their resolution. The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary (that is, a supporting, rather than a subordinate) function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.
Obviously, Ryan is talking about getting government out of certain functions (like parts of the social safety net) altogether -- but what he says is "government closest to the people governs best." Isn't that local government? And in cities, isn't that city government? Don't mayors and city council members understand better than those at the state and federal levels what low-wage workers need to deal with high living costs? Don't they know best how to limit the guns used in crimes, how to address the needs of LGBT people, and so on?

Nahh. Democrats run cities, so Jesus makes a subsidiarity exception, I guess. Sure, it's best to do things at the government level closest to the people, but only if that level is run by the GOP.

WHY PROGRESSIVES CAN'T JUST MAGICALLY REPLICATE THE TEA PARTY

On her show last night, Rachel Maddow devoted nearly a half hour of airtime to multiple segments about anti-Trump movements, particularly those inspired by the online pamphlet Indivisible: A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump Agenda, which was written by former congressional staffers. Three of Indivisible's authors also had an op-ed in The New York Times on Tuesday, in which they explained their thinking:
The Tea Party’s ideas were wrong, and their often racist rhetoric and physical threats were unacceptable. But they understood how to wield political power and made two critical strategic decisions. First, they organized locally, focusing on their own members of Congress. Second, they played defense, sticking together to aggressively resist anything with President Obama’s support. With this playbook, they rattled our elected officials, targeting Democrats and Republicans alike.

Politics is the art of the possible, and the Tea Party changed what was possible. They waged a relentless campaign to force Republicans away from compromise and tank Democratic legislative priorities like immigration reform and campaign finance transparency. Their members ensured that legislation that did pass, like the Affordable Care Act, was unpopular from the start. They hijacked the national narrative and created the impression of broad discontent with President Obama.
There are a couple of problems with this. First of all, Republicans didn't need to be forced away from compromise with the Obama administration -- they'd already decide on a stance of uncompromising resistance, as Sam Stein noted in 2014:
As President Barack Obama was celebrating his inauguration at various balls, top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington.

The event ... serves as the prologue of Robert Draper’s much-discussed and heavily-reported new book, “Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives.”

... For several hours in the Caucus Room (a high-end D.C. establishment), the book says they plotted out ways to not just win back political power, but to also put the brakes on Obama’s legislative platform.

“If you act like you’re the minority, you’re going to stay in the minority,” Draper quotes McCarthy as saying. “We’ve gotta challenge them on every single bill and challenge them on every single campaign.”
Second, while Tea Party groups may have organized locally, they received significant financial backing and strategic assistance from Koch-funded groups, as well as a torrent of publicity from Fox News, which literally lent the Fox brand to the movement:



The Tea Party also had very little difficulty making the case that President Obama was evil because racist and evil-Democrat ideas and memes were already well entrenched in heartland white America, the result of years of propaganda from Fox, talk radio, and online right-wing media sources. Tea Party activism broadcast to America what right-wingers were already saying to one another in Free Republic threads and on radio call-in shows, as well as what Fox News blasted into living rooms on a daily basis.

Right-wing propagandists have much more experience at crafting effective memes than our side does. We're seeing this again today.

You may already be aware of a story out of Chicago about four young blacks who restrained and physically assaulted a young mentally disabled white man. The assaults were streamed live on Facebook. The attackers were heard saying "Fuck Trump!" and "Fuck white people!"

I hope the attackers are severely punished. I don't think it's unreasonable to look into hate-crimes charges, though we need to know more.

But notice what's happening on social media. One of the top trending topics on Twitter right now is #BLMkidnapping. The right is pinning responsibility for this crime on the Black Lives Matter movement, though there's no evidence of a link.

This points up a huge advantage the right has over the left. Right-wing propagandists keep their target audience angry all the time. Fox, Breitbart, and talk radio depict Black Lives Matter as a Klan-like hate group even when there's no obvious news peg. So the audience for the right-wing media (which is much larger than the audience for, say, MSNBC prime time) has outrage as its baseline. That's not true for most liberals and progressives.

And then, when whatever's going on in the country or the world fits the right's well-honed frames, the anger goes to 11.

In today's New York Times, there's an op-ed by Robert Leonard, an Iowa radio news director, about attitudes in the white heartland. I don't agree with much of what Leonard writes, but there's a kernel of truth in this:
One recent morning, I sat near two young men at a coffee shop here whom I’ve known since they were little boys. Now about 18, they pushed away from the table, and one said: “Let’s go to work. Let the liberals sleep in.” The other nodded.

They’re hard workers. As a kid, one washed dishes, took orders and swept the floor at a restaurant. Every summer, the other picked sweet corn by hand at dawn for a farm stand and for grocery stores, and then went to work all day on his parents’ farm. Now one is a welder, and the other is in his first year at a state university on an academic scholarship. They are conservative, believe in hard work, family, the military and cops, and they know that abortion and socialism are evil, that Jesus Christ is our savior, and that Donald J. Trump will be good for America.

They are part of a growing movement in rural America that immerses many young people in a culture -- not just conservative news outlets but also home and church environments -- that emphasizes contemporary conservative values. It views liberals as loathsome, misinformed and weak, even dangerous.
These people are wrong -- I've met plenty of lazy rural people, and New York City, where I live, runs on caffeine and hustle. But what's important here is that conservatives all believe this. It's not just these young people -- it's the vast majority of the right-wing rank-and-file. They believe they're surrounded by the enemies Fox enumerates every night, and as a result they're in a constant state of rage.

So they were easy for the Tea Party or the Trump campaign to rile up. They already had a well-established narrative of their alleged enemies' perfidy -- all the teabaggers or Trump had to do was allude to what they already believed.

We have far fewer people on the left who start out angry. And we don't have any megaphones as large as Fox's or talk radio's, nor do we have funders as generous as the Kochs. So we have a much, much harder climb.

Wednesday, January 04, 2017

APPARENT SIGNS OF GOP DISUNITY NEVER PASS THE "YOU AND WHAT ARMY?" TEST

So I'm supposed to see this CNN story as evidence that Republicans might not be quite as unified in their drive to repeal Obamacare as they'd like us to believe:
Republicans are just getting started on their years-long dream of repealing Obamacare, and already, there are fears that things are moving too fast....

Sen. John McCain told reporters Tuesday that he supports taking a slower approach to repealing the law, saying he is "always worried about something that took a long time in the making and we've got to concentrate our efforts to making sure that we do it right so that nobody's left out."

Newt Gingrich, the former Republican House Speaker and a close ally of President-elect Donald Trump, told CNN that a big risk for Republicans is getting blamed for taking away people's health coverage....

GOP Sen. Rand Paul cited potential insurance market problems if the law isn't replaced when it is repealed. "If Congress fails to vote on a replacement at the same time as repeal, the repealers risk assuming the blame for the continued unraveling of Obamacare," he said in an op-ed Tuesday. "For mark my words, Obamacare will continue to unravel and wreak havoc for years to come."
And I guess I'm expected to see this story as evidence that Republicans in Congress might hold Donald Trump's feet to the fire if he's overly cozy with shady pro-Russian characters or overly dismissive of the U.S. intelligence community:
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Wednesday said he had more trust in the country's intelligence community than in WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

"I have a lot more faith in our intelligence officers serving around the world, very smart and experienced analysts that we have here in the nation's capital, than I do in people like Julian Assange," Cotton said on MSNBC.

Cotton's comments come after President-elect Donald Trump earlier in the day sent a tweet siding with Assange over the intelligence community regarding Russia's meddling in the U.S. presidential election....

"Julian Assange said 'a 14 year old could have hacked Podesta' -- why was DNC so careless? Also said Russians did not give him the info!" Trump tweeted.
These apparent declarations of independence are catnip to the news media -- but how often do they amount to anything?

Remember the days before Christmas, when there were headlines such as "Bipartisan Call for Committee to Probe Russian Cyberattacks" and "Bipartisan Senators Call for New Committee on Russian Hacking"? If you just read the headlines, you might have believed that a significant number of Republicans wanted there to be a select committee to look into Russian electoral shenanigans -- but, in fact, only John McCain and Lindsey Graham were on board.

And now:
John McCain and Lindsey Graham are backing off of their push for a select committee on cybersecurity after Russian interference in the election, bowing to the political reality that the Senate Republican Conference largely does not back their idea....

"We're just going to move with the individual committees and see how that works. If it doesn't work, we'll regroup," Graham said in an interview.

McCain said he'd spoken to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) about the matter. McConnell prefers to use the Intelligence Committee to spearhead the cyber investigation, and McCain said their discussions had done little to move the GOP leader.

"He said he doesn't think we need it," McCain said.
It's going to be like this over and over and over again -- whatever Donald Trump wants, or the House and Senate leadership want, is what's going to happen. There might be one or two grumblers in the GOP ranks, but the Republican Party is the Borg -- resistance is futile. The few who deviate from Correct Thinking are always brought back in line. (And in every case there are only a tiny few.)

So never believe a narrative that relies on the possibility of Republican dissent derailing the plans of Trump, Ryan, McConnell, or their rich and powerful backers, whether in the fossil-fuels industry or in the Kremlin. It just won't happen.

GREEN LANTERNISM: THE REASON TRUMP WILL ALWAYS GET THE HEADLINES HE WANTS

On Monday night, House Republicans voted to end the independence of the Office of Congressional Ethics. By yesterday morning there was already a tremendous amount of pressure on them to abandon this effort, as Carl Hulse of The New York Times acknowledges. Donald Trump then weighed in, and objected only to the timing of the change, not the substance, as Hulse also notes:
Deluged by angry phone calls and bad headlines, chagrined Republican officials say they were well on their way to abandoning the ethics revisions adopted Monday night in a closed-door party meeting before Mr. Trump weighed in via Twitter and suggested that the overhaul shouldn’t be a top priority, urging Republicans to focus instead on taxes and health care.
And yet here's how Hulse's story is teased on the Times front page:



As Greg Sargent points out, many mainstream-media headlines gave all or most of the credit for the reversal to Trump:
* CNN: “House Republicans pull plan to gut independent ethics committee after Trump tweets.”

* The Washington Post: “House Republicans back off gutting ethics watchdog after backlash from Trump.”

* Politico: “Trump tweets disapproval of GOP move to gut congressional ethics office.”

* Bloomberg: “House GOP reverses on ethics change after Trump criticism.” ...
In all likelihood, Trump will always get headlines like this, because American journalists love the Green Lantern theory of the presidency, and they think they finally have a Green Lantern president. Ezra Klein wrote this about the Green Lantern theory in 2014:
According to Brendan Nyhan, the Dartmouth political scientist who coined the term, the Green Lantern Theory of the Presidency is "the belief that the president can achieve any political or policy objective if only he tries hard enough or uses the right tactics." In other words, the American president is functionally all-powerful, and whenever he can't get something done, it's because he's not trying hard enough, or not trying smart enough.

Nyhan further separates it into two variants: "the Reagan version of the Green Lantern Theory and the LBJ version of the Green Lantern Theory." The Reagan version, he says, holds that "if you only communicate well enough the public will rally to your side." The LBJ version says that "if the president only tried harder to win over congress they would vote through his legislative agenda."
LBJ seems like a Green Lantern president in retrospect, but as Klein notes, he had large congressional majorities, especially after the 1964 elections, and the opposition included many moderate and even liberal Republicans. Also, he came into office with a great amount of goodwill after the Kennedy assassination. He was a persuader, but at least in the early years of his presidency he never faced the united opposition Barack Obama and Bill Clinton experienced.

Trump's party is itching to get to work transferring money and power to the rich, and the president-elect is on board with that agenda, so there's inevitably going to be cooperation, sometimes, perhaps, after initial disagreements. The same goes for Trump and big business: Companies have applauded Trump as he boasted about saving American jobs in cases in which few jobs have actually been saved, or new job programs were in the works even before Trump's election -- and that's understandable, because these companies want the huge tax and regulatory breaks Trump and the congressional GOP promise.

But the press likes to believe that the Green Lantern approach is what gets the job done. Klein again:
Ron Fournier, a prominent Green Lantern theorist, offers a fairly typical prescription for presidential success:
He could talk to the media and the public more often with a more compelling and sustained message. He could build enduring relationships in Washington rather than being so blatantly transactional with his time. He could work harder, and with more empathy, on Capitol Hill to find "win-win" opportunities with Republicans.
Or he could send a couple of angry tweets, after which his apparent antagonists appear like putty in his hands, while the current crop of Ron Fourniers swoon.

With congressional Republicans and big business, Trump is pushing on an open door -- they're on his side already. I'm betting that China, North Korea, Iran, and ISIS won't be quite as willing to tremble before Trump's mighty tweets. But whenever Trump wants to seem like a superhero, in the domestic area at least, his allies will cooperate -- and the press will lap it up.

Tuesday, January 03, 2017

FREEPERS NOW: TRUMP LOOKS LIKE A SWAMP DRAINER! FREEPERS THIS MORNING: LET THE SWAMP REFILL!

Did Donald Trump just win one for ethics? A Washington Post news story would have you think so:
House Republicans scrapped plans to weaken an independent ethics watchdog on the first day of the 115th Congress after a backlash from President-elect Donald Trump and others....

The about-face came hours after Trump took to Twitter to slam House Republicans for voting behind closed doors Monday night in favor of immediately weakening the independent ethics office. The vote defied House GOP leaders and complicated Trump’s “drain the swamp” campaign mantra.

“With all that Congress has to work on, do they really have to make the weakening of the Independent Ethics Watchdog, as unfair as it . . . may be, their number one act and priority. Focus on tax reform, health care and so many other things of far greater importance!” Trump wrote on Twitter Tuesday morning, hours before the new Congress convened.
House Republicans reversed course because their surprise move became a huge news story. Trump weighed in only because the press made a big deal of this, and he weighed in not to criticize what they'd done but to question the timing:



At Free Republic this morning, the vote to end the independence of the Office of Congressional Ethics was greeted with praise:
Here’s the crucial bit:

‘Office of Congressional Ethics was established in 2008 under House Democrats’

In other words, it was and is a fan-dance prop used to convince someone they’re seeing something (more) that they’re not.

The Democrats are about as interested in ethics as they are in lumberjack competitions.

****

The staff is probably full of partisan Democrats.

****

Began in 2008. This was a duplicate of an already existing Ethics Board. It just had different criteria for getting a matter before them.

In other words....it was an Obama Board.

****

That NPR and the NYT are clutching their pearls, and Nancy Pelousy is raising a stink, over this move tells me all I need to know.

****

The reason the Dems want the panel independent is the professional staffers who people these things are reliable Leftists.

****

The Republicans correctly figured out that this office would soon be getting of deluge of complaints from Democrats about *everything* the Republicans did, with zero regard to any genuine complaints. All done as an effort to slow down or even halt what the Republicans are trying to do.

****

FYI, the old Ethics Committee has been likened to a star chamber, in which anonymous charges were allowed and were sometimes made. Good Riddance. Smart move considering the ferocity of the opposition we're about to face.

Leadership objected, probably because of the optics of it. Screw optics.
Note that last comment: "Screw optics."

By this afternoon, House Republicans had backed down and Trump was getting the credit, especially on Trumpaganda outlets like Zero Hedge ("Trump Wins Again: House GOP Reverses On Ethics Office Overhaul")/ The Freepers? They were happy again. The reason: optics.
I need a scorecard to keep track of all this winning.

****

Mr President-Elect, I can’t take all this WINNING! Please, take it easy ... hehehe

****

how is this a Trump win?

Positioning

****

Good for Trump. The stupid party remains stupid. There are arguments why these ethics changes needed to be made, but the GOP handled it terribly and did attempt to make the changes in the night. They have handed Pelosi and the rest of the Rats a golden freebee to bash the Republicans.

****

Exactly. The optics was terrible.

****

Optics. The Rats can and would use this as an issue to stop the Republican Congress from getting anything Trump proposes done.

The Rats will say, the Republicans run everything and the first thing they do is get rid of Ethics Reform. They don’t care about the American People, blah blah blah...

We here on FR know it’s a setup, but we pay attention to what really goes on in Politics. The average Voter sees corrupt Politicians trying to get away with something.

They have no idea how this idiotic Ethic Panel got its start thanks to Pelosi and a bunch of cowardly RINO’s who followed her lead.
So gutting the independent ethics office was an excellent idea -- and Trump's intervention was also an excellent idea, because optics and positioning and winning. Got it?

DEAR BELTWAY JOURNALISTS: STOP WRITING PIECES LIKE THIS

Carl Hulse of The New York Times thinks the future for congressional Republicans is potentially perilous:
It’s put-up or shut-up time for Republicans.

After a tumultuous decade that has seen profound changes in the makeup and character of their party, Republicans are poised to complete their slow but steady climb back to power as they seize control of the House, Senate and the White House for the first time since 2006.

That political triad will leave them with a splendid opportunity for success. But there is little room for failure if they hope to satisfy their impatient constituents and deliver on bold promises to reshape the nation’s health care delivery system, restructure the tax code, drive job creation, muscle up American foreign policy, rebuild a crumbling infrastructure and set America on a new course.
Where's the evidence that there's "little room for failure"? The GOP's constituents may seem impatient, but they always come back to the party. They come back for the tribal solidarity built around opposition to gun control, multiculturalism, and social programs that seem to help Those People. Every so often these voters reject the GOP -- a conservative Democrat won the governorship in Louisiana after the disastrous rule of Bobby Jindal -- but Republican control of government at all levels in this country just gets more and more entrenched, even as all this heartland discontent seems to increase. Why shouldn't Republicans in D.C. just keep winning even if -- when -- they fail to make the country better? They'll pass bills that make liberals howl. That's all that matters.
... Now they must show they can deliver. And they know it.

“When you have both houses and the presidency, there is no acceptable excuse for not passing major legislation,” said Representative Tom Cole, a senior Republican from Oklahoma. “There is a lot of pressure on Republican members to produce and to produce quickly.”

That will not be easy. There is a mutual wariness between many Republicans in Congress and President-elect Donald J. Trump, leaving it unclear how often their interests and priorities will coalesce or collide. Some of the biggest fights might well be between Republicans on Capitol Hill and the White House occupied by a man who campaigned against the establishment and some of the very Republicans running Congress.
Since Election Day, where have we seen evidence of conflict between Trump and the congressional GOP, at least with regard to legislation? Both are clearly determined to engage in extreme levels of deregulation and transfer massive amounts of money to the rich. Trump is engaging in blatant acts of self-dealing and congressional Republicans don't care; the House just voted to gut its own ethics oversight and Trump doesn't care. Everyone seems very cozy.

Oh, yeah, a few grumblers in the GOP don't like the pro-Russia tilt of the incoming administration. But this discontent barely goes beyond John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The rest of the party will mostly roll over.
... Perhaps most important, Republicans themselves are going to need something of an attitude adjustment....

Republicans who have shied from the responsibility of government will now be called upon to support increases in the debt limit, approve annual budgets, endorse spending bills and back other must-pass measures that they formerly left to the Democrats and some of their more compromising colleagues. With Democrats unlikely to help on many of those votes after being castigated for them by Republicans, the Republicans who belonged to the “vote no, hope yes” caucus when it came to critical legislation in recent years now will have to vote yes and hope things go well.
They'll remake this legislation in their own image, and it'll pass and be signed by a willing president. And if the ultras refuse to support increases in the debt limit, what price will they pay? There was a debt ceiling crisis in 2011 and a government shutdown in 2013. Political cost to congressional Republicans? Zero. And the Gingrich shutdown of the 1990s didn't cost Republicans control of Congress, either. As long as any crises are resolved well before an election day, non-GOP voters will forget their anger, because they -- we -- routinely do.

This is horserace journalism extended past the election. It's an effort to gin up a sense of conflict where there's actually very little. Republicans will cooperate with one another, and they won't lose the loyalty of heartland white voters until those voters think things are unspeakably awful. That finally happened in the Bush era, but it took about six years. I expect it to take about as long in the Trump era.

Monday, January 02, 2017

BREAKING NEWS: ALLEGED EMBODIMENT OF ZEITGEIST STILL VERY UNPOPULAR

You probably wouldn't know it from reading the political press, but President-elect Trump is still strikingly unpopular, as noted by Gallup:
As Donald Trump prepares to take the presidential oath on Jan. 20, less than half of Americans are confident in his ability to handle an international crisis (46%), to use military force wisely (47%) or to prevent major scandals in his administration (44%). At least seven in 10 Americans were confident in Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton in these areas before they took office.



... The results for Trump are based on a Dec. 7-11 Gallup poll. They are consistent with prior Gallup polling showing Trump having a much lower favorable rating than prior presidents-elect and a much lower approval rating for how he has handled his presidential transition.
So why are so many of us spending so much time flagellating ourselves for our failure to understand the Trump voter? Why are we describing Trump voters as the quintessential Americans, the ones Democrats and the "liberal media" shun at their peril? Trump is widely disliked. Even presidential election winners like Bill Clinton in 1992 and George W. Bush in 2000 who failed to win outright popular-vote majorities were regarded positively by voters in the immediate aftermath of tough campaigns. The country rallied around them. The country isn't rallying around Trump. So why not portray him as wrong-footed from the start, a man who'll struggle to win popular consent for his actions and his policies?

That's how the political world would be talking about Hillary Clinton right now if she'd won -- even if, unlike Trump, she'd won both the popular and the electoral vote. We'd be told that she has to renege on many of her promises, reach out to her enemies, maybe even give Trump himself a Cabinet position. So why aren't we hearing anything like that about Trump now?

TRUMP MIGHT NOT GET HIS FULL CABINET RIGHT AWAY -- AND SO WHAT?

Democrats are reminding us that they intend to slow the approval process for President Trump's Cabinet nominees:
Democratic senators plan to aggressively target eight of Donald Trump’s Cabinet nominees in the coming weeks and are pushing to stretch their confirmation votes into March....

Such delays would upend Republican hopes of quickly holding hearings and confirming most of Trump’s top picks on Inauguration Day....

Incoming Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) has told Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) that Democrats will home in especially on Rex Tillerson, Trump’s choice for secretary of state; Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), his pick for attorney general; Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), tapped to lead the Office of Management and Budget; and Betsy DeVos, selected to serve as education secretary.

There’s also Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.), Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Health and Human Services and oversee changes to Obamacare, who is expected to be attacked by Democrats for his support for privatizing Medicare. Andrew Puzder, a restaurant executive set to serve as labor secretary, will face scrutiny for past comments on the minimum wage, among other policies. Steve Mnuchin, a former Goldman Sachs partner set to serve as treasury secretary, and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, Trump’s pick to lead the EPA, will also be the focus of Democratic attacks, aides said.
Which I suppose will be a huge problem for Republicans -- or would be, except for the fact that their plan is to pass a lot of legislation right away and rush it to the new president's desk, a process that doesn't require a Cabinet at all:
For six years, since they took back the House of Representatives, Republicans have added to a pile of legislation that moldered outside the White House. In their thwarted agenda, financial regulations were to be unspooled. Business taxes were to be slashed. Planned Parenthood would be stripped of federal funds. The ­Affordable Care Act was teed up for repeal -- dozens of times.

When the 115th Congress begins this week, with Republicans firmly in charge of the House and Senate, much of that legislation will form the basis of the most ambitious conservative policy agenda since the 1920s. And rather than a Democratic president standing in the way, a soon-to-be-inaugurated Donald Trump seems ready to sign much of it into law.

The dynamic reflects just how ready Congress is to push through a conservative makeover of government, and how little Trump’s unpredictable, attention-grabbing style matters to the Republican game plan....

In 2012, Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist described the ideal president as “a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen” and “sign the legislation that has already been prepared.”
Congressional Democrats are going to focus on Trump and his team -- and, yes, they're clearly dangerous -- but the immediate danger in the early days of 2017 is going to come from Republicans in the House and Senate. I want to see a Democratic plan for at least slowing the passage of the congressional GOP's wish list, but I don't see one.

And after an election that we've been told was all about the white working class and its discontents, what's the top priority of congressional Republicans?
Perhaps the first thing that will happen in the new Congress is the push for deregulation....

Republicans have chafed for years at a host of rules, many business-related, that President Obama has issued through the regulatory process, and they have been advising the Trump team on which ones should be undone.

“I hear probably more about the strangulation of regulations on business and their growth and their development than probably anything else,” the House speaker, Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, said at a recent forum. “I think if we can provide regulatory relief right away, that can breathe a sigh of relief into the economy.”

In late December, the Obama administration rolled out a major new environmental regulation intended to rein in mountaintop-removal mining. That regulation, one of dozens that Mr. Trump is expected to reverse, is meant to go into effect one day before his inauguration.

But Congress is likely to block it, using the obscure Congressional Review Act, which permits lawmakers to undo new regulations with only 51 Senate votes within the first 60 legislative days of the rules’ completion.

Given time constraints on the Senate floor, members will have to pick some priorities. They are expected to train their sights on a rule that requires oil and gas producers to reduce methane gases, another that requires mining and fossil fuel companies to disclose payments they have made to foreign governments to extract natural resources, and still others that restrict pesticide use.
You thought this election was all about you, Joe Sixpack? You've been suckered. It was all about regulatory relief for the bosses -- who still won't hire you even after they get it. They come first, naturally -- Paul Ryan "hear[s] probably more about" their concerns than yours. Did you really think that he and other Republicans, including Trump, were listening to you?

Democrats might slow up a couple of Cabinet approvals. But even before that process is completed, a huge amount of damage will be done by Republicans. And much of it will barely be discussed in the media. It'll happen before we know it.

Sunday, January 01, 2017

I'M ANGRY EVEN IF THAT DAMN LAPTOP IN VERMONT WASN'T CONNECTED TO THE POWER GRID (updated)

I hate the way this story is being reported:
The Washington Post has corrected a story that originally said Russian hackers penetrated the U.S. electric grid by breaching a utility company in Vermont.

“An earlier version of this story incorrectly said that Russian hackers had penetrated the U.S. electric grid. Authorities say there is no indication of that so far. The computer at Burlington Electric that was hacked was not attached to the grid,” an editor's note attached to the original article said....

According to the report, which cited anonymous senior administration officials, a code linked to the Grizzly Steppe operation was found within the utility's system.

Officials told the newspaper that the breach did not interrupt electrical operations.
I missed the original version of this story. I read the updated version during a layover last night. I still find it alarming:
Burlington Electric said in a statement that the company detected a malware code used in the Grizzly Steppe operation in a laptop that was not connected to the organization’s grid systems. The firm said it took immediate action to isolate the laptop and alert federal authorities.
To the right and the liberal-bashing left, it's just "fake news." Glenn Greenwald's headline at the Intercept is:
Russia Hysteria Infects WashPost Again: False Story About Hacking U.S. Electric Grid
Which is nearly identical to the right's message:





Is it really hard to understand what's going on here? Let me explain by quoting a detail from another story about the Russians. This one is a New York Times report on Vladimir Putin's decision not to expel any U.S. diplomats after President Obama ordered a number of Russian diplomats to leave America.
While Mr. Obama framed the new American measures as a response to Russian hacking during the election, the expulsion of Russian diplomats from Washington and San Francisco was described as a response to continued harassment of American diplomats in Russia.

Mr. Putin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, denied that any such harassment had taken place, but American diplomats tell a different story. Many travel around Moscow in cars with red diplomatic license plates that start with 004, denoting United States Embassy vehicles. That makes them easy targets for traffic stops.

Embassy employees said they were followed as they moved around the city, and that sometimes, when they were not at home, agents would enter and move the furniture around, just to show that they had been there.
(Emphasis added.)

See, that's what the Russians did in Burlington. They didn't cause any real mayhem. They just poked around a laptop on the premises of an electric utility in order to rattle us. It's just like breaking into U.S. diplomats' residences and rearranging the furniture. They want us to think they really could mess with us if they chose to.

To me that's infuriating enough. It appalls me that our next president is in bed with these schmucks, and it infuriates me that the right and the anti-liberal left think all of this is no big deal.

****

UPDATE, TUESDAY, 1/2: Well, now we have a real walkback from the Post.
As federal officials investigate suspicious Internet activity found last week on a Vermont utility computer, they are finding evidence that the incident is not linked to any Russian government effort to target or hack the utility, according to experts and officials close to the investigation.

... Officials told the [Burlington Electric Department] that traffic with this particular [IP] address is found elsewhere in the country and is not unique to Burlington Electric, suggesting the company wasn’t being targeted by the Russians. Indeed, officials say it is possible that the traffic is benign, since this particular IP address is not always connected to malicious activity.

... U.S. officials are continuing to investigate the laptop. In the course of their investigation, though, they have found on the device a package of software tools commonly used by online criminals to deliver malware. The package, known as Neutrino, does not appear to be connected with Grizzly Steppe, which U.S. officials have identified as the Russian hacking operation. The FBI, which declined to comment, is continuing to investigate how the malware got onto the laptop.
On the other hand, the Russians certainly do this sort of thing. From a CBS story that ran just before Christmas (hat tip: Paul Canning:
Last weekend, parts of the Ukrainian capitol Kiev went dark. It appears Russia has figured out how to crash a power grid with a click.

Last December, a similar attack occurred when nearly a quarter of a million people lost power in the Ivano-Frankivsk region of Ukraine when it was targeted by a suspected Russian attack.
So stay alert.

NOT QUITE HOW WE GOT HERE, BY ROSS DOUTHAT AND NICHOLAS KRISTOF

I'm back. Thank you, Yastreblyansky and Crank, for filling in while I was gone, even if that last post was uncharacteristically optimistic for this blog. Then again, we're to the point where foreseeing the possibility a military coup counts as optimism, so I think America is justifying my grumpy worldview.

Right now I'm over at the New York Times op-ed page and I see Ross Douthat confessing, among other things, that he misjudged the Republican establishment:
The more time you spend complaining about a given feature of the political or cultural landscape, the more you can come to take its power and permanence for granted, to imagine that its decadence must be too resilient to overthrow.

In the case of the G.O.P., that decadence was the party’s “Reagan yesterday, Reagan today, Reagon forever” commitments, which seemed to me misguided but powerfully entrenched, so that an assault on party orthodoxy as frontal as the one that Trump mounted would eventually forge a defensive unity among the party’s politicians and ideological enforcers.

... But ... from the talk radio dial to the halls of Congress to Fox News, Trump’s assault revealed that the party’s would-be statesmen were mostly hollow men and its enforcers were mostly ratings-hungry cynics. I had thought that the G.O.P. was run by true believers in a dated catechism. But really it was run by people for whom the Reaganite catechism only mattered because they controlled the inquisition, and once Trump’s army of heretics refused to disperse they had no stomach for a fight.
Give the Republicans this much: They called Trump out on his deviations from GOP orthodoxy throughout the primaries -- it just didn't work, because the voters wanted to believe in him so badly they were willing to put up with a few heresies (and in some cases they didn't care about the orthodoxy at all). Those voters were also fed up with GOP pols who had passed all the litmus tests but hadn't repealed Obamacare, blocked gay marriage, repealed all taxes, and sent every Democrat to the gulags.

Eventually, though, establishment Republicans realized that there was no reason to fight Trump if he'd agree to deliver on the issues they really care about: tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, and the appointment of litmus-test-conservative judges who'd rule for the wealthy in perpetuity (and against non-whites, LGBT people, abortion seekers, and gun-control advocates). Once it was clear he'd give them all that, they stopped fighting and climbed on the Trump train. Douthat ignores the obvious here: on 80% of issues, a Trump presidency will be exactly like a Scott Walker presidency. Once that was clear to the establishmentarians, why fight?

Nicholas Kristof, for his part, calls out the media:
In 2008, the three broadcast networks, in their nightly news programs, devoted over the entire year a total of three hours and 40 minutes to issues reporting (defined as independent coverage of election issues, not arising from candidate statements or debates). In 2016, that plummeted to a grand total of just 36 minutes.

ABC and NBC had just nine minutes of issues coverage each; CBS had 18 minutes. So ABC and NBC each had less than one minute of issues coverage per month in 2016.

Those figures come from Andrew Tyndall, whose Tyndall Report monitors the news programs. By Tyndall’s measures, there was zero independent coverage in 2016 on those nightly programs about poverty, climate change or drug addiction.

“Journalists were confronted with the spectacle of an issues-free campaign,” Tyndall told me. “They had to decide how to react: with complicity, since such tactics were easy to shoehorn into the ratings-pleasing entertainment structure of a reality TV show, or with defiance, by delving into what was at stake.”

They chose the former, he says, and “treated their viewers not as citizens, but as so many pairs of eyeballs.”
Yes, I fault the coverage of Trump as spectacle, as well as the lack of non-campaign-related issue reporting. But one of the major things that made Trump's victory possible was the way journalists talked about issues with respect to Trump.

No matter how right-wing Trump's rhetoric was, we were told we couldn't really tell whether he'd govern as the Fox News wingnut he's clearly become or would revert to his old centrism (and liberalism on a few issues). Even when he issued a list of possible court picks thoroughly vetted by purist right-wing groups, we were told he might have just done that for show. Even when he issued a Paul Ryanesque budget plan, we were told he might be a secret liberal on social programs.

Maybe it's impossible to report on Republican presidential candidates properly because for years they've all wanted to blow massive holes in the social safety net while making the rich richer and less accountable, but they don't say that's what they want, so the press feels obligated to treat what they say as reflecting their true beliefs. When the typical Republican says he wants to "preserve and defend" Social Security or Medicare, reporters feel they have to assume at least some good faith, even if they've read the GOP budget that gives the lie to such assertions. In 2015 and 2016, reporters extended this courtesy to Trump, even though he's one of the greatest bullshit artists in human history. And so his even more grandiose claims -- that he wouldn't even touch Social Security or Medicare, and that he'd replace Obamacare with something so amazing it would make beneficiaries' head spin -- were allowed to stand.

The press should assume that any compassionate words coming out of the mouth of a Republican are lies. I know that's too much to ask, but couldn't we have had a bit more skepticism about an unusually flagrant liar?