Skip to content

Good luck with that

Sunday, January 19, 2020

I’ve mentioned before that I get a guilty pleasure out of reading the Palmer Report, inasmuch as it tells me things I want to hear. Still, I apply great heaps of salt so far as the conclusions they reach, though you can usually go to the bank with the facts they recite. In that, they differ from what some might consider their right wing counterparts.

Imagine my surprise when I read this post, in which Palmer contributor BD Holly explains how the Democrats can sock it to Mitch McConnell and the Republicans:

But, if the Democrats play their cards right, they can do some more serious damage to Trump, and it involves taking a page out of the Republicans’ playbook: lockstep media barrage.

What exactly do I mean by this? Think about any major politically divisive thing from the past decade. Republicans all seem to get on the same page about the issue, and they subsequently make as many media appearances as possible to get their message out. They use language that appeals to the average Joe. The result? Next time you talk to your neighbor, cousin, coworker, whomever, often they’re saying the Republican byline too. So now it’s the Democrats’ turn. Democrats of all stripes, elected, unelected, party officials, and just party members — anyone who has a voice prominent enough — needs to get on the same page about impeachment and voting in 2020.

Democrats need to strengthen their message, too. Notice how the same country both helped Trump in 2016 and would have benefitted from Trump’s threat to withdraw aid to the Ukraine? You know, Russia? Isn’t that an important nexus that the Democrats should harp on a little more? C’mon guys — get to it. Drawing that connection and making it a big deal builds a stronger case against Trump, whether Trump intended to benefit Russia.

This is a drum I’ve been beating since I started this humble blog. Latest example is here, but if you click on the “Democrats” category you’ll find scores more. 

Take it from me, BD, if it’s one thing we can count on it’s that Democrats will not speak with one voice, and even if they tried (which they won’t), there’d be at least one who would refuse to do so, and he or she would get most of the media attention.

Filed in Democrats | | Comments (0)

Looking on the bright side

Sunday, January 19, 2020

There aren’t many things to be thankful for in the current political situation, but one is that we have a right wing president who has managed to alienate the military, which tends to be…you know…right wing. The recently publicized excerpt from the upcoming book Very Stable Genius gives us reason to hope that, should the Russians fall short and the genius lose the upcoming election, he will not be able to call on the military to support him when he inevitably refuses to accept the validity of the election. We can give thanks that our would be Hitler is a lot stupider and more ignorant than the original Hitler, which just might save us in the end.

Not much, but it’s something.

Filed in The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

There’s something (else) happening here

Wednesday, January 15, 2020

The stuff that has come out from Lev Parnas’s phone leads, in my humble opinion, to the ineluctable conclusion that there was something else afoot in Ukraine, other than digging up dirt on Biden.

Perhaps it’s a good idea to fall back on a tried and true Trumpian rule: whenever he accuses anyone else of wrongdoing, it is inevitable that he has or is engaging in precisely the same thing. His recent attempt to start a war in Iran to get himself re-elected, something he accused Obama of planning, is merely the latest example. He was accusing Biden and his son of attempting to enrich themselves, so it seems quite likely that at least part of this has to do with lining Trump’s pockets.

Filed in The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

The earth shakes: Paul Krugman gets it wrong!

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

I turn to the op-ed of the Times religiously every Tuesday and Friday to read the latest words of wisdom from Paul Krugman. But today, I was aghast. Paul Krugman was wrong!

Well not all wrong, but really wrong about one thing. His column is about health care politics. He refers to the Trump administration’s argument before the Supreme Court that the ACA (Obamacare) is unconstitutional, for a silly reason that I won’t go in to. He says:

Clearly, this case is headed for the Supreme Court. But Trump doesn’t want it heard until after the election.

Why does Trump want to leave this court case hanging? Partly because his side would probably lose. As I said, the lawsuit is ludicrous, although, given the partisanship of Republican-appointed judges, it might prevail anyway. (Emphasis added)

The language I’ve emphasized is dead wrong. They want to leave the case hanging because they are afraid they might win, which they’d love to do after the election when the voters cannot wreak vengeance on them, but not right now, thank you very much.

It is worth noting here that the courts at all levels have been slow walking a number of cases that either should be decided quickly due to their critical importance (e.g., cases involving refusal of the executive to honor Congressional subpoenas or to block witnesses from testifying) and/or should be slam dunks based on past precedent which is unfavorable to the genius’s position (e.g., cases involving refusal of the executive to honor Congressional subpoenas or to block witnesses from testifying) They are doing so for political reasons pure and simple. There is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court is slow walking the health care case in order to drop a decision after the election. That way they avoid embarrassing the genius if they rule against him, though this is a minimal problem, as an adverse decision would likely be forgotten the next day. More critically, if it goes in his favor, people will be faced with the loss of their health care during an election campaign due to the genius and the judges he appointed. That won’t sit well with the voters. Better to wait until the electoral die is cast.

I forgive Paul for being wrong. After all, we all make mistakes.

UPDATE: Looks like Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have the votes to kill Obamacare. The decision was just put off until after the election.

Filed in Health Care, Republican Corruption | | Comments (1)

Operation theocracy heating up

Monday, January 13, 2020

This is something that, so far as I am currently aware, is at least currently passing pretty much under the radar, as are so many heinous things from the current administration.

President Donald Trump plans to introduce new guidance for expanding “constitutional prayer” in public schools.

According to CBS News broadcaster Steven Portnoy, Trump’s schedule for Thursday includes an announcement about “guidance on constitutional prayer in public schools.”

The details of Trump’s guidance were not immediately available but the president is on record suggesting that he wants to expand prayer in public schools under the guise of First Amendment rights.

Let’s put aside the fact that there is no first amendment right to say prayers in public schools, except to one’s self, though there’s a more than even chance that the present Supreme Court, if invited to do so, will find such a right for Christian prayers, though this new First Amendment right will likely not apply to Muslims, atheists, Pastafarians, or Wiccan type whackjobs. Let’s also put aside, at least for the most part, the stunning hypocrisy of this, coming from a man who clearly has no religious beliefs whatsoever, unless you call a deep and abiding faith in one’s own infallibility a religious belief. 

The impetus for this has nothing to do with religion, except in the sense that the religious sheen is part of the scam. This is all about further dividing the nation and manufacturing another issue with which the Republicans can distract the base whose votes they need to hand the country over to the plutocrats. If that means giving the country a bit of a theocratic veneer, then so be it. Divisive politics has worked for the Republicans, as they’ve been wildly successful at getting a huge swath of the electorate to vote against their own interests, and it will continue to work, especially while Democrats refuse to accept that we are in a political war that we can’t win by being nice to the opposition.

Filed in Creeping Totalitarianism | | Comments (0)

A gross injustice

Thursday, January 9, 2020

Major League’s Baseball Commissioner has initiated an investigation of the Boston Red Sox for sign stealing via electronic means. The entire investigation is a travesty. What kind of country is this, where you can steal elections but not signs? Not only that, consider this distinction without a difference:

Sign-stealing that relies on nothing but human discernment and communication is legal. However, if the Red Sox used electronic devices — including the video replay feed — that would be illegal, and subject to league punishment.

So the Sox will potentially be punished for the simple act of utilizing technology to do something otherwise perfectly legal, though, some might say, still quite tacky.

This outrage cannot be let stand.

Now, I’m certainly not advocating that everyone be allowed to steal signs. I’m simply arguing for a variant of the IOKYAR (It’s okay if you’re a Republican) rule that currently prevails in our national discourse and, increasingly, in our courts. I.e, It’s OKay if You’re A Red sox. See, even the initials are identical. It would obviously be beyond the pale if the hated Yankees, so deserving of world wide scorn, should engage in such loathsome practices, but the Red Sox should certainly not be penalized for what are, in their case, harmless activities. I must add that this is fully consistent with prevailing morality in another sense, that being that in those rare cases when both sides actually do do it, only one side gets to get away with it. That side, as a self evident matter, should be the Red Sox.

I’m sure Chuck Todd and his ilk would see the justice of my reasoning.

Filed in Media | | Comments (0)

In case you missed it

Tuesday, January 7, 2020

I have mentioned before that I keep a diary on my Ipad, which automatically shows me entries from the same date in past years. I think I’ve also mentioned that I try to note the latest doings in the world of the very stable genius. 

I didn’t get to it until late last night, so I declined to write about this last night, but I do think we should all pause and reflect on the fact that as of yesterday, it has been two years since we found out that the very stable genius is…, well, a very stable genius.

I for one give him a lot of credit for his ability to act out of what must be his real character, for there must, given his stability and his genius, be a grand strategy behind his very erratic idiocy. Either that, or he got one of the three words in his description right. Who am I to suggest which alternative is correct?

Filed in The Very Stable Genius | | Comments (0)

Do I smell a rat?

Monday, January 6, 2020

I understand that John Bolton has announced that he will honor a subpoena to the Senate trial if he receives one. I also understand that he is a big cheerleader for an Iranian war, and is quite happy with the genius’s recent actions with respect to that country.

If I were advising Nancy and the gang, I’d suggest they think long and hard before issuing that subpoena. Recent history has shown that Republicans have no respect for the truth, and if Bolton now thinks he can achieve his long sought war with Iran by lying for Trump, he will do just that, or shade the truth so much it is nothing short of a lie.

Unless they have documentary evidence sufficient to box him in, they should really think twice before taking up his invitation.

Filed in Lies and Lying Liars, Republicans | | Comments (0)

Words matter

Saturday, January 4, 2020

Old Friend Steve Fournier, a fellow alum of HPHS, sends out email “rants” on a regular basis, and I’m privileged to be on his list. With his permission, I’d like to share the latest, which I think makes an extremely valid point. I also told Steve that I would point out that I disagree with him about Russian interference in our election being a myth, but that’s tangential to the main point of his rant:

Licensed to Kill

Reports in the embedded mass media of “Iran-backed militias” attacking the US embassy in Baghdad gave the federal government a license to assassinate a popular Iranian general and his entourage as the party was leaving the Baghdad airport. We can only guess whether the killings would have occurred if the media had made any sort of critical examination of the “Iran-backed” characterization.

Reporters and editors might have asked, for instance, whether there is any such thing as an unarmed militia. Millions of viewers saw live video of the crowd assembled outside the embassy. Nobody was armed. There was some stone-throwing, and there were some soldiers in fatigues, but they weren’t carrying weapons.. What we saw was a crowd of men, mostly young, waving flags and vandalizing the building, something like the crowds of what the embedded mass media call pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong.
As for Iran’s part in the protests, that nation’s government denies involvement, and reporters are offering no evidence to support the US government’s accusations. In view of the record of the US government for dishonesty–see recent coverage of the lies told to maintain the state of war in Afghanistan, lies systematically fed to us by our media–news-consumers are entitled to some provenance for the imprecise, even misleading charge of “Iran-backed.” If there is no support for such an allegation, a responsible news editor should say so.

News-mongers aren’t telling us where they got the “Iran-backed militias” phrase, but it’s universal jargon among them, suggesting a common source. Also universal was the acceptance of the phrase as truthful. That would put it in the same category as Saddam Hussein’s nuclear weapons, imminent victory in Afghanistan, Syria’s repeated poison gas attacks, Putin’s influence over US elections, and Jeffrey Epstein’s suicide, among other widely publicized untrue assertions.

There’s been some criticism of the Baghdad assassinations, but not on legal, ethical or factual grounds. Rather, all the criticism has centered on the danger created by the killings. It’s not that it was wrong or illegal or a rush to judgment to kill ten people 7,000 miles away, but rather that it will increase ill will toward the USA and make certain parts of the world inimical to Americans. From the standpoint of the people who initiated the group assassination, the media coverage guarantees that none of them will be held accountable. News-consumers, if we knew the truth, might expect to pay some price ourselves for our leaders’ malfeasance, but it will be a nice surprise for us all when it comes, thanks to our cherished free press.

I want to focus on the media’s willing use of the word “militia”, obviously the word chosen by the Trumpers. There is a world of difference between a “militia” and a “mob”, “rioters”, or “protestors”, both in practical terms and in the associations the words bring to mind. I have to agree with Steve that from all that I saw, the “militia” looked like a mob, rioters or demonstrators, depending on your terminology, but not at all like an organized military force. If it was a militia, it appeared to lack any tactical leadership.

Buying into official spin is especially suspect these days, since even Chuck Todd has now learned (though he will soon forget it) that the current government runs on lies. So far as Trump is concerned, the demonstrators did him a favor, since they furnished a pretext for him to start a conflict that will certainly end in disaster, but not before, as he thinks, he gets the advantage of a war to help his re-election bid. Once again we see a Republican guilty of that which he accuses others.

Filed in Lies and Lying Liars | | Comments (0)

A look ahead

Wednesday, January 1, 2020

A few days ago I said I’d soon be putting up my predictions for the coming year, but due to the fact that the mathematically innumerate continue to claim we begin a new decade this year, I’ve decided to stretch things a bit, and look even farther into what I fear will be our dystopian future. So, here goes. Read no further if you don’t want to be bummed out. 

Somehow, the dark side will prevail on the Democratic side of the ledger, and Joe Biden will emerge as the Democratic candidate. The media will immediately feel an obligation to make an issue out of his son Hunter and Giuliani’s conspiracy theories, despite the fact that there is no actual evidence to support them. They will do this in the interest of both siderism.

But the good news is that Biden will likely still eke out a narrow victory because by then Trump’s dangerous mental illness will be even more apparent, and the over 50% of the electorate that wants him out of office will have grown somewhat larger, and will hold its collective nose and vote for Joe. Even the Senate will likely change hands.

On January 21, 2020 Donald Trump will be consigned to the memory hole, like his most recent Republican predecessor, and the media will rush to proclaim that the Republican Party has been purged and is now, once again, the responsible party they knew and loved before the Trumpian aberration came along. Lindsay Graham won’t remember anything about the man. Both siderism, which has begun to be in a bit of a bad odor lately, will see a new rebirth.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg will resign, and Joe will replace her with a conserva-Dem that will get along just fine with Brett and Neal. After all, it’s terribly important that we appoint someone who will get some Republican support, even if we have enough Democratic Senators to shove an actual liberal down their throats. The fact that Republicans would never return the favor is absolutely irrelevant.

House Democrats will repass the progressive legislation that has died in Mitch McConnell’s Senate, and it will go to the Senate once again, where it will once again die at the hands of Republican filibusters, the filibuster being preserved at the urging of Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden, the latter of whom has not only predicted that the Republicans will have an epiphany and become reasonable once he gets into office but has also gone on record as being in favor of preserving the filibuster should he win. Much to his surprise, he will come to realize, perhaps three years into his presidency, that they had no epiphany. This won’t upset Joe very much anyway, because a lot of that legislation would undermine his campaign promise that there would be no fundamental change on his watch.

Much to his surprise, the lack of fundamental change will play right into Republican hands. They will score landslide victories in the 2022 elections (I know 2010 was a long time ago, but you can look it up). Democratic turnout will be dampened, while the yahoos will be out in full force, energized by ever louder racist dog whistles that only the punditry cannot hear.

Trump and his partners in crime will escape unscathed, further greenlighting future Republican criminality.

The Republicans, in alliance with Fox News, will suddenly declare that the president is subject to the rule of law, and although they will have nothing valid on Biden, they will continue to spin conspiracy theories. William Barr will get a respectful hearing on CNN as he argues that a special prosecutor should be appointed to pursue those theories, and that Joe, seeing as he’s a Democrat, is not entitled to the benefits of the unitary executive theory. Come 2023, when the Republicans have taken back the House, and likely the Senate, they will move to impeach Biden on specious grounds, or at the very least, threaten to do so while conducting interminable investigations to distract from their primary goal of transferring our money to the already rich.

It goes without saying that the United States will do nothing significant to combat climate change.

If you’re looking for good news, it’s always possible that the Red Sox will win another World Series.

Bonus Prediction: Despite the fact that she’s disturbed that McConnell is fixing the Senate trial in league with the White House, Susan Collins will vote to acquit in the face of all the evidence. We can take some comfort from the fact that the voters of Maine will quite likely send her packing, but never fear, she’ll land a well paying gig on CNN to talk about moderation, both sides, and bipartisanship.

Filed in Dysfunction, Rants | | Comments (0)