Skip to content

Just a reminder

Wednesday, January 29, 2020

This is one of several articles I’ve seen later pushing the meme that Republicans are hoping for a Bernie Sanders candidacy. It may very well be true.

It is worthwhile remembering that four years ago Democrats thought that beating Donald Trump would be a no-brainer. Remember Hillary spending her time campaigning in Georgia, trying to pad her inevitable electoral college victory? Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I don’t think the Republicans are any smarter than the Democrats.

I’m not a Bernie bro. I’m still on the almost any Democrat but Biden wagon (though I prefer him to Tulsi), because he can’t seem to avoid laying traps for himself like this one:

Dozens of scientists have endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) sweeping plan to combat global climate change after fellow Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden declared that “not a single solitary scientist thinks it can work.”

The former vice president derided Sanders’ proposed $16.3 trillion Green New Deal during a campaign stop last week in New Hampshire, adding that “you can not get to zero emissions by 2030. It’s impossible.”

Sanders swung back over the weekend, telling a crowd in Iowa that he would soon unveil “a long list of scientists” who back his plan. The Sanders campaign delivered on Tuesday, releasing a letter of support signed by 57 science professors and researchers from around the country.

“The Green New Deal you are proposing is not only possible, but it must be done if we want to save the planet for ourselves, our children, grandchildren, and future generations,” the letter signed by the scientists said. “Not only does your Green New Deal follow the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s] timeline for action, but the solutions you are proposing to solve our climate crisis are realistic, necessary, and backed by science. We must protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the planet we call home.”

This is a Biden specialty: subverting himself. He practically invited this sort of retaliation, which does him more harm than he did to Sanders with his original remark. We can expect more of this during a general campaign, and we can expect the media to pounce on, and amplify, every such blunder, while giving Trump the comparatively free ride they gave him in 2016. (What percent of voters ever even heard of Trump University, to name only one of Trump’s frauds, prior to November of 2016)

I should add that while we cannot know that Sanders would or would not be the Democrat most easily beaten by Trump, we can know that unlike the Trump who supposedly could not win in 2016, the networks will not give him (or any other Democrat, including Biden) billions of dollars in free publicity, will not cover his rallies from start to finish, will not give him endless appearances on Morning Joe, and will present a united front against his policies, which, I will say again, are nothing more than warmed over 1960s liberalism. But the fact is, they did the same to Hillary, and she won by three million votes despite offering nothing of substance to the American people.

Filed in Politics | | Comments (0)

A shock: Republicans continue to be Republicans

Monday, January 27, 2020

I have been totally bewildered by the raft of blog posts and news articles proclaiming that John Bolton’s book excerpt changes everything! Even if it did, the Republicans would find a way to ignore it. For once, though, they’re telling the truth when they say it adds nothing to the case. There is already ample evidence in the record establishing that Trump held American aid hostage to his own interests. Bolton’s testimony would merely confirm that. It was also laughable to speculate that somehow this would increase the pressure on Republicans to allow testimony at the impeachment trial. Consider the following:

A. No matter what, the Republicans are going to vote to acquit Trump. This is an absolute given.

B. Allowing testimony would simply make them look worse than they already look and would cost them even more votes in the November election.

Therefore, it follows as the night the day that they will vote against hearing from witnesses. This was always a given, and it remains so. They don’t want to hear more evidence, because they know that any additional evidence will simply make Trump’s guilt, already proven beyond a reasonable doubt, so much more obvious that even some Fox viewers might see through the bullshit.It is truly amazing that some somewhat leftish bloggers have joined the media, which is forever expecting that principled Republican to appear out of nowhere, in speculating that this development will make the slightest bit of difference.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (1)

Today’s downer

Sunday, January 26, 2020

You see a lot of blog post, op ed pieces, etc., like this one, in which the question is asked, more or less: how will history treat Trump and his enablers. The unspoken assumption in most of them is that history will be written from a perspective more or less in line with today’s. But that’s not how it works.

This history of the Civil War and it’s aftermath was written by Southern apologists for about a hundred years. It was gospel, for instance, that the Johnson Impeachers and the “Radical” Republicans were the bad guys, while it became a given that the president who handed the South back to the confederates was unfairly impeached and deserved to be acquitted. I just finished The Impeachers, by Brenda Wineapple, and wasn’t I surprised (sadly, no) to find that Edmund Ross, one of John F. Kennedy’s ghostwriter’s Profiles in Courage for casting the deciding vote against impeachment, not only kept a horror show in office, but probably took a bribe for doing so. 

Wasn’t I also a bit surprised, when I read Dante’s Divine Comedy, to find that it was Brutus, the guy who tried to save the Roman Republic, such as it was, in the innermost circle of hell rather than Caesar. He made a comeback when Shakespeare got his hands on him, but, again, that’s how it works.

History is written by the winners.

If Putin succeeds in using his tool to destroy the American republic, we can look forward to a history in which Trump overshadows Lincoln and Washington, and his enablers, both within his administration and in the obsequious Senate, are considered heroes, while Adam Schiff will become another Thaddeus Stevens, who for a hundred years was considered a villain.

This year’s election will likely make all the difference. All the more reason for us to back whoever the eventual nominee might be, even if (shudder) his initials are JB.

Filed in History | | Comments (1)

Pompeo melts down

Friday, January 24, 2020

It has been a given, and still is, that the Republicans will acquit the genius, but if recent events are any indication, it may also be the case that they see the walls pressing in upon them, no matter what they do.

Today, we all learned that there’s a tape in which Trump’s obvious lie about not knowing Lev Parnas is convincingly disproven and in which Trump appears to be ordering that Ambassador Yovanovitch be physically harmed, if not killed. Mike Pompeo had an interview on NPR with reporter Mary Louise Kelly that he walked out on because Kelly asked him a non-Fox like question: what specifically did you do to protect Yovanovitch. He followed that up as follows:

Here’s what Kelly says happened after the interview: “I was taken to the Secretary’s private living room where he was waiting and where he shouted at me for about same amount of time as the interview itself. He was not happy to have been questioned about Ukraine … He used the F-word in that sentence and many others.” Pompeo then told Kelly that “People will hear about this,” whatever that’s supposed to mean.

So now we’ve got the Secretary of State taking a reporter into a private room, screaming and cursing at her for an extended period, shoving a map in her face, and threatening some form of retaliation against her – all because she dared to ask him a question he didn’t like during an interview. Not only has Pompeo snapped, he now appears to be an immediate danger to himself and others. Law enforcement should take him into custody immediately.

That kind of behavior would appear to be that of a person in panic mode. I’m not an optimist when it comes to political trends in this country, but this does give one reason to hope that Pompeo’s behavior is reflective of a certain level of consternation in Republican ranks generally.

Filed in Republicans | | Comments (0)

A few thoughts on our glorious constitution

Monday, January 20, 2020

One of the more ridiculous arguments put forward by the genius’s defenders is that the Democrats are trying to overturn the will of the people and the election of 2016. Let’s set aside the fact that if that argument held water, any impeachment would be off the table, rendering the impeachment clause a dead letter. 

This argument comes from the same people who worship at the altar of original intent. So it’s only fair they be reminded that the Founders never intended for there to be presidential elections in the first place. Article 2, Clause 2, which has never been repealed, states as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Founders assumed, in yet another example of their extremely finite wisdom, that the legislature itself would choose the electors, or some other wise men (choice of pronoun definitely intentional), that choice being infinitely wiser than any choice of the majority of the unwashed, as the recent history of electoral college winners/popular vote losers has proven. It is a fact that any legislature so minded could exercise that prerogative today. Presumably, except perhaps in the reddest of states, the voters would have something to say about that the next time those legislators sought re-election, but it remains a fact that it would be perfectly constitutional. Of late, there have been attempts to apportion electors by gerrymandered congressional districts in order to give the bulk of a state’s electoral votes to a Republican instead of all of them to the Democrat that won the popular vote. They tried that in Pennsylvania, but it didn’t pass. The above quoted constitutional provision is also the basis for the ongoing attempt for states representing a majority of electoral votes to form a compact to cast those votes for the nationwide popular vote winner, regardless of the outcome in any of the individual states in the compact. The latter, being a good idea, will never pass, and if it does, the Supreme Court, as presently constituted, will likely find a way to render it unconstitutional in those instances where it results in a Democratic victory.

If you want to get small d democratic about it, convicting Trump would vindicate the real results of the 2016 election.

A little off the main point, but imagine an alternate American history in which the electoral college had functioned as the Founders envisioned. It is extremely unlikely that a system dominated by what would probably have been an increasingly corrupt selection process, manipulated to serve the interests of the moneyed interests, both South and North, would have produced an Abraham Lincoln, or that a Republican Party (as it then was), could have taken power. On the plus side, there would have been no Civil War. On the minus side, black people would still be in some form of slavery, even if it was no longer so denominated, and it is quite likely that by now there would be no representative democracy for the present day Republican Party to destroy. Here’s something that slaveholder Thomas Jefferson said that we should always keep in mind when the sainted Founders are discussed:

Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. …They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human.

He got that right, anyway. The flaws in the constitution are responsible for the decay of our Republic, and the inability of the majority to change that constitution, an inability built into the document, will frustrate any attempt to stave off that decay.

Filed in Decline, Lawyer stuff | | Comments (0)

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)