https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

The sublime bullshit of “a growing sense of regret”

So NOW the GOP is sad that they didn’t “contain” Trump. Sort of.

After four years of tolerating Donald Trump’s behavior, rhetoric, and vindictive, transactional nature, in exchange for an all-you-can approve buffet of judges, tax breaks, and executive orders … suddenly GOP leadership finds it has a case of buyer’s remorse.

Kinda-sorta.

One Republican senator who requested anonymity to discuss his conversations with GOP colleagues acknowledged GOP lawmakers should have served as a stronger check on the president over the past four years.

“We should have done more to push back, both against his rhetoric and some of the things he did legislatively,” said the lawmaker. “The mistake we made is that we always thought he was going to get better. We thought that once he got the nomination and then once he got a Cabinet, he was going to get better, he was going to be more presidential.”

Okay, that gets you up to February of 2017. Where have you been the last four years?

But now there’s a sense among a growing number of GOP lawmakers that Trump may have inflicted long-term damage on their party, an anxiety heightened by the debacle of a pro-Trump mob storming and occupying the U.S. Capitol building Wednesday as Congress was meeting to finalize Biden’s election as the nation’s 46th president.

“There’s more concern about the long-term damage to the party than losing two Senate seats in Georgia,” the GOP senator said.

Oh, so the concern isn’t the actual damage Trump has done to the nation, to minorities, to women, to LGBTQ folk, to the environment and climate, to our natural resources, to education, to our standing and alliances abroad, to the social contract, to our health care, to our health, to all these things over the past four years … it’s concern about how that might hurt the Republican party.

Cry me a freaking river.

A second Republican senator who requested anonymity said Trump had inflicted serious damage on his party.

Such concern … that it can only be passed on via anonymous Senators.

Dear Senator Whitefeather: you know how you start to heal/fix the damage to the party? By actually standing up in public and talking about it, not whispering in a parking structure to a reporter from The Hill.

“Every time you think the president has done everything he could possibly do to fuck things up, then he comes out with a tweet, like the election was invalid and the one in Georgia would be invalid,” said the lawmaker, referring to Trump’s tweets Friday declaring the runoff elections to be “illegal and invalid.”

Big talk from someone supposedly in one of the highest offices of the land … afraid to lend their name and face to their words.

The feelings of remorse are only now being expressed privately after Republican senators spent much of the past four years dodging questions about Trump’s controversial tweets, statements and decisions.

They still are dodging.

As to what actual public defiance of Trump has looked like, well, we have this sad example raised up as an exception:

There were exceptions though, such as when Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), said Trump appeared “unsympathetic” after peaceful protesters were pepper sprayed in front of the White House in June so the president could pose with a Bible in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church.

Oh, yes. Clucked tongues and mildly “concerned” rebukes from Susan Collins have been soooooo effective in restraining Trump.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Thursday said Trump had “tarnished” his legacy by not condemning Wednesday’s “debacle” at the Capitol.

Graham defended his support for Trump over the past four years as being driven by constituents at home who wanted him to work with the president.

“My constituents made me do it” would be more meaningful, Lindsey, if you hadn’t not just worked with him, but become his most outspoken supporter and enabler. Or maybe reading a bit of Burke would be in order.

“The reason I’ve been close to the president is I think he’s done tremendous things for this country. I think the judges he’s nominated have been outstanding choices,” he said. But he said “it breaks my heart that my friend, a president of consequence, were to allow yesterday to happen, and it will be a major part of his presidency.”

“It was a self-inflicted wound, it was going too far,” he added.

Just note that Lindsey actually seems to love all the stuff Trump did. It was just this last froth of post-election paranoia and delusion, leading up to violence in Lindsey’s sacred workplace, that went a bit “too far” and will “tarnish” Trump’s rep.

Asked if he should have spoken out more when Trump crossed the line during his four years in office, Graham acknowledged he could have but also deflected blame on the media for not covering the president more fairly. […] “Could I have done better? Yes. The question: Could you have done better? Could those of you who cover the White House done better? You need to ask yourself that,” he told reporters.

Yes, if only the media had covered Trump “better” and more fairly, he wouldn’t have been driven to incite a riot.

Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) on Wednesday said Trump’s rhetoric created a political headwind for Sens. Kelly Loeffler (R-Ga.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.), who both lost races that GOP senators had expected them to win. […] “When your most effective argument is you’re going to be a check and balance against a Biden/Pelosi/Schumer agenda but you can’t acknowledge that Biden won, it puts you in a really difficult position,” he later explained.

Again, the regret is not anything Trump did regarding policy, but how he hurt the GOP by hurting them in the Georgia run-offs. And, indirectly, how Trump is now talking about trying to defeat Thune in his next primary.

Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), who has been a strong Trump ally during his first term …

First term.”

… late on Wednesday said he does “think the president bears some responsibility” for the violence and chaos on Capitol Hill, which disrupted the Electoral College vote count. “I do think the president bears some responsibility. Certainly, he bears responsibility for his own actions and his own words, and today in watching his speech, I have to admit I gasped,” Cramer said.

A tip of the hat to Sen. Kramer for speaking out loud and laying “some responsibility” on Trump.

Though, to be fair, Cramer — who’s frequently called Trump the “best President of his life” — doesn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

What really seems to be frustrating Cramer is that the events at the end of Trump’s term in office will overshadow the accomplishments on tax policy, energy and agriculture regulation, and foreign policy that he’s proud to have helped the president enact. “As Republicans distance themselves from Donald Trump, the person we have to hold onto his ideas,” Cramer said.

No regrets over policy, just that Donald turned out to be, um, unstable.

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), another staunch Trump ally, said he later spoke with Pence, whom he described as furious over the president’s treatment. “I’ve known Mike Pence forever,” Inhofe told the Tulsa World. “I’ve never seen Pence as angry as he was today.”

Ah. We’re regretful and upset because … Donald was mean to his normally-fawning VP. Well, hold the presses.

Inhofe also said that Trump should have done more to stop the rioting. “He’s only put out one statement that I’m aware of,” he said. “This was really a riot. He should have shown more disdain for the rioters. I don’t want to say he should have apologized — that’s not exactly accurate — but he should have expressed more disdain.”

Not apologize but … “express more disdain.”

For all there may be shock, regrets, and (for the most part mild) criticism, Republican politicians remain terrified of Donald Trump — thus the anonymous quotes above.

National Republicans interviewed by The Hill said Trump may have permanently alienated millions of center-right voters who were disgusted by Wednesday’s ugly scene.

But they acknowledged that the president retains enormous political power at the moment, a dynamic that was on full display when a majority of House Republicans voted to throw out Arizona’s Electoral College results hours after their evacuation.

“Trump has less power now, but he could still probably win a primary today, so does he really have less power?” asked former Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele.

Yesh, they really think he could still win a primary. Which says more about the rest of the GOP political class than it does about Donald Trump. Regardless, since they think he would win a primary — their only criterion for power and, thus, permission to criticize — they are still treading lightly.

Some pointed to the president’s fervent base of supporters outside of Washington to make the case that Trump’s influence would continue to dominate the party for years to come — as well as the House votes on the Electoral College. The president reportedly received a warm reception Thursday morning when he briefly called into a Republican National Committee members meeting.

Some Republicans argued that people have short-term memories and that the transactional nature of politics would give Trump space to rebuild his image and throw his weight around either as a candidate in 2024 or as a kingmaker in GOP primaries.

So the principled thing to do is … speak off the record, keep your head down, and not publicly criticize Trump. It appears that “regret” isn’t all that strong an emotion.

But the violence in Washington, one former Trump campaign official said, “caused him to lose even loyal supporters.” “Trump is a lonely man today,” the person said.

But not so lonely the anonymous official was willing to go on the record about it.

One Republican operative said that the events drastically diminished Trump’s hold on the party, describing the current dynamic as an “emperor with no clothes” moment because GOP lawmakers are publicly pushing back on Trump at a time when he can’t even respond on social media in usual form. The person expected Republicans to be more willing to publicly push back against Trump going forward, especially if he urges primaries against sitting GOP officials.

Still, the GOP operative acknowledged the potential for Trump to split the party and characterized it as “dangerous,” observing that even if Trump only keeps a grip on 20 percent of GOP voters, Republicans who break with Trump would lose general elections even if they make inroads with independents. […] Republicans undeniably benefit from the enthusiasm Trump generates, particularly in rural parts of the country where the GOP must maximize turnout to be competitive.

So, again, even if Trump’s power plummets to only holding onto a fraction of the GOP, they are so close to losing outright against the Dems that they politically can’t afford to offend him.

I guess that qualifies as “regrets.”

But not, apparently, enough “regrets” to actually do anything differently.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on Friday dismissed calls to impeach President Trump in the wake of riots inside the U.S. Capitol, signaling that the effort will ultimately fall short. […] “You don’t have the time for it to happen, even if there was a reason. So there’s no reason to debate this except just pure politics,” Blunt added. […] Blunt added in a separate interview with KSHB, another Missouri TV station, that impeaching Trump was “not going to happen.”

[…] Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) accused Democrats of throwing politics into the aftermath of the Capitol attacks, adding that impeachment “would not only be unsuccessful in the Senate but would be a dangerous precedent for the future of the presidency.”

[…] Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.), who dropped his plans to support challenges to the Electoral College after the attacks, said calls for impeachment are “unhelpful.” “We’re 13 days away from inauguration. This is not the time to keep taking the temperature up. So let’s stand together and govern for the next 13 days,” Daines told a Montana TV station.

Yeah, GOP Senators might have “regrets” over how they failed to “restrain” Trump from damaging their party (if not the nation) … but they certainly have no intention of doing anything about the next few weeks of his increasingly erratic behavior, or back down over the long haul as long as they think Trump may run again, let alone if kicking him and his mob to the curb might mean (gasp) “lost” elections.

I mean, clearly, it’s too late now. If only they’d had another opportunity, even over the last year, to exercise some restraint over Trump.

Oh, well. I’m sure they’ve learned their lesson for when the next mob-darling authoritarian pops up in the party. Right?


Do you want to know more?

A News Report from a Banana Republic

The troubled democracy faced new challenges of terrorist violence today.

Today a radical mob proclaiming “revolution” stormed the nation’s parliament, shutting down the legislative session attempting to settle the recent elections according to constitutional norms. The crowd was incited by the embattled current chief executive, El Presidente, whose term ends in a few weeks after a serious re-election defeat two months ago.

Election observers, as well government officials, many of them from the embattled president’s own party, have validated the results of the election as fair and free of systemic fraud. Challenges by El Presidente have been rejected by the judiciary, including by the nation’s constitutional court.

The outgoing president met with protesting supporters before the attack, many of whom had traveled from outlying provinces to show their allegiance to the popular politician, who has held large rallies around the nation. El Presidente vowed to the crowd to never concede defeat, once again claimed massive fraud and conspiracy in the election, and encouraged the protesters to march on the parliament building to support his allies in that legislative body.

The mob, arriving at the parliamentary building, quickly pushed past police lines and briefly scuffled with security forces within the rotunda, as members of parliament were quickly evacuated to protected shelters. The insurrectionists broke into both legislative chambers and the offices of parliamentary leaders, sending grinning selfies as they ransacked the building, before being finally forced out of the building by late-arriving police forces.

When called upon by national leaders to call his rioting supporters off, the current president, sheltering in the executive mansion, issued video and text messages in social media expressing his love and appreciation for the
“great patriots,” and justified their actions based on his re-election being “stolen” by “evil” people. He called on his supporters to “remember this day forever!”A

Supporters of the current president immediately went to national television, asserting without evidence that the attack on parliament was actually the work of anarchists and anti-government rebels, not supporters of the defeated chief executive.

Parliament met later that evening, in defiance of the defeated insurgent mob, to confirm the results of last year’s election. It remains uncertain whether El Presidente would continue to foment domestic violence to overturn the election results, and, if so, whether the nation’s institutions would be able to address the threat to democratic processes.

The 2020 Colorado ballot proposition results

I’m mostly happy about the results.

Since I talked about my Colorado ballot proposition choices before the election, it’s only fair I report on how the People voted. Colors will indicate whether I won or lost.

Amendment B: Doing away with the Gallagher Amendment on Property Taxes

I voted YES. Result was YES (57-43). Colorado’s tax laws remain a mess, but this has yanked a few wires out of the tangle.

Amendment C: Easier / more profitable to run bingo-raffle games.

I voted NO. Result was YES (52/48), but fails by not reaching the required 55%. Changes in the ballot proposition system a few elections back means that some proposals require a 55% win. This one didn’t meet it, which I’m just as happy about, as the whole thing sounded like a scam.

Amendment 76: Edit a voting requirement to “must be a United States citizen”

I voted NO. Result was YES (63-37). A solution searching  for a problem, and a sop for nativists.

Amendment 77: Allow limited gaming towns to go hog-wild with games and stakes.

I voted NO. Result was YES (60-40). Some towns and community colleges will get a little richer. Some gambling companies will get a lot richer. A bunch of Coloradans will get a lot poorer.

Proposition EE: Nicotine tax on vaping products and smoking tobacco products.

I voted YES. Result was YES (68-32). Everyone loves a sin tax.

Proposition 113: Join the National Popular Vote compact?

I voted YES. Result was YES (52-48). The Electoral College sucks. Enough Coloradans feel that way, too.

Proposition 114: Reintroduce gray wolves in Colorado?

I voted YES. Result was YES (50.3-49.7). This one barely eked its way to victory. Oh, btw, the Trump Administration just announced gray wolves were off the Endangered Species List.

Proposition 115: Ban abortion at 22 weeks?

I voted NO. Result was NO (41-59). I wish the margin had been higher. But, then, I wish folk would stop putting this on the ballot every election.

Proposition 116: Cut state income tax from 4.63% to 4.55%

I voted NO. Result was YES (57-43). Most people won’t notice the difference, but state programs will. 

Proposition 117: Require voter approval of state enterprises that charge un-TABORed fees?

I voted NO. Result was YES (52-48). This state remains compulsively anti-tax.

Proposition 118: Create a paid family and medical leave program?

I voted YES. Result was YES (57-43). But we’re also kind of progressive on what we want government to do. Yes, that’s quite a contradiction. But I’ll take it on this one (though it will be up for referendum in two years based on the win of Prop 117).

Overall, I’m pretty pleased, going 74 on how I wanted the vote to go — and not losing on the ones I felt most strongly about. So … I’ll take my victories where I can.

My only thoughts on a post-election afternoon

The afternoon after the night before.

  1. I am guardedly optimistic that, despite Donald’s appalling dishonesty about and continuing shenanigans with the electoral process, Biden will eventually win.
  2. Even if so, I am deeply, deeply dismayed with the US that this election is this close. That 67 million Americans are willing to overlook (if not support) Trump’s horrible personality, his racism and sexism, his incompetence at home and abroad, his corruption, his authoritarianism, and his never-ending litany of lies … boggles my mind. 
  3. I expect my animus toward Mitch McConnell will deepen to unexpected but off-putting levels over the next few years.

Quotations on an Election Day

Some thoughts about elections, voting, and democracy

I collect quotations at my Wish I’d Said That (WIST) site. Aaand, every couple of years, on election day, I pull out some thoughts from the past that I find pertinent to our present.

This one’s a bit longer than usual, but it keeps me off the streets and out of trouble.

Links provided are to the WIST site, which often has original sourcing and additional notes on each quotation.

Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves — and the only way they could do this is by not voting.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) US President (1933-1945)
Radio address (5 Oct 1944)

It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt.

John Philpot Curran (1750-1817) Irish lawyer and politician
Speech before Privy Council, Dublin (10 Jul 1790)

Whatever the laws may provide, however lofty may be their sentiments, a man without a vote is a man without protection.

Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973) American politician, educator, US President (1963-69)
(Attributed)

The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

 Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) US President (1861-65)
Annual Message to Congress (1 Dec 1862)

This is a column for everyone who ever said, “I’m sorry, I’m just not interested in politics,” or, “There’s nothing I can do about it,” or, “Hey, they’re all crooks anyway.” … I’ve got one word for all of you: Katrina. … This, friends, is why we need to pay attention to government policies, not political personalities, and to know whereon we vote. It is about our lives.

Molly Ivins (1944-2007) American writer, political columnist [Mary Tyler Ivins]
The Progressive (Oct 2005)

Build movements. Vote with your values, but vote strategically. Voting isn’t a Valentine. It’s a chess move.

Rebecca Solnit (b. 1961) American writer, historian, activist
Facebook (17 Oct 2016)

Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) British playwright and critic
(Attributed)

If a man has a genuine, sincere, hearty wish to get rid of his liberty, if he is really bent upon becoming a slave, nothing can stop him. And the temptation is to some natures a very great one. Liberty is often a heavy burden on a man. It involves that necessity for perpetual choice which is the kind of labor men have always dreaded. In common life we shirk it by forming habits, which take the place of self-determination. In politics party-organization saves us the pains of much thinking before deciding how to cast our vote.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Sr. (1809-1894) American poet, essayist, scholar
Elsie Venner, ch. 18 (1859)

If there is distrust out there — and there is — perhaps it is because there is so much partisan jockeying for advantage at the expense of public policy. At times it feels as if American politics consists largely of candidates without ideas, hiring consultants without convictions, to stage campaigns without content. Increasingly the result is elections without voters.

Gerald R. Ford (1913-2006) US President, (1974-77) [b. Leslie Lynch King, Jr.]
Speech, Profiles in Courage Award Acceptance, John F. Kennedy Presidential Library (2001)

There are worse things than losing an election; the worst thing is to lose one’s convictions and not tell the people the truth.

Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965) American diplomat, statesman
(Attributed)

We’d all like t’vote fer th’best man, but he’s never a candidate.

Kin Hubbard (1868-1930) American caricaturist and humorist [Frank McKinney Hubbard]
Abe Martin’s Primer (1914)

When you have to make a choice and don’t make it, that is in itself a choice.

William James (1842-1910) American psychologist and philosopher
(Attributed)

Since the beginning of our American history, we have been engaged in change — in a perpetual peaceful revolution — a revolution which goes on steadily, quietly adjusting itself to changing conditions — without the concentration camp or the quick-lime in the ditch. The world order which we seek is the cooperation of free countries, working together in a friendly, civilized society.

 Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) US President (1933-1945)
Annual Message to Congress (6 Jan 1941)

The people — the people — are the rightful masters of both Congresses, and courts — not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it.

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) American lawyer, politician, US President (1861-65)
Speech, Cooper Union, New York City (27 Feb 1860)

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost.

John Quincy Adams (1767-1848) US President (1825-29)
(Attributed)

The single most dangerous thing you can do in politics is shut off information from people who don’t agree with you. Surround yourself with sycophants, listen only to the yea-sayers … then stick a fork in it, you’re done.

Molly Ivins (1944-2007) American writer, political columnist [Mary Tyler Ivins]
“Election Denial” (3 Apr. 2001)

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Winston Churchill (1874-1965) British statesman and author
Speech, House of Commons (11 Nov 1947)

Pessimism about man serves to maintain the status quo. It is a luxury for the affluent, a sop to the guilt of the politically inactive, a comfort to those who continue to enjoy the amenities of privilege.

Leon Eisenberg (1922-2009) American psychiatrist and medical educator
“The Human Nature of Human Nature,” Science (14 Apr 1972)

Bad officials are elected by good people who do not vote.

George Jean Nathan (1892-1958) American editor and critic
(Attributed)

But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wicked situation. No theoretical checks, no form of government, can render us secure. To suppose that any for of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men; so that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.

James Madison (1751-1836) American statesman, political theorist, US President (1809-17)
Speech at the Virginia Convention (20 Jun 1788)

The idea that you can merchandise candidates for high office like breakfast cereal — that you can gather votes like box tops — is, I think, the ultimate indignity to the democratic process.

Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965) American diplomat, statesman
Comment, after his presidential nomination acceptance speech, Chicago (18 Aug 1956)

But freedom isn’t free. It shouldn’t be a bragging point that, “Oh, I don’t get involved in politics,” as if that makes someone cleaner. No, that makes you derelict of duty in a republic. Liars and panderers in government would have a much harder time of it if so many people didn’t insist on their right to remain ignorant and blindly agreeable.

William “Bill” Maher (b. 1956) American comedian, political commentator, critic, television host.
When You Ride Alone You Ride With Bin Laden (2002)

We are not a cynical people. The will to believe lingers on. We like to think that heroes can emerge from obscurity, as they sometimes do; that elections do matter, even though the process is at least part hokum; that through politics we can change our society and maybe even find a cause to believe in.

Ronald Steel (b. 1931) American writer, historian, and professor
“The Vanishing Campaign Biography,” New York Times (5 Aug 1984)

CALVIN: When I grow up, I’m not going to read the newspaper and I’m not going to follow complex issues and I’m not going to vote. That way I can complain when the government doesn’t represent me. Then, when everything goes down the tubes, I can say the system doesn’t work and justify my further lack of participation.
HOBBES: An ingeniously self-fulfilling plan.
CALVIN: It’s a lot more fun to blame things than to fix them.

Bill Watterson (b. 1958) American cartoonist
Calvin & Hobbes

The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible walls which imprison men because they are different from other men.

Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973) American politician, educator, US President (1963-69)
Speech, Signing of the Voting Rights Act (6 Aug 1965)

Monarchy is like a sleek craft, it sails along well until some bumbling captain runs it into the rocks. Democracy, on the other hand, is like a raft. It never goes down but, dammit, your feet are always wet.

Fisher Ames (1758-1808) American politician, orator
(Attributed)

Every honest and God-fearing man is a mighty factor in the future of the Republic. Educated men, business men, professional men, should be the last to shirk the responsibilities attaching to citizenship in a free government. They should be practical and helpful — mingling with the people — not selfish and exclusive. It is not necessary that every man should enter into politics, or adopt it as a profession, or seek political preferment, but it is the duty of every man to give personal attention to his political duties. They are as sacred and binding as any we have to perform.

William McKinley (1843-1901) US President (1897-1901)
Speech, Woodstock, Connecticut (4 July 1891)

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy.

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) American lawyer, politician, US President (1861-65)
“On Slavery and Democracy” (fragment) (1858?)

It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.

[Я считаю, что совершенно неважно, кто и как будет в партии голосовать; но вот что чрезвычайно важно, это – кто и как будет считать голоса.]

Josef Stalin (1879-1953) Georgian revolutionary and Soviet dictator
Comment (1923)

The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment.

Robert M. Hutchins (1899-1977) American educator and educational philosopher
Great Books: The Foundation of a Liberal Education (1954)

Democracy does not give the people the most skillful government, but it produces what the ablest governments are frequently unable to create: namely, an all-pervading and restless activity, a superabundant force, and an energy which is inseparable from it and which may, however unfavorable circumstances may be, produce wonders.

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) French writer, diplomat, politician
Democracy in America, 1.14 (1835) [tr. Reeve and Bowen (1862)]

All free governments are managed by the combined wisdom and folly of the people.

James A. Garfield (1831-1881) US President (1881), lawyer, lay preacher, educator
Letter to B. A. Hinsdale (21 Apr 1880)

Look at the tyranny of party — at what is called party allegiance, party loyalty — a snare invented by designing men for selfish purposes — and which turns voters into chattels, slaves, rabbits, and all the while their masters, and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction; and forgetting or ignoring that their fathers and the churches shouted the same blasphemies a generation earlier when they were closing their doors against the hunted slave, beating his handful of humane defenders with Bible texts and billies, and pocketing the insults and licking the shoes of his Southern Master.

Mark Twain (1835-1910) American writer [pseud. of Samuel Clemens]
“The Character of Man” (23 Jan 1906), in The Autobiography of Mark Twain, Vol. 1 (2010)

The deadliest enemies of nations are not their foreign foes; they always dwell within their borders. And from these internal enemies civilization is always in need of being saved. The nation blest above all nations is she in whom the civic genius of the people does the saving day by day, by acts without external picturesqueness; by speaking, writing, voting reasonably; by smiting corruption swiftly; by good temper between parties; by the people knowing true men when they see them, and preferring them as leaders to rabid partisans or empty quacks.

William James (1842-1910) American psychologist and philosopher
“Robert Gould Shaw: Oration upon the Unveiling of the Shaw Monument” (31 May 1897)

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich by promising to protect each from the other.

Oscar Ameringer (1870-1943) German-American political activist, Socialist organizer, author, politician
The American Guardian

Another point of disagreement is not factual but involves the ethical/moral principle […] sometimes referred to as the “politics of moral witness.” Generally associated with the religious left, secular leftists implicitly invoke it when they reject LEV on the grounds that “a lesser of two evils is still evil.” Leaving aside the obvious rejoinder that this is exactly the point of lesser evil voting — i.e. to do less evil, what needs to be challenged is the assumption that voting should be seen a form of individual self-expression rather than as an act to be judged on its likely consequences. […] The basic moral principle at stake is simple: not only must we take responsibility for our actions, but the consequences of our actions for others are a far more important consideration than feeling good about ourselves.

Noam Chomsky (b. 1928) American linguist and activist
“An Eight Point Brief for LEV (Lesser Evil Voting)” (15 Jun 2016) [with John Halle]

I am a democrat because I believe in the Fall of Man. I think most people are democrats for the opposite reason. A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true. And whenever their weakness is exposed, the people who prefer tyranny make capital out of the exposure. I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation. Nor do most people — all the people who believe advertisements, and think in catchwords and spread rumours. The real reason for democracy is just the reverse. Mankind is so fallen that no man can be trusted with unchecked power over his fellows. Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.

C.S. Lewis (1898-1963) English writer and scholar [Clive Staples Lewis]
“Equality,” The Spectator (27 Aug 1943)

Let us not be afraid to help each other — let us never forget that government is ourselves and not an alien power over us. The ultimate rulers of our democracy are not a President and Senators and Congressmen and Government officials but the voters of this country.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945) US President (1933-1945)
Speech, Marietta, Ohio (8 Jul 1938)

Many of the issues of civil rights are very complex and most difficult. But about this there can and should be no argument. Every American citizen must have the right to vote. … Yet the harsh fact is that in many places in this country men and women are kept from voting simply because they are Negroes. … No law that we now have on the books … can insure the right to vote when local officials are determined to deny it. … There is no Constitutional issue here. The command of the Constitution is plain. There is no moral issue. It is wrong—deadly wrong—to deny any of your fellow Americans the right to vote in this country. There is no issue of States’ rights or National rights. There is only the struggle for human rights.

Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973) American politician, educator, US President (1963-69)
Speech, Congress (15 Mar 1965)

It is the besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion for law. This is the usual form in which masses of men exhibit their tyranny.

James Fenimore Cooper (1789-1851) American novelist
“On the Disadvantages of Democracy,” The American Democrat (1838)

The test of a democracy is not the magnificence of buildings or the speed of automobiles or the efficiency of air transportation, but rather the care given to the welfare of all the people.

Helen Keller (1880-1968) American author and lecturer
“Try Democracy,” The Home Magazine, Vol. 11, # 4 (Apr 1935)

It is high time that we stopped thinking politically as Republicans and Democrats about elections and started thinking patriotically as Americans about national security based on individual freedom. It is high time that we all stopped being tools and victims of totalitarian techniques — techniques that, if continued here unchecked, will surely end what we have come to cherish as the American Way of Life.

Margaret Chase Smith (1897-1965) American politician (US Senator, Maine)
“Declaration of Conscience,” Congressional Record, vol. 96, 81st Congress, 2d. sess. (1 Jun 1950)

Political strategies and tactics are not jealous lovers. You don’t have to be monogamous. Direct Action will not feel betrayed if you also vote from time to time — you can be poly in your tactics. And I am. Of course I vote! If you’re a woman, or a person of color, or a person who doesn’t own property, or even a white male who doesn’t belong to the nobility, centuries of struggle and many deaths have bought you the right to vote. I vote to keep faith with peasant rebels and suffragist hunger strikers and civil rights workers braving the lynch mobs of the South, if for no other reason. But there is another reason — because who we vote for has an enormous impact on real peoples’ lives.

Starhawk (b. 1951) American writer, activist, feminist theologian [b. Miriam Simos]
“Pre-Election Day Thoughts,” blog post (7 Nov 2016)

Let us not be mistaken: the best government in the world, the best parliament and the best president, cannot achieve much on their own. And it would be wrong to expect a general remedy from them alone. Freedom and democracy include participation and therefore responsibility from us all.

Václav Havel (1936-2011) Czech playwright, essayist, dissident, politician
“New Year’s Address to the Nation” (1 Jan 1990)

There has been a certain cynical genius to what some of these folks have done in Washington. What they’ve realized is, if we don’t get anything done, then people are going to get cynical about government and its possibilities of doing good for everybody. And since they don’t believe in government, that’s a pretty good thing. And the more cynical people get, the less they vote. And if turnout is low and people don’t vote, that pretty much benefits those who benefit from the status quo.

Barack Obama (b. 1961) American politician, US President (2009-2017)
Speech, Purchase, New York (29 Aug 2014)

The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) French writer, diplomat, politician
Democracy in America, Vol. 1, ch. 13 (1835)

Democracy postulates community of interest or loyal patriotism. When these are absent it cannot long exist.

William Ralph Inge (1860-1954) English prelate [Dean Inge]
“Our Present Discontents,” Outspoken Essays: First Series (1919)

This is the affirmation on which democracy rests … [W]e can all be responsible … We become what we do. So does the world we live in, if enough of us do it — whether “it” be good or detestable. This is the burden of freedom: that it is all our fault or our credit.

Herbert Agar (1897-1980) American journalist and historian
“The Perils of Democracy” (1966)

To give the victory to the right, not bloody bullets, but peaceful ballots only, are necessary.

Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) American lawyer, politician, US President (1861-65)
Speech fragment (c. 18 May 1858)

The 2020 Election and Dark Fantasies

Donald has damaged the nation by damaging the election, and it may get worse.

Of all the awful things Donald Trump has done, his teeing up this election to be a shit-show that his pet Attorney General will litigate to the bitter end is arguably the worst. I know that list has bitter contention for top billing, because the nominees are legion. But I believe it so, because Donald’s actions, attitude, and announcements have fractured a keystone of our democracy / representative government: that election results can be trusted.

(Yes, for some populations in the US, that’s hardly new news. But we’re potentially talking here about a majority of Americans having that faith called into question.)

Everything stems from belief in election results. From the Constitution to the courts, from effective governance to crisis management. Taxes, obeying the law, basic societal bonds — all are affected by that basic trust. Because, as Donald’s own behavior shows, a lot of our society runs on a degree of confidence in the system, and voluntary compliance to civil norms.

Donald is damaging that. He’s setting things up so that confidence will be –already is — rattled, and so compliance becomes something for suckers because it’s every person for themselves. The social contract we have in this country is at stake.

So what’s the worst that could happen?

There are no electoral scenarios where things necessarily end well, because Donald has already called the whole process into question, and seems ready to continue to do so regardless of the outcome.

If Donald wins “bigly” (he will make any win into a “bigly” one, no matter the actual numbers), his and the GOP’s shenanigans regarding mail-in votes, on top of the (reprehensibly) usual GOP voter suppression, will further erode the idea of elections meaning anything. Even among his supporters, it will enforce the idea that winning depends on who’s willing to be the most cut-throat, regardless of traditions or even the law.

If Donald barely loses, he will fight tooth and nail in court, abetted by his pet AG, to call into question enough of the votes (mail-in or in-person, through his already asserted claims of massive fraud and illegal voting) to get the results changed enough to win. And then do his damnedest to make sure that the party (and his) advantage so gained is codified in law, as supported by a judiciary of the same persuasion.

(I have no faith that Donald, should he win, will not attempt to get the Constitution changed to allow him to run for another term. Or get SCOTUS to rule that so much of his first term was tied up in the “FAKE RUSSIA HOAX AND IMPEACHMENT HOAX TOO” that it doesn’t count. In either case, he will have a personal stake in making vote suppression even a bigger thing.)

If Donald loses big-time (doubtless with an accompanying drubbing of the GOP in the House and Senate), he’ll just switch to the Big Lie and use it as proof of massive fraud (“The only way I could lose is if there’s huge fraud, because everyone loves me, and the Dems always cheat, and this is proof of it” kind of thing).

Does anyone actually think he WON’T claim massive vote fraud, regardless of the outcome?

Again, massive court fights will ensue. And remember, he has as potential allies not just the executive branch, and half of Congress, but a massive fraction of federal judges he’s gotten appointed, plus 2-3 SCOTUS justices he’s named.

Even if Roberts declines to damage SCOTUS’ rep by supporting a perceived coup, if the Trump nominees and Thomas & Alito vote as a bloc, they win 5-4 vs Roberts and the remaining liberal justices. And I have no question in my mind that this, far more than any sentiment about abortion, is why Donald is pushing his SCOTUS nominee so fast. He’s admitted it. And that Mitch is supporting that raises even more grave doubts about outcomes.

And, to that end, there have already been discussions with GOP-run statehouses about how state legislatures could override the popular vote. (The Constitution gives the selection of electors to the lege, not to voters; it’s just a norm, under the law, that the voters get to make that decision. And we all know about the fragility of norms under the Trump presidency.)

Or for that matter, it might only take a GOP-run state to declare that there was massive fraud and they cannot select electors reliably. SCOTUS might rule the same. If the neither side ends up with 270+ electoral votes … then under the Twelfth Amendment, the election goes to Congress.

In that case, the House elects the President — but each state only casts one vote, as polled within its delegation. And there happen to be 26 states with a majority of GOP Representatives, vs 22 with a majority of Dems (one state, PA, is tied, and one state, MI, with has half Dems, an Independent, and the rest GOP). That means the House, if everyone follows party lines, chooses Trump for President. (And you thought the Electoral College was bad.)

(The VP is chosen in the Senate, where each Senator has a vote, so we know how that goes.)

Even if he’s finally stopped in court, and we don’t get state legislative shenanigans — however long that whole process would take — the spectacle itself would itself be a shock to the nation’s confidence and trust, and Donald’s inevitable rallying of the public (and the counter-rallying done by his opponents) further fracture the country. And it would, as importantly, firmly set the precedent first dabbled with in 2000: elections will be appealed and settled in court, not the ballot box, no matter the apparent result.

Way to be a bummer, Dave

So, yes, all of that is very depressing, and I sincerely hope against hope that the only Donald outcome we get is his leaving the White House grounds in January for good.

But that he’s made such dark fantasies even half-plausible demonstrates the damage he’s already done in four years, abetted by the news networks and pols and pundits who’ve been willing to deny reality and show undying loyalty, even in the face of regular zany behavior, in exchange for a cut of continuing power. They’ve all, collectively, called into question for coming decades, if not longer, how stable and reliable and honest our elections are.

And, by extension, our democracy, our government, and our society.
 
“It can never happen here” is itself a pleasant fantasy. Donald’s proven that to us in four short years.
“MINE!”

Looking at the 2020 Colorado ballot propositions

It’s a long list, but here are my initial judgments and inclinations.

We received our 2020 State Ballot Information Booklet yesterday for November’s election. There are 11 statewide measures up for voter approvals: amendments to the state constitution, amendments to state law, a tax question, and a referendum on a passed state law. Here are my thoughts after going through them all.

Amendment B: Repeal the Gallagher Amendment

This one gets kind of deep in the weeds of the mess that is Colorado state taxation, a result of conflicting voter amendments over the past few decades whip-sawing between “taxes bad!” and “government services essential!”

The 1982 Gallagher Amendment locked up the proportion between residential (45%) and business (55%) property tax revenue each year, which causes a mess given that (a) property values have gone up at different rates (residential is now 80% of the property value in the state, up from 53% in 1982), and (b) there is a lock on the nonresidential assessment rate.

Bottom line, if this passes, the tax rate for residential property will likely stay stable, leading to increasing taxes (as property values rise), combating programmed drops in local and state tax revenue and, in turn, public services. That seems reasonable to me, even as a person whose property tax costs are likely to go up. I’ll keep reading on the arguments about this, but my vote is Probably YES.

Amendment C: Conduct of Charitable Gaming

This amendment lets new non-profits more quickly run bingo and raffle games after they start, and hire professionals to do so. That sounds like a great way to implement “soft” for-profit gambling under the guise of charity. NO.

Amendment 76: Citizenship Qualification of Voters

Populist amendment to restrict all voting to only US citizens. A solution in search of a problem. Bah. NO.

Amendment 77: Local Voter Approval of Casino Bet Limits and Games

Colorado allows low-stakes gambling (certain games, bet limits of $100) in three old-timey towns up in the mountains: Black Hawk, Central City, and Cripple Creek. This proposition allows local voters there to add additional games and new bet limits, with added revenues mostly going to community colleges.

Meh. I don’t see any need to turn those towns into even bigger gambling meccas, let alone the costs of gambling addiction problems. The idea that all this only affects those three communities, when they draw on the population of all over the state to visit and drop their money at the tables, doesn’t pass the laugh test.

I also dislike, on principle, the “let’s do this bad thing because we’ll give the revenues to a good cause” enticement. NO.

Proposition EE: Taxes on Nicotine Products

While in principle I am fine with taxing the snot out of tobacco consumption, and even with adding some sin taxation on highly addictive vaping products, there’s a certain illogic in using such increased taxes to pay for essential programs like education, as that then creates a perverse incentive to actually keep the revenue source (smoking, vaping) continuing at high levels — especially perverse, since part of the tax revenues is to pay for “tobacco education” that would reduce such revenues. Still, I’m  Probably YES.

Proposition 113: Adopt Agreement to Elect US President by National Popular Vote

The state government passed a bill this year to make Colorado part of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC), which commits the state to selecting its presidential electors based on the national popular vote (once an electoral majority of states join the compact). It’s a cheap-ass but effective way to bypass the Electoral College mess embedded in the US Constitution.

This is a citizen-initiated referendum on a passed bill (the first successfully petitioned referendum since 1932), filed by folk who think the Electoral College is really keen because it’s netted them two GOP Presidents in the last few decades who ought to have lost. They also seem to think it’s very unfair that, under it, cities with more people in them would get voting power actually proportional to their sizes. That they are couching their arguments in the dishonest assertion that this is “protecting Colorado’s vote” doesn’t lend them any more credibility. Bah. YES.

Proposition 114: Reintroduction and Management of Gray Wolves

This allows state management (under federal endangered species supervision) to reintroduce and manage gray wolves in Colorado, with state funds helping ranchers who lose livestock to the wolves.

Yay for wolves. YES.

Proposition 115: Prohibit Abortions after 22 Weeks

Colorado conservatives perennially put up an anti-abortion measure, which perennially gets shot down (and probably pulls more liberals to the polls than would do so otherwise).  This year’s edition avoids “personhood” bits by simply dropping in an arbitrary 22 week limit except in cases where the woman’s life is physically in danger.

My personal belief is that decisions about abortions should be made by the mother involved, hopefully in consultation with a physician (and, where appropriate, in consultation with the father). Late-term abortions are very rare (1.3% would fall into this category), and a number of the grave factors involved in them are not covered by this one-size-bans-all bill.

I also find an intellectual dishonesty in putting the legal burden — fines and medical license suspension — on the doctors involved. If abortion is the grave moral wrong that the proposition’s supporters assert it is, exempting the woman involved from penalties is solely pandering in order to pass the proposal. NO.

Proposition 116: State Income Tax Rate Reduction

“Taxes bad!” is not good public policy. Especially in a year when state taxes are already strained beyond the breaking point. NO.

Proposition 117: Voter Approval for Certain New State Enterprises

Another tax policy snafu. The state has formed various state enterprises over the years, from the Colorado Lottery to state universities to the state’s Unemployment Insurance and Parks & Wildlife groups. These enterprises charge fees for specific services (e.g., lottery tickets, hunting licenses, tuition), rather than drawing on general tax revenue.

The distinction is that under the early 90s TABOR (Taxpayer Bill of Rights) initiative, which is responsible for 75% of the zaniness in the state legislature, taxes cannot be initiated or increased without voter approval, but fees can be. Further, state enterprises are exempt from TABOR budget growth limits.

The proposition basically calls large state enterprises a runaround of TABOR, and so would require taxpayer voting before they were created.

Bah. Anything that carves out exemptions to TABOR is fine by me. NO.

Proposition 118: Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance Program

Sets up a program, like it says, that would function a lot like Unemployment Insurance for family leaves (intersecting with the federal unpaid Family Medical Leave Act and state-mandated sick leave provisions). This would cover people taking time off for birth/adoption, care for a family member with a serious health condition, for circumstances around a family’s active duty military services, or for a short term leave dealing with issues of domestic abuse, sexual assault/abuse, and stalking.

This all seems like a fine and civilized idea. The counter-arguments that it will be very complicated and that it will actually cost money, are both expected and insufficient. It’s the right thing to do. YES.

Other Stuff

We also have a mill levy increase for Littleton Public Schools. YES.


Do you want to know more?

Small town evangelicals talk about why they support Trump

He offers them power against the scary cultural tide

Fascinating, disappointing, interesting, and concerning article, talking with people in Sioux Center, Iowa, where Donald Trump gave his famous “Fifth Avenue” shooting comment during his 2016 campaign, but where he also promised his evangelical Christian audience that, under his presidency, “Christianity will have power.

“I will tell you, Christianity is under tremendous siege, whether we want to talk about it or we don’t want to talk about it,” Mr. Trump said.

Christians make up the overwhelming majority of the country, he said. And then he slowed slightly to stress each next word: “And yet we don’t exert the power that we should have.”

If he were elected president, he promised, that would change. He raised a finger.

“Christianity will have power,” he said. “If I’m there, you’re going to have plenty of power, you don’t need anybody else. You’re going to have somebody representing you very, very well. Remember that.”

What struck me in reading this was the irony that a religion whose founder was killed by those in power, and who taught the virtue demonstrated and grace given when refusal to compromise principle for power leads to persecution, has so many followers who just want to be the ones “in charge.” To have Caesar promise them power in exchange for their support at the ballots.

Not necessarily malicious power (though clearly there are some), but just comfortable power. Their scripture in all public places. The assumption that they are “normal”. Laws that adhere to their religious code. And those who aren’t of their belief, left on the margins, at best.

And if their perceived rights conflict with those of others? Women who want equal treatment, or those of other races, or sexual orientation or gender expression or religious faith? Well, the advantage of firmly believing God is on your side is that you don’t worry about others who don’t believe as you do. You can argue that you need the power to have the nation do what you want, but frame it as making sure someone isn’t oppressing you.

Explained Jason Mulder, who runs a small design company in Sioux Center: “I feel like on the coasts, in some of the cities and stuff, they look down on us in rural America. You know, we are a bunch of hicks, and don’t know anything. They don’t understand us the same way we don’t understand them. So we don’t want them telling us how to live our lives.”

One has to consider some are projecting concerns that they will find themselves being treated as poorly on the margins as Jews, or Muslims, or atheists, etc.

The irony is that the nation’s history shows that when Christianity “has power,” it turns on itself as much as on those outside. Along racial lines. Wealth lines. Most importantly doctrinal lines. Catholic vs Protestant. Evangelicals of different flavors. James Madison grew up seeing Baptists tarred and feathered, which led to his pressing for protections against the church being entangled with the state.

When Christians “have power,” it’s not all Christians, ever.

“Obama wanted to take my assault rifle, he wanted to take out all the high-capacity magazines,” Mr. Schouten said. “It just —”

“— felt like your freedoms kept getting taken from you,” said Heather’s husband, Paul, finishing the sentence for him.

Is Christianity “under siege”? Well, it’s losing numbers. And it’s losing (to coin a phrase) the “special rights” of being the assumed norm, of having the presumed power when push comes to shove, of having its values be the values everyone has to adhere to (in theory).

And, weird thing, as that norm has faded, some people in some groups who have been pushed around by Christians following what they think is Christian doctrine, when they get a chance, they speak out. They verbally attack Christianity. Sometimes they push back, too.

She worried that the school might be forced to let in students who were not Christian, or hire teachers who were gay.

“Silly things. Just let the boys go in the boys’ bathroom and the girls go in the girls’,” he said. “It’s just something you’d think is never going to happen, and nowadays it could. And it probably will.”

“Just hope nobody turns it upside down,” he said.

“But we feel like we are in a little area where we are protected yet,” she said. “We are afraid of losing that, I guess.”

And it all feels so much like a zero-sum game. That the only way for someone to get freedoms, liberty, rights, is to take them from someone who already has them. The idea of rights being a universal pool to which only some people have been invited, and that those people were now insisting on their fair share … doesn’t matter to them, maybe because they don’t know or acknowledge some of the groups insisting on their freedom, liberty, rights.

The years of the Obama presidency were confusing to her. She said she heard talk of giving freedoms to gay people and members of minority groups. But to her it felt like her freedoms were being taken away. And that she was turning into the minority.

“I do not love Trump. I think Trump is good for America as a country. I think Trump is going to restore our freedoms, where we spent eight years, if not more, with our freedoms slowly being taken away under the guise of giving freedoms to all,” she said. “Caucasian-Americans are becoming a minority. Rapidly.”

But if Christianity is diminishing in the US, it’s not because of those attacks. It’s not because of Hollywood, or liberals, or Satan whispering in the wings. It’s ultimately because Christians, in all their different flavors, are not being persuasive that theirs is the better way, the right way. That the salvation they trust is coming, and the peace and joy they claim to feel in their lives, and the righteousness of their cause, is worth it as a belief system and lifestyle.

Taking a shortcut by having power in secular terms doesn’t seem to fit into any of the New Testament teachings I can find. And the more they grasp at that, the more they drive people away,

They want America to be a Christian nation for their children. “We started out as a Christian nation,” she said.

“You can’t make people do these things,” he said. “But you can try to protect what you’ve got, you might say.”

One might think, if this were simply a matter of faith, the folk talked with here would be focused on their beliefs and their relationship with God. They would bear the insults and slights as signs that they’re doing something right. (They might also consider any justice of the accusations against them, but one step at a time).

Instead, what we hear about is all about Us and Them, and fear, and discomfort, and change, and Donald being the guy who will Restore Our Power, take away the insecurity, the questioning, the (gasp) marginalization, the laws and culture that say they’re “wrong” or “silly” or “hurtful.” He’ll keep them safe, their religious schools pure, their bathrooms binary, their neighborhoods white … just like they’ve always been.

“Trump’s an outsider, like the rest of us,” he said. “We might not respect Trump, but we still love the guy for who he is.”

“Is he a man of integrity? Absolutely not,” he went on. “Does he stand up for some of our moral Christian values? Yes.”

The guys agreed. “I’m not going to say he’s a Christian, but he just doesn’t attack us,” his friend Jason Mulder said.

It’s a transactional scam on Donald’s part — he’s no more pro-Christian than my cat is — but they don’t see it, or they don’t care. They’re terrified, they feel that power, power from the modern Caesar, is the only cultural salvation for them in the short run, and they don’t care what it is costing them in the long run.

The Projecting President

“I know you are, but what am I?”

Always remember, when Donald Trump says something negative about someone else, he is, at least 95% of the time, projecting about his own behavior.

“How can you possibly support Candidate B?”

Because the alternative is President T.

Even before Warren’s dropping out, I’ve been beating the drum for quite some time about the need to, eventually, whichever way the chips fall, vote for the Democratic nominee … whether it’s Bernie or Biden.

“But Dave! How can you possibly support Candidate B, who is obviously such a bad candidate?”

Let’s make it clear I understand some of the obvious weaknesses of each significant Dem candidate still in the race.

Image result for joe biden

Joe Biden …

  • has a long political record, and a lot of it has aged poorly. His actions as US Senator don’t align with what we want from a President today.
  • says a lot of self-aggrandizing things about his history that are untrue.
  • is definitely not progressive. He’s made some interesting proposals during this race, but mostly he’s a candidate of “Hey, things were great during the Obama era.”
  • has a poor filter, thinks faster than he can talk, and possibly has cognitive issues.
  • overly relies on his Obama legacy, glossing he was brought in as a more conservative (and white) balance to the the ticket.
  • came into this race with an entitlement chip on his shoulder, and has never quite gotten over that.

Image result for bernie sanders

Bernie Sanders …

  • is angry, shouty, accusatory.
  • has a long record of not working and playing well with others.
  • has big goals without any real sign of detailed policy or practical political ways of achieving them, beyond shouting and pointing and getting his supporters to shout and point, too.
  • talks and argues in absolutes.
  • is also old, and has a history of cardiac problems, including a recent heart attack.
  • clearly feels entitled to the nomination.
  • has (despite his protests and condemnations) a cadre of supporters who are just as mean-spirited and absolutist as Trump’s, even if for an arguably better cause.
  • regardless of “socialism” not really being a dirty word, has a background of radical rhetoric over many years that will provide a lot of fodder for Trump in the fall.

And there’s more for both. And whoever is the nominee, you’ll hear about it in lurid detail from Donald Trump and Fox News. It’s depressing.

So, yeah, I know neither candidate is perfect. So how can I support one over the other?

Well, my state primary is done. And my vote wasn’t for either of them. So I’m not supporting either of them over the other. If I was backed to the wall as to which one I’d vote for … I’d be a resident of another state. In other words, I’d rather not square that circle.

But there’s something far more important going on.

In nearly every one of those categories and criticisms, of both candidates, Donald Trump is far, far worse. He’s worse than Biden. He’s worse than Sanders. Categorically. Unequivocally.

Image result for donald trump

Donald Trump …

  • has a personal and business record that are the stuff of dark comedy.
  • lies about himself (and everything else) all the time.
  • Has politics that are not principled, but opportunistic and transactional, to which end he’s hitched himself to the reactionary wing of the GOP.
  • has no filter, says whatever will benefit him most (truth or not), and almost certainly has cognitive issues.
  • overly relies on his business background, glossing over or lying about his huge early support from his dad (and then his dad’s business) and his serial bankruptcies and stiffed creditors.
  • lies continuously about his accomplishments.
  • has built a cult of personality and surrounded himself with yes-folk because he only values the loyalty of others toward him, not their advice or experience.
  • disdains experts and scientists because they too often tell him (and, worse, others) things that are inconvenient, unpleasant, or unprofitable to him.
  • is a bully, mean-spirited, a name caller who is always, always eager to punch down.
  • will turn on any one who he considers disloyal, a failure, or just disagreeable, fire them in the most cruel and humiliating way possible, then tweet insults at them.
  • swaggers on the world stage, alienating allies, making kissy-faces with dictators, and destroying any shreds of American credibility.
  • panders to big money, theocrats, and anyone else whose support will benefit him, unhindered by any ideology other than what benefits him — his business, his political success, his historical legacy.
  • has no idea of how a constitutional republic works, and treats government like a private company, raging at or simply ignoring legal restrictions.
  • constantly attacks people (falsely) for doing things he’s actually done or wants to do, for reasons he has
  • is a xenophobe and white nationalist (though he’s happy to pretend he’s not if it helps him, just as he’s happy to pretend he’s a devout Christian if it helps him).
  • is inept as a politician and collaborative partner, the only thing that has kept his first term from being far worse, as at least half the time he steps on his own shoelaces while trying to get away with stuff. All he knows about leadership is  bluster and bullying and shamelessness.
  • has coarsened public discourse and society as a while.
  • teaches our children that being without shame gets you ahead. He has normalized and boosted bullying, racism, sexism, and nationalism. He has shattered norms and both encouraged and partaken in corruption.
  • has no respect for the Constitution, except where it gives him power to do stuff.
  • has supported GOP efforts to suppress the votes of their opponents, and himself been happy to take advantage of foreign interference in our elections where it benefitted him, and then lie to the American people about it and obstruct justice in investigating it.
  • has taken actions have directly harmed people of color, immigrants (legal or otherwise), women, LGBTQ folk, the poor and economically vulnerable.
  • has taken actions that have less directly increased the risk of war, the risk of catastrophic climate change effects, and, most recently, the risk of a lethal pandemic in the US.
  • would be perfectly happy to see abortion banned, LGBTQ folk thrown back in the closet, unions abolished, unfriendly journalists and political opponents jailed, and a daily military parade in front of the White House. And if he were offered the chance to be President-for-Life, I have very little doubt he’d jump on it.

Against that partial track record — which I state here much more baldly than is my usual wont — the weaknesses and flaws of either Biden or Sanders pale in comparison. They are real, yes, harmful and hurtful in their ways, but trivial compared to Trump.

Sure, arguing that someone is less bad than Donald Trump is a very low bar. But it’s an important one. (And, for what it’s worth, I would still consider both Bernie and Biden significantly better than their GOP competitor. Despite the litany above, both have what I consider positive aspects as well; this is not just a matter of lesser of evils.)

Regardless, the reality is, one person will be elected in November, and it will either be Donald Trump or the nominee of the Democratic party. Which one would you rather live under? Which one will leave the country better (or worse) than the other? It’s not — it’s never — a question of which candidate is going to usher in the new utopia. Even if my favorite candidate had gotten the nod, and won in November, it wouldn’t have been utopia. But it’s going to be better (or worse) with one or the other.

The question is not which Candidate B I support, but what am I going to do when it’s one of those Candidate Bs vs President T.

Those are the two choices. Pretending that not voting or voting for some protest third party candidate isn’t contributing, negatively, to the outcome is sophistry. Saying T is awful, but B has some flaws, so you won’t vote for either is … well, it’s basically supporting T. Because there’s no moral equivalence here. Not acting to defeat Trump, even with whatever ill effects might come along with Candidate B being elected, is to condone and support Trump’s re-election, and the doubling down on what has gone on in his first term.

(“I live in a state that will definitely go to the Democrat, so I don’t need to compromise by voting for a Democrat I don’t like.” Except that nobody really knows the narrowness of that margin — a sliver of votes in a set of states got Trump an electoral college majority even if he lost the popular vote — and it’s already clear that Trump will protest any electoral loss in November, so the vote against him has to be overwhelming.)

So argue about which B is better or less bad now, during the nominating process. Cast that primary vote; wax eloquent in your caucus; tweet your tweets; speak out on street corners. But realize your candidate might not get the nomination, and you might need to vote for someone you’d rather not have to.

Biden supporters might need to vote for that radical shouty guy who wants to get rid of private health insurance and raise taxes. Sanders supporters might need to vote for that big money centrist who opposes legalized pot and will only incrementally improve health care access.

Deal with it. Because the alternative is supporting that existential threat to America and the world, Donald Trump.

Image result for donald trump

Whether Sanders or Biden get the nomination, I am all in on them.  I can firmly support their candidacy without agreeing with everything about them or pretending they are perfect or even having either of them as my first choice. Because we cannot afford another four years of Donald Trump, even if that means four years of Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders instead.

It’s like arguing about having to pick the cold soup or the stale sandwich,  when the alternative is a plate of shit laced with polonium.

That’s why I’ll support Candidate B. Whichever one it is.

Image result for biden sanders

Why didn’t Warren win the Democratic nomination?

Everyone’s looking for a single, simple answer. There isn’t one.

I would normally do this as a set of Twitter entries these days. But it’s a bit long, so …

As Elizabeth Warren — my primary choice — drops out of the field after a poor performance on Super Tuesday, the question that naturally arises is, why didn’t she win?

Everything seemed like it could have been there for her to do so. She had a remarkably high favorability score amongst Dem voters. She was usually at the top of the list as a second choice candidate. She was articulate, intelligent, passionate, showed her homework, and on and on.

Is there a magic, singular reason it didn’t happen? Nope. Instead, there are several reasons that coalesced to erode away her front-tier status — some of them her fault, some of them nobody’s fault, others …

It was a very crowded field. This was one of those years when everyone and their sibling decided to run in the Democratic field against Trump, heartened both by Trump’s own “anything’s possible” win in 2016 and his deep unpopularity. Remember those first few debates, where the contestants got mixed randomly across two nights?

Image result for first democratic debate

The result was that a lot of folks liked Warren and even would have been okay with her, but were able to find someone closer to their preferences as their first choice.  And among Warren’s own supporters, polls showed that they tended to be more excited about other candidates than other candidate’s supporters were, meaning other factors meant it was easier to peel off that support.

That said, to the extent that she, along with Sanders, were off to the further left side of the spectrum, she also suffered from direct ideological competition with Sanders, who came into the race with a large group of dedicated followers and the experience of 2016. If Sanders had not been in the race, a lot of that support would have presumably gone to her.

Image result for warren sanders gif

A lot has been made about sexism, given how we’ve gone from a large candidate tally that had multiple female candidates of varying credibility — Williamson, Gabbard, Harris, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Warren — and have ended up with Two Old White Guys. (Gabbard remains in the race, but very much under the radar, and for reasons and goals that do not seem to be an actual run for the presidency.)

The sexism here is definitely a factor. Nobody credible said, “Oh, a woman can’t be President,” but plenty of people worried, “Hmmm, can a woman be elected President?” It wasn’t their own feelings that restrained them from supporting Warren, but their evaluation of other peoples’ feelings — the dreaded “electability” consideration. “Will Trump supporters who might be wavering consider voting for a woman?” “Will being a woman make her a particular target for Trump, like Clinton was?”

Image result for democrawtic women candidates high five

Even some folk who might overcome those questions in the abstract, when faced with the overwhelming urgency to defeat Trump, might have decided to play it safe and go for a guy.

That similarly came into play in the question of Warren’s progressive politics — my sense is that she sold that policy more effectively for a lot of people than Sanders has, having  more appeal to people closer to the center, but that whole “socialism” thing played into her electability factor as well. “I’d vote for her, but I’m not sure other people will” being the the self-fulfilling prophecy in the era of fearing Trump’s re-election.

Indeed, to the extent that the “socialism” thing has generated worry within the more centrist/moderate ranks of the Democratic party — where, even if they like individual proposals, it feels risky right now in a time of plague and with a Trump re-election at stake. Had Biden continued to falter, would Warren have been seen as a possible middle ground between Bloomberg and Sanders? The Biden resurgence at Super Tuesday, following his success in South Carolina, not only knocked out his immediate moderate competition, but ultimately Warren as well.

Image result for super tuesday results

While Warren seemed to be less seen as an enemy of the Democratic establishment than Sanders, it’s also been clear that establishment — whether from fear of a Trump re-election or fear of their own wealth — were less enthused with the progressive left than the moderate / centrist wing of candidates. I don’t think they particularly put their thumb on the scales in her case, but I think they are just as glad to see her go.

Warren got generally good marks for her debate performance, and everyone seems to agree that she gets the lion’s share of the credit for knocking Mike Bloomberg out of the race. But I found her outings at the debate a mixed bag, too reliant canned answers and repetitious anecdotes (she fared much better in 1:1 interviews and other less game show-style verbal outings). While her Vegas debate got her a small bump, I don’t think the debates helped her enough.

I’ve mentioned the problems of being, policy-wise, competing for the same ground against another major candidate whose turned out to be in the final contention. Subjectively, in the Twitter threads I followed, I found that there was a particularly vocal cadre of Sanders supporters who were aggressively resentful of her running as a progressive, “stealing” votes from Bernie, not being as ideologically pure as Bernie, and (worst of all) her occasionally criticizing or disagreeing with Bernie.

Image result for elizabeth warren snake twitter

I don’t actually think a host of snake emoji and hashtags and vitriol scared her off, but it made any positive discussion of Warren and her campaign more difficult.

One of Warren’s tag lines was her “I have a plan for that.” I think that, net-net, that was a positive for her: she’d thought about these things, came up with concrete ways to address them that didn’t rely on magical thinking, and pursued them with confidence.

The problem with so many plans was two-fold. For some folk it came across as too intellectual and wonkish. Like the Emperor’s “too many notes” critique in Amadeus, for some people her intellectual rigor and professorial background was a turn-off  (which, coupled with societal sexism, probably didn’t help, either).

The other problem is that, when she felt she needed to revise something — from a misunderstanding, or because she saw a way to improve it, or even for political practicalities — it left her open to attack. This came up in particular over her shifting on Medicare For All; her shift (however you characterize it) on implementation timing didn’t improve her appeal to moderates who think M4A is either an awful idea or an election killer, and it was throwing chum into the tank for the Sander supporters who wanted to characterize her as No True Progressive And, In Fact, Probably Just Plain Evil Hssssssss (that Sanders politely disagreed with her and has spoken positively about her M4A support didn’t do anything about that kind of attack).

Image result for elizabeth warren plans

The question of age has come up in this election. While Warren always showed remarkable vigor, physically and mentally, she was sometimes lumped in with the other older candidates by some folk, and, to get back to the sexism thread, age is always more of a handicap for women in the public limelight than for men.

While some media outlets and individuals seemed warm to Warren, the nature of contemporary news coverage of elections netted out against her.  She got face time when she was rising, but once that had stalled and she was further back in the pack — 3rd to 5th — she became yesterday’s news, to the extent that she was sometimes left out of polls or reporting on them, even in favor candidates that were doing worse but were the media flavor of the week (as Klobuchar and Buttigieg took turns with late in the campaign).

The media loves a horse race, competitive drama. When Warren wasn’t providing that, the media coverage dried up, whether or not it shouldn’t have. Super Tuesday was a poor showing for her, but the coverage of that night made it out to be a two-person race regardless of what primaries were still to come or the nature of the convention. That didn’t help.

The last element in the room, so to speak, was the whole Native American heritage kerfuffle.[1] Warren’s initial error in letting family stories about that heritage convince her to identify for a time as Native American (though not with any actual harm done or advantage gained, from all that it has been investigated), and then her attempt to confirm that family story through DNA testing would always have been a blot of misjudgment on her record. But its gleefully racist misuse by Trump made it be seen as a liability in the election, and there were enough folk who felt, despite Warren’s repeated explanations and apologies, that it a serious problem that it gave more ammo to her critics within the party (again, generally from the Sanders camp) as if she had been gleefully stealing money from Native American babies while wearing a Washington Redskins jersey, hisssssssss.

What should have been — in the face of a thousand racist (etc.) transgressions by Trump, or of Biden lying about his background in the civil rights movement, or even some of the baggage Sanders is carrying around — a road bump became, not the iceberg that sunk Warren, but a wound that never was allowed to heal.

No list of “Why did this happen in the election” is complete without mention of possible foreign interference (thanks, Trump, for letting that particular concern about our democracy metastasize). Nobody’s suggested that Warren was a target for opposition (or support) by, say, Russia. But I can’t see her as a potential president that Russia would consider in their interests, like Trump, nor is she as divisive as her ideological niche competitor, Sanders.  If nobody actively targeted Warren, the general partisan and intra-partisan conflict that Russia has fomented certainly worked against her.

None of these were conclusive. None of these factors explain everything. Individually Warren could have survived any of them. Cumulatively, though, they drove her campaign to the point of non-viability to win outright, or even to have a substantial delegate role in the convention.[2] Her decision to suspend her campaign is, sadly, probably the best one.

But I’ll always regret she didn’t get the nomination and become the next President of the United States.[3] Thanks, Senator Warren!

 


[1] I am not Native American, so I acknowledge my perspective here has limitations. It did seem that I saw a lot more criticism of Warren on this from non-NAs than from NAs and tribal representatives, esp. after she apologized early days in the campaign.

[2] Note that there is a timeline out there where we end up with a contested election and Warren gets drafted as the compromise candidate between Biden and Sanders– this kind of possibility is one reason why candidates always suspend their campaigns, not end them (though campaign finance is a much bigger reason). I deem this scenario highly unlikely, but it is not outside the bounds of historic possibility. Just saying.

[3] It has been suggested that either Biden or Sanders might offer her the VP role. I don’t think she would take it; more importantly, she is of more value in the Senate, both for her ongoing contributions and because, if she was elected as VP, the GOP governor of Massachusetts would name her, presumably GOP, successor, and Senate balance is nearly as critical as the White House.

That said … Senate Majority Leader Elizabeth Warren has a nice ring to it.

Democratic Race 2020 Potpourri

Some interesting articles, and my current candidate thoughts (for what they’re worth)

These were a few interesting articles I’ve run across the past few days (followed by my early candidate preferences):

The first post-9/11 vets are running for president. Do voters care? – POLITICO — Apparently Dems are a lot less impressed by military credentials than they used to be when sizing up presidential candidates. I know for myself I find it an interesting datum, but more for how they relate it to their life’s experience, service, concern over putting contemporary troops in harm’s way, etc.

Which 2020 Candidates Are More (Or Less) Popular Than They ‘Should’ Be? | FiveThirtyEight — Polling right now is … of dubious value for identifying the winners, but it is kind of interesting in looking at trends — whose numbers are moving, whose aren’t, and whose are moving in the wrong direction.

I expect things to shake out a lot more after the debates rumble through and people actually start paying attention, at least at the sound bite level.

Presidential historian: Democrats’ ‘conventional wisdom’ on picking nominee is ‘all wrong’ | TheHill — The DNC (and a sizeable array of media punditry) seem convinced that the only way to win is to nominate a comfortable centrist. While Biden’s initial surge in the polls seems to support that, this historian notes that the Dems have won in the last half-century with outsiders and non-centrists, and when they’ve gone for moderate candidates (who are lambasted as radicals by the GOP anyway), they haven’t fared so well.

2020 Democratic Debates Guide – POLITICO — Given the gobsmacking number of candidates, it’s little wonder that, even with pre-planning, the selection criteria for the debates is resulting in a lot of shouting and stomping of feet.

Oh, and since the question has come up elsewhere, here are the only candidates I have much interest (one way or the other in) at the moment:

Biden — He’s an entire political generation (or two) behind. I don’t think he’s the awful person some folk are trying to paint him as, but I don’t think he’s the Great Moderate Hope who can beat Trump. I want someone a bit –fresher.

Sanders — Frankly, I find the guy irritating, perpetually angry and scolding and shouting and scowling. He’s done a tremendous service in raising a lot of ideas that have gone from zany-and-way-out-there in 2016 to what most of the Democratic candidates are standing behind this election. All credit to him for that. Now I wish he’d go away and throw his weight behind the nominee.

Warren — Wonky and feisty and, from what I can see, earnest. I like her. She’s older than I’d prefer (as are the other two mentioned above, and their presumed opponent this election), but she has a heck of a spring in her step, and I can see her going toe-to-toe with Trump.

Buttigieg — I’ve yet to hear him say anything I didn’t like. I’m a scosh hesitant about promoting someone from mayor to president, but on the other hand he’s got actual executive experience (if on a far smaller scale). I want to see more of him.

O’Rourke — I’d have love to have seen him boot Ted Cruz out of the Senate, and mad props to him for getting so close, but that’s about the best I can say for Beto. I don’t have a sense of much substance on issues here, just a lot of charisma. I’m still willing to listen.

Booker — My sense from having seen him interviewed a lot over the past several years is that he’s a political hack. I might be wrong, but he’s just seemed to be light on policy, heavy on partisanship.

Harris, Gillibrand, Castro, Klobuchar — I haven’t heard enough of to really get excited or outraged, just enough to recognize their names.

Hickenlooper, Bennet — Yeah, they’re from my home state. Um, yay, team?

And All the Rest — Enjoy your 5 minutes in the spotlight (if you are lucky). I don’t see anyone from that far down in the pack getting anywhere except to use this run as a publicity springboard for further office-seeking.

And with that said, here’s the biggest caveat: Short of learning about something profoundly horrible in their past (or present) — I mean of the “eats live puppies with guacamole” level of horrible — there’s not a single one of the people on this list I would not vote for to get Trump out of office. There are some I’d prefer to vote for to that end, but when it comes to November 2020, I’m there for whomever is on the Democratic ballot. And that’s not just about partisanship — it’s about literally saving this country (and possibly human civilization).

That’s hyperbole of the sort I have usually rolled my eyes at in the past. I fully believe it when it comes to the 2020 election.

What does “Contempt of Congress” really mean?

Ultimately, Congressional checks are limited against an Administration without shame.

Faced with an Executive Branch that’s basically putting its fists on its waist and saying, “Nuh-uh” to legal requests from the House, Democrats in Congress have a limited number of options. As the article below notes, it’s ultimately limited to (and these are the big guns it can use):

  1. Declare administration figures in Contempt of Congress and (since simple shaming is useless against that gang) take the next logical and legal step of asking the Justice Dept. to fine and/or arrest the offending parties. Which, as we all realize, will be similarly declined.
  2. Sue the administration to comply with what is being requested. The results of that is a court order … which will, presumably, be ignored. Followed by a contempt of court ruling … which will, presumably, be defied (or, more likely, subjected to endless appeal).
  3. Actually send the House’s Sergeant-at-Arms to arrest the offending parties, who can then be tossed in some sort of lockup or another. It’s legal (per SCOTUS, assuming the current edition wouldn’t simply override that precedent). That some Dems are actually muttering about this as an option is a sign as to how far this has gone, and how very few options Congress has in the face of an intransigent President.

There are really only two other powers the House can exert here:

First, it can simply use the power of the purse to shut administration down. That’s highly dangerous, if the citizenry doesn’t see it framed appropriately, especially given the overall damage it can do to innocent bystanders.

The second is impeachment. That’s got high stakes as well, and is further complicated by, well, this kind of blanket obstruction by the executive branch, which has decided obstruction is a winning strategy.  Even investigation as part of a (thoroughly constitutional) process leading toward impeachment proceedings would be hampered by Trump et al. simply saying, “Nuh-uh.”

Because, ultimately, who can compel him to do otherwise?

The GOP in the Senate has already declared any impeachment indictment from the House would be DOA — indeed, that they would make it as quick and kangaroo of a dismissal as humanly possible. Which means impeachment is largely for making the case to the public that, in 2020, they must force Trump to go (and, ideally, the Senate GOP majority).

Assuming Trump doesn’t say “Nuh-uh” to that (“Fake voters! Fraud! SCOTUS, back me up there!”), too.

I’ve often said (over the last two years) that our system has depended on people, if not wanting to do what is right, at least being blocked by shame from being seen to do what is wrong. The Trump Administration, led by the man at the top, has decided that shame is for suckers, have basically set up a challenge to our system. “Nuh-uh. What you gonna do about it?” Trump gets away with it backed now by a friendly Senate and having gotten enough trucklers (confident in possible pardons in extremis) into important roles in Justice (and, he presumes, SCOTUS), has essentially declared himself beyond any checks from Congress, even when backed by force of law (and certainly if backed by tradition and public shaming).

Interesting times.

Do you want to know more?  Contempt of Congress: the House will vote next week – Vox

The new Cold War with China

Team Trump’s actions toward the PRC are becoming more aggressive.

Mike Pompeo’s blistering condemnation of China’s past actions on this 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre[1] — and China’s double-barreled retort — highlight a steadily deteriorating relationship between the US and China. It’s occasionally belied by the “Xi is my bestest friend (after Kim!)” rhetoric from the President but, coupled with the escalating trade war and tensions in the South China Sea, it’s more than a little ominous.

With this President, though, one always has to wonder. Would these storm clouds disappear if China satisfied Trump on something flashy, like trade? Or, conversely, is it setting up Trump to be the Great Hero against the Chinese Menace (since support for his escalating tariffs and and their economic disruption is tepid at best)?

In other words, how much of this is driven by authentic resistance to actual deplorable behavior by China — on human rights, on maritime law, on economic issues — and how much is a convenient excuse to beat the war drums (against yet another nation) so as to rally the country just in time for a presidential election …?

We will, doubtless, find out in the coming several months.

Do you want to know more? 


[1] To be fair, an absolutely legit statement on Pompeo’s part.

Case NOT closed

Mueller’s verbal summary of his own report demonstrates the need for more investigation, if not impeachment.

Robert Mueller, in the process of announcing his retirement from the Department of Justice today, also gave a brief summary of what his team’s report said:

  1. Russia interfered with our elections.
  2. The investigation did not identify active collaboration between Trump’s campaign and Russian efforts at interference.
  3. Though that might be in part because of attempts to obstruct the investigation.
  4. The President did a bunch of obstructive things but, because of DoJ rules, Mueller could not actually file any charges.[1]
  5. “If we had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said that.”

Which has magically transformed into the President, and his collaborators in the Senate GOP Majority, into “Innocent! Exonerated! No collaboration! No obstruction! CASE CLOSED!”

No, literally. That was the phrase that both the President tweeted …

… and his inexplicable Newest Closest Bestest Senator Friend, Lindsey Graham declared

Today’s statement by Mr. Mueller reinforces the findings of his report. And as for me, the case is over. Mr. Mueller has decided to move on and let the report speak for itself. Congress should follow his lead.

Graham’s statement makes little sense. Mueller’s report — and his statements about it — make it clear that Congress should do anything else but move on. If the Justice Department is prevented by internal regulation from indicting the President, it is clear from Mueller’s words in both media that he is passing on to Congress to determine if their Article II, Section 4 powers need to come into play.

Of course, it’s also worth noting that Trump’s message has, at least in this instance, changed a little bit. He used to be all “NO OBSTRUCTION! NO COLLUSION!” in his cloudcuckoo-land summary of the Mueller Report. Now he’s sounding like a cheap lawyer. “Insufficient evidence!” “Therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent!”

Of course, Trump’s avid watching of Perry Mason should have told him that’s all factors in an actual trial. It doesn’t really apply to an investigation, especially one where the person in question cannot be actually tried (according to those DoJ rules).

Still, the tweet is oddly defensive. It doesn’t assert complete exoneration, just … “Well, they couldn’t make a strong enough case.”

Sounds like a challenge.

Graham, wanting to hustle on but at least acknowledge he read and wants to address part of the Mueller Report, added:

It is now time to move on and to work together in a bipartisan fashion to harden our election infrastructure against future attempts by Russia and other bad actors.

Which would be a fine sentiment … if his Senate GOP colleagues weren’t standing in the way of that, too. Well, one of them, at least, but he’s the only one who really counts.

The reason, said Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) on Wednesday, is that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has decided not to bring any election security bills to the floor for a vote. Blunt’s remark occurred during a hearing of the Rules and Administration Committee, which has oversight of election administration. When Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) asked Blunt, the chairman, whether he was planning mark-ups of any of the several election security bills pending before the committee, Blunt responded that it would be fruitless to advance legislation that McConnell would not allow to come up for a vote.

“I don’t see any likelihood that those bills would get to the floor if we marked them up,” Blunt said. After prodding from Durbin, Blunt explained, “I think the majority leader just is of the view that this debate reaches no conclusion.”

Well, if Mitch says there’s no value in Congressional action on election security … I guess … we can all sleep well? One assumes Mitch is following through on Donald’s cue: the President really dislikes discussion of Russian interference in the election (it’s the one part of the report he never discusses, let alone creatively reinterprets), probably because he feels it makes his Biggest Victory Ever seem somewhat sketchy.

Indeed, it’s worth noting that, even if the Mueller Report didn’t find any active collaboration / conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian interference, it did note that the campaign and the President welcomed and took advantage of that interference — and Trump’s mantra since it was first discussed — has been denial about it. It didn’t happen. If it happened, it might not have been the Russians. Maybe the Chinese. Maybe some fat guy in a basement. But not the Russians. Vladimir told me. Yeah, the intelligence guys say otherwise, but what do they know? 

As a result of Trump’s vociferous denials that interference occurred, or, if it did, that it came from Russia, next year’s elections remain vulnerable to interference. That represents, at the very least, a serious lapse in duty — and, to the extent that one can presume Russia’s interference will again be in favor of Trump, it represents yet another case of Trump welcoming, if not actively conspiring, with foreign interests.

So, then, what to do?

There’s a growing belief amongst the Democrats that the magnitude of the charges against Trump — in the remit of Mueller’s investigation, in his less covert activities, and in other areas hinted at but not investigated by Mueller (such as Trump’s financial shenanigans) warrant, if not current articles of impeachment, then impeachment-directed investigation. Indeed, given the argument by Trump’s personal attorneys that various straightforward and legal inquiries and subpoenas from various House oversight committees have been met with challenges as to whether they are based on legitimate legislative purposes or simply rank “Presidential Harassment!” (as the snowflake president occasionally tweets).

Investigation as part of an impeachment inquiry is constitutionally protected behavior for Congress, backed by substantial case law (and the GOP’s own behavior toward far less grotesque behavior by Bill Clinton).

Against that growing tide for impeachment or impeachment-directed investigation are two arguments.

The first is that the GOP in the Senate — holding the majority in a chamber that would need to vote 2/3 in favor of conviction in an impeachment trial — has gone on record that it will simply quash any such quixotic effort by the House.

“I think it would be disposed of very quickly,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “If it’s based on the Mueller report, or anything like that, it would be quickly disposed of,” he added.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), an adviser to McConnell’s leadership team, said “nothing” would come of impeachment articles passed by the House.

Second, there are concerns that moving for impeachment against Trump will rile up the GOP base, come across as a purely political attack that will rally support for Trump and the GOP, and win him re-election in 2020 … especially if the Senate “acquits” him.

I don’t buy either of those arguments.

  • While arguably impeachment proceedings will further enliven Trump’s true fans, they might have a similar effect upon those who oppose him, especially if impeachment-related hearings drag out further Trump crimes.
  • Lack of action — letting Trump get away with it, especially out of fear, is bound to dampen enthusiasm on the Democratic side, and make the whole thing seem more political. It also gives him the argument of, “Well, if I did something wrong, why didn’t they do anything about it?>
  • While there are arguments that it will help the GOP, there are counter-arguments that it will help the Democrats. So … since it comes down to conclusions drawn by the same folk who declared that Trump could never win in 2016 … maybe dropping all the meta-pragmatic analysis is a better approach.
  • In which case, what is the right thing to do? When faced with crimes against the nation, corruption and complicity in attempts to subvert our democracy … then at a minimum, investigating to establish further evidence is a moral (and pragmatic) imperative.
  • And if it rises to the (subjective standard) of “high crimes and misdemeanors” … then act on it, and shame the devil.
  • And if the Senate GOP majority ignores compelling evidence — indeed, fails to even consider such evidence in their haste to quash any embarrassment to Their Man in the White house … then fine. Don’t let those poor citizens dictate the course of action. The voters will judge, or history will. (Might I recommend JFK’s (ghost written) Profiles in Courage as useful reading material in this context?)
  • Just as with Mueller, faced with (among other parts of his remit) dealing with potential crimes by a man he believed he could not indict, found value in identifying the crimes involved, so, too, the House should consider the value of identifying and revealing the crimes they believe are there, whether to educate the voters of November 2020, or for posterity.

Do you want to know more?

——

[1] Ironically, those same rules theoretically should have kept Attorney General Barr from weighing in on the issue. Go figure.

The “Do Nothing” Democrats

It’s a fascinating, if maddening, case of “The Big Lie”

Current propaganda from #FoxNews and #Trump is that the Dems aren’t passing any legislation because of “wasting” all their time on investigations of the President. Not surprisingly, Fox News and Trump are lying. https://t.co/qHXnVcSYk3

In reality, of course, the Dems have passed a variety of bills since taking the majority in the House, from the trivial to significant items like electoral reform. The issue is not that the Dems haven’t been passing anything, but that the GOP in the Senate (let alone That Guy in the White House) aren’t paying any attention. On any number of large legislative initiatives coming from the House, Mitch McConnell and the GOP have not only not bothered to show how the Republicans think problems should be solved, Mitch has kept even debate about it off of the Senate floor.

And now Trump is trying to pretend it isn’t happening.

My 2020 Pick

We never elect the ideal. I am very clear what my level of compromise is.

My feelings vary on the different Dem nominees. None is perfect; some far less. But Every. Single. One. would be a vast improvement over the shitshow of Trump and his administration. Thrash out the differences in primaries, but don’t forget that ultimate comparison. #Election2020 https://t.co/0aXyZ8xUM9

There are folk running for the Democratic nomination who I like more than others. There are some who I think are too much part of a bygone era, and others whose temperaments I don’t trust, and others whose records have problems, and others who I don’t know are as proven as I would like them to be.

Even the least desirable of them, to my mind, would be a quantum leap over Donald J. Trump and his politics of ego, divisiveness, and destruction.

The next several months are the opportunity to have the debate about who is the best candidate, the one to lead the nation into the 2020s. But whoever gets the nomination, regardless of their (presently identifiable) flaws, will have my full support. Donald Trump is an existential threat to America, if not the planet. To my readers who are not Trump supporters, remember that. We can’t afford third party protest votes and “Meh, politicians” attitudes. That was demonstrated in 2016, and is part of the reason we are in the horrifying situation we are in today.

(Was Hillary my favoritest, most perfect person in the world to be President? Nope. I didn’t like her attitude about a number of things, I didn’t like how it was presumed she would be the candidate, and I have no doubt that with a GOP Senate and House it would have been another four years of destructive gridlock. But would she have been vastly better, feet of clay and all, than who we ended up with? Without question.)

Yes, I know it sounds just like the propagandists want it to sound, but, ultimately, no matter how enthusiastic I am (or aren’t), my 2020 choice is Anyone But Trump. I mean, yeah, it is barely conceivable that some further candidate might run for the Democratic nomination and get it who is actually worse (God save us all), but I can’t think of who it would be, and of the current Cast of Dozens vying for the role, I’ll be more than happy to campaign, donate, and vote for them against the incumbent.

So, the Mueller Report …

Bottom line: Trump is guilty as sin. Now what do we do?

The conclusions of the (redacted) report, as I read them:

  1. Russia interfered with the 2016 elections.
  2. Trump’s campaign knowingly expected to benefit from that interference, and Russia knowingly expected to benefit from Trump winning. But Mueller couldn’t demonstrate active cooperation, so conspiracy charges could not be placed against anyone.
  3. Trump repeatedly and (probably) clearly attempted to obstruct justice, but didn’t manage to successfully do so because enough people — out of principle or out of fear — didn’t follow his orders.
  4. The above is only probably because Mueller couldn’t file charges against the president, obedient to Justice Dept. policy that the sitting president cannot be indicted, and so also, due to legal principle, he couldn’t accuse Trump  without Trump’s being able to demonstrate his innocence in court. Yet. Hey, Congress + Posterity, here’s all the evidence I uncovered — when you have the power to do something, you decide what to do.
  5. At the very, very best, Trump (et al.) demonstrated himself as a reprehensible individual, more focused on his continued power than justice, ignoring the law and ethics and shame, and acting just the way you would expect the guiltiest man in the world to do if he could. If Trump didn’t (arguably, but implausibly) didn’t break the law, that’s the best that can be said of him. Which is a terribly low bar to crawl under.
  6. William Barr is a political hack. His redaction, as far as we can see, appears to be legit (to the extent that we can judge that with an eighth of the document blacked out), but his editorializing on the results both in his original four-page not-a-summary, and in his pre-release press conference, is spins in directions against what Mueller actually said, and when you include the pre-briefing that he gave to White House lawyers, he has clearly demonstrated that he sees himself as the President’s lawyer, not the nation’s.

Trump says the report fully exonerates him of everything, but also calls it a horrible witch hunt out to get him. Trump crows that he isn’t being prosecuted for anything because the report proves him innocent, but also calls the report the product of a bunch of evil partisans who were did nothing but lie. How his head doesn’t ‘splode is impossible for me to understand.

Should he be impeached? Almost certainly he could be impeached by the House, and almost certainly he could not be convicted the Senate. Because of party — and you can point that finger both ways, sure, but from my perspective, these are in fact impeachable offenses (bearing in mind that impeachment doesn’t require a federal crime be committed, though the obstruction efforts pretty clearly constitute such).

On the other hand, it may be worth on principle forcing those politicians, of both parties, to announce their stand, to let the voters and posterity judge their actions. Not that I want a President Pence by any means, but I’ve turned the corner on deciding that Trump’s narcissistic sociopathy is a greater threat to the nation than Pence’s Christian dominionism.

Regardless of impeachment, there’s Election 2020, in “only” 19 months. And that’s the moment this nation will announce its stand … and posterity will judge us, too.

The Enduring Fantasy of Trump’s Bestest Ever Beautiful GOP Health Care Plan

Trump keeps magically saying he can give everyone better, cheaper, more-inclusive insurance. But he never shares the details.

Donald Trump and the GOP held a majority in both the House and the Senate for the first two years of his presidency.

Despite the fact that Donald campaigned in 2016 on replacing the ACA with something more inclusive — “I am going to take care of everybody … Everybody’s going to be taken care of much better than they’re taken care of now.” — and despite the fact, just before his inauguration, he pinky-swore that he had a detailed Much More Better Great Bestest health care plan to replace the ACA that was just about ready to be printed, voted on, and passed, once he was in office …

President-elect Donald Trump said in a weekend interview that he is nearing completion of a plan to replace President Obama’s signature health-care law with the goal of “insurance for everybody,” while also vowing to force drug companies to negotiate directly with the government on prices in Medicare and Medicaid.

[…] Trump said his plan for replacing most aspects of Obama’s health-care law is all but finished. Although he was coy about its details — “lower numbers, much lower deductibles” — he said he is ready to unveil it alongside Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “It’s very much formulated down to the final strokes. We haven’t put it in quite yet but we’re going to be doing it soon,” Trump said.

[…] As he has developed a replacement package, Trump said he has paid attention to critics who say that repealing Obamacare would put coverage at risk for more than 20 million Americans covered under the law’s insurance exchanges and Medicaid expansion. “We’re going to have insurance for everybody,” Trump said. “There was a philosophy in some circles that if you can’t pay for it, you don’t get it. That’s not going to happen with us.” People covered under the law “can expect to have great health care. It will be in a much simplified form. Much less expensive and much better.”

… he then just turned to Congress and basically punted it over to them. Because he had no actual plan. 

“Trust me.”

The GOP-controlled Congress tried. They spent all of 2017 crafting and recrafting and negotiating within their caucus to get some sort of “repeal and replace” passed. The closest they got was the AHCA, which kicked a bunch of people off of insurance and didn’t cover pre-existing conditions, and which ended up being defeated in a last-second vote by Sen. John McCain in July. Subsequent efforts to just “repeal” and “repeal but delay repeal for two years” also failed.

(Ironically, just as the ACA almost foundered on the gap between folk on the far left of the Dems who wanted a much more sweeping health insurance reform, and the Blue Dog Dems who wanted something much more conservative, the GOP’s efforts were stymied. on conservative Senators and House members who wanted flat-out repeal, and more moderate GOP congressfolk who insisted on a much softer landing.)

The GOP basically gave up in Election Year 2018, but still lost control of the House in that fall’s election, largely over their shenanigans against the ACA, which people suddenly realized they actually kind of liked (or liked more than the status quo ante).

Which brings us to now, when the Trump Administration is seeking to get the ACA defeated in court, while promising that it has (or will have Real Soon Now) the Much More Better Great Bestest health care plan to replace the ACA. It says that, not because it has such a plan (it still doesn’t), but because it expects the GOP in the Senate to write such a plan — something even Mitch McConnell isn’t willing to do.

So instead, Donald has declared he never really wanted it written and voted on before the 2020 election anyway, and will instead actively campaign on how Beautiful and Great his Brand New Plan will be after the election when he inexplicably expects to have control back of the House for the GOP, and so will be able to have something written for him that will be Truly Awesome.

I imagine one can judge the veracity of the full set of tweets by that final line there.

The problem is, no matter how many think tanks and Senators and policy wonks and zany off-hand comments by the President one throws into the picture, what Donald wants, framed in a way that’s acceptable to his own party, is simply impossible.  Mathematically impossible.

Here’s the problem: Insurance companies are completely correct in saying that people with pre-existing conditions tend to need to spend more on medical care, and therefore are more costly to insure.

There’s no getting around that. You can argue over what constitutes a pre-existing condition (unless you’re an insurance company customer before the ACA, because it was then whatever insurance companies wanted to say it was, from having been pregnant to having diabetes to having once smoked to living in the wrong neighborhood to having had acne to having anything that might possibly every remotely be arguably related to something that you now wanted coverage for), but the bottom line is, literally, the bottom line.

If you are going to actually fully cover people regardless of their pre-existing conditions, you have to spend money. Much more money than if you do what insurance companies always want to do (cover only healthy people who won’t ask for the money back that they spent on premiums). Which means either taking that money from the taxpayers (like in a Medicare-for-All scenario), or maximize the risk pool with even fully healthy people so that everyone is mandated to buy insurance and spends marginally more than they would if they were only covering just themselves (if they were lucky enough to not have any “pre-existing conditions”) (which is the approach the ACA took, based on Romneycare, based on what the Heritage Foundation recommended before the Right decided that Obama had stolen the idea and therefore it was the Worst Idea Ever).

The alternative to spending money is to pretend that you are protecting pre-existing conditions. For example, you can require insurance companies to cover everyone, but allow them to charge more for some people — i.e., a person can theoretically get insurance despite their pre-existing conditions, it’s just prohibitively expensive to actually get. Or you can create a special “high risk pool” taxpayer-supported insurance program, and then scrimp on the money you put into it, or distribute it as block grants to the states regardless of inflationary costs or how actual medical care demand is balanced. Those kind of solutions let you claim with a semi-straight face you are protecting people, while in reality throwing them to the dogs.

Of course, you could just go ahead and overtly throw them to the dogs. Some conservative GOP folk think that’s fine — if you can’t pay more, you can go pound sand, I got mine, screw you.

But Trump claims that sort of Randian attitude is unthinkable. But he thinks he will be able to get away with not having to explain the magical details of how he’ll do all these wonderful thing. Like the real estate developer he is, he’ll run on “principles.” just as he tweeted above: Lower costs! Lower Deductibles! Much Better! Everyone covered! We love pre-existing conditions! Puppies and Unicorns for all! We double-dog promise that’s what you’ll get — trust us!

Given the gaps, the people kicked off coverage, the hits to folk who have pre-existing conditions that were coded into the few actual GOP plans proposed over the past couple of years, it’s hard to believe that’s a message that’s going to go over well.

Do you want to know more?

How DO you pronounce “Buttigieg”?

A lot of people have a lot of (wrong) guesses.

Pete Buttigieg, the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is one of the flock of Democrats running for the presidential nomination in 2020. He’s also got the name (of Maltese origin) that’s hardest to figure out how to pronounce.

According to his husband, it’s best pronounced “Buddha-judge”. Or you can just call him “Mayor Pete.”

Do you want to know more? How Do You Pronounce Buttigieg? The Internet Counts the Ways | WIRED