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

“Voting Rights? You don’ need no steenking Voting Rights!”

It’s easy to bypass the will of the people when you control the state government

Ah, Florida …

Florida voters managed to pull off a coup in the 2018 election, passing by a nearly a 2-1 majority Amendment 4 to the state constitution, saying that felons would have their voting rights restored as soon as they completed their sentence.

It was a vote decision that was widely feared by the GOP, because it would potentially re-enfranchise 1.4 million Floridians, and the GOP assumes that a majority of them will vote for Democrats, which is enough to tip the very narrow balance of partisan power in Florida away from the Republicans.

So, of course, they’re gutting the law.

“But, Dave,” you might say, “this is a state constitutional amendment — how can they override that?” Great question!

Answer: by deciding that the amendment actually needs enacting legislation, and by crafting that legislation to say that you can’t have your franchise back until you’ve fully paid all the thousands of dollars of fees related to your trial, your court time, your prison time, your prison medical care, all sorts of fees that the state of Florida has imposed to (a) pay for a justice system without taxing the taxpayers, and (b) saddle ex-cons with debts they cannot pay off.

As a result it’s estimated that at least half, if not more, of those disenfranchised felons that the majority of Floridians thought should be re-enfranchised … will remain disenfranchised.

“But, Dave,” you might say, “how can they get away with that?” Another great question.

It’s easy.

The GOP has the majority of both houses of the state legislature.

The GOP has the governorship (through a headline-narrow margin in 2018).

The GOP, thanks to the actions of that governor, now have a 6-1 lock on the state supreme court, too.

The “enacting legislation” is thus expected to be passed, signed, and be immune to state court challenge.

See, it’s easy to keep power and defy the will of the voters, if you know how and don’t mind being shameless about it.

Do you want to know more? Florida Republicans are sabotaging Amendment 4.

Packing the Supreme Court (again)

Dems are considering expanding SCOTUS to counter GOP shenanigans

In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt, coming off of a massive electoral victory and irked that the Supreme Court had stood in the way of his New Deal on various occasions during his first term, had legislation introduced that would expand the number of seats on the Court, which he would then be able to presumably appoint sympathetic justices to.

(The size of SCOTUS is not dictated by the Constitution, but has been fixed in law at nine since 1869.)

However, he did so in a clumsy and impolitic fashion, annoying some key Democrats who had to support the bill. That, and some other bad luck, led to the initiative’s eventual defeat, though he was in office long enough to craft a SCOTUS that would support his key policies.

The Democrats in 2019 are toying with a similar idea. The concept is that Trump has taken advantage of GOP Senate shenanigans to start filling the high court with appointees that will carry on his policies for a generation to come. Only by diluting or countering those appointees can the Dems level the playing field (if not tilt it to their side).

Justices Gorsuch and Kavanugh

These GOP shenanigans in particular are used as justification for playing such a hardball tactic:

  • The GOP’s 2017 elimination of the filibuster/cloture rules for SCOTUS appointees, meaning the simple Senate majority the GOP had could seat anyone they wanted. (The Dems had previously eliminated the filibuster for other federal court nominations in 2013, against GOP intransigence in passing any of Obama’s nominees.)
  • The 2015 move by Mitch McConnell to block President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, over a year before the next election, by simply not taking up his nomination.

Boy.

On the one hand, the McConnell / GOP moves were naked politics, as outrageous and unfair and damaging to the politics and process as the suggestion by some Dems that a court-packing scheme is the best counter to Trump’s appointment of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (and whomever else he manages to get in there over the next 1-5 years). And it’s hard to argue with them on that argument.

On the other hand, carrying on that tradition seems only liable to make things worse — and simply provides further justification for the GOP to do something even more extreme (“Eleven justices? Bah! We’ll make it 15 for Don, Junior’s first term!”). That way madness lies.

On the still-other hand, the GOP has shown they will do anything in this arena. Being unwilling to counter it is to surrender the field. If only one side is willing to protect an institution, it’s not really being protected.

All this is contingent, of course, on the Dems taking back the White House and the Senate in 2020. That seems certainly possible at this stage, though by no means a lock, so this may all be just idle speculation.

But expect to hear this question come up during presidential debates. And the Dems are going to have to have good answers to keep themselves from not looking like the villains of the piece.

Do you want to know more? 2020 Dems warm to expanding Supreme Court – POLITICO

 

And yet another Democratic candidate heard from

Hopefully a crowded field won’t divide the effort to defeat Trump in 2020

After teasing about it for some weeks, Beto O’Rourke has joined the herd of Democratic candidates for President in 2020. Remarkably enough, there may still yet be some undeclared candidates (looking at you, Joe Biden).

On the one hand, there’s a lot of value in a crowded field like this — it offers up opportunities for new and interesting ideas that might not bubble up when only one or two candidates dominate the field, and it creates enough breadth for people to feel like someone they really like has an opportunity to make a difference. (One of the criticisms of the Dems in 2016 was that Clinton’s nomination was treated by the party powers as a fait accompli, which led to some untoward behavior and people feeling turned off by the process.)

One of the dangers of such a crowded field, though, is that it gives everyone a chance to find that One, True Candidate That They’ve Always Been Looking To Follow … and it’s altogether possible that person won’t get the nomination. Which, then can lead to people being turned off (“How dare ‘they’ not choose X?! Fine, I won’t compromise my pro-X principles by voting for Y! Let it all burn!”).

That wasn’t the only dynamic going on in 2016, but it was certainly one of them.

To which I can only say to my fellow Democrats (et al.), you may very well feel that one candidate or the other has all/most of the right answers to being the leader of this country. You may rightly feel that the candidate who gets the Democratic nomination has some significant flaws — too radical, not radical enough, held some unfortunate ideas a decade ago, still holds some unfortunate ideas, whatever.

You betray your preferred candidate — and your country — far more if you let Donald Trump get re-elected. We don’t get to vote for the individually best candidate; we vote for the candidates that are selected in the nominating process.

The only “message” I am interested in seeing next fall is a sound rejection of Trumpism and the GOP that has capitulated to it. Anything short of that from the Left is self-indulgent twaddle.

So do go ahead and cheer and shout and campaign for your Dem of choice. That’s what this period of time is about. Caucus, vote in the primary, splatter their videos all over your social media.

When the candidate is finally chosen, remember, the choice is no longer between your ideal and the reality, it’s between that reality and another four years of Donald Trump and what he is doing to this nation and the world.

And, honestly, kudos to O’Rourke for illuminating that.

“Any single Democrat running today — and I may not be able to enumerate every single one of them — would be far better than the current occupant of the White House,” O’Rourke, a Texas Democrat, told a packed coffee house here. “So let’s keep this in mind, and we can conduct ourselves in this way every single day for the next 11 months until voting begins here in Iowa.”

“Ultimately, we all have to get on board with the same person, because it is fundamental to our chances of success that we defeat Donald Trump in 2020,” O’Rourke added.

Do you want to know more? Beto O’Rourke announces presidential bid, calls for unity to defeat Trump

Allegiance

I’ve read Rep. Omar’s recent comments about the influence of the pro-Israel lobby in American politics and honestly, they only way they can be considered anti-Semitic is if you consider any criticism of the government of Israel or American foreign policy toward it to be, per se, anti-Semitic.

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-MN

“But she’s talking about money! And everyone knows the libel against Jews as fat-cat wealthy people!” And, yes, those are pernicious and anti-Semitic stereotypes (ironically garbled from anti-Semitic prejudice that allowed European Jews to lend money at interest, then socially punished them for it).

But the money flowing into pro-Israeli lobbying coffers and political action committees isn’t just from American Jews. Political and financial support for Israel comes from a substantial chunk of the Christian Right (some of whom see an Israeli state as necessary for the End Times). Other non-Jewish Americans see Israel as a stalwart ally (which could be debated, though in Middle Eastern terms they’re probably better than a lot of the alternatives), or as a representative democracy in region full of autocrats (which makes unwillingness to criticize the actions of that democracy all the more odd), or believe in a Zionist goal of a Jewish homeland given the historically terrible and devastating history of European Jewry that culminated in the Holocaust.

So equating criticism of money spent on behalf of Israeli interests through PACs and lobbying with criticism of wealthy Jews is kind of a stretch, unless you make it a whole lot clearer that’s what you’re doing.

I don’t see any of that in Rep. Omar’s statements.

“But now she’s talking about allegiance, and we all know about the pernicious accusation that Jews have a divided loyalty between the nation and other Jews.”  I’m well familiar with that, including the analogous anti-Catholic prejudice that we seem to have gotten over as a nation. And, again, we see the twisted history of a persecuted community ghettoized and forced to band together against prejudice becoming, itself, taken as a “divided loyalty.”

But, again, Rep. Omar didn’t say that Jews were pushing for (or held) an allegiance to a foreign power. She was clearly noting that there are a lot of politicians who are so knee-jerk pro-Israel that, regardless of whether it is in American interests or not, they will support Israeli government actions. As might be demonstrated by, well, anyone criticizing Israeli state actions drawing criticism as being anti-Semitic and anti-American and pernicious and deserving of rebuke and punishment.

Sort of like what’s happening to Rep. Omar.

One might expect it in politicians and pundits framing everything about Israel as a false dichotomy — you either steadfastly stand behind the Israeli state, no matter what it does, no matter what level of apartheid it enforces, no matter how it deals in bad faith with the Palestinians, no matter how it drags down American relations with other states in the region — or you’re un-American, you’re anti-democracy, you want Israel destroyed, and you’re an anti-Semite.

Which does, in fact, seem to be the reaction going on. Which makes suggestions that some folk seem have as much allegiance to Israel as to America a rhetorically uncomfortable but not altogether unjust.

All of which is a ridiculous position to take. We criticize our own government for its actions … why can we not criticize Israel’s government? We can say that Trump, or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton are dumb or corrupt or destructive or whatever … why can we not criticize Benjamin Netanyahu as vigorously? We can say that the US is doing something wrong … why can we not say that Israel is doing something wrong. We can critique our government’s actions without suggesting that America should be destroyed … why is criticism of Israeli government policy made out to be a desire to see Israel destroyed.

It’s altogether possible that someone doesn’t think that Israel isn’t acting wrongly in its relations with its neighbors and with the Palestinian Arabs. Fine. But we should be able to have that debate without recourse either to (a) blaming it on the Jews or (b) being accused of blaming it on the Jews.

But if critical suggestions that a wide array of American supporters (not just Jewish ones) and politicians (ditto) seem to have knee-jerk support for anything that the Israeli government does draw fire as being inherently anti-Semitic … well, I think it merely confirms the suggestions being made.

Do you want to know more?

There Oughta Be A Law!

This Constitutional Law Moment brought to you by This Is Why We Need More Civics Education. Yeesh. https://t.co/bwreHhSeWP

Diamond and Silk are, of course, bestest buds of both the President and headliners at last weekend’s CPAC. They are not, however and quite clearly, lawyers.

The Diplomatic President

Just in case anyone is still wondering: this is STILL not normal. This is the US President, in Vietnam on a delicate diplomatic mission that could mean life or death for millions … and he’s taking time out for petty public snipes at a political opponent. https://t.co/1MgskQr3RE

Because now is the PERFECT time to expand vaccine exemptions

In apparent reaction to the measles epidemic going on in the Pacific Northwest — caused, it seems, by enough kids being opted out of measles vaccines that herd immunity has been compromised — the bold GOP leadership of the state of Arizona is acting courageously and forthrightly on the matter: by expanding opt-out exemptions for vaccines.

Disregarding warnings by public health officials, an Arizona legislative panel on Thursday endorsed three bills that critics say will erode immunization coverage among Arizona schoolchildren. The House Health and Human Services Committee approved all three bills in contentious 5-4 votes that were split along party lines, with Republicans favoring the measures and Democrats voting in opposition.

[…] One of the measures — House Bill 2470 — not only expands vaccine exemption categories in Arizona, it gives parents additional leeway by removing the requirement that they sign a state health department form to get a vaccine exemption. “When a parent only has a government statement that they have to sign in order to qualify for an exemption that they don’t agree with, that is coercion. This allows them to either sign that or make their own statement,” said committee chairwoman Rep. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix, who sponsored all three bills. “We are talking about a policy decision now for parents and we should attribute the best expectations on parents, not the worst.”

[…] Barto maintains the three bills she sponsored are about parental rights and freedom, and not about making any kind of a judgment on whether vaccines are good or bad. “We are here to acknowledge vaccines have a place, but it’s every parent’s individual right to decide the vaccine’s place in the child’s life,” Barto told committee members.

Which would be all fine and good if the choice to vaccinate only affected the kids in question. But that decision affects everyone — every child, baby, adult, especially those with compromised immune systems — that child will come in contact with.

Barto said the bills are about patients and she’s upset that some people who choose not to vaccinate their children, or who question vaccines are being bullied. “We shouldn’t have that type of attitude towards one another,” she said. “It’s not a one size fits all option for every child. … We need to look at the data, look at the science and recognize that there’s research on both sides. That’s my aim here, to strike that balance.”

No, really, there’s not “research on both sides.” Vaccinations work, the risks the carry are minimal, and the lives potentially saved are not just the kids being “protected” by anti-science parents, but the lives of everyone they touch.

 

 

Let Them Eat Grade Books!

An Arkansas state legislator is fed up with schools that don't improve their reading scores.

His solution: cut lunch funding from schools that don't perform well.

Guess which party he's in.




Arkansas legislator proposes cutting lunch funding from schools that struggle to improve reading skills
One Arkansas lawmaker wants to get more students reading by putting money on the line—specifically, their lunch money.

Original Post

“Very Nice Language”

Donald Trump: “I think my language is very nice.” He realizes his best chance in 2020 is to make enough Democrats’ heads ‘splode. https://t.co/2PrdcWJK0y

Because, of course, Donald Trump hates federal workers

The man who's blowing out the Secret Service budget with his incessant personal travel, the man who's ballooning the Defense budget, the man who's pushing through tax cuts for the rich, the man who's making money hand over fist through profiting from his own presidency … is of course the man who's freezing federal worker pay. Because giving federal workers a raise would be "inappropriate, and "we must maintain efforts to put our Nation on a fiscally sustainable course, and Federal agency budgets cannot sustain such increases."

There are times when Donald is a mean-spirited jerk by happenstance. And other times where it's clearly deliberate.




Trump issues executive order freezing federal workers’ pay in 2019 – CNNPolitics
President Donald Trump issued an executive order Friday freezing federal workers’ pay for 2019, following through on a proposal he announced earlier in the year.

Original Post

Because being Muslim apparently means you can’t be Republican

Since, after all, you're clearly a shill for the terrorist horror that is the Muslim Brotherhood. Also, probably, you're not reflexively pro-Israeli Government enough.




GOP Activists Want To Purge Local Official For Being Muslim

Original Post

Donald Trump is a menace

I know, that’s hardly headline news. But it keeps coming more and more into focus, never so much so as in the waning days of the 2018 election campaign.

“What scares the crap out of me is that, when you’re saying ‘enemy of the people, enemy of the people,’ … what happens if all of a sudden someone gets shot, somebody shoots one of these reporters?” Vandehei pleads. Trump replies, “It is my only form of fighting back.”

Watch the entire exchange, and take note of what Trump does not say here. The easiest answer Trump could give would be to deflect the concern as overblown. But at no point does he reassure the palpably frightened Vandehei that he is not inciting violence, and that his supporters understand that they should refrain from radical acts. Instead Trump lets the threat hang in the air, and justifies it as his only weapon against the slanders against him.




Trump Isn’t Inciting Violence By Mistake. He Just Told Us.

Original Post

Trump babbles about conspiracies, plots, and how great he is for foiling them

Um …

“The Hill” is a right-of-center political news site — not whackadoodle time, and often informative, but averaging out usually pro-GOP. Which makes this nearly incoherent story about Trump being interviewed by them quite a bit more … disturbing.

I mean, individual elements of it are zany enough, like Trump’s Queeg-like fascination with some massive FBI plot against him that he has now foiled by releasing a selected bunch of classified documents tomorrow … which documents he says he hasn’t read but is sure will make it clear that the entire FBI has been out to get him, which is why he should have fired Comey back when he won his first primary, oh, wait, no, he couldn’t have fired him then, he should have fired him his first day on the job …

Anyway, all that conspiracy, and the texts, all the texts, and the documents, and FISA, and maybe those FISA judges were misled, or maybe they were actually in on it, hmmmmm, he’s not sure because he isn’t doing anything to the FISA courts (yet), but poor Carter Page …

… anyway, he’s happy to grandiosely …

… show the public the FBI probe started as a “hoax,” and that exposing it could become one of the “crowning achievements” of his presidency. “What we’ve done is a great service to the country, really,” Trump said in a 45-minute, wide-ranging interview in the Oval Office.

“I hope to be able to call this, along with tax cuts and regulation and all the things I’ve done… in its own way this might be the most important thing because this was corrupt,” he said.

Right. The crowning glory of his presidency will be to … have stopped a plot … against his presidency. Because it’s always about him.

I mean, the individual components of what he’s quoted as saying are tinfoil hat crazy enough. But if the conversation actually is paralleled by how it’s presented here, or, worse, assuming The Hill has tried to actually beat it into some sort of narrative sense … well, the whole thing is a huge, rambling mess. I mean, literally, has me wondering about his mental fitness sort of a mess.

Just wait until he starts investigating who stole the frozen strawberries from the White House refrigerator …




EXCLUSIVE: Trump says exposing ‘corrupt’ FBI probe could be ‘crowning achievement’ of presidency
By John Solomon and Buck SextonOpinion Contributors

Original Post

Another really great high economic number for Donald Trump and the GOP!

Oh, wait. They don’t seem to be touting how incredibly cool it is that the deficit grew 32% to $895 billion, even during such “incredible” economic times. (Emphasis mine).

The nonpartisan CBO reported that the central drivers of the increasing deficit were the Republican tax law and the bipartisan agreement to increase spending. As a result, revenue only rose 1 percent, failing to keep up with a 7 percent surge in spending, it added. Revenue from individual and payroll taxes was up some $105 billion, or 4 percent, while corporate taxes fell $71 billion, or 30 percent.

Part of that “bipartisan” budget was an additional $94 billion in Pentagon spending (reaching over $700 billion).

It’s amazing — knowingly spend more more than you bring in and your debt skyrockets. The Republican party once seemed to know that, and even campaigned on it (even if Reagan did much the same thing in his day).




Federal deficit soars 32 percent to $895B
The federal deficit hit $895 billion in the first 11 months of fiscal 2018, an increase of $222 billion, or 32 percent, over the same period the previous year,

Original Post

Politics has become the new tribalism

An interesting look at how politics has become an increasingly powerful source of identity, not just an outcome of it.

People sometimes decry identity politics — “I’m an X, so I vote for That Party” or “I’m a Z, so I only vote for other Zs or Z supporters,” with religion, race, gender, class, etc., taking the part of the variables.

But there’s evidence that political party or political identity along one or another spectrum is beginning to trump the others. Looking at long-term surveys (where the subject was given the same questions across multiple years), researchers are seeing those other identities changing based on political identification. E.g.,

Liberal Democrats were much more likely than conservative Republicans to start identifying as Latino or saying that their ancestry was African, Asian or Hispanic.

Conservative Republicans were more likely than liberal Democrats to stop describing themselves as lesbian, gay or bisexual; liberal-leaning Democrats were more likely to start identifying as lesbian, gay or bisexual.

Again, it’s not that these people were “actually” changing — their genetics weren’t switching around — but that how they perceived or identified themselves was realigning based on their (unchanged in labels) politics, or how those other labels were seen as part and parcel of those political ideologies, rather than separate factors.

That change in the last decade or so may also go along with other observations as to the rise of Big Ideas and the decline of compromise within politics; when political ideology becomes not just an outcome of your identity, but your identity itself, emotionality and an unforgiveness for backing down become more natural reactions.




Americans Are Shifting The Rest Of Their Identity To Match Their Politics
Welcome to Secret Identity, our regular column on identity and its role in politics and policy. We generally think of a person’s race or religion as being fixed…

Original Post

That “Part of the Resistance” Op-Ed

I’ve been pondering this, and reading opinion (from right and left) since this extraordinary article came out. Some thoughts before something else pops up in the news cycle.

1. The GOP (mostly the punditry and, thus, Donald) have been paranoically railing against a “Deep State” of unaccountable Leftist bureaucrats resisting the President and defying our democracy. The irony appears to be the Deep State is Republican.

That irony is satisfying, but that doesn’t make the idea of government workers, even high administration officials, carrying out a soft coup — disobeying, forgetting to follow orders (and not reminding the President he gave them), all those other kinds of quiet sabotage — any more palatable. Sure, in a ticking bomb situation the first thing you do is try to defuse the bomb. But if you don’t let people know there was a bomb, and just keep defusing them as you see fit (and maybe dismantling some other clocks and unplugging other wires you think are better off disconnected), you’ve gone way beyond your remit.

The Deep State paranoia as it’s been raved about by Fox News talking heads has been goofy. But remember that “resistance” can be done against the “good guys” as well as the “bad guys,” and that setting a precedent of sabotaging a bad president’s actions as standard operating procedure means that a good president’s actions can be similarly sabotaged (for your own values of “good” and “bad”).

No organization can be effective or relied upon that way, and when that organization is the federal government in a representative democracy, the stakes become really high.

2. While there’s a certain amount of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” going on here, the Left should not be treating this person and their cabal of like-minded folk as comrades. It’s not that the writer dislikes Trump’s policies — in fact, they brag about how nifty so many of them are — just that Trump himself is kind of a dumpster fire who keeps getting off-message and off-task in dangerous ways.

(This is akin — perhaps very closely akin — to the “Yeah, but if you get rid of Donald you end up with Pence” thing. The dismantling of the social safety net, civil liberties for other than white men, the environment, and every progressive reform since the turn of the previous century would continue, just without so much tweeting or worry about nuclear war.)

To take the metaphor even further, we cheer for the “Operation: Valkyrie” dudes (Tom Cruise!) who tried to assassinate Hitler late in the war. Yay for wanting to kill Hitler! But the conspirators weren’t lovers of freedom and democracy. They weren’t motivated by wanting to stop the Holocaust or free the Nazi conquests. They were mostly conservative elites who were were actually happy with the conquests that had taken place, and really only wanted to create a new authoritarian government without that lunatic in charge in order to force peace negotiations to hold onto those conquests before it was too late.

Nobody would have minded if they succeeded in their plot, but it wouldn’t have ushered in a brand new peaceful Reich of puppies and unicorns.

3. But, hey, these guys are keeping Trump from doing some really awful stuff, right? Which, ironically, even if so (and for their values of “really awful”), means that the case for actually getting rid of Trump — whether the extremes of impeachment or even of the 25th Amendment, or the traditional way of simply seizing power in Congress through the mid-terms — becomes weaker.

If what we’ve seen Trump try to do is with the most zany corners sanded off by the Inside Resistance, then they they are, in fact, covering up for Trump in the short run and making his position more secure.

4. I have seen it suggested that this is a defensive move — that when the walls come tumbling down one way or the other in the White House, this will be either a ticket for an individual or group of individuals to get away or be rehabilitated (“Hey, don’t prosecute me, I’m a member of the Inside Resistance!”), or else the foundation for saving the GOP itself (“Hey, don’t vote us out of office, we were resisting Trump from within!”). Neither is particularly admirable.

(In the short term, this latter may be a key to why this is coming out now. “Stick with the GOP, Midterm voters! We’ve got your back even if you don’t like Trump!” Um …)

5. By publishing this, the writer has given Trump justification for his narcissistic paranoia. They really are all out to get him! That then allows him to purge folk he’s been waving on, and, more importantly, reject future suggestions of moderation or course deviation.

Is that a good thing? It’s kind of the reverse of Number 3, but it’s also completely predictable, so why do it? What’s the actual purpose for this op-ed and its timing?

6. I’ve seen a lot of folk say that, rather than Quiet Resistance (sabotage), the writer and their cabal of like-minded friends would be better off simply resigning, publicly so. “But then we couldn’t try to stop him from within!” Yeah, but as has been noted, that’s not necessarily working real well, and has its own drawbacks.

Resign publicly, and then, if you are real heroes, spill the beans. Here’s what I saw. Here’s what he planned. Here’s what he said. That has more of an effect, adding to the chorus of other who have done the same, than quiet reassurances that you’re hiding deep within, protecting us from the stuff you say is too extreme for you.

7. The $64K question is, who’s the writer (and their friends)? That’s the foundation for really judging this, because it would show the motivations in what they’ve talked about, the timing of doing it, and what they’ve actually revealed. There’s a lot we can’t truly parse out until we know that part of the story.

Until then all we have are vague confirmations from an anonymous (but pretty certainly accurately self-described high administration official) source that, yeah, the zaniness we’ve heard about from past journalistic and resigned official tell-alls is actually pretty much true (again, something to remember come November), and that there’s a set of people who are (they say) keeping it from being worse than it is, whether they were elected to do so or not.

We also have a President going crazy over the matter and demanding the NYT turn over their source, which, of course, they should not do (regardless of my feelings about them), and that will be of interest to watch, too.




Opinion | I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration
I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

Original Post

House GOP are worried about a government shutdown … but only BEFORE the election

That seems to be the bottom-line sentiment. They think a shutdown is fine, that letting the federal government grind to a halt unless Donald gets his Great Wall is okay … but they want it after the election, because otherwise it might hurt their  chances in November.

Ponder that for a minute, and what that says about their sincerity about anything of principle, vs. their desire to hold onto power.




Trump on government shutdown: ‘If it happens, it happens’ – POLITICO

Original Post

Yeats and Modern American Politics

RT @WHurensohn: “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and eve…

Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. But will be. Because they can.

This article is correct in its core assertion:

If an applicant for a powerful lifetime position cannot provide the needed documents to vet him, the answer is not to drop the vetting; it is to nominate another person, who can provide what reasonable process demands. Vetting is a constitutional requirement, not an obstacle to be dodged. If the people’s representatives can’t vet Kavanaugh, then the president should bring them a nominee they can vet.

Which may suck for a perfectly reasonable and wonderful and trustworthy nominee who, in the nature of their previous service, did some critical things that cannot be publicly revealed. But … well, them’s the breaks and thank you for your service and sacrifice.

The article is also perfectly correct in its assertions that there is no ethical or public policy justification for rushing through this nominee’s hearing process to the extent that even the fraction of background documents that have been deemed as acceptable for the public and Senators to know cannot possibly be reviewed in time.

But here the author misses the point (or is unwilling to acknowledge it directly): this process is not about ethics or public policy: it is solely about getting a serious conservative onto the Supreme Court ASAP and conclusively, so as to tip the political balance of the court firmly to the Right for decades. To that end, the GOP Senators and committee members don’t care if there’s an objectively defensible rationale — they already have their political rationale, and have (probably) the votes to make it happen, so why risk anything that might cause a problem?




A Judge Who Can’t Be Vetted Shouldn’t Be Confirmed
If Brett Kavanaugh’s extensive paper trail can’t be fully and publicly disclosed, the simplest solution is to nominate someone else.

Original Post

In case you thought all that ACA Repeal stuff was dead and gone

It’s not. The GOP are just waiting for a November win to get rid of the ACA, including pre-existing medical conditions (vague promises to the contrary notwithstanding). They’ve actually said that.

Again, remember why the ACA was passed:

1. People dying (or just chronically suffering, and unable to work) from lack of insurance coverage (no, you can’t go to the ER to treat your cancer, heart disease, or diabetes), either because their employers didn’t have to provide it, because they couldn’t afford individual policies, or because they had some vague “pre-existing condition” that meant insurance companies could either deny coverage or jack up the costs through the roof.

2. People being driven into bankruptcy because of medical bills on policies that had annual and lifetime caps, or that didn’t include critical coverage, or that didn’t cover things that, oh, hey, pre-existing conditions again!.

3. Because the basic ideas behind the ACA were supported by both the GOP and conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation … until it was a Democrat that was pushing them into law.

The GOP politicians today seems mainly concerned with getting rid of #3. If #1 or #2 happen again, well, none of them are likely to suffer that way.

Something to remember this November.




Opinion | Get Sick, Go Bankrupt and Die – The New York Times
What the midterms mean for the future of health care.

Original Post