They plan to burn every molecule of carbon on Earth

NPR host Mary Louise Kelly talked to congressional reporter Barbara Sprunt about what happened when the Senate took up the impeachment of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. This was after two months of the House waiting for the right time to deliver the articles of impeachment. Short answer: The Senate rejected the articles and did so rather quickly. There will be no trial. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said:

We felt very strongly that we had to set a precedent that impeachment should never be used to settle policy disagreements.

I heard from another source that Moscow Mitch essentially said he did not like setting a precedent that the Senate didn’t take the House articles of impeachment seriously. I’m with Chuck on this one. Ariana Figueroa of Michigan Advance wrote a much more detailed account of the proceedings. She included the series of votes and the Republicans attempts to force a trial or postpone the trial. It came down to Democrats approving Schumer’s point of order that neither article of impeachment actually contained an impeachable offense. All votes were along party lines, though Sen. Murkowski voted “present” for the first article. Pakalolo of the Daily Kos community reported that Jerome Powell, chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, identified an important component that is keeping the Fed from meeting its 2% inflation target. That is insurance. The price of auto insurance is up 20.6% from a year ago and home insurance went up 11.3% in 2023. Pakalolo quoted UPI:

Experts attribute the escalating insurance premiums to various factors, including the impacts of climate change and rising prices for car parts. These factors drive up insurers’ costs, prompting them to pass on the expenses to consumers through higher premiums. As insurance costs continue to climb, they exert upward pressure on overall inflation rates, complicating the Federal Reserve’s efforts to manage monetary policy and stabilize prices.

Pakalolo then discussed how climate change is a big factor in making some regions of the country uninsurable. How might we protect Boston from sea level rise? A hotter climate means larger and stronger weather events, such as hurricanes, wildfires, gale-force storms, and flooding. There was the Bipartisan Infrastructure deal to help the nation prepare but that was a lot smaller than what is needed. On to a quote from Reinsurance News with data from Bloomberg Intelligence:

According to BI, global insured losses from natural disasters in 2023 are estimated at $118 billion, which is well above the 2017-21 average of $97 billion. The BI team also explained that more than 50% of the top 20 global reinsurers held or cut their natural-catastrophe exposure in the January 2023 renewals.

A reinsurer is an insurance company for insurance companies for the times when a payout for a storm is more than an insurance company can handle. All this comes to homeowners not being able to get insurance either because the costs have risen too high for their budget or too many companies have decided that a region (such as Florida) is too risky and have pulled out from doing business there.

To be clear, drastic sea level rise is baked in and will destroy coastal cities. Wildfires are baked in. Despite ignoring all the blinking red lights over the past decades, humanity will have to lie in the bed that we have made. There will be no do-over for the climate crisis. The best we can hope for is preventing the worst impacts, and that window is closing. Once a home is uninsurable, the owner can’t find a buyer to get a mortgage. The banks will want their money back, the little gals and guys will be on their own, and fossil fuel companies will not pay a dime to help. They plan to burn every molecule of carbon on Earth, and they know we will let them do it.

If a home can’t be insured it loses a great deal of value. Pakalolo discussed Acapulco, which was hit hard by hurricane Otis last October. Recovery and rebuilding has barely begun because of insurance problems. A lot of tourist accommodations are gone. The destruction has limited fumigation efforts and mosquitoes are spreading an outbreak of dengue fever. A quote from Rainforest Action Network:

Insurance companies are abruptly dropping customers, and premiums are doubling and tripling. Why? The cost of protecting customer from climate disaster has become too high. And yet, insurers continue to insure fossil fuels. Sit in that irony for a sec.

Kerry Eleveld of Kos discussed new polling by Civiqs. It didn’t ask which candidate was ahead, but asked what is motivating people to vote they way they intend. Would you be upset if the other candidate became president? That was a tie at 48%, so half of the electorate will be upset no matter who wins. Would you be very happy if your person won? Biden: 28% Nasty guy: 38% Would you be okay with him winning? (Is he at least better than the other guy?) Biden: 17% Nasty guy: 9% Are you extremely motivated to support your candidate? That was the case with 63% of voters. Biden: 62% Nasty guy: 78% Are you extremely motivated to vote against the rival candidate? Nearly 80% said that’s the case. Biden: 85% Nasty guy: 77%

This election is going to come down to which candidate voters simply can't stomach. And with third-party options available, the Biden campaign has to make the possibility of a Trump victory absolutely intolerable to a solid majority of voters.

In a pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin quoted Jamelle Bouie of the New York Times:

The states’ rights case for determining abortion access — let the people decide — falters on the fact that in many states, the people cannot shape their legislature to their liking. Packed and split into districts designed to preserve Republican control, voters cannot actually dislodge anti-abortion Republican lawmakers. A pro-choice majority may exist, but only as a shadow: present but without substance in government.

Eric Tucker, Sarah Brumfield, and Lea Skene of the Associated Press reported on the latest about the Baltimore bridge collapse. The ship ran off course because it lost electrical power and the ship could not be steered or slowed. This report says there were signs of electrical problems before the ship left port. There is now an FBI investigation to go along with the inquiry of the National Transportation Safety Board. Another body was recovered. It was in a construction vehicle in the bridge wreckage. The family requested the name not be released. Three bodies are still missing. Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott announced legal action to hold responsible all entities accountable for the tragedy. The ship Dali is owned by Grace Ocean and managed by Synergy Marine Group. They filed a routine petition under US Maritime law to seek to limit their liability to the value of the vessel’s remains after an incident. Attorneys for the victims argued against the petition. If the ship’s electrical problems were fixed before it left port the accident and the deaths could have been prevented. Timothy Pratt, in an article for Capital and Main and posted on Kos, reported on “In Her Hands,” a pilot program in Atlanta to give 654 women an average of $850 a month for two years. It was a success. For Shamarra Woods it allowed her to pay off debt and afford child care. That allowed her to keep her job at a company that eventually promoted her.

Now a group of academics has completed a report on the first year of the two-year program. “In Her Hands” has had some initial success in paving a road out of poverty. The new data, when added to the results from dozens of other studies, has supporters of guaranteed income hopeful that policymakers will see the benefits of dedicating public funds to the idea, at the federal, state, or local level. One obstacle addressed by research findings, they note, is the longstanding narrative with roots in the Reagan-era “welfare queen” trope about poor people being “undeserving” of no-strings assistance. ... As with others researching guaranteed income, [Stephen] Roll [of Washington University of St. Louis] said findings continue to refute the belief that giving money to people in poverty will “allow people to not work, and stay home.” He said the studies show “the vast majority of people [receiving guaranteed income] don’t leave their jobs, and they use the money either to pursue their goals or to supply staples on the table.”

Arizona Republicans boxed themselves in over abortion

On Monday the nasty guy posted a video of himself discussing his position on abortion. Kerry Eleveld of Daily Kos reported the nasty guy seemed to think he took the issue out of play in the campaign. His position satisfied nobody. Conservatives say it didn’t go far enough. Those not conservative say it went too far. And Biden issued ads blaming the national abortion mess squarely on the nasty guy. Biden has a campaign issue to take him all the way to victory in November. Part of what the nasty guy said is that abortion should be a state issue. And on Tuesday the Arizona Supreme Court issued a decision that put a restrictive 1864 abortion ban in play. Walter Einenkel of Kos reported that Rachel Maddow of MSNBC discussed the headlines in various media outlets which gave the impression the nasty guy had moderated his position on abortion, which he has not. Those headlines likely delighted him. He got what he wanted. A more accurate headline might be:

Trump abandons previous criticism of strictest state abortion bans. Trump avoids mention of Republican proposals for national restrictions.

Mark Sumner of Kos discussed the Republican response to the Arizona abortion ban. It’s like what happens when a dog succeeds in catching the car. Yup, Republicans have been pushing a ban, campaigning on a ban, and even working to get a case before the state Supremes. Sumner lists many of their efforts. But now the ban is about to be put in place and because of how unpopular it is they are frantically backpedaling. In a pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic. There is already an effort to get a proposal on the November ballot to put abortion rights in the state constitution. That will be a big gain for Biden, who narrowly won the state in 2020. That puts Republicans in a box.

But here is what is clear: If the GOP-run Legislature does nothing and allows this 19th century law to stand, Republicans soon could be looking at a state where abortion is a constitutional right and Democrats take total control of the state. ... But how does a MAGA Legislature extract itself from the box it built? If Republicans repeal the 1864 law now about to take effect, they make a mockery of their own belief that life begins at conception and all abortion is murder. If they put a competing measure on the ballot, proposing that abortion be legal for up to 15 weeks, they risk alienating their voter base and send a message that the “ultimate sin” is negotiable. And if they do nothing, disaster.

Please, take that last option! Down in the comments is a cartoon posted by Mike Luckovich. Two elephants are talking as behind them are a crowd of angry women with “Keep Abortion Legal” signs. One elephant says, “Perhaps we erred in ending women’s reproductive rights...” And the other replies, “...Without ending women’s voting rights...” Kos of Kos discussed the stock price of the nasty guy’s Truth Social company. At its height the company was worth $8.8 billion and the nasty guy’s share was about $5 billion. The share price is down to $36 and the company is down to a value of under $5 billion (as of Monday) with his share down to $2.8 billion. How low can it go? What is a company like that really worth? A generous valuation would be ten times its annual revenue (not profit), or $32 million, a lot less than $5 billion. The average tech stock is worth about five times its revenue, or $16 million. That would put the stock price at 12 cents a share with his portion worth about $9 million. This could fall a lot further. In the situation of a highly overvalued company investors like to short a stock, to profit from a falling price. But so many people want to short this stock the cost of doing so has jumped sky high. Last week Republicans promoted the idea of renaming Washington’s Dulles airport in honor of the nasty guy. Why not? The other big airport in the area is named for Ronald Reagan. Einenkel reported Democrats have a different idea:

Introduced by Gerry Connolly of Virginia, Jared Moskowitz of Florida, and John Garamendi of California, the legislation would “designate the Miami Federal Correctional Institution in Florida as the Donald J. Trump Federal Correctional Institution.”

Connolly wrote in a statement:

I see no reason to wait. Donald Trump faces nearly 100 felony charges. He has been found liable of sexual abuse and, subsequently, for defaming the victim of that abuse. He has been fined hundreds of millions of dollars in a civil fraud case. It is only right that the closest federal prison to Mar-a-Lago should bear his name. I hope our Republican friends will join us in bestowing upon Donald J. Trump the only honor he truly deserves.

And Moskowitz said:

Everyone knows President Trump loves to write his name in gold letters on all his buildings. But he’s never had his name on a federal building before and as a public servant I just want to help the former president. Help us make that dream a reality.

If convicted perhaps he can ask to be sent to the prison with his name on it. They could even put his name in gold. A while ago I wrote that the Senate would have to deal with the articles of impeachment against Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas even as their schedule was full preventing a government shutdown. Well, the budget was approved and they left town for Easter and there is no impeachment trial yet. The reason is because though the House approved the articles of impeachment back in February they haven’t been delivered to the Senate yet. Joan McCarter of Kos reported the Senate is getting ready. They’re doing that by trying to figure out how they can get the whole thing over with as quickly as possible. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the whole thing is “absurd” and a waste of time. Sen. Joe Manchin trashed it. Even at least three Republicans, including Mitt Romney, think there is no crime to warrant impeachment or trial. So the first item in dealing with it is to vote whether to hold a trial, with the expectation the answer would be no. Kalli Joy Gray of Kos wrote on Tuesday that Mike Johnson might delay delivering those articles of impeachment until next week. A Johnson spokesperson wrote: “To ensure the Senate has adequate time to perform its constitutional duty, the House will transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate next week.” What difference would that make? None. See above for what the Senate thinks of the mess. Wrote Gray:

Okay, sure. Just wait a little bit longer and the Senate will come around. But perhaps, just to be safe, Johnson should give it another week after that. And another week after that. And another week ...

In an Earth Matters column for Kos Meteor Blades discussed a report by Matthew Eisenson, Jacob Elkin, and others at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School. It is titled “Rebutting 33 False Claims About Solar, Wind, and Electric Vehicles.” I downloaded it and read through the list of false claims and a couple of the rebuttals. Some of the false claims are: Solar panels generate too much waste and will overwhelm our landfills. Solar energy is more expensive than fossil fuels and completely dependent on subsidies. Wind turbines frequently fall over, and blades or other components easily break off, threatening human health and safety. Wind turbines are bad for farmers and rural communities. Electric vehicles are impractical due to range restrictions. Again, all those claims are false. Each of those false claims is met with facts and a large number of references to research. Blades quoted the rebuttal to the first false claim I mentioned. Yes, manufacturing panels produces waste, as does any manufacturing. But it is significantly less waste than the fossil fuel industry produces. Making solar panels has 300-800 times less waste than coal ash. Blades also quoted science fiction author Kim Stanley Robinson, who has written several novels on environmental themes. He and the books have won honors. One of those books is “The Ministry for the Future.” Robinson said,

If we could have gotten a 9% rate of return for destroying the world and 6% for saving the world, we’re going to go for the 9% because we don’t care about the world. We like capital, so we go to the highest rate of return. And so do governments. If you want us to invest in good things like saving the Earth, you need to indemnify us, we need to be insured by the government. ... The pandemic slapped us in the face with the realization that the biosphere could kill us and change your life drastically on a turning of a dime. I think that gave “The Ministry for the Future” more force in people’s minds when they read it. It comes down to this: we really are paying attention and trying to do things and I’ve seen huge commitments by people all across the board, governments, diplomats, business people, academics, all of them focused on can we deal with this problem, and that is a powerful combination of social forces. I didn’t think that was true when I wrote the book, but now I think it is true.

Mark Parisi posted an eclipse cartoon. Just after the event the sun says, “Can’t believe I just got mooned.”

They absolutely will give him a microphone

My Sunday movie was Frybread Face and Me. It’s 1990. Benny is 11 and Navajo, living with his parents in San Diego. As the movie opens his parents announce he will spend the summer with his maternal grandmother at her home on the reservation in Arizona. Grandma speaks only Navajo, which Benny doesn’t know. Also living in Grandma’s house is Uncle Marvin who is quite upset with life, sometimes taking it out on Benny. Martin’s daughter Dawn, who others call Frybread Face, is Benny’s guide to life on the Rez. His mother’s other siblings, Lucy and Roger, come for visit. Lucy, a lesbian is a happy person and a help to Benny. Roger and his wife just bicker. Over the summer Benny begins to understand what it means to be Navajo and what Grandma is doing with her weaving. Though he still wonders, if life is so hard on the Rez, why don’t they move to somewhere where life is easier? It’s a quiet film and a good one. Mark Sumner of Daily Kos discussed the statement the nasty guy made last Saturday. He had railed against other NATO members about not contributing at least 2% of their GDP for defense. If they didn’t pay up and were attacked he would not come to their aid and would encourage Russia to “do whatever the hell they want.” Sumner noted that this statement is quite a jolt to NATO, but it really didn’t get much US media coverage until Monday morning. The nasty guy is referring to the common defense clause of the NATO treaty – an attack on one is to be considered an attack on all. That clause has been invoked once – by the US after the 9/11 attacks. It drew many NATO countries into the Afghanistan war. Some were stuck there for 20 years. Sumner noted an important point, one that should have been on front pages Sunday instead of Monday:

Article VI of the Constitution declares, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ... and all Treaties made" are the "supreme Law of the Land." Trump is not just saying that he will break treaty obligations to U.S. allies and hand them over to Russia, he is flat-out saying that he will break the law. Because treaties are law. Failure to abide by the obligations of Article 5 would be the gravest possible betrayal of our allies and a direct failure to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It seems like someone should be making a big deal about this. But that doesn’t seem to feature in the coverage. ... Meanwhile, European leaders are consigning U.S. leadership to the dustbin and preparing for a world in which America is an afterthought.

In a pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted several people discussing the nasty guy’s NATO comments. There’s also a quote discussing European leaders’ reactions. And, of course, that is the topic of a few cartoons in the comments. An Associated Press article posted on Kos reported reactions from NATO leaders. The nasty guy’s statement undermines security and puts soldiers at risk. The risk means European countries needs to invest in their own security – prompting them to do what the nasty guy accuses them of not doing. Others are confident the US will remain a strong ally, no matter who is president. This article and others I heard add a bit of explanation. Other NATO countries do not owe the money to the US, though the nasty guy’s wording makes that seem true. They do not owe the money to NATO. That 2% is a recommendation of what each country is to spend on its own defense, something the nasty guy is turning into a requirement. I’ve also heard with the Ukraine invasion in their backyard most, perhaps all, NATO countries now spend more on defense and most have probably passed the 2% recommendation. Last week I reported on the failure in the House to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Another AP article reported this week they voted again and this time Steve Scalise is back from his cancer treatment. And this time the vote was 214-213 to impeach. There is another reason why the vote was done early this week – On Tuesday there was a special election in New York to replace ejected House member Republican George Santos. And the winner is a Democrat, Tom Suozzi. So if the vote were delayed until the new guy was sworn in the tally would again be tied, this time at 214-214. The impeachment now goes to the Senate, where neither party has the desire to take on the trial. I’ve heard it will likely be referred to committee – where it will quietly die. The House doesn’t have the evidence to impeach Biden. So, as reported Joan McCarter of Kos, they’re latching on to special counsel Robert Hur’s report with the gratuitous comments that Biden is too old and has poor memory. And with that as supporting evidence they’re launching an investigation into Biden’s age and whether that means he’s unfit to lead.

They “might” ask Hur about Biden’s fitness? They “might” take this chance to exploit Biden’s age, his biggest political liability with voters, and run with it? They absolutely will give Hur a microphone and put him in front of cameras and the traditional media will absolutely eat it up.

While they’re at it they intend to investigate the Justice Department and AG Merrick Garland for why there isn’t any evidence to impeach Biden. Sumner reported:

Over the weekend, The New York Times filled every slot on its editorial page with a piece attacking Biden’s age and memory. That didn’t just include the Times’ conservative columnists calling for the president to step down, but the paper’s editorial board jumping in to tell you that Americans think Biden is too old. As for 77-year-old Donald Trump? Now there’s someone who “does not appear to be suffering the effects of time in such visible ways.” ... What’s especially convenient about this storyline for the Times is that they’ve already been doing it for decades.

Well, NYT hasn’t been constantly reporting Biden’s age for decades. Until recently it was Biden the gaffe guy.

The New York Times, along with other media outlets, has created an opinion ouroboros. The publication provides stories that emphasize how Biden is old, slipping, and gaffe-prone. Then they circulate the news that people, shockingly, believe them. Then they use those poll results as an excuse to do it all again. When it comes to Trump … don’t worry about it. He dyes his hair and wears makeup and talks for a long time. According to the Times, that means you shouldn’t be concerned about his age. In fact, they have a poll that shows you’re not concerned. And now, here’s an article about how you’re not worried about Trump’s age.

Mike Luckovich posted a cartoon on Kos. Biden says, ticking off his fingers, “Lowered prescription costs, infrastructure bill, Chips Act, Inflation Reduction Act, Gun Safety Legislation, booming economy...” And an elephant jumps in, “Ha! Forgot the 14 million jobs he created ‘cuz his memory’s shot!” When Florida bans books what happens to them? Dartagnan of the Kos community reported on one case, what happened in Duval County. The county has 128K students. It had 180 titles in their Essential Voices collection, which it sends out to schools. At least 34 titles were identified as not in compliance with new legislation. The county packed the books in a semi-trailer. They were part of a prepackaged set and could not be resold. Firestorm Books in Asheville, North Carolina calls itself a “little anarchist’s bookshop.” They agreed to take the 22,000 books, though that’s nearly three times their usual inventory. They set up a website and whoever filled out an online request form would get books free of charge. More than a third of the request have come from ... Duval County. Many of the books are going to families with community libraries in their yards. Dartagnan quoted Eesha Pendharkar of Education Week who noted that when a book is challenged interest goes up. Student use of libraries also goes up.

So if Republicans’ newfound penchant for book-banning is so counterproductive, why do they do it? The short answer: It’s way to score cheap, easy political points with ignorant or intolerant constituents. But as Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers has noted, the broader end goal of inflicting these onerous laws on school districts is to weaken and ultimately destroy the public education system. Book bans serve that purpose well, by both draining resources from schools and intimidating teachers. Republicans will almost certainly continue these efforts, as long as they can get political benefit out of it. But the books will continue to be read, whether conservatives like it or not.

Tom Huizenga of NPR did a 7 minute report on the 100th anniversary of the premier of George Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue. It was part of a concert on February 12, 1924 titled “An Experiment in Modern Music.” The experiment was pieces that combined classical and jazz music. The audience loved it. Critics didn’t. Classical music composers of the time – including Aaron Copland, Virgil Thompson, and Leonard Bernstein – didn’t think it was serious music. Adding jazz elements to classical music was “poisoning the well,” as Huizinga wrote. In the 1920s there wasn’t a distinct “American” sound in classical music. I add back in the 1890s, when Antonin Dvorak spent three years teaching in New York, he called for American composers to use their folk music, including black folk music, to create a distinct “American” sound, in the same way Dvorak was using Bohemian tunes to create Bohemian classical music (as were composers across Eastern Europe, Scandinavia, and Spain). The only American to actually incorporate black music was Gershwin. (More than a decade later Copland would start incorporating cowboy songs to create an American sound in classical music – see his composition Rodeo, recently used in the Beef, It’s What’s for Dinner campaign.) Following the Rhapsody Gershwin wrote An American in Paris, the Concerto in F, the Cuban Overture and the opera Porgy and Bess. There’s also a Second Rhapsody. Go ahead and take time to enjoy them all. On Monday in the 9:00 hour the Detroit classical station played the Rhapsody in Blue with its distinctive opening clarinet wail. And the Canadian station I like played it in the noon hour. Of course, I’ve heard lots of stories about the Rhapsody, usually told by radio hosts introducing the piece. Some were repeated today. The concert was set up by Paul Whiteman, who included Gershwin in the advertising – but didn’t tell Gershwin. He found out about it from a newspaper article read by his brother Ira. And even with limited time he met the deadline. As for that opening sound, Gershwin had notated every note of a rising scale. In the first rehearsal the clarinet player turned it into the glissando we know, perhaps to annoy Gershwin? But the composer loved it and asked how to properly notate it so it would forever be part of the piece.

Absolutely nothing to show for surrendering everything

My Sunday movie was The Persian Version. It describes itself as a sort of true story. The main character is Leila, the one daughter in a family with eight older brothers. Her parents immigrated from Iran before she was born. She describes herself as too Persian for America and too American for Iran. Leila doesn’t get along with her mother. That conflict is only worsened when Leila is in a long-term lesbian relationship and again when Leila becomes pregnant from a one-night stand with a gay actor. These things don’t sit well with traditional Persian parents, though the brothers aren’t so traditional. We also see the scandal that prompted her parents to leave Iran and then how her mother became successful after her father had to stop working because of heart issues. It’s a fun and finely crafted movie. I quite enjoyed it. On Monday Walter Einenkel of Daily Kos wrote about the immigration bill being crafted because Republicans tied aid to Ukraine to the situation on the southern border. The text of the bill was released on Sunday. Speaker Mike Johnson was quick to call it “dead on arrival” in the House. Will senators defy the nasty guy and vote for a bill America needs? A bill Democratic critics call a “right-wing xenophobe’s dream”? Also on Monday an Associated Press article posted on Kos reports some of the provisions of the bill. A third report on Monday, this one by Mark Sumner of Kos, discussed that much of the Republican talking points on the bill are based on lies, things the bill doesn’t actually include. It also has a good summary of what is in the bill. Some of it is stuff the border situation actually needs, plus aid for Ukraine and for Israel. On Tuesday morning Sumner reported Republicans got what they wanted in the bill and are now killing it. Moscow Mitch praised the bill and chief negotiator Sen. James Lankford. And three hours later he told his conference to vote against it because “political mood in the country has changed.” Now replace “political mood” with the nasty guy. Also, Lankford, after loudly defending the bill the bill he negotiated for weeks, refused to say he would vote for it.

Why would anyone ever seek to negotiate with Senate Republicans, on any topic, ever again? ... Right now, around the world, America’s allies are seeing that we are fundamentally unreliable in a crisis. Right now, America’s enemies are breathing out a sigh of infinite relief. And in Ukraine, and Taiwan, and in both Israel and Gaza, they’re realizing that the United States—the United States that has been there for a century—has exited, stage right. These guys aren’t just pleasing Trump. They’re setting the world ablaze. And they don’t even know why.

Sumner quoted a tweet by David Corn:

This is one of the snakiest snake moves to pull. McConnell deputized Lankford to negotiate a deal. Now he throws him, the deal & enhanced border security under the bus to serve Dear Leader and not risk a break with the House GOP extremists. He's just a cabana boy at Trump Beach.

In a Cheers and Jeers column for Kos Bill in Portland, Maine described the situation and included an image of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown.

1. Republicans demand hard-line immigration reform "yesterday" to stop the "invasion" of "caravans" "endorsed by Joe Biden" that are "poisoning the blood" of American society. 2. Democrats sit down with Republicans and hash out a bill that solves a lot of the border problems while allowing both sides to declare victory. 3. After being notified of this legislation, President Biden greets the news favorably. 4. Because President Biden greets the news favorably, Republicans run back to their original position on immigration because Biden must fail. They blame Biden for forcing them to make him fail. 5. Republicans go back to demanding hard-line immigration reform "yesterday" to stop the yadda yadda yadda and etc.

Also on Tuesday Kerry Eleveld of Kos reported that Biden saw what was happening with the border bill. Eleveld wrote:

"But if the bill fails, I want to be absolutely clear about something: The American people are going to know why it fails," Biden warned. "I'll be taking this issue to the country and the voters are going to know, just at the moment we're going to secure the border and fund these other programs, Trump and MAGA Republicans said no because they're afraid of Donald Trump." "Huh," Biden muttered, before repeating, "Afraid of Donald Trump." "Every day between now and November," Biden continued, "the American people are going to know the reason the border is not secure is Donald Trump."

Another part of the story of the border is the attempt to impeach Alejandro Mayorkas, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the guy in charge of the Border Patrol and immigration. On Tuesday Joan McCarter of Kos reported of the House getting ready for the impeachment vote and that a couple Republicans had declared they would vote no and a few more declared undecided. McCarter included a tweet by Sawyer Hackett describing the situation:

The Republican Party, in a nutshell: On Monday, they're going to kill the harshest immigration deal in decades because their nominee wants to run on the issue. On Tuesday, they're going to launch an impeachment inquiry on the DHS Secretary for not being harsher on immigration.

A couple hours later McCarter reported:

In a stunning collapse, House Republicans failed Tuesday to approve the impeachment resolution against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, with four Republicans voting against it. Reps. Ken Buck of Colorado, Tom McClintock of California, Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, and Blake Moore of Utah—who switched his vote at the last minute to be able to bring it to a vote again—joined Democrats to defeat the resolution.

progressive2016 of the Kos community reported on another aspect of the impeachment vote. It was scheduled carefully – at a time when 76-year-old black Democrat Al Green would be absent because he was at the hospital for emergency surgery. Yeah, Republican leadership knew how close the vote would be. But Green showed up – in a wheelchair and wearing hospital scrubs. He cast the tie vote. That guy who switched his vote to no, changing the tally from a tie to a loss, was because if a member votes no on a bill he is allowed to call for a second vote at a later time. The reason for doing it in this case is because Steve Scalise, second in House Republican hierarchy, is out for cancer treatment. When he returns they can try the impeachment vote again. On Wednesday morning Sumner reported how bad Tuesday was for Republicans. Let’s count the ways. 1. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia finally handed down its decision saying the nasty guy does not have presidential immunity because he is not president. The ruling is so thorough some pundits are suggesting the Supreme Court might not consider the nasty guy’s appeal. 2. They shot down the border bill (I haven’t seen an actual vote tally). 3. The impeachment of Mayorkas didn’t pass. 4. With the big border bill, containing aid for Ukraine and Israel, shot down, Johnson tried to pass a separate bill for Israel assistance. He used an accelerated procedure that required two-thirds approval. He fell 30 votes short. I think that means it can come back later. 5. Republican National Committee chair Ronna McDaniel was in her position, in spite of being bad at it, because of her fealty to the nasty guy. Well, the nasty guy turned on her and she announced her resignation. I may have more to say about that another day.

Republicans are rolling into the new day with absolutely nothing to show for surrendering everything to Trump. The best bill they could have hoped to negotiate is gone, they didn’t get their sham impeachment, they didn’t get their Israel-without-Ukraine funding package, and the chair of the party is packing up to leave. Meanwhile, Trump is entering the day with a much greater chance that he will face criminal proceedings before the election.

On Wednesday afternoon Sumner reported Republicans need someone to blame and are now blaming each other. There are two exceptions. They are not blaming the nasty guy. And Johnson, whose inexperience and incompetence at being Speaker was a big reason for the failed votes, is definitely not blaming himself. Johnson’s incompetence was so bad several people who ousted Kevin McCarthy now wish he was back. McCarter explained in more detail how Johnson’s inexperience and incompetence made a mess of things. On Monday Sumner wrote a Ukraine update, saying Avdiivka may be the first town Ukraine loses since Bakhmut fell last May. Avdiivka has been on the front line since Russia invaded a couple provinces in 2014.

Ukrainian forces in the area issued increasing complaints about a shortage of artillery making it difficult for Ukraine to intercept Russian advances. The U.S. has increased the production of artillery shells, but those shells are not getting to Ukraine. For the frustrated Ukrainians, who have fought so hard at this location for so long, only one word expresses how they feel about giving up their positions over a simple lack of ammunition.

For that one word Sumner quoted a tweet by Jay in Kyiv:

US's betrayal of Ukraine now costing real lives as the heroic, months long defense of Avdiivka now in question with Russians pushing closer into Ukrainian positions low on ammunition.

Sumner concluded:

The bill now being debated in the Senate is only the latest attempt to fill this simple need. However, as things stand at the moment, it seems likely that Republicans will succeed at doing what they’ve done so well since taking control of the House: deliver Ukraine into Putin’s hands.

That bill failed on Tuesday. Back at the end of January Greg Dworkin, in a pundit roundup for Kos, quoted Benjamin Wittes of Dog Shirt Daily on Substack writing about Republicans and Ukraine:

So let me make sure I’ve got this straight: Even Republicans who support Ukraine funding don’t support it enough to pass this funding without winning, in exchange, punishing changes to immigration rules; And even those Republicans who favor trading Ukraine funding for such punishing changes to immigration rules now don’t want these punishing changes to border policy, because that would involve giving President Biden a win concerning the border in the run-up to the election; And by “a win” here, what I actually mean is a loss, insofar as Biden would have to accept policy changes beyond those he actually wants, since if he agreed with Republican proposals, there would not have to be a protracted negotiation over them in the first place; Which is to say that Republicans don’t want a win against Biden if it would mean passing a bill they purport to want along with Ukraine aid they purport to support, as such a win would deprive them of the ability to criticize Biden for not capitulating in precisely the fashion that he now wants to capitulate; So in other words, not even the tantalizing prospect of f---ing over migrants can induce even those Republicans who purport to support Ukraine not to f--- over the Ukrainians...

Got that? Dworkin also quoted Charlie Sykes of The Bulwark:

One of the fondest bits of resistance fantasy has been the notion that the nation’s economic elites — the titans of Wall Street, the beautiful people of Davos, the economic masters of the universe— would, in our moment of peril, mount the barricades to defend democracy. To which a reasonable person might have responded: Have you met these guys?

Sumner reviewed the Appeals Court ruling that says the nasty guy does not have immunity. One important bit is that if a president has absolute immunity it would (as Sumner wrote) “immediately elevate the president to an all-powerful dictator, unbounded by anything Congress or the courts might do.” I’ll let you read the rest. In another pundit roundup Dworkin quoted a tweet by Asha Rangappa:

Passing a border bill would convey to MAGA voters that 1) the government can work, and be bipartisan; and 2) the “existential threat” is being dealt with. Both of these are Kryptonite for a would-be authoritarian: Trump needs his supporters to be disillusioned and afraid.

On into the comments for some cartoons. Matt Wuerker posted on showing the nasty guy and Johnson playing tennis. But the net says, “Immigration Games” and instead of balls the two are whacking at asylum seekers. A cartoon by Dennis Goris showing the nasty guy talking to a boy:

Nasty guy: How is a president supposed to do his job without immunity from committing crimes? Boy: By not committing any crimes?

And a lovely thought to end the day. Bill Bramhall of the New York Daily News posted a cartoon showing a couple watching TV that is filled with the nasty guy’s face. The woman says:

He used to make me sick but then I developed turd immunity.

He makes vengeance feel like a party

I wrote yesterday that House Republicans are advancing a bill to impeach Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Today Walter Einenkel of Daily Kos reported there is at least one House Republican who will vote against impeachment when it comes to the floor. That guy is Rep. Ken Buck. He told Chris Jansing of MSNBC, “This is not a high crime or misdemeanor. It’s not an impeachable offense. This is a policy difference.” And, “If we go down this path of impeachment with a Cabinet official, we are opening a door, as Republicans, that we don’t want to open.” So there is one vote against in a House where Republicans have very few votes to spare. David J. Bier, in a thread now on Threadreader, explains the many things that are wrong with the Mayorkas articles of impeachment. It’s not very long, so reading the whole thing is worthwhile. Here’s his summary:

So we've got citations to overturned court cases. We've got actions that Mayorkas never took. We've got demands that he detain people unconstitutionally. They want him to block legal entries, so more people cross illegally. They had 3 years to pull this together! Mayorkas has made many mistakes, but it is nothing like the slew of illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral actions taken during the 4 years of the Trump admin, which resulted in the total destruction of the immigration system. This case is a joke.

Joan McCarter of Kos reported – amazingly – the House passed a bipartisan (357-70) tax bill to expand the child tax credit. It could lift as many as a half million kids out of poverty. But the bill is getting a cool reception in the Senate. The official line is all about follow regular order, do the committee thing, and all the rest. Joseph Zeballos-Roig reported the unofficial line:

GOP Sen. Grassley tells me he’s concerned passing Wyden-Smith tax bill might aid Biden’s re-election: “I think passing a tax bill that makes the president look good mailing out checks before the election, means he could be reelected and then we won’t extend the 2017 tax cuts”

McCarter wrote, “In other words, he’s more interested in helping Donald Trump than poor kids.” Also, Biden won’t be sending out checks. The money comes as a refund to taxes. In a pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin quoted Jamie Dupree of “Regular Order” on Substack. My summary: This is a strange situation where Republicans are in charge of the House, yet need votes of Democrats to get things done. The bill mentioned above is the fifth time a bill has been approved under “suspension of the rules.” That requires a supermajority, definitely needing Democrats’ votes, meaning a bipartisan bill. Speaker Johnson is doing it this way because the bill would normally go through the House Rules Committee and there are too many Freedom Caucus members there. So Johnson is going around them. The House Republicans have a majority, but not a functioning majority, said Josh Huder, a Congressional expert at Georgetown University. Down in the comments exlrrp posted a meme by David Hogg of March for Our Lives. Beside a photo of Taylor Swift, Hogg says, “If you have a meltdown over Taylor Swift not endorsing your sh*tty policies you are a snowflake.” So let’s turn to Taylor Swift. Charles Jay of the Kos community wrote that Fox News is pushing that the Super Bowl has been rigged to give Swift, somehow a Pentagon psyops asset, a big platform to endorse Biden. She gets that platform because she is dating Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs, who will be playing in that big game. Colin Cowherd, a Fox Sports pundit, cited a New York Times report that showed during the Ravens-Chiefs playoff game that ran for 3.5 hours Swift was onscreen for 32 seconds, and 17 of those seconds was a promo for the Grammy Awards.

“There’s a lot of really weird, lonely, insecure men out there,” Cowherd said. “The fact that a pop star—the world’s biggest pop star—is dating a star tight end who had one of his greatest games ever, and the network puts them on the air briefly, then it bothers you, what does that say about your life?”

They don’t get upset with male celebrities attending games.

“But a talented and beautiful woman is on the air—one who would never pay attention to lonely men—and it bothers them.”

Back in 2016 these same men were calling Swift an “Aryan goddess.” They were projecting their white supremacist hopes on to her. Their opinion of her changed when she decided she could not stay quiet and neutral in politics. She endorsed the opponent of Marsha Blackburn. Then she denounced white supremacy. In 2020 she endorsed Biden/Harris.

And now the woman who was once the alt-right’s “Aryan goddess” is viewed by some of the same people as being under Satan’s influence as the conspiracy theories spread that the Super Bowl has been rigged so Swift can have a big stage to endorse Biden.

That got me wondering. Why would she need the Superbowl for a stage? Her concerts are a pretty big draw and her millions of fans pay close attention to her on social media. Bill in Portland, Maine, in a Cheers and Jeers column for Kos included a tweet by Morning Joe with a link to a Rolling Stone article, “Trump Allies Pledge 'Holy War' Against Taylor Swift.” To which Late Night with Seth Meyers responded, “You guys couldn’t even overthrow Biden on January 6th and you think you can take down TAYLOR?” Kerry Eleveld of Kos discussed the effect of the nasty guy’s trials during a campaign. If the trials proceed and he’s convicted before the election ... that may or may not help Biden. The nasty guy is notoriously good at manipulating political liabilities. But turn it around. What if all the trials are delayed, which he is working hard to make happen, until after the election?

In that case, anti-Trumpers would likely be livid at the thought of Trump successfully gaming the legal system once again and potentially avoiding being held to account indefinitely. Democrats' message could be something along the lines of: "Trump has gamed the legal system and evaded justice his whole life. Don't let him get away with it again. VOTE." It's exactly the type of scenario that could inspire a critical mass of voters to climb over broken glass to get to the polls and ensure Trump faces trial.

Dartagnan of the Kos community wrote that E. Jean Carroll is beginning to talk about what she might do with the $83 million awarded her in defamation trial against the nasty guy. The first requirement for it will be to create “something Donald Trump hates.” And that could be a “fund for the women who have been sexually assaulted by Donald Trump.” There is the issue of actually collecting the $83 million. There will be, of course, an appeal. Then the nasty guy has a lot of real estate that can be sold to pay the judgment. Eleveld reported the nasty guy’s campaign told megadonors the candidate may say things people don’t like. The campaign is unable to tell the candidate certain things should not be said. The campaign also said the nasty guy is poised to get the nomination and has the best chance to defeat Biden. Eleveld wrote:

In other words: Write checks if you want access, folks. Sure, Trump's a lunatic, but he's gonna win and you'll want to be able to get his ear. ... So the key question the Trump camp will need to address is: How does a campaign woo swing voters with a candidate whose top campaign aides are already apologizing for his behavior on the trail? Because Trump’s handlers are already failing at muzzling him.

Eleveld also reported on focus groups in battleground states of Georgia, Wisconsin, and Nevada. The groups were led by GBAO for Navigator Research. The people in the group are independents or close to that and don’t prioritize democracy. They’re also a group that know little of the nasty guy’s court cases and his push for autocracy.

The moderator informs them of Trump’s argument that every president should have immunity for "everything they do as president," unless they are impeached and convicted by Congress. "What do you think of that?" asks the moderator. “It's ridiculous," responded an independent Wisconsin woman who leans Republican. "So he's saying if he killed somebody, he'd be immune.” ... The takeaway from these focus groups is that Democrats shouldn't take for granted even basic knowledge about Trump's legal challenges and his autocratic impulses. Many voters still don't know the severity of Trump's wide-ranging criminal indictments, and they have no idea the vigor with which he is claiming to be above the law.

In a pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted Jill Filipovic of The New Statesman:

This is perhaps Trump’s highest skill: he draws sharp lines around “us” and an abhorrent, dangerous and vermin-like other, and then brings the in-group into his cruelty with him. It’s not Trump targeting vulnerable groups; it’s Trump pulling us together to defend the collective us, protect the tribe. Anyone who has spent time on a middle-school campus knows that there are bully leaders who attract a group of bully followers, and then there are the mean jerks no one likes. Trump is the former, and DeSantis more the latter. ... Unlike Trump, DeSantis’s cruelty isn’t amusing. Even worse, there was little opportunity to join in. Trump voters want someone who directs them to action, even extreme chaos that teeters into violence, and who understands exactly what they mean when they say that the 6 January insurrection, which left several people dead and struck at the heart of American democracy, was “fun”. This desire for collective cruelty, and a sense that being in a group makes cruelty more entertaining and less the responsibility of any one individual, has roots in the darkest parts of humanity. ... But the core desire – to make vengeance a communal pastime – has not died out, especially among those who embrace autocracy, conservative religiosity and traditionalism. Trump embodies that desire for retribution as sport. Ron DeSantis hit all the right notes on the punitive vengeance part of the equation. But he failed to make it feel like a party.

The comments to a pundit roundup have a few good cartoons. One by Walt Handelsman shows a text bubble from the GOP House: “We must impeach secretary Mayorkas for not doing anything about the border crisis that we won’t do anything about!!” Matson posted one of a girl supporting a football to be kicked. The ball has the word “debate.” Behind her is a “Haley 2024” sign. She’s looking at a boy with long yellow hair and a longer red tie. The girl says, “It’s a basic competency test... I’ll hold the ball, and you come running up and kick it!” And one by MacLeod Cartoons: Above an elephant, “Republicans: We are the party of real men! We hate woke wimps! We are the tough guy’s party!” Above the same elephant, now with a scared expression. “Also Republicans: Oh n-n-no! It’s T-T-Taylor Swift!”

An invasion but no soldiers in sight

Orion Rummler, in an article for The 19th posted on Daily Kos, reported the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles will no longer update a transgender person’s driver’s license for gender identity.

Without accurate identification, transgender and nonbinary people face greater risks for violence, discrimination and harassment in everyday interactions, like while showing an ID at the club or grocery store, or while traveling. This is especially true if someone’s perceived gender expression does not match the gender marker on their driver’s license; this can out many trans people against their will.

The change was not prompted by a change in law. Instead, a new department head, appointed by DeathSantis, is adjusting policy to align with other state laws. Existing policy says the department can refuse to issue a license if an applicant has committed fraud. The new policy says “misrepresenting one’s gender” is fraud.

Logan Casey, director of policy research at the Movement Advancement Project, which tracks LGBTQ+ policy, expects to see more states taking non-legislative action to restrict transgender rights in the coming year. ... “I think this is just a sign of more things to come,” he said. “I wouldn't be surprised to see this exact kind of policy move replicated in other states.”

An Associated Press article posted on Kos reported on Sunday that House Republicans released two articles of impeachment against Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. They vowed to swiftly push it through.

Republicans contend Mayorkas is guilty of “high crimes and misdemeanors” that amount to a “willful and systemic refusal to comply with the law” on immigration and a “breach of the public trust.” Impeachment, they say, is “Congress's only viable option.” “Alejandro N. Mayorkas willfully and systemically refused to comply with the immigration laws, failed to control the border to the detriment of national security, compromised public safety, and violated the rule of law and separation of powers in the Constitution, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States," the impeachment resolution says. ... Democrats have lambasted the impeachment proceedings, calling them a waste of time when lawmakers should be working together to solve the problems. They also say Republicans are part of the problems at the border, with Republicans attacking Mayorkas even as they have failed to give his department the tools it needs to manage the situation.

On Tuesday Joan McCarter of Kos reported that Republicans are admitting this impeachment exercise is political. They are doing it to “send a message to the administration” as Rep. Michael McCaul of Texas put it to Fox News. The Postal Service is that broken? Carrier pigeons don’t fly between the Capitol and the White House? Walter Einenkel of Kos wrote about Democrats pushing back. He used an example from a meeting of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Rep. Daniel Goldman decided to use his time to give a masterclass on how hypocritical, political, and ultimately dangerous this endeavor is, describing the proceedings as “completely debasing and demeaning the impeachment clause of the United States Constitution, and it is a gross, gross injustice to the credibility of this institution.” Goldman reminded the committee that impeachment has only been used against people who have abused their power and should not be used as a way to attack what you might believe to be “bad” policy. “That is for elections and that is for legislation,” Goldman continued.

Einenkel included Goldman’s conclusion:

So your own party is sabotaging and undermining this administration's efforts to address the border while you are trying to impeach him by saying that they're not addressing the border. The hypocrisy is the least of it. Your attack on the rule of law and our democracy is the worst of it. And you better be careful about the bed that you make.

McCarter has more examples of Democrats pushing back. They did such things as ask the clerk to read out all of the amendments (all defeated) and report on the hypocrisy of individual Republicans. So after 15 hours of debate and early on Wednesday morning the Committee approved the articles of impeachment along party lines, 18-15. Einenkel also wrote that Rep. Robert Garcia of California used his committee time to review all the weird ideas the nasty guy has proposed for the border: alligator moats, electrify the border fence and add spikes, and shoot migrants in the legs. And bomb norther Mexico. That’s his border plan. Robert Downen and Uriel J. García, in a Texas Tribune article posted on Kos discussed the Texas side of the immigration debate. They include how the word “invasion” got pulled into the description. It’s first use wasn’t by Gov. Greg Abbott, though he adopted it quickly. The word brings, of course, the image of soldiers with tanks crossing the Rio Grande. What Russia did to Ukraine nearly two years ago was an invasion. That’s not what is happening. There are high numbers of immigrants crossing the border, but they are not set on conquest. But because they use the word “invasion,” Abbott and others claim (as written by the authors), “Texas has the right to supersede the federal government’s Constitutionally outlined immigration powers in order to defend itself.” It is a claim that federal judges have shot down. Defense of borders is a federal responsibility. Calling it an “invasion” has contributed to a couple acts of terrorism, including a man setting fire to an Austin synagogue. He railed that Jews are “invaders.” The word is also wrapped into the Great Replacement Theory, the belief that the reason why non whites are invited into the country is so there would be enough of them to replace white people in national power structures. Given all that there are various voices now prodding for violence.

“What is this going to turn into, a civil war?” Fox News host Maria Bartiromo asked Lt. Gov Dan Patrick over the weekend. “You’ve got Texas rights vs. federal rights, both sides with guns.” Patrick responded: “We believe, constitutionally, we are right. We have a right to defend our citizens. We have a right to defend this country.”

On Wednesday Mark Sumner of Kos reported the results of a poll conducted by Civiqs for Kos.

The results show that a majority of Americans (58%) believe there need to be more restrictions on immigration. That’s to be expected, given the level of attention this issue has received and the constant drumbeat of stories including the word “crisis” or even “invasion.” However, a very similar majority (57%) made it clear that the solution to this issue is for Democrats and Republicans to compromise on legislation now, rather than waiting until after the election. And a detailed look at this question shows that even Trump voters aren’t completely sold on waiting for Trump.

There are, of course, the expected wide difference in responses by parties. I’ll let you read the details.