How many of your state’s legislators are women?

Mark Sumner of Daily Kos reported that the nasty guy has taken over the Republican Party, well at least the Republican National Committee. At his direction the RNC will be getting two new co-chairs. One is Michael Whatley, who has his own election shenanigans – a good reason to get the job. The other is the nasty guy’s daughter-in-law Lara Trump. That means the RNC is now an extension of the nasty guy’s campaign. Also...

What this means for other Republican candidates is hard to tell. Will the RNC even remember anyone else is running? Considering that it was serious cash-flow problems and nearly empty coffers that made outgoing Chair Ronna McDaniel so vulnerable in the first place, it’s unclear whether there will be any time, attention, or money for anyone other than Trump. Trump’s ever-tighter grip on the party certainly also means that any candidate who falls out of his favor can expect the RNC to abandon them immediately. Trump's miserable track record at selecting candidates, with his selections based on their loyalty to him rather than their odds of winning and disregarding how well they fit the district or state where they were running, has made for some big Republican losses.

Good news for Democrats. Sumner also reported that last Friday the nasty guy spoke at an NRA event and said words that are quite close to the Nazi “Final Solution.”

The second most frightening thing may be that Trump has said it all before. Many times. The most frightening thing of all may be the complicit silence of the national press.

I’m not sure where in the count of frightening things this goes: the indifference of other Republicans that these words are a problem. Sumner lists some of the many times the nasty guy has said these things. Kos community member raisin bran wrote whatever Putin has on the nasty guy it must be awful. We know about the nasty guy’s numerous and well documented sex scandals and friendship with Jeffrey Epstein. Given how much coordination there was between the nasty guy campaign and Russia (100 meetings?) in a previous election and how much the nasty guy has been saying against NATO and for Putin what Putin knows must be much worse than sex scandals (especially since those scandals haven’t made a dent in his base’s devotion). So what is it? I had heard (likely from Gaslit Nation) the devotion is because of the number of times Putin (and other dictators) rescued the nasty guy’s businesses. SmallTownHick of the Kos community offers a suggestion to what that might be. Perhaps Putin is holding the campaign hostage – Putin is willing to do a great deal of election dirty work if the nasty guy shows some cooperation. The nasty guy killed the border defense bill so he could use the problems at the border to attack Biden. Joan McCarter of Kos reported that Tom Suozzi’s win this week to replace George Santos says that plan won’t work. McCarter quoted Dana Bash of CNN who reported that killing the border deal prompted several voters to not vote for the Republican candidate. That was a decisive issue because during the last few days of the campaign Suozzi talked a lot about the Republicans being the ones to kill the deal. McCarter wrote that Kevin McCarthy may have been bad as speaker, but he’s pretty good at revenge. McCarthy was great at fundraising. The big donors are his friends. Those who voted against him are finding the big donors aren’t taking their calls. Michael Harriot tweeted a thread now on Threadreader about how racism created the Super Bowl. Back before the National Football League there were lots of black players. The NFL was organized in 1920 and in 1927 all the black players were kicked out. Well, they did have one or two. Not per team. In the whole league. In 1960 the rival American Football League was founded. Their big difference from the NFL was they actively recruited black players. In 1966 the NFL decided to have an annual AFL v. NFL game. The first time it was called the Super Bowl was 1968. And in 1969 the black team trounced the white team and did so on national TV. After the game the NFL merged with the AFL. Which makes the Super Bowl a DEI project. Harriot, writing for The Grio, discussed the lazy analysis of the black vote. Various pundits are saying the nasty guy is poised to get a record number of black votes.

Nearly a century has passed since a Republican presidential nominee even came close to winning a majority of the Black vote (Herbert Hoover in 1928 was the last). It is asinine, bordering on malpractice, for a journalist to publicly suggest that one of the most vociferously anti-Black candidates could achieve what no Republican has done in the last 96 years. Setting aside the media’s lazy, inexplicably stupid exercise in speculative fiction, one wonders why the mainstream media narrative seems to intentionally avoid the one topic that — when it comes to presidential elections — is more important and more mathematically relevant. What about the white voters?

White voters are 67% of the electorate. Why skip over the white voters to focus on minority voters? Because we know how white voters will vote.

Whether it is Democrat or Republican, white voters have not been as concerned with party politics as much as they have been obsessed with whiteness. Historically, the majority of white people in America always, always always vote for the opposite of what Black people want. Poor whites will vote for a party that opposes raising the minimum wage, taxing the rich and providing health care because, in white identity politics, policy does not matter. White women will support politicians who want to control their reproductive rights because whiteness matters more. Suburban moms want good schools and safe neighborhoods but vote for candidates who oppose police reform and accurate history. This is the white vote. I struggle to think of a single other issue that is discussed in such an intentionally obtuse manner.

It was white people who stormed the Capitol, who voted for and served as election deniers, who helped install Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe, and who banned affirmative action and American history. The black vote is only discussed because of what white voters keep doing. A month ago Jennifer Berry Hawes, in an article written for ProPublica and posted on Kos, asks the question: How many of your state’s legislators are women? Nationally it is one third. Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado have achieved parity. In the old South it is less than 20% and as low as 13% in West Virginia. That leaves large majorities of men controlling policy that most impact women. The states with legislatures most dominated by men have some of the strictest abortion bans. Men in control also means they decide which issues don’t get debated. Those issues include maternal health, children’s welfare, and education. The Old Boys Club is one reason why women aren’t elected. These states tend to be Republican and the party doesn’t recruit and support women. Another is strong paternalism. Only women get asked who will care for the children if she wins and essentially has to move to the state capital. That means younger women can’t start climbing the political ladder until their children are grown. There is also the tendency for women not to run until asked. Even then they may wait until asked several times. But once in the legislature they can stop or blunt the worst policies of the men. All that about men ignoring women’s issues is much worse for black women’s issues. Remember those Valentine candies shaped like a heart with a short saying on them? I’m sure they’re still around, though it has been decades since I’ve seen them in person, single guy that I am who had to avoid sugar. Bill in Portland, Maine, in a Cheers and Jeers column for Kos, offered some updated sayings for the candies. A few of them:

I [HEART] BASIC COMPETENCE ABOLISH MY FILIBUSTER U R MY RECHARGING STATION MELT MY HEART LIKE AN ICECAP

Culling the party down to a smaller, harder-right faction

While at lunch with my friend and debate partner today I talked about an opinion piece in last Sunday’s Detroit Free Press. The site may complain if you’re using an ad blocker. I was able to close that message. The author is John Corvino, a philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit. He is gay and has a partner. Likely more than a dozen years ago I wrote about Corvino as the Gay Moralist who looked at homosexuality from the moral side, usually using the moral stance of the anti-gay crowd and showing how they aren’t applying it fairly to LGBTQ people. In the early 2010s Corvino also traveled America with a conservative man. Corvino would debate him at each stop, he saying same-sex marriage is good and his opponent saying it was bad. Neither changed the other’s opinion of the debate question. In this opinion piece Corvino talked about the limits of free speech. I and my debate partner have discussed free speech many times. Corvino phrased part of his argument in a way that would delight my friend:

But free speech disputes aren’t merely about permission to speak. They are about who belongs at the table — and whether there are limits to the viewpoints we should listen to, argue with or allow to change our minds.

That word listen is the one that interests my friend. You have a right to say what you want. But that does not mean I have to listen. 19th Century philosopher John Stuart Mill argued for a “big tent” approach – engage with all viewpoints. I could show the other person is wrong. I could be wrong. Even if I’m right the debate can sharpen my reasoning. But do I really want to listen to a person who insists the earth is flat? Contemporary philosopher Jeremy Fantl wrote the book The Limitations of the Open Mind. One limit is a deceptive argument. Suppose a convoluted mathematical proof concludes 2 + 2 = 5. Only those with expertise would be able to spot the fallacies. Another limit is arguments that harm people.

To engage open-mindedly with Holocaust denial, for example — to treat it as an option on the table — is to fail to express appropriate solidarity with Jews and other victims of the Nazi regime. More than giving offense, engaging those views could make someone complicit in ongoing oppression, possibly by undermining education about genocide and ethnic cleansing.

Back to Corvino’s debates, should we engage with opposing views to refute them? Fantl says that can have value but could be ineffective or dishonest, as in pretending to be open-minded when actually not. But there is space between open-minded and closed-minded. Constructive conversation happens here. Though neither changed the opinion of the other on the central question, Corvino said the debates built relationships and fostered mutual understanding. It also corrected his view of the other’s arguments. He found his opponent didn’t use theological arguments and didn’t hate gay people. They learned that Corvino does care about children’s welfare. While Corvino’s opponents didn’t change their view of same-sex marriage others very much did. Corvino’s conclusion comes down to this: Get to know the opponent and see them as human. When evidence doesn’t go your way, admit it. Look for the good in the other side. Bridge building is relationship building. Recognize you don’t know everything. Kerry Eleveld of Daily Kos wrote that Fox Business gushed over Biden’s economy! Also, the University of Michigan survey of consumer sentiment jumped a lot in January. Lots of other sources say the economy is in good shape and people are starting to notice.

The same Fox analyst also promised to scour the report "to see if there are signs that maybe the economy doesn't feel as, or isn't as resilient as it might seem." Shorter Fox-speak: Stay tuned, Trump. We'll invent bad news one way or another!

Eleveld noted the nasty guy is getting erratic trying to fabricate bad news for Biden: Torpedoing the border deal, pushing for Biden’s impeachment, rooting for an economic crash, and promising “bedlam” if he loses “(a chaos candidate promising chaos if The People vote against chaos).”

Trump knows New Hampshire and Iowa both exposed serious cracks in his general election voting coalition. The turnout and makeup of the electorate in both states suggests he isn't expanding the universe of Republican voters. He's simply culling the party down to a smaller, harder-right faction of the electorate. In short, Trump's not adding, he's subtracting. And if he's going to ride that smaller slice of the electorate to victory, he's going to need to trash the country in every way possible in order to depress turnout for Biden. That’s all fine by Trump because the main impetus of his every move is the sheer terror of spending his last living years in a jail cell. If he has to single-handedly unravel the country on his quest for freedom, so be it.

Dartagnan of the Kos community wants media to stop using the phrase this election is the “rematch nobody wants.” He linked to five such articles. The nasty guy has all this baggage yet Biden is “unpopular.” Dartagnan pulls on that a bit. Back when Biden won in 2020 was there much expectation he wouldn’t run for a second term? Well, maybe a tiny bit. But since he announced his 2024 run in November of 2022 he hasn’t wavered. And nobody “dreaded” a Biden-Haley contest. So what is this really about? It isn’t the Biden half of the equation. People don’t want the nasty guy in an election again.

Ultimately, it’s simply a “both-sides” talking point that does nothing but poison the political environment and further dampen voter enthusiasm. We must get this right; democracy is at stake.

I’ve got a big bunch of links to cartoons that have accumulated. I usually try to wait until I can match a cartoon to a story. But I now have lots, so I’ll share. The Department of Justice issued a report on all the things that police officers did wrong at the Uvalde shooting. This police group, that sheriff group, and all those other groups were not sufficiently trained. Those on the outside declared it was a hostage situation rather than an active shooter situation that required them to go in. That prompted a cartoon by Megan Herbert. The caption says, “How a 575-page report about school shootings that doesn’t recommend gun reform can be used to prevent future tragedies from occurring:” It shows a child with a couple of the thick volumes tied to his front, a few more tied to his back and one protecting his head like armor. In the comments of a pundit roundup WhoWhatWhy wrote “Donald Trump may be a madman, but who’s got a big enough net?” That’s over a cartoon by Jon Richards showing the nasty guy as Napoleon saying all sorts of things that are too small for me to read. A guy holding a net asks, “Now?” A guy holding a straightjacket replies, “Just about.” John Darkow of the Columbia Missourian posted a cartoon of an elephant opening a refrigerator and finding the nasty guy sitting inside. The elephant says, “Leftovers again?!” In the comments of a second pundit roundup Wes Rowell drew one of Nikki Haley. Biden and the nasty guy say, “We’d like to be president.” Haley replies, “Too old!” An old couple says, “We’d like to retire.” Haley responds, “Not old enough!” Aaron Rupar tweeted a screen capture of Kevin McCarthy over a banner saying, “McCarthy: Will serve in Trump Admin if asked.” Elie Mystal added, “Can somebody please get this man a dominatrix so he can carry on his submission kink in private.” In a third pundit roundup, Greg Dworkin of Kos quoted a tweet, then offered a paraphrase:

Basically, New Hamphsire Gov. (and Haley surrogate) Chris Sununu is giving the GOP party line: “Rapist or crook or insurrectionist, never you mind. There’s nothing worse than a competent Democrat who’s a decent person and I’ll never ever vote for one. Otherwise the public will get ideas.”

And Santiago Mayer tweeted about DeathSantis leaving the presidential race:

Ron DeSantis should be forced to carry his presidential campaign to term.

Pastor David Hayward tweeted a cartoon with the caption:

When someone tries to take away your rights, that’s call persecution. When someone else gets rights you already enjoy, that’s call sharing.

Tjeerd Royaards created a cartoon of Davos. Rich people are in a presentation room lounging against huge sacks of money. The lecturer points to the screen that has the words, “How we could save the world.” It shows the earth ready to roll over a cliff into flames but prevented from doing so by huge sacks of money. Mike Peters posted a cartoon showing two boys. One says, “I thought Republicans were pro-life...” The other replies “...Yeah, but they aren’t pro-children.” Pedro Molina of Kos posted a streets scene in which all the faces of the immigrants are replaced by targets. One say, “It happens every election year...” Jen Sorensen of Kos posted a comic titled “Billionaire Buttinsky on Campus.” The summary: A billionaire swoops into campus and tells the administration he will donate big bucks if the university gets rid of their diversity program.

A modern Moses ready for a Red Sea moment

Aldous Pennyfarthing of Daily Kos discussed a congressional hearing held on Tuesday on impeaching President Biden. Democrat Rep. Joe Neguse tried to get Republican Rep. Guy Reschenthaler to name Biden’s crime. He could not. Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley admitted there is no evidence. Peter Doocy of Fox News admited there is no evidence. So, of course: An Associated Press article posted on Kos reported that the House, on a 221-212 party line vote, authorized an impeachment inquiry. Those Republicans in swing districts voted for it after being assured a vote for an impeachment inquiry is not the same as a vote for impeachment. Democrats were unified in their opposition to the bill. They concede that Hunter Biden has made mistakes, but he is a private citizen and the justice system is already dealing with him (though likely more harshly than they would were he not the president’s son). Kerry Eleveld of Kos wrote:

This impeachment should be embarrassing to Republicans, and yet the bubble of far-right politics has given them the courage of their fact-free convictions. Democrats should thank them. After months of polling showing a tight 2024 presidential contest with whiffs of sagging Democratic enthusiasm for Biden's reelection, Republicans have handed Democrats a base-energizer. Democratic voters will be rightfully outraged that Republicans would launch an inquiry when they have zero supporting evidence despite a year-long investigation into Biden’s supposed misdeeds that turned up squat.

In a pundit roundup for Kos Chitown Kev quoted Charles Blow of the New York Times:

Confidence in many of our major institutions — including schools, big business, the news media — is at or near its lowest point in the past half-century, in part because of the Donald Trump-led right-wing project to depress it. Indeed, according to a July Gallup report, Republicans’ confidence in 10 of the 16 institutions measured was lower than Democrats’. Three institutions in which Republicans’ confidence exceeded Democrats’ were the Supreme Court, organized religion and the police. And as people lose faith in these institutions — many being central to maintaining the social contract that democracies offer — they can lose faith in democracy itself. People then lose their fear of a candidate like Trump — who tried to overturn the previous presidential election and recently said that if he’s elected next time, he won’t be a dictator, “except for Day 1” — when they believe democracy is already broken. In fact, some welcome the prospect of breaking it completely and starting anew with something different, possibly a version of our political system from a time when it was less democratic — before we expanded the pool of participants.

Mark Sumner of Kos wrote that Russia needs Republicans in order to win. Sumner then reviewed all the things pundits are saying to show Russia will win (so Ukraine should cede that territory and end the war). He also showed why those same things mean Russia isn’t winning. A US Intelligence report says that 315,000 Russian soldiers have died or been injured. That’s 90% of the troops it had when the war started (of course, poorly trained conscripts). Between the personnel (including generals) and equipment losses Russia will spend a generation recovering. Putin has steeply increased the military budget and the draft. He’s doing this only because he refuses to admit defeat. Russia’s capacity to rebuild its military is well below the rate of loss. And it seems Ukraine is better at innovating with drones than Russia is. Even some Russians see there is no victory on the current path. A popular blog suggests Russia freeze the war (though continue to bomb Ukrainian infrastructure) to take two years to rebuild the army, then go after the rest of Ukraine. So don’t believe the claims of Putin – or Republicans. And this is why Putin is investing so heavily in those Republicans. I wrote about the departure of George Santos and Kevin McCarthy from the House. As I did so I wrote about Republicans down to a two-vote margin. I probably didn’t explain it well or accurately. David Nir of Kos Elections has a more complete and better explanation. With Santos gone Republicans have 221 members and Democrats have 213. When all are present and voting if four Republicans don’t support the Speaker then there is a 217-217 tie, which is a loss. When McCarthy leaves that’s 220 to 213 and still four Republican defections mean a loss. Nir works through a few more scenarios – a Democrat who says he’s resigning, another Republican leaving, and Santos likely replaced by a Democrat. If all that happens Republicans can afford two desertions, but not three. John Cole tweeted a cartoon that includes this limerick:

Well, Speaker McCarthy was tryin’ To handle the GOP lion He went for a ride On the lion’s inside With the bones of Boehner and Ryan.

Pennyfarthing wrote that Speaker Mike Johnson is calling himself a modern Moses ready to lead the country through a “Red Sea moment.”

In a recent speech before the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, Johnson said God woke him up in the middle of the night to tell him it was His plan all along to publicly humiliate His faithful servants Kevin McCarthy, Jim Jordan, and Steve Scalise so House Republicans would finally be exhausted enough to accept Mike Johnson as their leader. ... Of course, pretending you talk to God is one of the slickest grifts there is, because no one can ever check.

Pennyfarthing then reviews the story of Pharaoh chasing after the Israelites, formerly slaves, Moses parts the Red Sea and the Israelites flee to safety, then the Sea flows together again to drown Pharaoh’s army.

In other words, in Mike Johnson’s parochial, Bible-besotted worldview, lots of bad people need to suffer and die before God delivers his promised “Handmaid’s Tale” utopia. Making Kevin McCarthy look like a drowning Red Sea ferret for nine months was all part of the plan. ... But have no doubt: Johnson and his ilk are deadly serious about remaking America in the idiosyncratic image of their god.

An abortion story has been playing out in Texas over the last week. A Texas Tribune story posted on Kos from a week ago tells the start. Kate Cox was pregnant and at 20 weeks learned the fetus had a chromosomal abnormality that is almost always fatal. But her doctors said Texas law prevented them from doing an abortion. Cox and her husband went to the Center for Reproductive Rights and they sued. Travis County District Judge Maya Guerra Gamble ruled that Cox could have that abortion and issued an order allowing her to seek it at a Houston hospital. Sumner took up the story. Immediately after the ruling Texas Attorney General Kex Paxton sent letters to Houston hospitals threatening penalties if they did the abortion. Then Paxton appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. And...

On Monday evening, the Texas Supreme Court overturned a lower court decision allowing Kate Cox—a woman carrying a nonviable fetus in a life-threatening pregnancy—to seek an abortion. The ruling makes it clear that Texas’ anti-abortion legislation is working as intended, and that no court can provide relief from the inherent cruelty and dehumanization of the Texas law. ... Hours before the ruling was handed down, the Center for Reproductive Rights announced that Cox had left Texas to seek a surgical abortion in another state. Details are intentionally being withheld, out of concern for Cox and her family.

Cox left before the ruling was given because she was running out of time.

The Texas Supreme Court’s ruling shows that Paxton’s inhumanity and malice are not an aberration: They are the intentional result of legislation passed in Texas. The Texas decision calls into question the value of any provision that supposedly extends the option of an abortion to protect the life or health of the woman. It’s now clear that such provisions can be thwarted by intrusive Republican attorneys general arguing that the woman’s life is not under enough threat. The Texas courts have agreed with Paxton. No doctor is going to feel able to provide an abortion, even in an emergency, under these conditions. That a woman should be required to risk her life and her family’s future in carrying to term a child that cannot survive and will live any brief life in abject misery is just what Republicans intended. This is Texas law working as designed. This is what “pro-life” activists celebrated when Roe v. Wade was overturned. This is just what they wanted.

Sleepwalking into dictatorship

Interesting and good to hear: An Associated Press article posted on Daily Kos reported that former Speaker Kevin McCarthy is resigning from the House, just two months after being tossed from the Speaker’s job. Until a replacement is seated House Republicans now have only a two seat majority. California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom will decide when to schedule the replacement election. Since the district is safely red he may not, letting it stay empty for the year. A few days ago I wrote that Republicans wanted to have Hunter Biden testify behind closed doors so they could issue a “summary” repeating their lies and releasing the transcript a few days later when media was no longer paying attention. Laura Clawson of Kos reported that Hunter’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, wrote a letter to Oversight Chair James Comer to explain why Hunter insists on a public session, saying essentially the same thing:

Lowell did not mince words about why that is: "He is making this choice because the Committee has demonstrated time and again it uses closed-door sessions to manipulate, even distort, the facts and misinform the American public—a hearing would ensure transparency and truth in these proceedings."

An AP article from ten days ago has more about what the nasty guy intends to do in a second term. He will use the military to quell violence and do so in primarily Democratic cities and states. He’s preparing for the “necessity” by calling New York and Chicago “crime dens.” I don’t want the nasty guy to define what “violence” means. Other uses of the military could be along the southern border, helping with mass deportations. There is a law, the Posse Comitatus Act, that says the president cannot use the military for law enforcement. The biggest exception is the Insurrection Act, first passed in 1792 with the current version passed in the 1870s. And there aren’t many constraints, other than political – most presidents don’t want to be the bad guy who sent tanks down Main Street. – that prevent a president from using it. The article reviews some of the 40 times the Insurrection Act was invoked – Protecting black students integrating Central High School in Little Rock. Responding to unrest after the assassination of MLK. And responding to riots after the acquittal of the police officers who beat Rodney King. The military says an officer and a soldier have the obligation to disobey illegal orders. But there is a strong tradition to obey an order. And a soldier does not want to disobey an order and later learn the order was legal. That could put them in jail for a very long time. Mark Sumner of Kos reported a week ago that the nasty guy has again been threatening the media. That’s as they are willing to cut him infinite slack. Though see yesterday’s post about the media waking up. Mike Luckovich posted a cartoon on Kos. It shows a wolf labeled 2nd-Term Trump facing a house labeled US Democracy with three pigs inside. The wolf says, “I’ll huff and I’ll puff and I’ll blow your house down!” One of the pigs says, “Such a kidder...” Hunter of Kos reported that Robert Mercer and daughter Rebekah Mercer had supported the nasty guy in 2016, then became dissatisfied with him about the midpoint of his term. And now they’re ready to support him again. This is important news because the Mercers are quite rich and they have a long history of supporting white supremacists, insurrectionists, militia groups, and neo-Nazis. “The Mercers have earned their reputation as America's most prominent backers of fascism.” What is likely getting them to consider backing him is his promise of “full-on fascist rule.” Liz Cheney’s new book Oath and Honor: a Memoir and a Warning is out. Kerry Eleveld of Kos discussed what is in it. A great deal is documenting how much many her Republican colleagues in the House and Senate were supporting the nasty guy and his attempts to overturn the 2020 election. This is as many of them said something quite different in public statements. An example is Kevin McCarthy, then Minority Leader, saying to Cheney the nasty guy knows he has lost and needs to go through the stages of grieving, then the same day telling Fox News the nasty guy won. This is one of several examples in Eleveld’s article which are just a tiny selection from the book. But it’s enough for Eleveld to say these Republicans, in spite of their claims, do not have virtue or honor, do not believe in the rule of law, and their oath to the Constitution is a sham. Aldous Pennyfarthing of the Kos community discussed Cheney’s appears on CBS News Sunday Morning to talk about the book. This post has a couple excerpts and their transcripts. She responded to host John Dickerson’s request to respond to her own comment that reelecting the nasty guy will be the end of the republic. Cheney said:

He's told us what he will do. It's very easy to see the steps that he will take. People who say, ‘Well, if he's elected, it's not that dangerous because we have all of these checks and balances’ don't fully understand the extent to which the Republicans in Congress today have been co-opted. One of the things that we see happening today is a sort of a sleepwalking into dictatorship in the United States.

As for those Republican members of Congress:

If you look at what Donald Trump is trying to do, he can't do it by himself. He has to have collaborators. And the story of Mike Johnson is a story of, of a collaborator and of someone who knew then—and knows now—that what he's doing and saying is wrong, but he's willing to do it in an effort to please Donald Trump. And that's what makes it dangerous.

Johnson may be doing it to please the nasty guy. Johnson is also doing it because Johnson wants that dictatorship. Sumner reported that Special Counsel Jack Smith, the guy who brought the charges of insurrection against the nasty guy, has filed another nine pages with the court. They show when the case goes to trial he will present evidence the insurrection did not start after the 2020 election. The nasty guy had been frequently making claims of election fraud well before the 2016 election. That undercuts his claims that the 2020 election was fraudulent. An AP article noted the nasty guy has again started to use the phrase “guard the vote” and urging his supporters to do that. He had used it back in June and last weekend used it again in an Iowa campaign stop. But this isn’t a new phrase used by the far right. And once the nasty guy used it his minions have been pushing it. There is now a group in Florida with the name “Guard the Vote.” And some of his elected followers declare their job is to do just that.

“It suggests that the outcome of the election is foregone. It’s been decided,” said Susan Benesch, founder and executive director of the Dangerous Speech Project. “Is it actually guarding the election against fraud, or is it guarding the election against a result in which Trump is not declared the winner?” Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said that by “guard the vote,” Trump meant “to stop any instance of voter fraud in areas where fraud happens.” He did not elaborate, and didn't answer questions about whether the term referred to efforts by Flynn or Mellor. “If he’s really talking about peaceful, normal, legitimate poll watching, then he should say that,” Benesch said.

Stop voter fraud in areas where it happens? As in nowhere? There were only tiny cases of fraud in the 2020 election. In a pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin included several good quotes. Greg Sargent of the Washington Post wrote that yes, the nasty guy has a path to authoritarian rule. His minions are developing elaborate plans for full autocracy. But this is not inevitable and don’t let that thought lead you to inactivity. Noah Smith, in his “Noahpinion” on Substack discussed the difference between the economy, which is doing quite good, and the negative national mood about the economy. This isn’t about economic indicators. It’s more about the “negative narrative” pumped out by many media sources. A bit further down Tom Nichols tweeted about a survey done by FocalData that asked people some economic questions and recorded whether they knew the right answer. Some of the questions (summarized) and the percent who got it wrong: What has increased faster, prices or wages? 90% incorrectly said prices. Has inflation gone up or down? 73% say it has gone up, but it has gone down. (I can understand the confusion on this one – inflation, the rate at which prices change, can go down while prices for individual things continue to go up, though more slowly.) Is the rate of poverty higher today than 30 years ago? 68% say poverty is higher today, but it is lower.

Capture the courts, then manufacture plaintiffs

I’ll start with a cartoon: Clay Jones has one posted Daily Kos that shows Matt Gaetz about to whack Kevin McCarthy with a bat while two black men walk by. One of them says, “Damn...I hate to see Republican-on-Republican crime...” Kerry Eleveld of Kos reported another aspect of McCarthy’s removal. The former Speaker was really good at fundraising. The money he raised tended to go to the most vulnerable seats. Now add that lack of fundraising to the apparent money mismanagement by Republican leadership, donors closing their wallets, and Democrats doing quite well at pulling in the money and the funding for next year’s campaign could be quite lopsided. Eleveld also reported that some media sites are catching on this isn’t a Congressional issue, it’s a Republican issue. I’ll let you read the specifics. Joan McCarter of Kos took a look at the two guys who have said they want to be the next speaker. Jim Jordan is described as a “legislative terrorist.” It looks like the phrase may mean he is really bad at legislating and really good at jumping in front of cameras and yelling. As for Steve Scalise the phrase “like David Duke without the baggage” is used again. Philip Bump of the Washington Post tweeted a chart showing how liberal and conservative each Speaker of the House was, along with the average for the members of each party in the chamber, and with the breadth of the member’s ideology. The chart goes all the way back to the 93rd Congress in 1972 (if I computed that right). Up to the 99th Congress in 1984 Democrats were just as conservative as Republicans, though Republicans crossed over the midway point only a bit and Democrats were much more liberal. Starting with the 108th Congress in 2002 there was no liberal/conservative overlap between the parties. And by the 112th Congress in 2010 neither party came close to the middle. Through the whole chart the party average has drifted further out from center. When Democrats held the Speakership that person was a bit to noticeably more liberal than the party average. Starting with gaining the Speakership in 1994 the Republican in the job was about as conservative as his members. McCarthy was a bit more liberal than the average. Then we get to the point of the chart (as fascinating as all the rest is): Scalise is a bit more conservative than the average, Jordan is significantly more conservative than the average and much more conservative than anyone else who’s had the job. So it is no surprise that, as McCarter reported, the nasty guy has endorsed Jordan. And it is good to see, as Walter Einenkel of Kos reported, that Liz Cheney, who lost reelection because of her participation in the January 6 Investigation Committee, said:

Jim Jordan knew more about what Donald Trump had planned for Jan. 6 than any other member of the House of Representatives. ... Somebody needs to ask Jim Jordan, “Why didn't you report to the Capitol Police what you knew Donald Trump had planned?”

Einenkel wrote:

Cheney told the audience that she doesn’t believe Jordan can secure the votes to become the next speaker. However, she said, if he somehow were able to get the votes, “there would no longer be any possible way to argue that a group of elected Republicans could be counted on to defend the Constitution.”

In a pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin has a few interesting quotes. First, from David Rothkopf of the Daily Beast. He says the MAGA crowd wanted the government shutdown, taking a House shutdown as a consolation prize.

In fact, the origins of the attacks on the government date back at least four decades to the Reagan administration, when the former president popularized the idea within his party that government was actually the enemy. His joke that the scariest words one could hear were, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help,” has metastasized from being a pitch for smaller government into a movement to blow the whole damn thing up.

Dworkin quoted Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Yet to a small but influential gaggle of so-called “thought leaders” on the edge of the stage — the pseudo-intellectuals of right-wing think tanks, and chaos-agent-in-chief Steve Bannon — the growing rot infecting another key U.S. institution is just more evidence for their stunning argument now flying at warp speed, yet under the radar of a clueless mainstream media. The D.C. dysfunction is more proof, they would argue, that the nation needs a “Red Caesar” who will cut through the what they call constitutional gridlock and impose order. If you’re not one of those dudes who thinks about Ancient Rome every day, let me translate. The alleged brain trust of an increasingly fascist MAGA movement wants an American dictatorship that would “suspend” democracy in January 2025 — just 15 months from now.

When I toured Germany with Brother and Niece in 2019 she talked quite a bit about what she saw as various leaders trying to mimic what they saw as the greatness of Imperial Rome. That quest is still here. And way down in the comments is a cartoon by David Hayward. It shows a white sheep and a rainbow sheep helping a badly beaten Jesus. The white sheep asks, “What happened to him?” The rainbow sheep replies, “He stood between me and the church.” Laura Clawson of Kos reported on the effort by Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL). His district includes parts of Palm Beach County, where Mar-a-Lago is located. He wrote a letter to the Palm Beach County property appraiser and said if the nasty guy claims his resort is worth $1.5 billion please tax it as if that were the true value. The Supreme Court started a new term this past week. McCarter reviewed the most important cases. They touch on such things as environment and consumer protections, a case that questions how various boards and agencies are funded; a case that questions whether courts should defer to how government agencies interpret ambiguous laws; a case on gerrymandering; a case about taking guns away from those under restraining orders for domestic abuse; whether the federal government can collect taxes; and maybe the case of whether judges can overrule the FDA on the appropriateness of abortion drug mifepristone. Nina Totenberg of NPR explained that first case. The Consumer Financial Protections Bureau has been cracking down on payday lenders because poor people can get sucked into paying significantly more than what the original small loan was for. Payday lenders are fighting back by challenging how the CFPB is funded. It isn’t funded through the Congressional budget so that it isn’t subject to the whims of Congress (though the person running it is subject to the whims of the president). The payday lenders say that funding it outside of the federal budget is unconstitutional. If the justices side with the lenders it could also pull down other agencies that are funded outside of the budget, like the Federal Reserve, the FDIC that protects bank deposits, the US Mint ... and Social Security and Medicare. The military is quite interested in this case because so many bases have payday lenders outside their gates looking to help young servicemembers. McCarter reported on Tuesday’s oral arguments for the CFPB case. Thankfully, the court appears highly skeptical of what the lenders were asking. A lot of that skepticism is because Thomas asked,

Mr. Francisco, just briefly, I'd like you to complete this sentence. Funding of the CFPB … violates the appropriations clause because?

And Fancisco had a hard time answering. Alito was the most receptive to the arguments. But he should have recused himself because his bestie and fishing buddy Paul Singer could richly benefit from the case. Many of the cases on this year’s docket come from the 5th Circuit, which has many judges nominated by the nasty guy and is the most conservative. They are sending attempts to give the conservative Supremes a chance to wreck more of the government and society and many cases are half-baked. Last June the Supremes ruled on a case where a wedding planner wanted to discriminate (on religious grounds) against same-sex couples. The conservatives on the Court allowed it. That case was set up by the Alliance Defending Freedom (whose freedom?), considered a hate group by the SPLC. McCarter discussed a WaPo investigation into ADF’s cases to fight marriage equality. The website planner turned out to be bogus – she was only thinking about going into the business and the guy in the “gay” couple who filed the complaint was actually straight and had filed nothing.

A new investigation from The Washington Post details how much work the ADF put into manufacturing this and other cases to fight marriage equality. The Post found that ADF had previously represented “a photographer from Kentucky, videographers from Minnesota and a pair of Arizona artists who created stationery” in successfully challenging local anti-discrimination laws, providing the legal precedent for the ADF’s eventual win before the Supreme Court. But the ADF didn’t just represent these businesses: They all but manufactured most of them in order to create these precedents to bring to the court. Once the cases were over, some of the businesses didn’t bother to operate. ... What the Post doesn’t get into is that the ADF is connected to a larger dark money network created by Leonard Leo, the man behind the far-right restructuring of the Supreme Court. Accountable.US dug into Leo and his involvement in a number of cases before the court last session and found multiple ties to the ADF. ... It’s a well-orchestrated and massively funded project with Leo at the center. The right has systematically captured the courts, using Republican presidents and senators to appoint friendly judges to the federal bench. Then they manufacture plaintiffs and cases to put in front of these sympathetic judges, where they know they have a good chance of winning. From there, it’s on to the Supreme Court, where Leo’s friends Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—along with the three Donald Trump appointees who owe their seats to Leo—will finish the job.

The goal of Leo and ADF is to end marriage equality. That was the challenge and invitation that Thomas put into his concurrence of the overturn of the right to an abortion. As part of a Ukraine update from a week ago, Mark Sumner of Kos quoted a line from Ken Burn’s documentary on the American (I do have international readers) Civil War. The line refers to the battle of the Monitor and the Merrimack, the first two ironclad ships. The line says, “From the moment the two ships opened fire that Sunday morning, every other navy in the world was obsolete.” From that Sumner wrote:

At the moment, Ukraine appears capable of successfully capturing areas it targets and holding them against multiple Russian assaults. However, Ukraine isn’t racing forward because its military, like Russia’s military, is obsolete. But then, so is China’s. And every military in Europe. And the U.S. military. That’s not to say that any of these militaries are useless. Obviously, they are not. But what’s happening in Ukraine right now is a kind of “punctuated equilibrium” in the evolution of military operations. In Ukraine, drones—both aerial and aquatic—have reached such numbers and demonstrated such widespread capabilities, that many traditional weapons systems have become limited in their roles.

They may have become limited, but may systems are still useful. RO37 of the Kos community wrote a very good explanation of the Black Sea Grain Deal that allowed Ukraine to export grain to feed Africa and Asia. He also explained why Putin ended it – Putin wants back into the SWIFT international banking system that transfers money as a way to lessen or bypass sanctions. In addition to ending the safe passage deal Russia has been attacking Ukrainian port infrastructure. The big reason why Putin declaring an end to the deal is so effective is ships going to and from Ukraine can’t get insurance. Russia is offering to replace the grain for free – but only to African countries friendly to Russia (as in allowing Wagner mercenaries control their mines). Through these various steps Russia is setting up a narrative:

* The war is causing disruptions to global food security, so only by ending the war can this famine be ended. * Russia cannot be blamed for the famine, as Russia is providing free grain and trying its best to help the developing world. * The Ukrainian grain deal meant shipping food mostly to Europe, and Russia’s cancellation of the grain deal isn’t to be blamed for the crisis. * America and Europe should be blamed for triggering the crisis because of their outrageous refusal to abide by the conditions of the Grain Deal (which, according to Russia, means reconnecting its banking system to SWIFT).

That third point is a lie – Ukraine isn’t shipping “mostly” to Europe. And the rest are only partly true. Ukraine’s allies need to start working on counteracting that propaganda and consider other ways to get the grain flowing again. In another post a few days later RO37 reported that Ukraine is working on getting the grain flowing again. The first part is loading grain at the Danube River ports of Izmail and Reni in the far southwest of Ukraine, then running the ships along the coast through the territorial waters of Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey where a Russian attack would widen the war. Alas, the largest ships can’t get to those ports. So some of the ships are braving the 140 km trip through Ukrainian waters up to Chornomorsk, near Odesa. That is made safer by the second part of Ukraine’s efforts, the Battle for the Black Sea, at least the part west of Crimea. The main component of that is to make Sevastopol too dangerous for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Steps in doing that included retaking oil rigs out in the sea. Then striking a sub and ship in the Sevastopol drydock, putting both the vessels and drydock out of commission. Those and other attacks convinced Russia earlier this week its primary fleet assets shouldn’t be in Sevastopol, but should be moved to the Russian mainland, where the drydock facilities aren’t as good. Russia’s ability to enforce the blockade is eroding. In the past two weeks ten freighters have passed through Ukrainian ports. One even docked at Chornomorsk. The risk isn’t completely gone. Russia still has some ways to attack. For now, Ukraine is winning the battle, enough to go on the offensive against the ports on Crimea. This might be my last post for a while. I do most of my writing for this blog in the evening. I tend to watch a movie on Sunday evenings (and plan to do so again tomorrow) and have rehearsals on Mondays and Tuesdays. And this Wednesday I leave for a short trip to Charlotte, NC. There I’ll visit Cousin and Aunt (she’s almost 94!), then attend attend the Reconciling Ministries Network convocation. This is the group urging the United Methodist Church to fully integrate LGBTQ people into the life of the denomination. I might post if tomorrow’s movie is short or I get some time during the convocation. If not, I may not post again until perhaps the 18th. And that means I may not comment on momentous events that happen in that time.

A record remarkably unblemished by anything resembling accomplishment

This is national Banned Book Week. The American Library Association has a list of the top ten most challenged books for 2022. This time they list the number of challenges. There are thirteen books in the list because there is a four-way tie for 10th place. All thirteen books in the list say they were challenged for “claimed to be sexually explicit.” I note the first word in that phrase and suspect a great number of the challengers haven’t read the books they challenge. They work from lists put out by conservative organizations, such as Moms for Liberty (a name that always has me asking: Whose liberty?). Seven are challenged because they have LGBTQ+ content. I see three that tackle racial issues, though race isn’t one of the things they’re challenged for, which is profanity or depictions of abuse. At the top of the list is the expected Gender Queer: A Memoir by Maia Kobabe with 151 challenges, All Boys Aren’t Blue by George Johnson with 86 challenges, The Bluest Eye by Toni Morrison with 73 challenges, and Flamer by Mike Curato with 62 challenges. More about the House Speaker vacancy. Kos of Daily Kos did a takedown of McCarthy’s words at a press conference. There’s a lot to rebut. A big part of McCarthy’s words were blame hurled at Nancy Pelosi. There was a claim Pelosi would always back him up – like the claim he never challenged her when she had the job – and when the vote came she didn’t. If McCarthy challenged her position the vote would have gone her way – she was actually good at the job. Democrats didn’t call this vote and when it happened they voted the exact same way they did in January. And then there’s the impeachment inquiry and investigation into Hunter Biden. Also, if Pelosi had his back why did he court the Freedom Caucus? If she said she had his back he could have blown them off. And when the vote was threatened he didn’t try to court any Democrats. “And crying about Pelosi is just about the most pathetic thing that this pathetic spineless man can do on his way out the door.” Walter Einenkel of Kos has some reactions to this week’s events, some from Republicans (nasty guy for Speaker? Eww. Hunter of Kos explains why he wouldn’t want and couldn’t handle the job). A few of note, ones that rebut the claim that it was the Democrats’ fault. From Elie Mystal:

Just a little journalism note: Look at the people trying to turn the "Kevin McCarthy refused to make a deal with the only people who could help him, the Democrats" story into a "Democrats screwed up by not saving the guy who lied to them" story. Those are the bad people.

And from Tea Pain:

GOP (Sunday): “Dems are pedophiles!” GOP (Monday): “Dems are Communists!” GOP (Tuesday): “Dems are fascists!” GOP (Today): “Why didn’t Dems help us?”

And from Sawyer Hacket:

Kevin McCarthy: *agrees to far-right Speaker demands* *gives January 6 footage to Tucker Carlson* *holds debt ceiling hostage* *blocks Ukraine $ for border wishlist* *launches impeachment of Biden* *blames govt shutdown drama on Dems* Media: “Why won’t Democrats save McCarthy?!”

Kerry Eleveld of Kos gives another reason why Democrats didn’t help McCarthy. It was a reason given by Pramila Jayapal, head of the Progressive Caucus. Just after the Capitol attack McCarthy said the nasty guy “bears responsibility.” But just three weeks later, about a week after the nasty guy left Washington McCarthy posed for a picture with him, one that was widely released by the nasty guy’s super PAC, saying McCarthy agreed to work with him to retake control of the House. McCarthy supported the insurrectionist president. Democrats don’t trust him. As for the temporary guy in the Speaker’s chair, Mark Sumner of Kos wrote Patrick McHenry is known for a couple things. He “has a record remarkably unblemished by anything resembling accomplishment.” And he’s “consistently rude to everyone.” Sounds like a Republican. I had mentioned the two guys who have declared to be candidates for Speaker – Jim Jordan and Steve Scalise. I had mentioned Jordan is leading the investigations into Biden, looking for grounds for impeachment and also into Hunter Biden. No, we don’t want this guy in charge. I’ve read that Scalise is described as David Duke without the baggage. That makes him a white nationalist. We don’t want him in charge either. The nasty guy fraud trial continues, though I don’t think he showed up today. His humiliation today was that he was dropped from the Forbes List of 400 wealthiest Americans. Charles Jay of the Kos community filled in the details. The guy at the bottom of the list has $2.9 billion and the nasty guy’s fortune is estimated at only $2.6 billion. Before I go further – There are four hundred Americans with a net worth of nearly $3 billion and higher? Another sign of inequality and why democracy is in so much trouble. Back to Jay’s story. This will upset him a lot because he bases everything else on his being rich. So where did the money go? Part of it is he is on trial because he inflated his worth. Part of it his Truth Social network is pulling in a lot less money than he claimed it would. Because of the pandemic and working from home his office buildings are worth a lot less, though his golf courses are doing well. Jay gives us some history. Back in 1982 when the top 400 list was started the nasty guy was on the list in a spot he shared with his father because he claimed he owned more of the business than his father did. From the rest of Jay’s story it sounds like the nasty guy was on the list more because he was good at spinning tales than actually having a big pile of money. Jay quoted Jonathan Greenberg, a Forbes reporter, who wrote a piece in the Washington Post in 2018. Here’s a bit of it:

This was a model Trump would use for the rest of his career, telling a lie so cosmic that people believed that some kernel of it had to be real. The tactic landed him a place he hadn’t earned on the Forbes list — and led to future accolades, press coverage and deals. It eventually paved a path toward the presidency.

Ever hear of Schrödinger’s cat? That analogy is used to demonstrate some of the weirder aspects of quantum mechanics and quantum superposition (Want more details? You know how to search the internet). In this thought experiment a cat, unobserved in a closed box can be considered simultaneously both alive and dead. Ruben Bolling, in a Tom the Dancing Bug cartoon for Kos, explains that quantum superposition applies to the nasty guy. A sample:

Trump’s boxes of documents are not either classified or unclassified – they are both! Trump doesn’t value Mar-a-Lago itself at either $28 million or $1.8 billion – he values it as both!

Both incoherent and irreconcilable with reality

With the removal of McCarthy as Speaker I didn’t have time to delve into the week’s other big story – the nasty guy’s trial for fraud. Last Sunday, the day before that trial got started Heather Vogell of ProPublica, in an article posted on Daily Kos, reported Judge Arthur Engoron granted a summary judgment (no actual trial) in favor of the state of New York that the nasty guy organization executives (meaning him and his sons) engaged in persistent fraud by submitting false and misleading Statements of Financial Condition. Based on that ruling Engoron canceled certificates, which are needed to legally operate in the state. Which means his real estate empire is in peril. Of course, the ruling will be appealed. On Monday Laura Clawson of Kos reported the nasty guy trial for fraud got underway. This is separate but related to Engoron’s ruling above. I don’t know the distinctions. This is a bench trial (no jury) and is a civil case brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James. The result won’t be a prison term, but a fine and James is asking for $250 million. Amazingly the nasty guy actually attended. He didn’t have to and hasn’t attended many of his other court hearings. The nasty guy and his sons of course complained about the judge, the AG, and everyone else of being unfair to him, that it’s all a politically motivated witch hunt to interfere with the election – the same blather he’s been saying for a long time. Hunter of Kos reported that during the lunch break on the first day of the trial (which will last several weeks) the nasty guy emerged from the courtroom and performed an eight minute rant before the cameras. Hunter included video of the whole rant (but why would you want to watch?) and transcriptions of excerpts. In response to one excerpt Hunter wrote:

Members of Trump's base have regularly taken this "fight" language as permission to mount harassment campaigns and death threats against Trump's enemies of the moment, whether they be public figures or private citizens.

Mid afternoon on Monday Kerry Eleveld of Kos posted with a title that serves as a sufficient summary, “Facing potential financial ruin in civil trial, Trump asks his followers to bail him out.” An Associated Press article posted on Kos on Tuesday reported the nasty guy was there again in person. I’ll let the article work through the details of the legal wrangling. Also on Tuesday Mark Sumner of Kos discussed the ranting over this not being a jury trial. Did his lawyers fail to request it? Was the request denied? I read later this type of trial doesn’t get a jury. Sumner wrote:

Trump attorney Alina Habba also complained that Trump wanted a jury. However, when she raised this issue to Engoron, she got back a simple reply: Trump’s legal team had never requested a jury trial. The general assumption has been that this was a screwup on the part of a legal team that has—so far, at least—failed to impress. But it could also be a strategy designed to give Trump what he’s always looking for: someone to attack. ... Keeping the focus on Engoron (with the occasional shot at James), Trump gets to play his favorite role: victim of a system that is always unfair to poor Donald Trump, America’s only honest man. Painting himself as completely beset by radical Democrats, deranged prosecutors, and a legal system isn’t what Trump does in court. It’s what he does every day. It’s also not so different from what he’s done through thousands of other lawsuits. Trump has enormous experience in bullying judges, belittling prosecutors, and evading charges. This is just the latest. The “no jury” bit is just another excuse for him to pound the table when he cries about how this was all so unfair. But hey, it could also be a screwup. And honestly, when it comes to the result of the trial this time, it’s not likely to matter.

An AP article on Wednesday reported the nasty guy was there in person again. There was more of what he does every day, though this time there’s a bit of reporting about one of the witnesses, one of the organization’s accountants. Also, the judge imposed a limited gag order requiring “all participants in the trial not to hurl personal attacks at court staffers.” This was in response to the nasty guy being nasty to one of the clerks. He took that post down. Lisa Rubin, in a thread on Thread Reader App, explains why the nasty guy is taking so much interest in this case he showed up in person.

Part of it is image. Trump’s self concept and public persona alike rest on his King of All Real Estate construct. Although the Attorney General has already exposed how much of it is a fiction, the trial will methodically unspool his legend, witness by email by letter. But it’s more than that. The remedies the AG is seeking — which Trump himself acknowledges constitutes a sort of “corporate death penalty” — are the only ones he can’t campaign away.

He also can’t pardon himself if he managed to get back to the White House. And if he loses he (and his sons) could lose his real estate empire and be barred from doing business in New York. All that could be worse than prison. On Monday, during that first day of the fraud trial, Sumner wrote that when the nasty guy has been speaking lately his words are getting “both incoherent and irreconcilable with reality.” He has examples. The other part of Sumner’s post is how much effort is being spent documenting every one of Biden’s gaffes – did you hear he’s 80? – and how little effort is being spent documenting how disconnected from reality nasty guy’s rants have become. The articles about Biden’s blunders are almost formulaic. But...

What the articles never get around to mentioning is that there is a fundamental difference between Biden making an error or a verbal gaffe, and Trump weaving a whole narrative—complete with people calling him “sir,” crazy whales, or killer batteries—that has no relationship to reality. Failing to highlight that difference isn’t just bad journalism; it’s intentionally bad journalism designed to create a false equivalence. And that’s being generous.

Aldous Pennyfarthing of the Kos community has an example of the reverse. A week ago Biden gave one of the most important speeches of his presidency. He gave...

a fierce defense of democracy, the Constitution, and American values—all while name-checking Donald Trump and the extreme MAGA movement that threatens the basic foundations of our republic. ... You’d think the current president (rightly) calling out his top political rival for being a power-mad, wannabe tinpot dictator who disdains the Constitution would merit searing, front-page coverage across the legacy media. But you’d be wrong.

The speech didn’t make the front page of either the New York Times or Washington Post. Pennyfarthing quoted a tweet from Jeff Sharlet:

Yes, @washingtonpost, “Democracy Dies in the Darkness.” You know where else it can wither? A3, inside, which is where you buried the fiercest, highest stakes pro-democracy speech I’ve heard from a president in my lifetime.

Pennyfarthing then quoted a good chunk of the speech. Biden said the world is watching the chaos in our government:

Think about this: The first meeting I attended of the G7—the seven wealthiest nations in the world—in Europe, the NATO meeting, I sat down—it was in ... January, after being elected—so late January, early February—and it was in England. And I sat down, and I said, “America is back.” And Macron looked at me, and he said, “Mr. President, for how long—for how long?”

NYT does have some good stuff. Hunter discussed an NYT report that looked at Win It Back, a conservative anti-Donald Trump PAC, and their testing of 40 ads in hopes of finding one that would prompt his base to abandon him.

"All attempts to undermine [Trump’s] conservative credentials on specific issues were ineffective," writes McIntosh. "Even when you show video to Republican primary voters — with complete context — of President Trump saying something otherwise objectionable to primary voters, they find a way to rationalize and dismiss it." We’ve been saying this for years, but now $6 million in research hammers it home: Republican voters do not care what Trump says, what he does, or whether he makes an ass of himself on the world stage. Republicanism is a cult.

Hunter then ponders what might work.

Republicans are drawn to Trump because his public performances are seen as enraging non-Republicans and "elites." But if anti-Trump Republicans portray him as a laughingstock? Maybe that’ll have traction. Show the man as he appears on the golf course, not in his suit and tie. Mock him for being revealed as a business failure. Have former members of his administration who now oppose him laugh on camera as they tell viewers that he should be on “Dancing with the Stars,” not in the White House. Show him instead as a weak and pitiful figure whose best days have passed him by, a man who can't keep up with his own lies—an object of derision. Mock him so viciously that Trump's shallow, lib-owning base voters feel like suckers. If ads like these were prolonged enough, Republican voters might not be able to brush them off so easily.

A bit more on McCarthy’s removal. Clawson noted that the nasty guy could have helped McCarthy and didn’t. A good word from him might have swayed enough votes. Yeah, he was sitting in a courtroom while the House drama was going on. But between the vote to keep the government open and the call for McCarthy’s removal the nasty guy did post to his social media. But that didn’t include anything about McCarthy. And when, during the trial, he was asked about McCarthy he ignored the question. Yeah, the House has a Speaker Pro Tempore in Patrick McHenry. About all he’s done so far is retaliate against Democrats. As for actual House business – like a possible government shutdown in mid November – he’s not touching it. Yet. That means Republicans are consumed by palace intrigue over who will be the next Speaker. Two guys have declared they’re candidates. One is Jim Jordan, the guy running the Biden impeachment inquiry and seems to be best at jumping in front of cameras to bellow about Biden. The other is Steve Scalise, current Majority Leader with lots of contacts with other members. But he’s getting treatment for cancer. And... “Neither of the two have proven interested in or capable of compromise with Democrats.” Both are much more likely to blame Democrats. The best outcome would be for moderate Republicans to form an alliance with Democrats. Yeah, that ain’t happening because “none of the Republicans ... have been willing to buck their party, even when they could easily team up with Democrats and create a big enough bloc to have influence.” Even Republicans from districts Biden won are trashing Democrats. Yeah, trashing Democrats. Hunter reported Rep. Nick Langworthy, vice chair of the National Republicans Congressional Committee even added the idea that George Soros and liberal dark money caused McCarthy’s removal.

It only stands to reason, then, that Matt Gaetz is an enormous, caucus-sabotaging asshole because George Soros made him do it. No doubt liberal dark money was behind every far-right Republican extremist's vote to oust the party's leader.

Hunter described what that accusation represents.

It's just as accurate to note that the omnipresent Republican obsession with finding out-group scapegoats for every news event—everything from natural disasters to pathetic intraparty slap-fights—is yet another hallmark of authoritarianism in general and fascism specifically. The party can never fail. It can never have corrupt elements and can never be wrong when it declares that an ideological policy prescription will solve a particular problem. If an indictment comes down, it is because the party's enemies have engineered it. If the party's enacted policies only worsen what they were intended to solve, it is because the party's enemies secretly sabotaged the country to make the party look bad. And of course, if the party is plagued with rabid extremists and flat-out incompetents who themselves keep the party from accomplishing any of the things it promises, or who even flub things so badly that the party can do nothing at all, it is the party's secret enemies who are behind that, too, working with unknown "elites" to trick the party into its own self-destruction. ... You heard it from Langworthy first: Matt Gaetz is secretly in league with the liberal elites.

The GOP's collapse into dysfunction and disinformative theatrics

I finished the book Drapetomania by John Gordon. The book defines the word as a noun meaning, “The pathological psychological condition wherein a slave feels compelled to escape his master, however well that master treats him. Recommended treatment for this condition: firm discipline.” When I bought the book I had wondered if it was based on true events, perhaps even a novelization of a bit of history. But the author doesn’t provide any notes or acknowledgments of the history at the story’s core. So I assume the whole thing is fiction. The story is about a slave that ran from his master, though it appears his treatment as a slave was enough reason to run. That slave is Cyrus. The primary reason for running is his love has been sold to another plantation. So Cyrus works to find out where his love was taken and to go there. That part of the story is about the first 60% of nearly 500 pages and at times seems to document every step. Cyrus, of course, encounters many slave hunters, though also an abolitionist and helpful black people. I’m sure a bit reason why this book has been getting attention is because Cyrus loves Abednego. Few books deal with the possibility of gay slaves. They surely existed, though that concept was not understood at the time. I mention it here rather than at the top of my review because little of the story depends on whether that love interest is male or female. This is a story about slavery. It doesn’t have any homophobia – the white people don’t know (that wasn’t the reason for Abdednego’s sale) and the few fellow slaves that do don’t care. Another 15% of the story is what happened to Abednego after he is sold and before Cyrus finds him (what, you were thinking that after 300 pages Cyrus didn’t find him?). And the rest of the story is about what they do together. In my genealogy work I had heard of black people facing that their family tree included rapist owners. Part of Cyrus’ life as a slave is being forcibly taken to a nearby plantation for the purpose of impregnating one of the young women there – as their white overseers watch and take bets on which of their bucks will finish first. The young woman is being raped – she did not (could not) give consent. In this case Cyrus is too because he also didn’t give consent. The plantation Abednego is sold to has the reputation of being among the cruelest. Life expectancy is about five years. Not only are the slaves beaten for mere whims of the overseers, but the slaves are underfed. It’s cheaper to buy more slaves than to keep the current ones properly nourished. When Abednego and the new group of slaves get to that new plantation the owner greets them with a speech about how his great grandfather and grandfather built the place into the flourishing enterprise it is now (not mentioning it was the slaves who did the actual work) and that the Big House is all about elegant living. When the field hands see the inside of the Big House they aren’t awed, as the white owner intends for other white people to be, they are disgusted. All that opulence for white people while slaves are given starvation rations. Spoiler alert: After a while the slaves realize there are 400 of us and 20 of them. I noticed the rich language of the narrator and its contrast with the much simpler dialogue of the slaves. An example of the rich language is the description of Cyrus and Abednego fitting together as two halves of a broken geode. A small annoyance in that the dialogue is not marked with quotes. I think I could always tell between narration and dialogue, but using quotes would have saved me the bother of rereading passages to sort out what is spoken and what isn’t. The story is not exactly the type one enjoys. Even so, it is a worthwhile and important story into what slave life was like and the gay angle, as slim as it is, is rarely used elsewhere. I recommend it. A historic day yesterday – the Speaker of the House was removed. I have a few posts that describe the day. I start with Joan McCarter of Daily Kos who discussed what happens if the speaker’s chair is vacated. In particular there is a “speaker pro tempore,” an interim. The position was created following the 9/11 attacks. That means, unlike in January, the work of the House (such as it is) can continue while a new Speaker is selected. However, this person is not in the presidential line of succession. McCarter also reviews possible replacements and the choices don’t look good. They don’t even look good by enough House members to be elected. Kerry Eleveld of Kos discussed all the reasons Democrats have to vote for McCarthy’s ouster. Their reasons include McCarthy reneging on deals with Democrats, his demonizing Democrats, his launching an impeachment inquiry into Biden, and from a couple years back his refusal to participate in the Jan 6 investigations. There is also Democrat’s insistence that the far right caucus should not be able to control anything, and their belief that the world should witness Republican dysfunction. Yesterday’s morning session was to approve the vote to take up the question of removal. McCarter did liveblogging of what happened. That included speeches both for McCarthy and against. And many of those, both for and against, demonized Democrats, giving them less reason to bail out a Republican. In an afternoon post McCarter liveblogged more of the speeches, then the actual vote. The speeches included more trashing of Democrats. There is also one more reason – the California delegation asked for a delay in House business so they could attend Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s funeral. McCarthy ignored their request. The final vote is 216 for removal, 210 against with all Democrats voting for along with eight Republicans. Kos of Kos summarized the day and included this little bit. There are Republicans claiming it was Democrats who are sending the nation into turmoil because they didn’t save McCarthy’s butt. In a pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin had a few interesting quotes. From Alex Rouhandeh:

Reaction to McCarthy’s ousting from @SenatorRomney: “One thing it shows us is that President Trump abandoned Kevin McCarthy. He didn’t come to his support. Had he come down hard, I presume Congressman Gaetz and others would have would have followed suit.”

Politico noted that the name of the Speaker pro tempore is kept secret until needed. And this one, Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), was chosen by McCarthy. James Fallows:

This is a really important point. NYT (et al) relentlessly present GOP fracture as broader failure of "politics" and "Washington" and "institutions" and "governance." No one did it; it just happened. Then reports that public has lost confident in governance, Washington, etc

With a response from David Simon:

Agreed. The asymmetrical reality of the GOP's collapse into dysfunction and disinformative theatrics is ignored in favor of an unevidenced claim of overall institutional collapse. It ain't so.

And in the comments are a string of cartoons about the day, including one of Matt Gaetz enacting the shower scene from Psycho.

A story of male friendship

My weekend movie was last evening. I went to Detroit Film Theater, an actual theater, to see The Eight Mountains, an Italian film. It is a story of male friendship. Pietro and Bruno meet when both are 11. Pietro lives in Turin and his parents have rented an apartment in the little mountain town where Bruno lives. The town has lost so many people Bruno is the only child, so is delighted to have a playmate. And the two take full advantage of the surrounding mountains as their playground. Pietro’s father Giovanni, when he gets away from the office takes, the boys on hikes up to mountain peaks. This is special for Bruno because his father is always away on construction jobs. The next summer Pietro’s parent propose that Bruno live with them and attend school in the city. Bruno’s dad objects and takes his son on his jobs. In their 30s the friends reunite. Pietro’s father has died. While Pietro had become estranged from Giovanni Bruno has treated him as a surrogate father. And Giovanni had a wish to build a cottage in the mountains. Bruno, now a good construction worker, intends to fill that wish. Pietro helps. That rekindles their friendship and there is a great deal of movie left. Bruno knows who he is – a mountain man, though that has problems. Pietro hasn’t figured out who he is and what he wants, a different kind of problem. The friendship, with bumps, endures. One reviewer said friendship between men is rarely portrayed in film. This is quite different from the well-known buddy movies. And it is so rare the reviewer said all teenage boys should see it. This is a good one. In addition to the story there is a great deal of spectacular mountain scenery. The title doesn’t refer to the Alps around the village. Rather it comes from Nepal, which Pietro visits. That folk tale says there are eight mountains and eight seas in the world. Then it asks is it better to visit all eight mountains or is it enough to visit the biggest one? I’ve got a few articles open in browser tabs to document the latest ways the far right members of the House are forcing a shutdown and Speaker McCarthy seems to not have enough power – or spine – to prevent that from happening. When we last had lunch together, almost two weeks ago, my friend and debate partner was sure McCarthy would prevent a shutdown. I was quite skeptical and my posts (and open browser tabs) reinforced my belief. So I’ll say right here my friend was right. And I’m glad he was right. As reported in an Associated Press article posted on Daily Kos about noon yesterday McCarthy found some spine. He decided to be the adult in the Republican caucus and put country ahead of party(!). He crafted a spending deal with Democrats to keep the government functioning for another 45 days (extra money for FEMA is there but, alas, money for Ukraine isn’t). Joan McCarter of Kos liveblogged about what happened after that AP article was posted. Most of it is a series of updates, so perhaps read from the bottom up. The major points: Hakeem Jeffries slammed McCarthy for dumping the bill on them with minutes to evaluate it (and scan it for Republican gotchas – like a pay raise). Even so Democrats saved McCarthy’s butt and approved it 335-91. That includes 90 Republicans voting against it, a far larger group than the Freedom Caucus. Many more Democrats – 209, nearly all of them – than Republicans voted for it. Because Democrats wanted to actually read what they were voting for, McCarthy complained about them stalling. Such thanks for saving his butt. Senators got a bit cranky over other delays, a few missing their last flight home. But the delay was a good one – Michael Bennet (D-CO) wanted to get promises from leadership – though mostly from Moscow Mitch – to hold a separate vote on Ukraine funding. The Senate passed it 88-9 just three hours before the deadline. And we get to do this all over again in 45 days. How that plays out depends on depends on, as reported in another AP article, whether Matt Gaetz’ threat to call a vote to oust McCarthy turns into action, and whether that can actually remove him. At the moment McCarthy’s response is: “So be it. Bring it on. Let’s get over with it and let’s start governing.”

They feel there is no limit as to how you can wreck the system

My Sunday movie was Sunset Boulevard, the famous one from 1950 starring William Holden and Gloria Swanson. There have been lots of references and parodies of the has-been and aging film star Norma Desmond, the one ready for her close-up. Holden plays Joe Gillis, a screen writer (yeah, a movie about making movies) who seems to be turning out only trash and with creditors demanding payment. While being chased by those creditors a flat tire sends his car into Desmond’s estate. She convinces him to get her massive screenplay ready for the cameras and her wealth pays for a great deal. He agrees to the deal because he thinks he can get something out of it. Though she is manipulative she also falls in love with him. He tries to deal with her madness. Yes, it’s a classic, but I hadn’t seen it before. And it really is quite good. The shutdown watch continues. There’s about 3 days left in the federal fiscal year and without funding most parts of the government must shut down. The Republican Freedom Caucus in the House seems to be doing all it can to make sure the shutdown happens. And McCarthy is still inept. Joan McCarter of Daily Kos wrote about one of the consequences of a shutdown. Because of the Maui fire, fires in Louisiana, flooding in Vermont, damage from hurricane Idalia and all those other weather disasters causing more than $1 billion in damage this year FEMA is quite low in money. FEMA requested extra funding, but that’s caught up in the budget battles. That’s got some Republicans worried. In the meantime they had better hope for no disasters during the shutdown. At the rate of disasters there likely will be one. Merlin196360 of the Kos community reported that House Democrats float helping McCarthy out of his jam by supporting a reasonable funding bill. But their price is more than what McCarthy can pay – end the sham impeachment of Biden. But ending the impeachment inquiry – even just working with Democrats – will prompt the Freedom Caucus to call a vote for McCarthy’s removal. And with that sham inquiry still active he can’t depend of Democrats to keep his seat. McCarter reported:

House Republican extremists holding the government hostage want you to believe that they just want to “rein in” government spending and “get our fiscal house in order.” One former legislative counsel for Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul even advises, “A good old government shutdown is exactly what we need right now,” arguing that it will “push the budget closer to balance.” Then there’s reality: Shutting down the government costs taxpayers billions of dollars in lost fees, revenue, administrative costs to both shut down and start government agencies back up, and back pay for furloughed federal employees. ... According to a 2019 investigation by a Senate subcommittee, “the last three government shutdowns cost taxpayers nearly $4 billion—at least $3.7 billion in back pay to furloughed federal workers, and at least $338 million in other costs associated with the shutdowns, including extra administrative work, lost revenue, and late fees on interest payments.”

In a pundit roundup for Kos Greg Dworkin quoted a New York Times article:

Defying the G.O.P.’s longstanding reputation as the party of law and order, they have pledged to handcuff the F.B.I. and throttle the Justice Department. Members of the party of Ronald Reagan refused to meet with a wartime ally, President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, this week when he visited the Capitol and want to eliminate assistance to his country, a democratic nation under siege from an autocratic aggressor. And they are unbowed by guardrails that in past decades forced consensus even in the most extreme of conflicts; this is the same bloc that balked at raising the debt ceiling in the spring to avert a federal debt default. “There is a group of Republican members who seem to feel there is no limit at all as to how you can wreck the system,” said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University. “There are no boundaries, no forbidden zones. They go where relatively junior members have feared to tread in the past.”

McCarter reported the Senate is preparing to throw McCarthy a lifeline. Funding bills must originate in the House, so the Senate will repurpose a bill the House did manage to pass. Both Schumer and Moscow Mitch are negotiating a continuing resolution bill to last just a few weeks. It will include the additional money for FEMA (thanks to Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida hit by Idalia). It may also include funding for programs that are about to expire. It won’t include more funding for Ukraine because that’s too touchy right now. McCarthy is likely to get it by Friday. Then we’ll see if McCarthy can get it passed without a challenge to his job. I had written about the big case of California suing the big oil companies for knowing how harmful their products were to the environment, then lying about it. In an Earth Matters post for Kos Meteor Blades explains the case in more detail. He also includes a quote on how this case built on cases before it. Blades also talks about the United Auto Workers strike against Ford, GM, and Stellantis. One of the side issues is electric vehicles. The companies say they need to keep a lot of money on hand – meaning not give it to the workers – because the shift to EVs is expensive. And while their profits remain huge, they lose money on each electric car. New cars, especially EVs, tend to take a few years to start turning a profit. And non-union Tesla is out there. Walter Einenkel of Kos reported that Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg was in a Republican committee hearing explaining why his department needed funding to deal with climate change. Buttigieg ended up facing off against Rep. Doug LaMalfa, a longtime climate change denier. Buttigieg got to the core of his message. “What I can tell you is that climate change is real, and we gotta do something about it.” LaMalfa retorted, “Yeah, this one’s called autumn, sir.” Buttigieg asked him to repeat it a couple times, then smiled.

Yeah, that's the seasons changing, which, respectively, is not the same thing as the climate changing. And as somebody who is hoping to retire in the 2050s and who has kids who will be old enough to ask me as they're getting to their thirties, whether we did enough to deal with climate change or whether we just did what was convenient, I take that really seriously.