Tuesday, June 27, 2017


The Hill reports:
Trump promotes Fox News host’s book on Twitter

President Trump on Tuesday promoted Fox News host Eric Bolling's new book, "The Swamp," by retweeting Bolling's tweet that says Trump has a copy.
Yup -- here's Bolling's tweet promoting his book:

And here's a screenshot of Trump's retweet:

When Kellyanne Conway used a TV appearance to promote Ivanka Trump merchandise, she was chastised by the White House:
Kellyanne Conway has been rebuked by the White House after she appeared on television urging the public to buy the branded products of the president’s daughter Ivanka....

Richard Painter, former White House chief ethics lawyer to former president George W Bush, said federal employees were prohibited from using their official position for private gain for “yourself or anybody, including your boss”.
She was later rebuked by Walter Shaub, director of the Office of Government Ethics, although the OGE did not have the authority to punish her (and the White House, of course, chose not to).

Here's the law in question:
§ 2635.702 Use of public office for private gain.

An employee shall not use his public office for his own private gain, for the endorsement of any product, service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives, or persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity, including nonprofit organizations of which the employee is an officer or member, and persons with whom the employee has or seeks employment or business relations. The specific prohibitions set forth in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section apply this general standard, but are not intended to be exclusive or to limit the application of this section.
Trump was affiliated with Fox News in a nongovernmental capacity -- he appeared on Fox & Friends on a regular basis. He's a close friend of Rupert Murdoch, who runs Fox News.

We know that Trump is flagrantly violating the Constitution's emoluments clause on an ongoing basis. This is trivial by comparison. But The Hill story doesn't even raise the question of whether this is an ethics violation.

It is. But as with Trump's presidential buckraking, we'll all just shrug and move on.


Overturning Obamacare is by far the most significant thing congressional Republicans and President Trump have tried to do this year. We're frequently told that this is a high priority for GOP elected officials because every Republican ran on repealing and replacing Obamacare, and base voters will punish Republican elected officials if they don't make good on this promise.

So you'd think the repeal effort would be front-page news on right-wing sites. In fact, it's barely visible on those sites.

Here's the current front page at FoxNews.com. I've circled the most prominent story on the health care fight:

Can you see it down at the bottom? The headline is "Senate health bill would lower deficit, increase number of uninsured, CBO says." It's in tiny type (though it is boldface). It's in the same typeface as the headline "North Korea 'amazed' by Spanish beach resort known for drinking binges, plans knock-off" -- though that North Korea story has a higher placement.

Now let's go to the Daily Caller:

Nothing at the top -- in fact, if you scroll down, there are twenty-seven stories before you get to the first one about Obamacare repeal. Among the items given more prominence: "Eric Bolling Talks New Book, Trump Tweets, Senate Run," "University Of South Dakota Scraps Guidelines That Threatened Punishment For Teasing," and "Even Jared Kushner Is Talking About This Dress Melania Trump Wore [PHOTOS]."


Nothing at the top of the page, though there are several McConnellcare stories just below that in the "Trending Now" category, where they're in among such stories as "CHINA’S WILD SWINGS ON THE GAME OF GOLF: RICH MAN’S GAME" and "BUFFETT’S VICE CHAIR – AL GORE IS ‘AN IDIOT.’"

The biggest story in the right-wing media at this moment -- it's leading at Breitbart and Gateway Pundit -- is the newest James O'Keefe nothingburger, a hidden-camera interview with a CNN producer named James Bonifield, who (in response to a great deal of prodding) says that CNN's focus on the Trump-Russia story might be "bullshit." Here's how Breitbart writes this up:
“Could be bullshit. I mean, it’s mostly bullshit right now,” the CNN producer, John Bonifield, said in a video O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released on Tuesday, when asked about his thoughts on the Russia investigation. “Like, we don’t have any giant proof. Then they say, well there’s still an investigation going on. And you’re like, yeah, I don’t know. If they were finding something we would know about it. The way these leaks happen, they would leak it. They’d leak. If it was something really good, it would leak... The leaks keep leaking and there’s so many great leaks, and it’s amazing. I just refuse to believe that if they had something really good like that that wouldn’t leak because we’ve been getting all these other leaks. So, I just feel like they don’t really have it but they want to keep digging. And so I think the president is probably right to say, like, look you are witch hunting me. You have no smoking gun. You have no real proof.”
Um, who cares what this guy thinks? He's not a hard-news producer -- he's worked for years on non-political medical stories with CNN's Elizabeth Cohen and Sanjay Gupta. On his LinkedIn page, he highlights segments such as "25 Shocking Medical Mistakes (2012), the highest-rated program on CNN the evening it aired." He's investigated what happened to the ALS ice bucket challenge money; he's produced stories on aphrodisiac plants grown in Peru and a breast cancer survivor who posed topless. He's no more of an expert on the newsworthiness of the Russia story than the guy at the end of the bar.

But that's what's getting pulses to race in Wingnut Land -- not Obamacare repeal. Even though repeal has supposedly been every Republican voter's top priority for seven years, the right-wing press doesn't want to talk about the bill that could get repeal done. The contents of the bill aren't proudly enumerated in prominent stories. The legislative strategy isn't being discussed. Why, you'd almost think the folks in the right-wing media realize they have a dog of a bill and want to keep quiet about it.

Monday, June 26, 2017


Go to New York magazine's front page right now and you see this headline:
CBO Score of Senate Health Bill Is Grim
But click on the link and Ed Kilgore tells you precisely how Mitch McConnell might save the bill:
[The bill] nearly triples the deficit reduction estimates for the House bill (from $119 billion to $321 billion), mostly because of a combination of a delay in the repeal of certain Obamacare taxes and reconfigured health-insurance purchasing subsidies....

As a practical matter the higher deficit-reduction number is pleasing to conservatives, but also gives McConnell a slush fund to buy “moderate” votes with more generous spending provisions.
There you go. It's not just that McConnell will now begin making deals -- he built the bill to give him the money to do so. Or maybe he didn't know he'd get this "slush fund" and just lucked out. (But note that the bill's drafters were sending portions of it to the Congressional Budget Office as it was being written, so there probably weren't too many surprises in today's CBO report.) But this money is what McConnell is going to horse-trade with. So even though it appears that three senators -- Rand Paul, Susan Collins, and Dean Heller -- will vote no on a motion to proceed to a vote, there are deals to be made. If you live in a state with a Republican senator or two, keep the pressure on.


I'll grant that this wasn't the most important news coming from the Supreme Court today....
The Supreme Court declined to review a case about the right to carry firearms outside the home, but two justices publicly dissented from their colleagues' decision not to take up the issue.

The high court said Monday it would not hear a National Rifle Association-supported legal challenge by California resident Edward Peruta, who challenged a state law limiting gun-carrying permits to those showing "good cause" and a San Diego County policy that says concern about personal safety is not sufficient to fulfill the requirement.
But the story -- from Politico -- is infuriating because of this passage:
The most notable aspect of the action announced Monday was that President Donald Trump's newest appointee to the court — Justice Neil Gorsuch — joined conservative stalwart Justice Clarence Thomas in lamenting the court's decision to dodge the issue for now. Gorsuch's views on gun-rights issues were not well established by his writing or his earlier decisions as a judge on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Really? It's a surprise that Gorsuch is further to the right on guns than even three of his Republican-appointed colleagues?

Newsweek's Robyn Thomas and Adam Skaggs wrote this when Gorsuch was under consideration for the Supreme Court vacancy:
In one case, he threw out illegal gun possession charges against a convicted felon, and in another, Gorsuch bent over backwards to decide a case on procedural grounds rather than acknowledge that convicted domestic abusers don’t enjoy the same gun rights as law-abiding citizens—a generally uncontroversial view shared by the vast majority of conservative politicians and voters.

In a third case, Gorsuch repeatedly sided with another convicted felon who argued he shouldn’t be held accountable for illegally possessing a gun based on the far-fetched claim that he didn’t know he was a felon. Fortunately, the majority of Gorsuch’s colleagues on the 10th Circuit—and judges on every other appeals courts to consider the issue—rejected his outlier stance, making it, by definition, outside the mainstream.
Gorsuch was also the beneficiary of a million-dollar ad buy from the NRA when his nomination was before the Senate. Dana Loesch said,
“I can’t stress how unbelievably important it is to make sure Neil Gorsuch is confirmed, because our Second Amendment rights depend on this."
That would be this Dana Loesch:

Gorsuch was enthusiastically supported by Gun Owners of America, a group that's to the right of the NRA (it would like to eliminate background checks for gun purchases and ban all gun-free zones).

But AP found a gun scholar who said Gorsuch was "a Second Amendment mystery," so many right-thinking citizens were led to believe that he might be a reasonable right-centrist on the issue.

Conservatism in America has moved inexorably to the right over the years, so of course Gorsuch is going to be in the vanguard on guns. Any future Trump court picks are going to be as far to the right as he is. But we were supposed to take all apparent evidence of Gorsuch's moderation -- on this and other issues -- very, very seriously, and we'll be similarly bamboozled with future judicial picks. We never learn.


Politico is arguing that progressives can't break through on health care:
For weeks now, liberal activists and Democratic senators have struggled to capture the public’s focus in their campaign to halt Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s momentum to repeal Obamacare. Now that the GOP bill is public, its expected coverage losses are likely to make it as deeply unpopular as the House’s plan — yet the left is facing a perilously narrow window to pick off wavering Republican senators and sink the bill before this week’s vote.

That messaging crisis is not for lack of trying. But progressives have been stymied by Republicans’ strategy of keeping the bill behind closed doors as well as a crowded media landscape fixated more on Trump’s tweets and Russia scandal than on the intricacies of Medicaid spending. And then there's money: Democrats have been vastly outspent by Republicans in ad wars over Obamacare repeal.
But Josh Marshall, although he still thinks the bill will pass, believes the pressure is starting to work:

Obviously, the pressure is coming from both sides -- the Koch brothers dislike the Senate bill because it's not harsh enough, and the loudest objections among senators are coming from the right (see, for instance, Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson's New York Times op-ed). But pressure from our side adds to pressure from the right. I think it really is making a difference, although I wouldn't say that we're winning.

I've been puzzled from the beginning by McConnell's decision to release the bill early on a Thursday -- why not keep it super-secret and let it dribble out late on a summer Friday afternoon? He's not giving the opposition much time to gather strength, but he could have been even more cold-blooded and given us even less time.

I wonder if the plan, or at least the backup plan, is this: Allow a limited freakout that possibly sends the bill to defeat, or at least inspires McConnell to pull it from the floor. We do a victory dance and go back to talking about Russia. Then McConnell quietly makes a few cosmetic changes, returns the bill to the floor even faster, and gets it passed. The House rubber-stamps it hours later and it's all over but the bill-signing.

I've seen it argued that that was the trick that got the House bill passed -- you show the public an unappealing baseline bill, which doesn't pass, then make minor changes to it and it does pass ... and it's assumed that the revised bill must be less awful than the original version. Also, you pass the revision after the opposition's energy level has peaked.

Is that what going to happen? Is "must pass this by July 4" the real kabuki here? Is the plan (or at least Plan B) to fail now and succeed after the holiday? That's what I'm afraid of.

Sunday, June 25, 2017


Maureen Dowd attacks a cartoon version of the Democrats:
The Democrats just got skunked four to nothing in races they excitedly thought they could win because everyone they hang with hates Trump.

If Trump is the Antichrist, as they believe, then Georgia was going to be a cakewalk, and Nancy Pelosi was going to be installed as speaker before the midterms by acclamation. But it turned into another soul-sucking disappointment.
The special House elections were in Kansas, South Carolina, Montana, and Georgia. Do you know anyone who thought Democrats could win all four? Or even three? A few people saw hope in Montana because it has a Democratic governor and one Democratic senator, but it votes solidly Republican in every presidential election and hasn't elected a Democrat to the House since 1993.

Jon Ossoff's victory in Georgia seemed well within reach, but I know of no one who thought it would be a "cakewalk." And while Dowd tacks on the bit about Pelosi being installed as Speaker by acclamation in order to suggest that the whole thing is hyperbole, what leads up to it sure doesn't read as if Dowd's kidding. She needs to portray Democrats as victims of hubris or her column falls apart. Who cares about the facts?

Dowd continues:
Democrats cling to an idyllic version of a new progressive America where everyone tools around in electric cars, serenely uses gender-neutral bathrooms and happily searches the web for the best Obamacare options. In the Democrats’ vision, people are doing great and getting along. It is the opposite of Trump’s dark diorama of carnage and dystopia — but just as false a picture of America.
Maureen, please find me any mention in the four Democratic special election campaigns of a 100% shift away from internal-combustion cars. Please find me a celebration of gender-neutral bathrooms. Jon Ossoff did campaign on attracting more high-tech jobs to his district, but it's a highly educated district, so that makes sense. He also readily acknowledged that Obamacare isn't ideal. In South Carolina, Archie Parnell ran as a self-mocking green-eyeshade guy whose knowledge of the tax code would "bore you to tears" but would give him the skills to oversee spending wisely. (Parnell came closer to victory than Ossoff.)

With Jon Ossoff, as with Hillary Clinton, the game plan was surfing contempt for Trump and counting on the elusive Obama coalition.
I'm pretty sure Ossoff was counting on the Clinton coalition, which nearly beat Trump in the district in 2016.
The party still seems flummoxed that there are big swaths of the country where Democrats once roamed that now regard the Democratic brand as garbage and its long-in-the-tooth leadership as overstaying its welcome. The vibe is suffocating. Where’s the fresh talent?
Kansas, Montana, South Carolina, and Georgia are "swaths of the country where Democrats once roamed"? Not for decades in the latter two states, and never in the former. And as for "long in the tooth," the president Dowd is praising for his shutout of the Democrats is 71 years old, and the youth hero for many left-leaning voters, Bernie Sanders, is 75.

Ossoff is "fresh talent" -- he was born in 1987, which means he was trying to win a district that literally hasn't elected a Democrat in his lifetime, and he almost pulled it off in the first round of voting. There's more "fresh talent" around the country -- Kamala Harris, Adam Schiff, Kristen Gillibrand -- but these are smart people, not charismatic frat bros, so they don't set off the right heat meters.
In dwindling swing districts, [Rahm] Emanuel told me, Democrats need to choose candidates who are pro-middle class, not merely pro-poor.
Really? This guy was running as "pro-poor"?

They have to drum up suburban candidates who reflect their districts, Emanuel says, noting that [Democrats] wrenched back control of Congress [in the 2006 midterms] by recruiting a football player in North Carolina, an Iraq veteran in Pennsylvania and a sheriff in Indiana.
The Democrat who lost the Kansas special election, is a U.S. Army veteran who literally has a daughter named Liberty. Rob Quist was a third-generation Montanan who lost in Montana to a tech millionaire originally from New Jersey.
[Congressman Tim] Ryan says Democrats need to stop microtargeting. “They talked to a black person about voting rights, a brown person about immigration, a gay about gay rights, a woman about choice and on and on, slicing up the electorate,” he said. “But they forgot that first and foremost, people have to pay their mortgages and get affordable health care.”
You know who mastered microtargeting? Donald Trump's tech wizards:
"Pretty much every message that Trump put out was data-driven," Alexander Nix [of Cambridge Analytica] remembers. On the day of the third presidential debate between Trump and Clinton, Trump's team tested 175,000 different ad variations for his arguments, in order to find the right versions above all via Facebook. The messages differed for the most part only in microscopic details, in order to target the recipients in the optimal psychological way: different headings, colors, captions, with a photo or video. This fine-tuning reaches all the way down to the smallest groups, Nix explained in an interview with us. "We can address villages or apartment blocks in a targeted way. Even individuals."
Look, the four losses sting. And Democrats do have problems. But David Wasserman of the Cook Political Report is right about the 2018 map being favorable to the Democrats, because there are many districts more competitive than these special-election districts were:
Although it's true Democrats have agonizingly yet to capture a red district, they have outperformed their "generic" share of the vote significantly in every contest. Measured against the Cook Political Report's Partisan Voter Index (PVI), Democrats have outperformed the partisan lean of their districts by an average of eight points....

If Democrats were to outperform their "generic" share by eight points across the board in November 2018, they would pick up 80 seats. Of course, that won't happen because Republican incumbents will be tougher to dislodge than special election nominees. But these results fit a pattern that should still worry GOP incumbents everywhere....

Put another way, Democratic candidates in these elections have won an average of 68 percent of the votes Hillary Clinton won in their districts, while Republican candidates have won an average of 54 percent of Trump's votes. That's an enthusiasm gap that big enough to gravely imperil the Republican majority next November—even if it didn't show up in "the special election to end all special elections."
But if Dowd had acknowledged that, she wouldn't have had a column. Why let the facts get in the way of some enjoyable Democrat-bashing?

Saturday, June 24, 2017


Right-wingers can complain all they want about "the angry left," but "the angry right" is welcome in the White House. It's not just Ted Nugent. It's this guy:
An adviser to Donald Trump’s campaign who said Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton should be shot for treason was given a prime seat at a White House bill-signing ceremony on Friday.

Al Baldasaro, a New Hampshire GOP state representative who advised Trump on veterans issues during the campaign, sat in one of the first two rows of seats in the East Room as Trump signed a bill making it easier for the Veterans Administration to fire employees accused of misconduct.

Baldasaro, in a radio interview during the campaign, criticized Clinton for the 2012 attack on a U.S. compound in Benghazi, Libya, and said she should be “put in the firing line and shot for treason.” Trump later praised Baldasaro.
And then there's this Trump appointee:
Before William C. Bradford was appointed by the Trump administration to run the Energy Department’s Office of Indian Energy, he tweeted a slew of disparaging remarks about the real and imagined ethnic, religious and gender identities of former president Barack Obama, Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, TV news host Megyn Kelly and Japanese Americans during World War II.

And before anyone starts citing the latest Bret Stephens column to argue that it's Twitter that makes people write angry things, let me point out that Bradford is also a long-form rageoholic:
This would not be the first time Bradford courted controversy — except that it previously concerned a lengthy, 95-page law journal article rather than several short, 140-character-or-fewer tweets. In 2015, he resigned from his post at West Point after writing an academic paper arguing the United States should threaten to destroy Muslim holy sites in war “even if it means great destruction, innumerable enemy casualties, and civilian collateral damage.”

Bradford also called for legal scholars “sympathetic to Islamist aims” to be imprisoned or “attacked.” He dubbed such academics “critical law of armed conflict academy,” or CLOACA, which is also a term for the orifice out of which some animals defecate.
The term is ostensibly an abbreviation for “counter-law-of-armed-conflict academy;” he wields his backronym with the same sinister tones that James Bond reserved for SPECTRE.
And his target list is quite expansive:
To suppress this “fifth column”—which is his actual term for fellow academics with whom he disagrees—Bradford offers a range of options. First, he suggests introducing loyalty oaths and firing “disloyal scholars.” Next, he recommends charging them with material support of terrorism and even treason. He even suggests treating these American academics as “unlawful enemy combatants,” a legal term used to deny Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters the protections of U.S. and international law.
Shocking and extreme as this option might seem, CLOACA scholars, and the law schools that employ them, are—at least in theory—targetable so long as attacks are proportional, distinguish noncombatants from combatants, employ nonprohibited weapons, and contribute to the defeat of Islamism.
Yes, even “the law schools that employ them”—presumably places like Harvard and Yale—could be legitimate military targets. So, too, could their homes, where their families and children live. Even a journalist like myself could be a lawful military target if I happen to quote one of these professors, Bradford argues:
Further, the infrastructure used to create and disseminate CLOACA propaganda—law school facilities, scholars’ home offices, and media outlets where they give interviews—are also lawful targets given the causal connection between the content disseminated and Islamist crimes incited.
Let me say it again: This man has a job in the Trump administration.

Johnny Depp joked about a Trump assassination (and has now apologized) -- but he's not in the government. Neither is Kathy Griffin (who's lost work for her Trump death joke).

Phil Montag, a Nebraska Democratic Party official who made offensive remarks about Representative Steve Scalise, has lost his job. Al Baldasaro, by contrast, is still a New Hampshire state legislator.

There's intemperate speech on all sides -- but increasingly there's no penalty for it on the right.

Friday, June 23, 2017


Whatever McConnell/Ryan/Trumpcare looks like in its final form, it will eviscerate Medicaid to give huge tax cuts to the rich. Greg Sargent notes that many Americans don't seem to know this:
Cutting spending on the poor to facilitate a huge tax cut for the rich, in many ways, is the plan.

But what if a large majority of Americans don’t have a clear sense that the plan even does this? A new Kaiser Family Foundation poll out today suggests this may be the case, which hints at a number of troubling things about where this debate is headed next.

The Kaiser poll finds that only 38 percent of Americans know that the GOP plan makes “major reductions” in Medicaid spending. Another 27 percent say it makes “minor” reductions; 13 percent say it makes no reductions; and 20 percent say they don’t know. If this polling is right, that means at least 6 in 10 Americans are unaware of the central feature of the GOP plan....
Why don't they know this? According to Sargent, it's because Republicans are so clever:
All of this suggests that in some key ways, the GOP strategy is working. Republicans have gone to enormous lengths to obscure the plan’s profoundly regressive features. They have endlessly told the lie that no one will be worse off (because everyone will have “access” to affordable coverage), and they’ve developed numerous cleverly designed talking points designed to create the impression that, by slowly phasing in the loss of coverage for millions over time, this will create a painless transition to … well, to a blissful state in which everyone, again, has “access” to affordable coverage.
Left unmentioned by Sargent is the fact that an institution of which he's a part -- the mainstream press -- could have been giving a great deal of attention to this fact and informing us in prominently placed news stories that a Republican bill really could become law in early July. This has been clear since early this month, but Russiagate and various Trump kerfuffles were of so much interest that the news barely trickled out.

Brian Beutler of The New Republic has attributed this failure to "the media bias toward 'new' news." But how can it be argued that there was no "new" news here? It had been widely assumed that the Senate would struggle to pass a health care bill, then suddenly it became clear to reporters who were paying attention that Senate Republicans weren't struggling, and the wiliest, sneakiest, most amoral tactician in Washington, Mitch McConnell, was putting the bill on a glide path to passage by July 4. That wasn't news? Reporters who were paying attention knew that the Medicaid cuts were comparable in their severity to the cuts in the House bill. That wasn't news? To gain prominence, does every story have to be gift-wrapped for reporters and editors by sources who want the story out?

The media failed us in the 2016 election, obsessing over emails rather than issues. The media failed again this month.


In The New York Times, Bret Stephens blames Jon Ossoff's loss on Democratic and liberal contempt.
Whatever else might be said about the race, Democrats didn’t lose for lack of political talent, campaign financing and organization or enthusiasm among their base. They lost because of their brand.

What is that? Democrats may think the brand is all about diversity, inclusion and fairness. But for millions of Americans, the brand is also about contempt — intellectual contempt ...; moral contempt of the sort Hillary Clinton felt for Trump....

That contempt may be justified. But in politics, contempt had better not be visible. Voters notice.
Voters notice? Well, I've noticed that Republicans have nothing but contempt for Democrats. All through the Obama years, they talked of "taking our country back" -- as if liberals and Democrats literally aren't Americans. And do I have to repost the ad for Karen Handel that smeared Jon Ossoff's out-of-state donors as a lot of contemptible Californians? I'm sure Scott Brown got a dollar or two from Red America when he ran for the Senate in Massachusetts, but imagine if there'd been a Democratic ad depicting his backers as a bunch of ignorant Bible Belt rednecks -- the howls of outrage would have audible from space.

Republicans also shriek if you link them to Timothy McVeigh and murderers of abortion doctors. But Ossoff was linked to Alexandria shooter James Hodgkinson, and that was just considered tough-minded politics.

Stephens continues:
Whatever their misgivings about Trump, ... Republicans weren’t about to give Nancy Pelosi the satisfaction of a national victory. Contemporary liberalism now expresses itself chiefly in the language of self-affirmation and moral censure: of being the party of the higher-minded.....
Oh, there was no "self-affirmation" in the Tea Party movement? There's none in the gun-rights movement or the #MAGA cult? There's no "moral censure" involved in the portrayal of liberals as snowflakes and moochers?

And can we talk about Nancy Pelosi for a second? Donald Trump is the great victim because he was portrayed as the murdered Julius Caesar in a Shakespeare production, and all of America was supposed to be horrified, but in 2010 Pelosi was depicted in a campaign ad as a melting Wicked Witch of the West after her then-Republican opponent tossed water on her.

Yes, it's a joke. But Kathy Griffin's Trump severed head was a joke, and universal outrage was demanded. This was, effectively, a fictional death for Pelosi. It was certainly "contempt."

But that was okay. Decent people weren't expected to feel contempt for all Republicans in response to this, or to the many other depictions of Pelosi and Hillary Clinton as witches, or to depictions of Barack Obama as a witch doctor, or either of the Obamas as primates. No one will harrumph in a mainstream-media op-ed that that alone is enough reason to reject every Republican at the polls. Democrats are just supposed to take it.

Thursday, June 22, 2017


Here's an image:

Caption for this image:
Stephanie Woodward, of Rochester, NY, who has spina bifida and uses a wheelchair, is removed from a sit-in at Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s office as she and other disability rights advocates protest proposed funding caps to Medicaid, Thursday, June 22, 2017, on Capitol Hill in Washington. CREDIT: AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin
Here's another image:

That's from ad made by the Congressional Leadership Fund for Karen Handel, the Republican who just won a special election for a House seat in Georgia. It shows a man with long braids praising the candidate Handel defeated, Jon Ossoff, in San Francisco.

I'm told that Andrea Mitchell of NBC News thinks images like the first one are so disturbing they may doom the GOP health care bill:
MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell described the scene of disabled protesters being carried out by Capitol police in front of Mitch McConnell's office as "brutal" images for the Republican party....

Mitchell said, ... "We had people being carried out by Capitol police, clearly they are under orders to clear the hallways. It is not their fault, but this is what they're being told by House leadership and Senate leadership to do." ...

"This is clearly outside of senator Mitch McConnell's offices. A brutal image for Republicans and supporters of this bill, frankly," Andrea remarked.
Here's a clip:

And in case you missed it when I included it in an earlier post, here's that Karen Handel ad:

Mitchell thinks it's self-evident that most Americans will be disturbed by the sight of forced removals of handicapped protestors worried about whether they'll be able to afford health care. But if you're a Republican in America, the campaign ad upsets you more. It's full of people you think are trying to do you harm -- by raising your taxes, weakening America's defenses, and allowing Democrats to have any power whatsoever.

The fate of those disabled protestors won't shock Republicans' consciences. The protestors, after all, are effectively in league with Mr. Braids and all his friends who want to impose "California values" on the Real America. At best, a certain number of Republicans will conclude that you can't really feel contempt for the protestors, because they've just fallen for delusion spread by Braids and his ilk, in this case the delusion that health care is a right and should be partially paid for through taxes (which are confiscatory by definition) rather than by individuals, their families, their neighbors, and their churches.

Oh, sure, that'll work. As Charlie Pierce writes:
Let me put it in measurements that are particularly of interest to me. By 2050, it is estimated that there will be 16 million people in the United States with Alzheimer's Disease. Right now, in 2017 dollars, the estimated costs of treating and caring for AD patients is $236 billion dollars. Of that, $154 billion is picked up by Medicare and Medicaid. Tell me now how that gap is made up by a plan that virtually eliminates Medicaid entirely by the time we get to 2025. Churches? Families? Winning the Lotto?
Republicans's response to Pierce would be "Yes, that's precisely how it should be done." They might add that if you can't cobble together the money needed, you must have been deemed undeserving by a righteous God. And that's that.

This is America now. I don't think we can bridge this gap. And even if those of us who are more upset at the protest outnumber the Republicans, they vote more consistently than we do. So that's where we stand.


We know that McConnell/Ryan/Trumpcare is going to be horrible:
The tax credits for people who buy insurance on the exchanges are ... stingier than the current system. Right now, Obamacare’s tax credits cut off for people who earn four times the poverty level, which means people just over that threshold often struggle to afford insurance. Rather than fix this problem, the Senate bill would set the cutoff even lower, to three-and-a-half times the poverty level, making insurance unaffordable for more people in the middle class.

Amazingly, the Senate bill reportedly institutes deeper Medicaid cuts than the House bill.... The House version holds the program to the inflation rate plus one percent — which is historically lower than medical costs have risen, meaning that the program would have to curtail benefits for its beneficiaries, who tend to be poor and very sick. The Senate bill would cut growth down to the inflation rate, without the extra one percent.

... The tax cuts are what drive the bill’s inescapable cruelty. By eliminating nearly a trillion dollars in revenue, it necessarily creates a trillion dollars in cuts for coverage subsidies. The House bill reduces the insurance rolls by 23 million. The Senate bill won’t fare a whole lot better.
Even though the Senate bill would "effectively delay repeal of Obamacare until 2020," as Bloomberg puts it, most observers think Republicans will be blamed for any chaos in the health care system between now and whenever Obamacare starts winding down -- insurance companies will rush for the exits, policies will be unavailable or staggeringly expensive, and because we will have all seen the final passage of the bill and the big signing ceremony involving the president, we'll all agree that the GOP owns the results.

I'm not so sure. I think Republicans will still blame the bad outcome on Democrats.

In his pseudo-campaign rally last night in Cedar Rapids, we heard this from the president:
“If we went and got the single greatest health care plan in the history of the world, we would not get one Democrat vote, because they’re obstructionists,” Trump said. “If we came to you and said, ‘Here’s your plan, you’re going to have the greatest plan in history, and you’re going to pay nothing,’ they’d vote against it, folks.” ...

“If we had even a little Democrat support, just a little, like a couple of votes, you’d have everything. And you could give us a lot of votes and we’d even be willing to change it and move it around and try and make it even better,” Trump said. “But again, They just want to stop, they just want to obstruct. A few votes from the Democrats, seriously, a few votes from the Democrats, it could be so easy and so beautiful, and you’d have cooperation.”
That's going to be the right-wing narrative of our upcoming health care disaster: We Republicans passed a bad bill because Democrats forced us to. They just wanted to be the Party of No, so they refused to help make it better. Therefore, every bad consequence of what we did is their fault.

Of course, this is a preposterous. Mitch McConnell hasn't even allowed his fellow Republicans to work on the bill, or even to see it -- he certainly wasn't going to accept input from Democrats. The plan is for the bill to be rushed through the Senate (and then, I assume, the plan will be for the House to pass the Senate's bill with equal haste). And what kind of message is this for Republicans going forward? Vote for us, not for the terrible people who refused to improve the awful bill we wrote -- seriously?

But I think you'll hear this regularly in the right-wing media. I think McConnell, Paul Ryan, and other elected Republicans will brazenly argue that Democrats have some nerve complaining about the outcome when they announced an effective boycott of the process from the beginning.

The majority of Republican voters will actually fall for this. I hope very few other voters do.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017


(UPDATE: Thanks to Charlie Pierce for the link, though I think the post he meant to link is this one. I highly recommend his post, and not just because my name's in it.)

If you didn't know anything about the winning Republican candidate in yesterday's Georgia special election, good luck finding information on her at sites devoted to right-wing politics. The top story on the Breitbart home page right now is about the election, but it's not about the winner, Karen Handel, or the loser, Jon Ossoff. It's about the hated mainstream media:

Also amassing thousands of comments: "Hollywood Melts Down After Ossoff Loss: ‘Grouphug, Get In’" and "Hollywood Fail: Jon Ossoff Loses Georgia Congressional Election Despite Massive Celebrity Help." There's a relatively straightforward report on Handel's victory, but it has a small fraction of the comments amassed by the stories above. There's no profile of Handel and there's no story praising her campaign.

At the top of the Fox News front page, there's barely a mention of the race. Because it's Fox, where building the president's brand is Job #1, the only listed text story about the race is "Georgia Race: Trump Casts GOP Winning Streak as Rejection of Dem ‘Obstruction.’"

On the front page of the Daily Caller, you have to scroll through 42 stories before Handel's name even shows up. ("HANDELED: Republicans Beat Back National Democratic Effort In Georgia," reads the front-page headline for the story.) The race gets more prominent coverage on the front page, but it's all mockery of Democrats and the media: "GOP Rep Slams Dems Claiming 'Moral Victory' In Georgia--'Moral Victories Don't Get To Vote In Congress'"; "MSNBC Host Joy Ann Reid Spreads False Claim About Ga. Special Election"; "Joe Scarborough On Dem's GA Flop: 'Going Further Left Is Only Going To Lead To More Losses'"; "Dem Infighting Online Heats Up After Special Election Losses In Georgia And South Carolina"; "Dems Running Out Of Chances To Earn Symbolic Win Before Midterms"; "Brace Yourselves For Sad Photos Of Ossoff Supporters"; "Georgia Democrat Loses, Wealthy California Liberals Hardest Hit"; "Kellyanne Takes A Victory Lap After Ossoff Defeat"; "Dems Already Blaming Ossoff Loss On Hacks."

It's as if media Republicans (and their readers) don't even care about the party's candidates or the policies they'll espouse when they're in Washington. All that matters is bashing their enemies, and thus reinforcing their brand: We hate Hollywood. We hate the MSM. We savor the deliciousness of liberal tears.

At this point, voter support for the GOP is almost completely divorced from policy. It's all about sticking a thumb in the eye of Rosie O'Donnell, Joy Reid, and Nancy Pelosi. I guess this is why Republicans in Congress think they won't be penalized when they vote for a horrible health care bill.


Matt Yglesias looks at the Georgia special election and concludes that Democrats need an agenda:
Right now on health care and many other issues, Democrats suffer from a cacophony of white papers and a paucity of unity around any kind of vision or story they want to paint of what is wrong with America today and what is the better country they want to build for the future. And until they do, they’re going to struggle to mobilize supporters in the way they need to win tough races.
He notes that Jeremy Corbyn overperformed in the recent U.K. elections by focusing on an agenda:
... running on a bold progressive policy agenda didn’t stop [Corbyn] from picking up support in exactly the kind of upscale precincts that the Democratic establishment has been trying to target. And it did succeed in doing what post-Obama Democrats have failed to do — engage young voters and encourage them to come to the polls.
Yglesias thinks the lack of an agenda created an opening for Handel to run on trivialities:
... [Karen Handel's] campaign and its allies buried Ossoff under a pile of what basically amounts to nonsense — stuff about Kathy Griffin, stuff about Samuel L. Jackson, stuff about his home being just over the district line, stuff about him having raised money from out of state — lumped together under the broad heading that he’s an “outsider.”
But Handel apparently didn't need a bold party agenda in order to win, because to some extent she ran against her party and its agenda:
Karen Handel didn’t argue that the Republican Party’s health care bill is a good idea (it’s very unpopular) or that tax cuts for millionaires should be the country’s top economic priority (another policy that polls dismally).
My conclusion: Republicans have a strong brand. The brand is "Democrats suck," and nearly any Republican in a competitive race can win with it. Republicans don't really need a bold, fresh agenda. Democrats have a brand that's weak among supporters and strong among haters. A bold, fresh agenda would help them, but it's the "strong among haters" part that's killing them. And they have no idea what to do about that -- most Democrats (and most mainstream pundits) don't even recognize that that's their problem.

If anything, there's a belief out there that Democrats have a Nancy Pelosi problem.

But if Republicans weren't demonizing Pelosi, they'd be demonizing some other Democrat -- Elizabeth Warren, Al Franken, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, Kamala Harris. Republicans demonized "Dingy Harry" Reid for years. And there are always the good old Clintons.

Even "nice" Republicans in highly educated districts respond to "Democrats suck." So the GOP doesn't need an agenda. GOP voters don't need to like the Republican president. But plenty of Democrats don't turn out despite displeasure with Republicans. So, yeah, I guess Democrats need an agenda, because even the awfulness of McConnell, Ryan, and Trump isn't motivation enough.

(Oh, and let's not forget that Corbyn fell short, just like Ossoff.)

Tuesday, June 20, 2017


Well, there you go: Jon Ossoff lost.

Here was Dave Wasserman at FiveThirtyEight not long before the race was called, on the site's live blog of today's two House special elections:
It’s ... legitimately possible that South Carolina’s result could wind up closer than Georgia’s, which would be astounding.
Here was Wasserman about an half hour before that:
If [Democrat Archie] Parnell loses South Carolina by 4 or 5 points, lots of Democratic activists will point fingers at the party’s hierarchy for not getting more involved.... But it’s possible that Parnell is doing well tonight because he wasn’t hyped, not despite it.
Parnell has also been declared a loser of his race -- but he lost by only 3.2 points in a deep-red district. Right now, Ossoff is trailing Republican Karen Handel by 5.2 points in a district that's also solidly red, but where Hillary Clinton made it a squeaker last November.

If Democrats actually did better in the race that didn't get national attention, I worry that it means Democrats struggle to overcome the relentless, 24/7/365 demonization of their party in the right-wing media, which is basically the mainstream media in much of white America. The South Carolina race was ignored by the rest of the country, which means that allegedly nasty nationwide Democrats were never a factor.

In Georgia, Handel voters weren't voting against Ossoff -- they were voting against evil coast-dwellers from New York and Massachusetts and California. They were voting against Nancy Pelosi, history's greatest monster. Watch this:

Ossoff was attacked for getting too much money from outside Georgia -- as noted in the attack ad above, which was paid for by the Congressional Leadership Fund, which is, um, not Georgia-based. Neither are the National Republican Congressional Committee and the Republican National Committee, which contributed massive amounts of money to elect Handel (more than comparable national Democratic organizations).

On Handel's behalf, a D.C.-based organization made that ad to persuade people that outsiders were too involved in Ossoff's campaign. And it worked.

Maybe this sort of thing won't be a problem in less-Republican districts in 2018 -- and there are a lot of them, so I'm still somewhat optimistic about the Democrats' chances of taking the House. But it may be hopeless in many races to try to pick off Republican voters of long standing, even if they're disillusioned by President Trump and the GOP Congress. They've just been told day after day for years that Democrats are tax-crazy and weak-willed and treasonous and just plain evil, so they routinely come home on Election Day, especially if the Coastal Democratic Menace seems to be a real presence in a particular race.

Democrats don't recognize this GOP propaganda tsunami as a problem. And no, Republicans don't have an identical problem with Democratic voters, because certain Republicans can win in virtually any Democratic state: Governor Charlie Baker in Massachusetts (and many GOP governors before him, including Mitt Romney and Bill Weld). Mayors Rudy Giuliani and Mike Bloomberg in New York City. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in California not long ago. Governor Larry Hogan in Maryland. Most Democratic voters think these Republicans are ... different. (See also Senator Susan Collins in Maine, or Governor John Kasich in Ohio.)

Democrats, by contrast, are nearly always seen to have liberalism cooties. It's a problem that needs to be dealt with.

Looking forward to 2018, sure, I'm rooting for ironworker Randy Bryce to beat Paul Ryan.

But Republicans will try to turn even this guy into a latte-sipping Pelosi clone by November 2018. And they have their voters so primed to believe this of any Democrat that they really might succeed.


We're being told that moderate Republicans are wary of the Senate health care bill:
A key moderate Senate Republican says she's uncomfortable with the emerging Senate health care plan, which is likely to cap Medicaid spending and shift it to a lower growth rate in 2025. "I think that's a problem. I think that sort of defeats the purpose of keeping people on, and at a level at which the program can be sustained," Sen. Shelley Moore Capito told me this morning. "I don't look favorably on it, that's for sure."

... If Republicans lose the votes of moderates like Capito, it's hard to see how the bill can pass.
Josh Marshall is not buying it:
... the Iron Law of Republican Politics is that the GOP moderates always cave. But the cave is never without a stage managed drama. And that appears to be the part of the story we’re now entering.

Axios just reported that Sen. Shelley Moore Capito is expressing concern over Medicaid cuts in the Senate Trumpcare bill....


... It is not only that the ‘GOP moderates always cave.’ It is that we are asked to (and almost always do) indulge this fainting couch routine or a furious bout of chin stroking that comes as a prelude to the cave.

... This isn’t negotiating or putting a foot down. It’s play acting.... on the off chance Sen Capito is serious, she should do something to make that clear. Otherwise, it’s just a yarn, just more nonsense to hide the ball and pave the way for the preordained outcome.
Greg Sargent wrote something similar last week:
Republican senators are now making a great show of expressing their disapproval with the scandalously opaque and secretive process that the GOP Senate leadership is employing in the quest to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act....

But it’s very likely that all of this will end up amounting to just another ruse....

If a handful of GOP senators said they can’t vote for the bill under these conditions, McConnell might have to relent, because he can afford to lose only a few.

In fairness, that is a lot to expect from a GOP senator. But there is something else any individual GOP senator — or a small group of them — could do to try to improve the process: They could go to McConnell and privately say that a slower and more transparent process is actually very important to them.

... until we learn otherwise, we should assume that the only thing individual senators are accomplishing with their complaints is getting good quotes for themselves in the media without creating any meaningful discomfort for GOP leaders that might induce them to change any of this.
And yet when all this is over and the president signs the McConnellcare bill into law after it's rubber-stamped by the House, the phony Republican moderates who always cave will continue to be regarded as moderates. The press will still call them that. They'll accept the label and run future races with that reputation intact.

By contrast, when Democrats operate from a left-centrist point of view, they're still baited by the GOP as if they're the love children of Karl Marx and Rosa Luxembourg. That how New Democrat Bill Clinton was described throughout his presidency. No attempts at moderation or compromise ever changed that portrait of Clinton, and compromise fan Barack Obama was treated similarly. And now this is happening to Jon Ossoff in his congressional race against Karen Handel.

Ossoff's no flaming radical:
Bucking the left, Mr. Ossoff said in an interview that he would not support raising income taxes, even for the wealthy, and opposed “any move” toward a single-payer health care system. Attacked by Republicans for his ties to national liberals, Mr. Ossoff said he had not yet given “an ounce of thought” to whether he would vote for Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, in a future ballot for speaker.

His own race, Mr. Ossoff told supporters, was about “sending a message to Washington.” But that message, he said, was about “decency and respect and unity, rather than division.”
His reward for that is this:

And this:
Handel said: “I can only tell you what I have observed in this race. The anger has been from the left with groups of trackers showing up and literally adopting a gang-like posture and virtually stalking individuals.”

... Her campaign repeatedly attacked Ossoff over his support from the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, and his “San Francisco values”.
Even moderate Democrats are described in terms suggesting they're fist-shaking progressives. Phony-moderate Republicans? Always portrayed as the real thing.


Okay, I'm confused: Everyone tells me that the Democratic Party is part of "the angry left," and yet, according to a new CBS poll, Democrats are less comfortable with political anger than Republicans:

You could argue that Democrats are upset at angry talk from Republicans and don't consider anything on their own side to be objectionable. But what's shown up in recent news stories on this subject? Kathy Griffin's severed Trump head, James Hodgkinson's Facebook posts and letters to the editor, a production of Shakespeare in which the assassinated Julius Caesar is a Trump-like figure. If Democrats were as angry as they're said to be, you'd expect them to be circling the wagons around people whose words and deeds go over the line (or, in the case of Shakespeare in the Park, are said to do so).

But Democratic voters aren't saying that. The notion that rank-and-file Democrats want to be campus-speech-deplatforming, Antifa-window-smashing, Trump-effigy-decapitating thugs isn't borne out by the numbers.

So, no, Erick Erickson, we're not "the American ISIS." The overwhelming majority of Democrats don't even like incivil speech. We like it less than your people do.

Monday, June 19, 2017


FiveThirtyEight's Harry Enten:

He's referring to this, from the Republican-leaning Trafalgar Group:

I know -- it's just one poll. And Trafalgar has only a C rating from FiveThirtyEight. On the other hand, Trafalgar called the election for Trump, predicting wins in Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Nate Silver looks at the overall polling and tweets:

(Two other recent polls show the race tied.)

Josh Marshall tweets:

That's the way it usually goes, right? The most reprehensible Republican ads routinely work. The Willie Horton ad. The Jesse Helms "Hands" ad. So why wouldn't this work?

The bigger issue is that even though this is a district full of highly educated voters, the kind of district in which Donald Trump ran much worse than Mitt Romney, it's still a Republican district. That means it's full of white people who've listened to nearly forty years of Democrat-bashing from Ronald Reagan, the religious right, talk radio, Fox News, and GOP elected officials and admakers. These are voters who believe the worst stereotypes of Democrats. It's an uphill battle for any Democrat to overcome those stereotypes. That Ossoff has done so even temporarily is remarkable.

For decades, heartland whites have been conditioned to despise the Democratic Party, so they nearly always believe the lowest of negative ads about Democrats, and nearly always vote for the GOP in the end. Ossoff might win, but I'll be surprised.

And I hope the Ossoff campaign can prove me wrong.


Jonathan Chait reads a new survey of U.S. voters from the Democracy Fund Voter Study Group and flags this:

Chait draws attention to the graph to make the point that despite all the media attention libertarianism gets, the American electorate has very few actual libertarians -- people who are economically conservative but socially liberal. That would be the underpopulated lower right quadrant. There are a lot of people in the lower left quadrant (people who are economic and social liberals) and in the upper right quadrant (people who are economic and social conservatives).

But let's focus on the upper left quadrant. Chait writes:
... the truth is that the underrepresented cohort in American politics is the opposite of libertarians: people with right-wing social views who support big government on the economy.
The study calls these people "populists." Chait quotes the study's author, Lee Drutman on the subject of Hillary Clinton's failure to win over these voters:
As Drutman notes, “Among populists who voted for Obama, Clinton did terribly. She held onto only 6 in 10 of these voters (59 percent). Trump picked up 27 percent of these voters, and the remaining 14 percent didn’t vote for either major party candidate.” What makes this result fascinating is that, in 2008, Clinton had positioned herself as the candidate of the white working class and she dominated the white socially conservative wing of her party. But she lost that identity so thoroughly that she couldn’t even replicate the performance of a president who had become synonymous with elite social liberalism.
I've never understood why Hillary didn't try to appeal to the white working class in 2016 the way she did in the homestretch of the 2008 primaries:

I know she was trying, in a racially pointed way, to distinguish herself from Obama in the spring of '08. But she could have tried walking into a few workingmen's bars in 2016 without nodding and winking to white solidarity. Why couldn't her campaign have made an effort to reach out to older whites while continuing to reach out to non-whites and the young? I think I know the answer -- she was calling plays from the Obama playbook. But Obama, as it turned out, knew how to retain some of these white voters better than Clinton did. It helped that both of his general-election opponents were wealthy men with multiple homes. But I think he also knew how to speak enough of Middle America's language to retain some of the voters Clinton lost. And he had Joe Biden, who was able to appeal to both old and new Democrats.

Pollsters tell us that Donald Trump is gradually losing popularity, even among working-class whites. He's not accomplishing anything, and what might emerge from unified GOP control is standard-issue supply-side Republicanism. But that well-populated economic-liberal/social-conservative quadrant in the graph above leads me to believe that there's going to be an opening in the near future for a politician who really is what Trump claimed to be -- a flag-waver who wanted to make the lives of the non-rich better.

As I've said before, many white nationalist parties outside the U.S. support economic policies intended to make their voters' lives better. That upper-left quadrant tells me that a future Trump -- a Trump who's sincere about economic populism in a way that appeals to white workers -- could do well by combining that with nationalism and ethnocentricity. That's worrisome.

On the other hand, something approaching old-fashioned New Deal liberalism might have the same effect on these voters. Maybe if Democrats can promise (and deliver) economic change for them, while offering some validation of their values -- maybe just to the degree that Obama and Biden did -- they can be won back.

In any case, there are a lot of voters in this group. Winning them back may not require racist appeals or abandonment of abortion rights and LGBT rights -- Obama won enough of them to be elected twice. It might not take much adjustment for Democrats to win some of them back -- if they feel they can be part of the Democratic coalition. Otherwise, they'll gravitate to populism -- or more phony populism from the GOP>


Thanks again to the relief crew for posting while I was away -- great work as always.

This morning I'm reading about an apparent anti-Muslim terror incident in London:
A van ploughed into a crowd outside Muslim Welfare House near Finsbury Park Mosque at around 12.20am....

The 48-year-old driver ploughed his white van into a crowd of Ramadan worshippers helping an elderly man who collapsed in the heat, killing one and injuring at least ten more at 12.20am this morning.

The unnamed man - who was clean-shaven with curly hair and wore a white t-shirt - suffered cuts to his face and hands and was filmed repeatedly shouting 'kill me' to the men who grabbed him.

Witnesses said he 'deliberately' drove onto the pavement outside north London's Muslim Welfare House - yards from the Finsbury Park Mosque - and jumped out of the cab shouting 'I'm going to kill all Muslims - I did my bit'.
Many, many readers of right-wing sites are expressing support for the driver.

At Fox Nation:
A HERO Driver strikes a blow against those that Murder thousands each day...Seems reasonable...!


Someone finally let these rag heads know "You the only one think you can drive a car or van"


"Worshippers" = Future jihadis in training.


Liberals in London have had enough and now they are starting to fight back..


london whites are finally getting it up
At the Daily Caller:
a tower full of fried muslims and now this.....the Brits are getting their balls back


Three cheers for the guy who ran Koranimals over for a change. Payback biatches.


Headline should read. Patriot defends nation agianst terrorist invaders.


I fail to see the downside.


good...now English patriots need to burn every mosque to the ground.
At InfoWars:
Idiot driver, he only killed one.


Any news on the condition of the van?


Me, white man with a smile. The oppressed strikes back.
At Breitbart:
Dude should have taken some extra driving lessons. Muzz rats thicker than hairs on a dogs back but only managed to despatch one. Shame.


Lets have a fund raiser. That van must need some body work...


The Mussies need to reap what they sow.
At Gateway Pundit:
It's to bad those goat lovers weren't on their knees with their rear ends in the air when this happened.


Boo Hoo Hoo. Missed too many.


Brits will not sit back while their country is terrorized by Muslim invaders.


Dude, wheres my van?


Islamophobe: Someone who knows more than they should about Islam.


Using vehicles to mow down innocent pedestrians....
Muslims 10
Christians 1

I believe in 4th quarter comebacks! Gooooo Christians.


I guess it must suck to be on the other side of street justice...It was just a matter of time before citizens had, had enough.
And Alex Jones hasn't declared this a false flag yet, but at least one InfoWars reader isn't waiting:




I'm also seeing that at Breitbart:
More facts needed. The guy in the video doesn't match the guy in photographs, unless he was wearing a wig or something. All kinds of wrong with this story.


A van weighing > 1 ton would obliterate human bodies. This story stinks.


My guess is an Islamic false flag. We have had numerous such attacks in the USA.
And Gateway Pundit:
Probably organized by Saddick Kahn. Their- hey look, it happens to us too- moment. Not buying this at all.


No dents, no blood on the front of the van, video shows CPR being administered to a conscious person. Another day in crisis actor land...
A handful of people on the left cheered the Alexandria shootings. Most of us were horrified and disgusted. By contrast, many right-wingers are delighted that this incident took place. They want more -- oh, except for the ones who think it didn't happen the way it's being reported.

Alex Jones might be too busy attacking Megyn Kelly to give much attention to this, but I suspect he'll call this a false flag, and possibly say the same thing about the death of a Muslim teenager after an attack in Fairfax County, Virginia, over the weekend. Maybe he'll surprise us and refrain, but I doubt it.

Sunday, June 18, 2017

Quantum Trump: In Sekulow Saeculorum

I had to use that before somebody else did.

T-Shirt by Northbound Christian Apparel.

The generally accepted interpretation being, I believe, that it's a complaint against deputy attorney general Rod Rosenstein, who wrote that memo in an all-nighter from May 8 to 9 after (according to Rosenstein) Trump informed him that he was planning to fire the FBI director James Comey and asked Rosenstein for "advice and input". That is, he didn't tell Trump to fire the FBI director ("I accepted their recommendation"), unless of course he did ("I was going to fire regardless of recommendation"). Thus, if Rosenstein were to be investigating Trump now (which he isn't, he is at most responsible for greenlighting special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation, if there is one) for firing Comey (which would be a less important fact in the question of Trump's possible obstruction of justice than his repeated requests to Comey to go easy on Flynn, to make a public announcement that he wasn't investigating Trump, and to make the "cloud" go away), that would be pretty ironic, huh?

To which Jay Sekulow, a new member of the Trump personal legal team, now explains on Fox News, no, that wasn't what the Tweet was about:
That tweet, Chris, was in response to The Washington Post story that alleged that five unnamed sources, anonymous sources, leaked to The Washington Post that the president was, in fact, under investigation. So that tweet was in response to that. There’s been no notification of an investigation. Nothing’s changed since James Comey said the president was not a target or subject of investigation. Nothing’s changed.
So Trump was being sarcastic maybe? "Sure, Washington Post, pull the other one!" He was simply producing an inaccurate summary of the Post story to show how inaccurate it would have been if that had indeed been the story they ran, which it wasn't?

Two Minutes of Hate, Fifteen Minutes of Fame

Back in the late '70s my friend Dina decided she wanted to become famous for being famous, in a DIY punk sort of way. So she took on the name Dina Famous and we put up xeroxed 8 1/2 x 11 handbills advertising "Dina Famous" all over Berkeley. It was all tongue in cheek, of course, and she didn't actually become famous (though she is friends with tons of famous or semi-famous people in the music industry....but that's a whole other story), but we did have fun with it.

This was, for the record, several years before the movie Smithereens, in which a painfully talentless young woman tries to become famous in a DIY punk sort of way by posting xeroxed images of herself all over Manhattan.

And it was nearly 40 years before some semi-obscure right-wing blogger jumped on the stage of that Julius Caesar production all the right-wing shills are faux-outraged about.

Of course this Laura Loomer person got herself arrested, and of course she's milking it for all it's worth. Is there a donation link on that page, you ask? Silly question:
And here's the punchline: Laura Loomer (like James O'Keefe, and who knows how many others) is the beneficiary of a right-wing media ecosystem with an endless appetite for entertainment that reinforces their cherished narratives. It's a system in which any right-wing Dina Famous can achieve the momentary success they believe they deserve.