Sunday, April 22, 2018

IF TRUMP SURVIVES TO 2020, THEY'LL ALL COME AROUND -- PROBABLY EVEN MITT

A few days ago, CNN ran a story about the reluctance of many Republicans to say they'll endorse Donald Trump in 2020. In a column for The Washington Post on Friday, Joe Scarborough seized on this:
... these ... morally enfeebled enablers have become muted when asked whether they’ll support their fearless leader’s reelection bid.

“Look, I’m focused on opioids,” muttered Tennessee’s Lamar Alexander, suggesting that a U.S. senator is not mentally adept enough to fight a drug epidemic while also figuring out whether he backs a president in his own party. Alexander is not the only GOP senator to offer up tortured answers to this simple question.

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (Tex.) refused to answer, explaining that he had not given the question much thought because things could change in the time before the 2020 campaign revs up.

Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Bob Corker (Tenn.) spent four days grasping for an answer to a question he called “unfair” before finally saying he didn’t want to “make news.”
Scarborough thinks this is a sign that Trump won't run in 2020.
It’s becoming clear that Trump will not be running for president in 2020....

Now, even Trump’s most steadfast allies are quietly admitting that the Southern District of New York’s investigation poses an existential threat to his future, both politically and legally.
No, that's not what they're quietly admitting. They're quietly admitting that Trump's downfall might happen between now and 2020. They know it's a serious possibility, and they don't want a statement of support to appear in print or on tape now, one that can be used against them in the future, when Trump is a pariah.

But they also don't have the courage to say that they oppose the president, because they're certain he'll survive until November 2018 and it's a serious possibility that he'll survive until November 2020.

Mitt Romney -- who was forced into a Senate primary yesterday when hard-liners in the Utah GOP refused to endorse his candidacy -- has joined them in bet-hedging.
Mitt Romney said Saturday that he could not yet commit to supporting Donald Trump's 2020 re-election campaign....

"I will make that decision down the road," Romney ... said in an interview with CNN.... "As a person of political experience, if I endorse someone, I'll want to know what's in it for Utah and what help would he provide for us on key priorities in Utah."

"So I'm not a cheap date," he said.
But if Trump isn't driven from office and mounts a reelection bid, most if not all of them will come around. Even the first Republican to say he intends to primary Trump -- thriller writer Brad Thor -- will probably endorse him in the end:
Conservative author and commentator Brad Thor took to Twitter Saturday to announce he would challenge President Donald Trump for the Republican nomination in 2020.

The New York Times bestselling author of the popular Scot Harvath series of spy thrillers was a vociferous critic of Trump’s during the 2016 primaries and has continued speaking out against the president’s leadership style.
Yup, Thor was a Never Trumper during the 2016 primaries as well -- so much so that he got his buddy Glenn Beck suspended from satellite radio for a time after making comments that some interpreted as a call for the assassination of Trump.
SirusXM satellite radio has suspended conservative talk show host Glenn Beck for comments he made last week that have been interpreted as potentially advocating the harm of presumptive Republican presidential nominee and real estate mogul Donald Trump.

During a May 25 interview on “The Glenn Beck Program,” Beck agreed with a comment made by New York Times bestselling thriller author Brad Thor:

“I am about to suggest something very bad,” Thor said. “... With the feckless, spineless Congress we have, who will stand in the way of Donald Trump overstepping his constitutional authority as president? If Congress won’t remove him from office, what patriot will step up and do that if, if, he oversteps his mandate as president, his constitutional-granted authority, I should say, as president,” Thor said, according to CNN. “If he oversteps that, how do we get him out of office? And I don’t think there is a legal means available. I think it will be a terrible, terrible position the American people will be in to get Trump out of office because you won’t be able to do it through Congress.”

“I would agree with you on that,” Beck responded.
But even Thor came around to Trump at the time of the convention, if only reluctantly.
Brad Thor, who has been in the #NeverTrump camp since the beginning and is a respected conservative author, came to this realization on Tuesday, throwing his support behind Mr. Trump. It wasn’t a pretty endorsement, but it was an endorsement all the same.

“Yesterday, Dr. [Hugh] Hewitt tried (yet again) to help guide America to the best (and only) option available to us. I lost a lot of sleep last night reading and then re-reading his words. I awoke this morning with a more nuanced view. Drug #1 (Hillary Clinton) will kill us — no question. Drug #2 (Donald Trump) might kill us, but it also might: A) Slow the cancer, or even B) Cure the cancer,” Mr. Thor wrote in HotAir.com....

“It’s a lot to hope for, I know, but hope is all we have left. We have exhausted every other avenue. Make no mistake — I believe one hundred percent in standing on principle. Principle, in this case though, will not cure cancer. Sadly, that crappy clinic south of the border is starting to look like our only option,” he wrote.
Thor is anti-Trump again, but he has no political experience, and he's not going to beat Trump in a primary -- nor is anyone else -- because the GOP base loves Trump and will continue to love Trump as long as he's in office and out of prison (and maybe even if those things are no longer true). So after Thor crashes and burns -- in Iowa or New Hampshire or on Super Tuesday, if he runs at all -- he'll endorse the winner, because, in his opinion, the Democrat will be so evil he'll have no choice.

But won't Romney be a holdout again? By that time he'll almost certainly have survived his primary and a general election, coasting to victory in both. He won't be up for reelection until 2024. Why should he worry about endorsing Trump?

Because this time around it's highly likely that the Democratic nominee will be a person no one regards as a centrist. It will probably be someone who talks a lot more like Bernie Sanders (it could even be Bernie Sanders) and a lot less like 1990s Bill Clinton. Never Trump Republicans who want to maintain political viability will be horrified by all the left-wing talk -- free college! $15 minimum wage! Marijuana leglaization! Rolling back the Trump tax cuts on the wealthy! Medicare for All, or at least a Medicare or Medicaid buy-in! It's all socialism!

(And yes, I know: Hillary Clinton ran on a platform that was quite progressive. But for whatever reason, nobody believed her. They'll believe the 2020 Democratic nominee.)

In addition, if Trump survives, this time around the skeptics will believe that he can win (which he can). So they won't dare oppose him this time if he's the nominee.

If Trump's still around, they'll fold. Just wait.

Saturday, April 21, 2018

A THEORY ABOUT THAT JACK JOHNSON TWEET

Out of nowhere, the president tweeted this today:



Jack Johnson was the first black man to be world heavyweight boxing champion. His fights against white boxers led to deadly riots. He had relationships with a number of white women, several of whom he married. He was ultimately arrested on trumped-up charges that he violated the Mann Act, which prohibited transporting a woman across a woman across state lines for immoral purposes, even though the alleged violations took place before the law was passed. He was convicted by an all-white jury and sentenced to a year and a day in prison; he fled the country for several years, then ultimately returned and served time in Leavenworth.

So why this all of a sudden? Maggie Haberman thinks she knows why:



Early today, I tweeted a different theory:



I don't which of these theories makes more sense -- or maybe we're both right.

I don't understand why Trump would need to wave his pardon power in front of people's noses -- maybe it's a case of Trump thinking, "Many people don't know that I can pardon anyone who's committed a federal crime," meaning he only recently learned that. Whatever he thinks, we actually do understand that he can try to hinder the Mueller investigation by issuing pardons. But I'm sure he doesn't know that people understand that.

I'm having second thoughts about my theory, because how often has Trump cared whether people think he appears altruistic? But this could be a rare instance of that. And he might want to pretend not to be a racist. (The racists I've ever encountered have been fine with black people who are athletes, because, y'know, that's what black people are supposed to do.)

There's this, too:



Yup -- Trump is president of the United States, but he really wants us to be impressed by the fact that he's friends with Sylvester Stallone.

I'm in favor of this pardon, so I hope no one tells Trump this:
Johnson's great-great niece wants President Trump to clear the champion's name with a posthumous pardon. And she has the backing of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has supported a Johnson pardon since 2004.

"Jack Johnson was a boxing legend and pioneer whose career and reputation were ruined by a racially charged conviction more than a century ago," McCain said in a statement to the Associated Press. "Johnson's imprisonment forced him into the shadows of bigotry and prejudice, and continues to stand as a stain on our national honor."
If Trump finds out McCain's in favor of this, he'll never do it -- although maybe the fact that President Obama chose not to pardon Johnson coungts more than the fact that McCain is in favor of the pardon.

WHO NEEDS THE ALT-RIGHT WHEN THERE'S ORDINARY AMERICAN RACISM?

The Washington Post reports that the alt-right may have passed its peak.
Eight months after a white-nationalist rally in Charlottesville ended in the death of a counterprotester, the loose collection of disaffected young white men known as the alt-right is in disarray.

The problems have been mounting: lawsuits and arrests, fundraising difficulties, tepid recruitment, widespread infighting, fierce counterprotests, and banishment from social media platforms. Taken together, they’ve exhausted even some of the staunchest members.

One of the movement’s biggest groups, the Traditionalist Worker Party, dissolved in March. Andrew Anglin, founder of the Daily Stormer, the largest alt-right website, has gone into hiding, chased by a harassment lawsuit. And Richard Spencer, the alt-right’s most public figure, canceled a college speaking tour and was abandoned by his attorney last month.
I read this story shortly after I read Jamil Smith's "Where Can We Be Black?," which was just published in Rolling Stone:
African Americans are often made to feel as though we are uninvited guests in our own country. We are excluded from environments great and small, at times by force.... This exclusion is the very root of racial discrimination, and of the social penalties that whiteness exacts upon blackness....

After missing his bus last Thursday, Brennan Walker, a 14-year-old student in Rochester Hills, Michigan, tried to walk to school. His mother had taken his phone away, and soon, Walker was lost. He ended up doing what most Americans would think is safe to do: knock on a neighbor's door and ask for help and directions. But that same act cost Renisha McBride and Jonathan Ferrell their lives – and it almost cost Walker his. He told local reporters that after a white woman in the house behaved as if she thought Walker was trying to break in, a white man, Jeffrey Ziegler, came downstairs with a gun. Walker took off running. He only heard the gunshot that meant to take his life before escaping, later hiding and crying.

... By now, many of us have seen the viral video shot by [Starbucks] customer Melissa DePino, showing ... Philadelphia police officers confronting and arresting ... two black men, Rashon Nelson and Donte Robinson, who had been waiting peacefully.... There was no reason to charge the men with anything but "waiting while black" ...
These are just two recent incidents. Similar incidents happen every week. Occasionally there are consequences -- Ziegler is now charged with felony assault and the Starbucks manager has lost her job. More often, there are no ultimate consequences for the people who do these things.

So why do American racists need the alt-right? Membership in the alt-right means marginalization -- but there's plenty of opportunity to be racist in America without joining a racist movement. And many Americans don't insist on a white ethno-state -- they just want the racial pecking order regularly reinforced. So they're satisfied with ordinary American racism.

Just as mid-century American workers contended themselves with a somewhat generous social safety net while rejecting out-and-out socialism, twenty-first-century heartland whites are rejecting racist movements because there's considerable opportunity to be racist in America without them.

Friday, April 20, 2018

WHO ARE YOU GONNA BELIEVE, ME OR MY LYING WORDS?

Kevin Williamson has written an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal titled "When the Twitter Mob Came for Me." Fellow conservative pundit Noah Rothman is getting the drubbing he deserves for his response to the piece:



Best wisecrack so far:



All this on a day when we're learning that another Russian journalist has died under suspicious circumstances:
A Russian investigative journalist who wrote about the deaths of mercenaries in Syria has died in hospital after falling from his fifth-floor flat.

Maxim Borodin was found badly injured by neighbours in Yekaterinburg and taken to hospital, where he later died.

... a friend revealed Borodin had said his flat had been surrounded by security men a day earlier.

Vyacheslav Bashkov described Borodin as a "principled, honest journalist" and said Borodin had contacted him at five o'clock in the morning on 11 April saying there was "someone with a weapon on his balcony and people in camouflage and masks on the staircase landing".
Oh, but Borodin never faced a "Twitter mob," so what did he know about courage?

In Williamson's piece, he seems to argue that not just a professional opinion-monger's tweets but his extended discursions in podcasts are to be ignored, because they're not really speech acts.
I was fired [by The Atlantic] on April 5.

... The problem was a six-word, four-year-old tweet on abortion and capital punishment and a discussion of that tweet in a subsequent podcast. I had responded to a familiar pro-abortion argument: that pro-lifers should not be taken seriously in our claim that abortion is the willful taking of an innocent human life unless we are ready to punish women who get abortions with long prison sentences. It’s a silly argument, so I responded with these words: “I have hanging more in mind.”

... The remarkable fact about all this commentary on my supposedly horrifying views on abortion is that not a single writer from any of those famous publications took the time to ask me about the controversy. (The sole exception was a reporter from Vox.) Did I think I was being portrayed accurately? Why did I make that outrageous statement? Did I really want to set up gallows, despite my long-stated reservations about capital punishment? Those are questions that might have occurred to people in the business of asking questions.
If Williamson wasn't asked what he really thinks, perhaps it's because he already told us what he thinks. When you're a professional journalist-slash-pundit and you choose to tweet, you tweet as a professional journalist-slash-pundit. When you do a podcast in which you revise and extend the words in your writing, you do that as a professional journalist-slash-pundit. (And please note that, in the podcast, Williamson's elaboration on the tweets went on for several minutes, in which he pointedly disagreed with fellow conservative Charles C.W. Cooke's suggestion that it might be appropriate to have variable punishments for different kinds of murder, which is what both agree abortion is.)

The point of Williamson's Journal op-ed seems to be that a writer deserves a mulligan for anything he says in a podcast, even at great length, and even if the podcast is expressly intended to be an auditory elaboration of his writing, and also that, of course, a writer really deserves a mulligan for tweets, which don't count as his opinions even if the whole point of his having a Twitter account is to spread those opinions through social media. Hey, you can't know what a guy thinks just from what he types in short form and says at great length in non-print long form -- that doesn't count!

Sorry, Kevin, that still doesn't make sense. You had your say, and you're justifiably paying for it.

IT'S LIKE A PONZI SCHEME, BUT WITH PHONY SCANDALS INSTEAD OF FUNNY MONEY

After a great deal of agitation by Republicans and the right-wing media, last night the Justice Department sent Congress lightly redacted versions of James Comey's memos on his meetings with President Trump -- and the memos were leaked to the press in 39 minutes. Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had been threatened with impeachment if he didn't release these and other memos ... but the Comey memos, once we were all able to see them, had few new revelations, and were consistent with what Comey has said in congressional testimony, in his book, and in his recent interviews.

Many people are puzzled.




It's simple. Republicans are running a Ponzi scheme -- but instead of promising wealth, they're promising a payoff that apparently means much more to the rageoholics who watch Fox: proof of unprecedented criminality on the part of their political enemies. For days, weeks, or months, they tease angry right-wingers with new tales of Deep State perfidy -- and yes, by the time the reveal comes it's clear to everyone that it's all a big nothing, but by that time they've been laying the groundwork for other claims of gross misconduct by everyone the rubes hate, so no problem. Republicans and their allies don't really care if there's no payoff, just as they didn't care that the much-hyped Devin Nunes memo was a damp squib, because the buildup is the point. Days or weeks in which they promise shocking revelations of pure evil are days and weeks when the hate reaches maximum level. The point is to keep the rubes invested in their narrative, and to maximize the number of days when they're at peak anger.

The Republicans won't slink away crestfallen. They'll just move on to the next thing. They'll have achieved another anger peak that lasted longer than the current momentary letdown.

Rinse and repeat. They can keep this up forever.

Thursday, April 19, 2018

TED CRUZ HUMILIATED HIMSELF ON TRUMP'S BEHALF BECAUSE HE FEARS BETO O'ROURKE

Ted Cruz has been widely mocked for lavishing praise on Donald Trump as part of Time magazine's annual Time 100 list:
President Trump is a flash-bang grenade thrown into Washington by the forgotten men and women of America. The fact that his first year as Commander in Chief disoriented and distressed members of the media and political establishment is not a bug but a feature.

The same cultural safe spaces that blinkered coastal elites to candidate Trump’s popularity have rendered them blind to President Trump’s achievements on behalf of ordinary Americans....
Thank you, Ted. You have 95 words to go (I won't repeat them here), but you already have the highest score ever recorded in Wingnut Mad Libs. I think we can stop the competition now.

Why is Cruz humiliating himself this way after Trump insulted his wife's looks and suggested that his father was in on the Kennedy assassination? I think he's afraid of the Democratic challenger he'll face in November, Beto O'Rourke.

I don't think the just-released Quinnipiac poll that shows O'Rourke trailing Cruz by just 3 points was a factor -- that poll, I'm sure, was published long after Cruz agreed to abase himself for Time. I think he's concerned with nationwide polling for the past several months, and the results of recent special elections, and the surprisingly high turnout by Democrats in Texas primaries last month.

As an incumbent Republican in Texas, Cruz should be headed for an easy victory, based on past elections. But Democratic voters this year are motivated. Are Republican voters?

Cruz is assuming that if they're motivated at all, it's by love of Trump. They're probably motivated to give money only to candidates who love Trump. So after his (temporary) resistance to Trump in 2016, Cruz really needs to establish his bona fides if he wants enthusiastic base support.

It's a double-edged sword, given the fact that Trump is surprisingly unpopular in Texas. (He's underwater in Texas according to that Quinnipiac poll, with 43% approval and 52% disapproval, and a January Gallup poll had even worse numbers for Trump in Texas: 39% approval, 54% disapproval.)

But Cruz is making the bet most Republicans make -- that motivating the base is more important than offending everyone else. So he grovels.

Or maybe he grovels because he thinks he's going to lose in November. Hey, there are sure to be some openings in the Trump administration in 2019, right?

IF IT'S CONCLUSIVELY DEMONSTRATED THAT TRUMP IS A CRIMINAL, REPUBLICANS WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT

The Wall Street Journal quotes a Trump lawyer saying that Michael Cohen is likely to flip:
One of President Donald Trump’s longtime legal advisers said he warned the president in a phone call Friday that Michael Cohen, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer and close friend, would turn against the president and cooperate with federal prosecutors if faced with criminal charges.

Mr. Trump made the call seeking advice from Jay Goldberg, who represented Mr. Trump in the 1990s and early 2000s. Mr. Goldberg said he cautioned the president not to trust Mr. Cohen. On a scale of 100 to 1, where 100 is fully protecting the president, Mr. Cohen “isn’t even a 1,” he said he told Mr. Trump....

Speaking from his experience as a prosecutor, he said even hardened organized-crime figures flip under pressure from the government. “The mob was broken by Sammy ‘The Bull’ Gravano caving in out of the prospect of a jail sentence,” Mr. Goldberg said.
Jonathan Chait finds this curious.
... as a public-relations strategy, isn’t Trump’s lawyer supposed to say he believes Cohen is innocent, and would be shocked to learn if he did something wrong, because of course Trump has never engaged in any illegal behavior and would never tolerate it among his employees? He’s probably not supposed to casually liken the president of the United States to the boss of a criminal syndicate.
Chait has a similar response to a quote from voluble Trump loyalist Anthony Scaramucci:
Asked today by Katy Tur if “there’s any chance [Michael Cohen] would end up cooperating, flipping,” Anthony Scaramucci said no, because Cohen ‘is a very loyal person.”

You meant because Trump is innocent, right? Cohen is not going to testify against Trump because Trump did nothing wrong?
Chait is right -- in politics, if you're defending an officeholder under investigation, you're supposed to say that that officeholder wouldn't dream of violating the law. These guys have let the mask slip.

But for supporters of the contemporary Republican Party, I don't think that matters. Either they don't believe that their heroes are guilty or they believe that their heroes were found guilty through a "witch hunt" conducted by the liberal Deep State.

Look around. Don Blankenship, who spent a year in federal prison after an accident in one of his coal mines killed 29 miners, might win the Republican senatorial primary in West Virginia. Rick Scott, whose company oversaw what was at the time the largest Medicare fraud in history, has won two terms as Florida governor and could defeat an incumbent senator this year. Staten Island's Michael Grimm, a convicted felon, is running a credible race to unseat the Republican who took his old congressional seat. Missouri governor Eric Greitens, accused of rape, blackmail, and campaign fraud, still has a 41% approval rating in his state.

I think we're rapidly approaching the point at which being an accused criminal, or even a convicted one, will be a selling point in the eyes of the GOP electorate. Republicans will dine out on their convictions the way Jay-Z regularly invokes his drug-dealing past or Lenny Bruce boasted of his arrest record. The Deep State man can't bust our movement! MAGA!

Incontrovertible evidence of Trump's criminality may emerge soon. It might drive him from office. But I don't believe it will lower his poll numbers.

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

LET'S TURN THE WHOLE WORLD INTO A FREE-FIRE ZONE

The Washington Post reports that buying weapons in Europe is becoming easier:
... an international group of researchers is warning that the firearms trade that enabled militants to obtain ... assault rifles [for the 2015 Paris attacks] is, in fact, still expanding. Militants determined to strike European targets are among the groups and individuals benefiting the most from what the researchers are describing as an “arms race.”

The study, funded by the European Commission and due to be released Wednesday as part of the Studying the Acquisition of illicit Firearms by Terrorists in Europe (SAFTE) project, warns “the increased availability of firearms has contributed to arms races between criminal groups” across the European Union.

... Legal firearms sales are much more tightly regulated in Europe than in the United States, so weapons are often smuggled from the western Balkans into the borderless Schengen area that includes countries such as France, Germany and Italy.
And what's America doing as weapons become easier to obtain in Europe? This:
U.S. gunmakers are on the verge of getting something they’ve wanted for a very long time: a streamlined process for exporting their handguns and rifles, including AR-15 assault-style weapons that have been the focus of national debate.

Under a long-awaited rule the Trump administration is expected to propose within weeks, a large number of commercially available rifles and handguns would move off a munitions list controlled by the State Department and onto a different one at the business-friendly Commerce Department....

Opponents of relaxing the export rules argue that decision could come back to haunt the United States if the weapons end up in the wrong hands.
Ya think?

More:
The proposal under review by the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has yet to be made public, but experts fear it will lead to less oversight of commercial sales of assault weapons like submachine guns and flame throwers to foreign buyers....
Oh, but ... but ... deregulation!
The State Department said it is shifting responsibility to Commerce for approving exports of nonmilitary firearms and ammunition that are already commercially available — those under Categories I, II and III on the U.S. Munitions List. The goal is to reduce regulatory burdens on manufacturers and exporters....

In shifting oversight, exporters and manufacturers, including small gunsmiths, would no longer have to register with the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls and pay the $2,250 annual registration fee.
Yes, gun crime in Europe may increase, as might the deadliest forms of terrorism -- but think of the poor small gunsmiths! What about their needs?

And if our firearms really do begin to saturate countries where guns used to be rare, every American right-winger will just say, "HAW HAW HAW I THOUGHT THEY HAD GUN CONTROL THERE!"

THE RUBES WON'T REALIZE THEY'RE GULLED ANYTIME SOON

Yastreblyansky agrees with The New Yorker's Adam Davidson that we're in the end stages of the Trump presidency. He doesn't think impeachment is coming any time soon, even after what he expects to be an "extremely damning" report from Robert Mueller on obstruction of justice. But he does expect there to be a steady decline in Tump voters' enthusiasm.
Meanwhile, the figure of Trump himself gets less and less impressive, as we've seen this week from the ridiculousness-cum-criminality of Scott Pruitt and Ryan Zinke and above all Cohen the feared gangster, with his implosion and defeat by Kimba Wood and WTF Hannity?!??!; after who knows what foreign policy failures, and no Wall, no Muslim Ban, no transgender ban, troops in Syria, the tax law incomprehensible but people notice they're not rich, and the coal industry dying, and NAFTA renegotiated in a way that nobody can differentiate from the way it used to be and talk about the TPP as well and we're talking 2006, the year after Katrina and the evident failure of the Iraq campaign to accomplish anything, and the clarity with which the entirely population was beginning to see the hollowness of W Bush. Trump's base still won't desert him, exactly, no doubt, but there will be discouragement in the ranks, diminished expectations, weeping Alex Joneses, fewer interviews with The New York Times, and their turnout will be very bad.
I don't see it -- not before the midterms, and probably not for a couple of years after that.

I've believed for a while that the deplorables will lose faith in Trump eventually, but it will take about as long as it took George W. Bush's voters to lose faith in him -- about six years. Yes, I know -- that means only after Trump is (God help us) reelected (something I still think is possible no matter what Mueller turns up). I certainly don't think disillusionment among Trump voters will settle in before this November.

The economy isn't weak. White kids from red America (mostly) aren't dying (or being humiliated) in a futile war. The coal industry isn't dying any faster than it was pre-Trump. There's been no effort (yet) to privatize Social Security and Medicare. The front-loaded tax cuts for the hoi polloi won't turn into tax increases for years.

Also, Trump hasn't run for reelection yet. Part of what makes right-wing voters rally around their heroes is the joy of elections -- they may think that what they want is a set of policies, but what they want even more is just to watch their heroes kick our asses at the ballot box, something they're certain Trump will do again. After the fall and capture of Saddam Hussein, there wasn't much that Bush could do for Republican voters except humiliate a Democrat in an election; following that, it was all downhill for him. No matter how disappointed the deplorables are with Trump, he still offers them the hope of another round of liberal tears in November 2020. Remember that they think no electoral victory ever induced more of those tears than Trump's win in 2016. They absolutely won't forgo the possibility of a repeat, even if Democrats rout Republicans this year. (If a rout happens, it'll be blamed on GOP candidates who are insufficiently Trumpesque -- the base will never believe it was Trump's fault.)

It's possible that a massive rout by the Democrats plus evidence of blatant criminality from Mueller will change the calculus. (This assumes that Mueller will get to finish his work, when it's not at all clear he'll even survive this week.) It could happen -- but it's not going to change the Trump diehards' minds. It might tell Republican officeholders that being a Trump end-timer is politically perilous. (Right now they think it's perilous for them not to be loyal to Trump.) But I believe Trump voters aren't going anywhere -- not until a second term, if there is one.

STOP TRYING TO MAKE A TRUMP PRIMARY CHALLENGE HAPPEN. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

As you probably know, Nikki Haley won't take the blame.
President Trump was watching television on Sunday when he saw Nikki R. Haley, his ambassador to the United Nations, announce that he would impose fresh sanctions on Russia. The president grew angry, according to an official informed about the moment. As far as he was concerned, he had decided no such thing.

It was not the first time Mr. Trump has yelled at the television over something he saw Ms. Haley saying. This time, however, the divergence has spilled into public in a remarkable display of discord that stems not just from competing views of Russia but from larger questions of political ambition, jealousy, resentment and loyalty.

The rift erupted into open conflict on Tuesday when a White House official blamed Ms. Haley’s statement about sanctions on “momentary confusion.” That prompted her to fire back, saying that she did not “get confused.”
Anti-Trump GOP strategist Steve Schmidt responded by tweeting this:



Oh, please. Haley may have impressed some Trump critics, but the base isn't having it. Here's a sample of the response at Free Republic:
Neocon Nikki is going to show Trump who is the boss. And he can forget about pulling our troops out because the queen bee says we're not leaving Syria until the mission is complete and since she says the mission includes keeping an eye on Iran, that mission will never be complete.

****

There is our girl Ikki. The real arrogant, non team player knows all.

Bad pick POTUS. She thinks she runs all foreign policy. Does maddog answer to her?

****

FIRE HER!

****

Don’t get ahead of the boss, lest the boss fire your happy a$$.

****

I read this article and I do not like this woman. She will be a problem. She was a #nevertrumper and picking her was a mistake.

****

Ikki is always confused. She has no respect for American history and culture.
Read that last one again if you think the Indian-American Haley has a chance of winning a Republican presidential primary.

She's defied the God Emperor. I don't know if she'll be fired, but the party's voter base will never respect her. Stop imaging an anti-Trump future for the GOP. It won't happen.

Tuesday, April 17, 2018

BARBARA BUSH IS DEAD, AND THE BREITBARTNIKS ARE APPROPRIATELY SOLEMN* (*just kidding)

Barbara Bush has died, and among Breitbart commenters, her passing has inspired a period of solemn reflection:
I was hoping she would outlive the Hillda-beast Clinton. Mrs. Bush had more class in her pinky toenail than Clinton and moochelle could have in a lifetime.

****

REPUBLICAN FIRST LADIES are nothing but class who know their place in History.

DONKEY First Ladies act like JackAsses consumed with HATE.

Yes, all the Bush's are still BITTER that Little Jeb didn't win.

****

Republicans know their place and ride off into the Sunset. Democrats have an ego that demands the never-ending spotlight. We'll never get rid of Bill, Obama, and their First Hags.

****

And then there's Al Gore and the Gaffe o' Matic Biden.

****

She loved Hillary you jack2$$.

****

The Hillda-beast husband don't even love the Hillda-beast, I think Mrs. Bush was just being nice.

****

Go blow the progressive Allah Obama's husband Mike

****

The entire Bush family voted for Hillary.

****

Yup, and why I no longer care for this family and any members. They are pretenders. They are supporters of the deep state that is crushing our country.

****

They pretty much have said so. The Clintons and Bushes were very close. Why? How could anybody embrace Hillary or Bill? I figure we know nothing about the extent of the corruption with the Clintons. These families love to portray how much they love the US and how saintly they are. It simply is not true. I am sick of putting these families on pedestals.

****

I predict 2018 will claim Bush 1 and Carter, McCain most likely as well.

****

The Reaper is right on McCain's trail.

****

Nah...The Demons in Hell are working hard to keep the Reaper away from McCain.

After all, there is so much more Evil he can do if kept alive.

****

Please let McCain be next.

****

3 of the most destructive forces in U.S. history.

****

Read"Trance-Formation of America" about the CIA mind control program, MK-Ultra to see what kind of scoundrel Bush Sr. is.

****

He was accused of actually being a coward and there has been a great deal of suspicion around his service and his service, for one, She hated conservatives like the whole clan, and the whole family loves the Clinton's, they even voted for the witch, so stop with the load.

****

Let us not forget the fathers very suspicious association with the Kennedy assassination and his CIA involvement.

****

GHW was having breakfast with Senior bin Laden in NYC on 9/11. They watched the twin towers fall, while they were gnoshing on parboiled baby foreskins, then pulled off the greatest bond heist in history....

There is only the Color Purple Mil.Gov UniParty, a fraudulent arm of the criminal Fed Bank. Too late now. USA Inc no longer exists. We are dead busted hillbilly broke. By 2020 we will have gone the way of USSR.

And it all began with GHWs Gramm-Lurch-Bliley Bankster Bill, pushed through by Gingrich's Contract on American's.

Massive unmatched Fed financial crimes, and when this s'show blows, it will become the greatest Christian Holocaust in human history.

****

She was the matriarch of a family that gave us George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Jeb Bush. I'm not too fond of anybody with that track record. Since the Bush family is full of weak males who are easily pushed around, I understand why the left would have a certain affection.

****

They were and are a open border family....F them!

****

YOU MOM GAY
Yeah, they're just moved to tears right now.

LAWYERS ARE TRUMP'S SUBSTITUTE FOR COMPETENCE

The point Gwenda Blair is trying to make in this Politico piece is that Donald Trump has always relied on thuggish lawyers to strong-arm those who get in his way, which is obviously true. She thinks this M.O. isn't working for Trump in Washington:
... whenever Trump has seen anything that he thinks poses the slightest risk to his business or his reputation, he has sicced a lawyer on the offending party. Often such threats arrive in the form of a letter on heavy, cream-colored stationery, adorned with an embossed gold T and declaring that unless the addressee ceases and desists from all objectionable behavior, the Trump Organization intends to pursue said person to the full extent of the law, i.e., sue his or her pants off. I know. I got one of those missives when I published my book.

Sometimes, as in my case, the threat is all that happens. Other times, an actual lawsuit ensues.... According to an ongoing USA Today tally, as of April 2018, the Trump Organization has been involved in more than 4,000 lawsuits, far more than any other real estate developer—or any president, for that matter.

Apparently, after entering the White House, Trump felt entitled to the same robust legal protection that he enjoyed in his 26th floor office at Trump Tower. But things haven’t worked out that way.
But I think Trump has relied on lawyers for more than muscle. Alongside his older daughter and his adult sons, lawyers have functioned as Trump's brain. Blair writes:
Most business executives tend to be lawyer-dependent, but for the better part of 50 years, lawyers have done everything for Trump except have his children. They have finagled unprecedented tax abatements, kept him going through multiple corporate bankruptcies (and out of personal bankruptcy), protected his finances from public scrutiny. They are so entwined with every aspect of his public and private life, it is unimaginable that Trump could have gotten anywhere close to where he is today without them....

Sometimes things have gone badly for Trump—his football venture failed, and in an ensuing lawsuit, he received only a humiliating $3 in damages. But even when his ventures have tanked (Trump Air, Trump Vodka, Trump Mortgage, his casinos, the Plaza Hotel, Trump Soho Hotel, and a string of never-opened Trump-branded ventures in Argentina, Brazil and Canada, among other places), to all appearances, lawyers have kept him solvent.
What your Trump-loving relatives don't understand about Trump is that he has only the vaguest notion of how to do the things he wants done. His lawyers understand the details. He doesn't. Trump knows the victories he wants, and he expects his lawyers to wrest them from the other affected parties. They find a way (or fail to), and he looks like a killer (at least when he wins). But he has no idea how it happens. And now his job every day is to do things he understands even less than he understood the nuts and bolts of the real estate business. Aren't we lucky?

ATTENTION MUST ALWAYS BE PAID PRIMARILY TO REPUBLICANS

Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but my takeaway from NPR's write-up of its latest poll is that NPR believes the opinions of Republicans matter more than what the rest of us think, or what the country overall thinks.



Republicans and Democrats are deeply divided on how they see special counsel Robert Mueller and his investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible ties to President Trump's campaign, according to a new NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll.

Overall, the former FBI director's favorability ratings have dropped over the past month as Trump and other Republicans have ratcheted up their attacks on Mueller and his ongoing probe. There's been a net-negative swing of 11 points over the past month, with 32 percent of all Americans holding a favorable view toward Mueller, 30 percent viewing him unfavorably, and a 38 percent plurality still not knowing enough to have an opinion.

Among Democrats, though, Mueller's favorability is at 56 percent, with just 19 percent viewing him unfavorably and a quarter unsure. But nearly half of all Republicans hold an unfavorable view of the Justice Department special counsel — up from 30 percent last month — with only 16 percent viewing him favorably and another 35 percent undecided.
But these numbers aren't a huge swing if you look back a few months. Right now, Mueller's favorable/unfavorable numbers are 32%-30%; in January, they were 29%/29%. So they've improved slightly since then. The numbers weren't very different in February (33%/27%). March's numbers seem anomalous (33%/20%). But in every poll, the largest group is respondents is the "unsure" group, and the disapprovers are very much in the minority.
A 45 percent plurality of all Americans believe Mueller's investigation is fair — a seven-point net drop from March — while 30 percent believe it is unfair and just over a quarter are undecided.

But again, the Mueller probe is being seen through an increasingly partisan lens by Americans. For the first time, a majority (55 percent) of Republicans say his investigation is unfair, with just 22 percent calling it fair — which is a 17 point swing since last month. Almost three-fourths of Democrats say Mueller's investigation is being handled fairly, a five-point net uptick since last month, along with almost half of independents — though there's a nine-point net drop.
But again, the Americans who think the probe is unfair are a minority -- 30%.
Even with GOP frustrations, a majority of Republicans (56 percent) say Mueller should be allowed to finish his investigation, while almost a quarter think he should be fired and 20 percent are undecided. Among all adults polled, 65 percent say Mueller should be retained, 15 percent want him terminated, and 20 percent aren't sure.
The key statistic here is that "let Mueller finish" beats "dump Mueller" by 50 points -- but to NPR the key question seems to be "What do Republicans think?" As it turns out, even they want Mueller to finish. So efforts by the White House and right-wing media to tarnish the investigation aren't really working. Why isn't that even part of NPR's lede?
There have also been big changes in how the public views the FBI — driven by a surge in Republican distrust, the poll shows....

Overall, there's been an 18-point increase in Americans who believe the FBI is biased against Trump in the past two months. This month, 61 percent said that the FBI was just trying to do its job while 31 percent said they believed the nation's chief law enforcement arm was biased against the Trump administration. Back in February, 71 percent of Americans polled said they believed the FBI was acting within its bounds, while 23 percent thought the agency was biased against the GOP White House.

That swing has been due to rising Republican anger. For the first time, a 56-percent majority of Republicans say the FBI is biased against the president, with just 34 percent saying it's only doing its job. That's a 16-point swing against the FBI among the GOP, when just fewer than half of Republicans said in February that the FBI was biased but 43 percent still thought it was doing its job.
Actually, there hasn't "been an 18-point increase in Americans who believe the FBI is biased against Trump' -- there's been an 18-point swing in net belief in NPR bias. And the important thing to note is that Americans overwhelmingly believe the FBI is doing the right thing.

There's still support for Mueller's work. That's the bottom line. There's fear of Russian interference in the 2018 elections -- we're told that "55 percent" of respondents "say Russian interference come November is likely or very likely," but "Republicans overwhelmingly don't believe that is a possibility." The message of the numbers is that the delegitimization of Mueller hasn't succeeded -- but that's not what NPR tells us.

Monday, April 16, 2018

IN TRUMP WORLD, IS THERE ANYONE LEFT UNCORRUPTED?

James Comey compares President Trump to a mobster, and Brian Beutler thinks it's an apt comparison.
“I sat there thinking, Holy crap, they are trying to make each of us ‘amica nostra’—friend of ours. To draw us in,” Comey writes. “As crazy as it sounds, I suddenly had the feeling that, in the blink of an eye, the president-elect was trying to make us all part of the same family and that Team Trump had made it a ‘thing of ours.’”

... Comey’s epiphany is timely. Trump’s political method mixes mass tribalism with the kind of mob-like conscription of notionally ethical elite individuals that Comey describes in his book. He used this method to co-opt and compromise Republicans in Congress during the election, and has used it as president to avoid congressional oversight and to discredit law enforcement officers investigating him. Those who resist his recruitment efforts, like Comey and a handful of elected GOP officials, get fired, or attacked, or driven out of political life.
I'd say that Trump isn't exactly like a mobster -- mobsters compel loyalty by threatening physical violence, not loss of tribal membership. Trump won't have that anonymous congressman killed if he starts denouncing Trump publicly the way he did privately to Erick Erickson -- he'll just see to it that the GOP electorate withdraws its support and ruins the congressman's career, with a lot of help from the right-wing media.

Beutler believes that Trump could terrorize major figures in D.C. for years to come.
And with the rule of law closing in on him from multiple directions now, he will use the same method in an attempt to save his presidency, even if it means permanently corrupting the political system of the United States....

What we know to a near certainty is that as the heat increases, Trump will try to enlist more and more people into “this thing of his” as his only means of political survival—and perhaps as his only means of sparing those friends of his from justice.

He will extort support from the ranks of Republican officialdom, which may already be too tainted by allegiance to Trump to credibly sever ties with its criminal leader.

Most corrosively, he will conscript more and more of his supporters into the ethical netherworld of Trumpism, convincing millions of Americans to scoff at ethics and law, and serve instead as a human-political shield around him, so that he can’t be removed from office. This process would serve to normalize his gangster ethic across large swaths of the country, among a radicalized pro-Trump cohort that will be around to poison civic life in America long after Trump has exited the stage.
The only part of this I disagree with is the part about "conscript[ing] more and more of his supporters into the ethical netherworld of Trumpism." Who's left to conscript? Who hasn't been conscripted already? Haven't all his supporters, including the entire Republican congressional delegation, made it clear that, in their opinion, nothing Trump can do would cross an ethical red line? Isn't their terror at the possibility of losing the deplorables' support absolute and unwavering?

This is why, when I see McClatchy's claim that Robert Mueller has proof Michael Cohen went to Prague in 2016, I can't agree with BooMan:
If Michael Cohen went to Prague, then Donald Trump will be impeached, convicted, and removed from office, assuming he doesn’t resign.

... the central accusation of the Steele Dossier is that Cohen was the Trump’s campaign’s main contact with the Russians after Paul Manafort was fired, and that he went to Prague because Moscow would have been too obvious. While there, he colluded with the Russians on a host of issues, including on how to compensate Romanian hackers, how to manage the fallout from the Manafort flameout and how to explain Carter Page’s recent trip to Moscow....

If he was in Prague, he was there for the reasons the Steele dossier said he was there. And if that is the case, then the case for collusion is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt.
Yeah, and so? Why does that guarantee impeachment and conviction? Do you think even open-and-shut evidence of collusion will deter the Trump cult? Cohen went to Prague on his own volition. Evidence that Cohen went to Prague was falsely generated by the Deep State. What's wrong with Cohen talking to people? Define "hacker." And isn't that Seth Rich murder still unsolved? And hey, do we really want to undergo a painful constitutional crisis, a mere twenty or so years after the last impeachment?

There's no chance of 67 votes to convict an impeached Trump no matter what he's done, unless perhaps the Republicans have suffered a midterm blowout so overwhelming it exceeds their most pessimistic scenarios. The Republican survivors of 2018 will have to believe they can't possibly get through another election cycle if they stand by Trump -- that's the only way they'll have the courage to leave the Mob.

But GOP voters will never abandon Trump, and gerrymandering and clustering mean that Republicans will stick with what their voters want. So Beutler is right that Trumpist corruption is probably with us at least until 2020, because everyone Trump needs in his "ethical netherworld" is already there.

LIBERALS ARE DOING TO JAMES COMEY WHAT COMEY DID TO HILLARY CLINTON (updated)

Even before his interview with George Stephanopoulos aired, the knives were out for James Comey, and not just at the White House or the Republican National Committee. "James Comey Is No Hero," wrote Charlie Pierce. "James Comey Is No Hero," wrote Adam Serwer. Today, Ryan Cooper writes, "James Comey Is Not a Hero."

I get it. Nate Silver has long argued that Comey's announcement of another dive into the Hillary Clinton email muck in late October 2016 cost Clinton the election, and I find Silver's case persuasive. Comey had previously wagged a scolding finger at Clinton, while never breathing a word about investigations of possible treason in Trump World. Also, in the published excerpts from his book and his Stephanopoulos interview, Comey really does come off as self-regarding and overly impressed with his own integrity.

But I keep thinking about the aphorism made famous by James Carville: When your opponent is drowning, throw the son of a bitch an anvil. I don't know if President Trump is actually drowning, but he's in deep waters, and his swimming skills are doubtful. Here's James Comey with some sort of weighty object. Why try to prevent him from tossing it into the water? On Twitter yesterday, Trump referred to Comey's "badly reviewed book." I think he was referring to the criticism of Comey in the so-called liberal media.

I know how conservatives would respond if the parties were reversed. They wouldn't worry about the past. The enemy of their enemy would be their friend, even if they used to despise him. I remember how much the right used to hate Julian Assange, but all that was forgotten once he put a target on Hillary Clinton's back.

Is that good? Is it moral? No, but it's effective.

I acknowledge Comey's deep character flaws. I'm angry at him for tipping the election to Trump in the last days. But at this moment I'm inclined to cede him the floor, because of the damage he's doing to Trump.

I think some on the left look at Comey the way Comey (unforgivably) looked at Hillary Clinton during the campaign. He says now that he was certain she'd win, and after her victory he didn't want the public to believe the FBI had gone easy on her. Similarly, I suspect many liberals believe that Trump will inevitably be forced out of office -- the corruption is so obvious, impeachment or resignation so inevitable, that there's no harm in attacking someone who's now a Trump antagonist.

I don't believe Trump's downfall is inevitable. I still think it's quite possible that he'll serve two terms, like our last three presidents. So if Comey is hurling a heavy object into the water, I'm inclined to step back and let him get in a good throw.

****

UPDATE: This is on the front page at FoxNews.com right now:



Nice work, folks.