This is so funny- and so apt- Senator Amy Klobuchar must have heard this somewhere before.
Technically, Donald Trump is not for sale, though only because he is owned by President Musk. Yet to be fair, before Musk, another plutocrat owned a little piece of Mr. Trump. You may have heard of Jeff Yass
Cofounder of investment company and trading firm Susquehanna
International Group, Yass has an estimated net worth just shy of $50 billion.
Much of the Pennsylvania-based billionaire’s wealth is tied up in no other than
TikTok, as Forbes reports that Susquehanna’s most valuable holding is
ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company. Susquehanna holds a 15% stake in ByteDance,
a source “familiar with the investment,” told the New York Times. And Yass
himself owns 7%....
Yass started funneling money into the 2024 election early;
at one point in March he was the biggest donor to outside spending groups. He,
alongside wife Janine Yass, were No. 6 in top contributors to the election,
contributing in total more than $96 million to Republican causes, per nonprofit
tracker of campaign lobbying Open Secrets.
The mega-donor might be somewhat connected to Trump's
invitation to conservative PAC Club for Growth’s retreat in Breakers this past
year, Bloomberg suggests in a recent article. In 2023, Trump wasn’t invited to
said event. Yass, who has donated more than $60 million to Club for Growth
since 2016, found an ally in Trump.
Not long after the event in Breakers, Trump publicly changed
his stance on TikTok, Bloomberg notes. “If you get rid of TikTok, Facebook and
Zuckerschmuck will double their business,” Trump posted to Truth Social. “I
don’t want Facebook, who cheated in the last Election, doing better. They are a
true Enemy of the People!”
Under terms of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Act passed by Congress (and later upheld by the Supreme Court), TikTok was to have been banned in the USA as of January 19 unless sold to a US buyer(s). No deal was made and on January 21, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Attorney General not to enforce the law for 75 days while an American buyer might be found.
So as of now, American youth and juveniles at heart still are enjoying the application owned by a Chinese company, which exists at the pleasure of the Chinese government and turns over to it any and all information "requested." That pleases President Trump, and not only because he's aware of the tens of millions of Americans, a few of whom even vote, who regularly use the app. It's also because of Jeff Yass, the Club for Greed, and Elon Musk, prompting the sober observation of Amy Klobuchar and others that this President is always up for sale to the highest bidder.
President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the FBI, insisted to
deeply skeptical Democrats on Thursday that he did not have an “enemies list”
and that the bureau under his leadership would not seek retribution against the
president’s adversaries or launch investigations for political purposes.
“I have no interest, no desire and will not, if confirmed,
go backwards,” Patel said at a contentious Senate Judiciary Committee
confirmation hearing at which support for the nominee broke along starkly
partisan lines. “There will be no politicization at the FBI. There will be no
retributive actions taken.”
The reassurances were aimed at blunting a persistent line of
attack from Democrats, who throughout the hearing confronted Patel with a vast
catalog of prior incendiary statements on topics that they said made him unfit
for the director’s job and raised alarming questions about his belief in
conspiracy theories and loyalty to the president. Patel, for his part, sought
to distance himself from his own words, accusing Democrats of taking them out
of context, highlighting only snippets or misunderstanding his point.
The bad news is that President Trump's choice to be FBI director has a very bad memory. Ranking member Dick Durbin of Illinois asked Patel whether he is "familiar with Stew Peters," an alt-right, podcaster and "prolific anti-Semite.". After the nominee responed "not off the top of my head," Durbin reminded him that he he had "made eight separtae appearances on his podcast" and that Peters "promoted outrageous conspiracy theories and worked with a prominent neo-Nazi." Alas, Durbin failed to jog the memory of the nominee, who referred to "appearing on the media over a thousand times."
And Patel did not renounce or denounce his enemies list, which Minnesota senator Amy Klobuchar conceded Patel did not label as an "enemies list." Rather, in the appendix of his 2022 Government Gansters, Patel described "Members of the Executive Branch Deep State" as being "a cabal of unelected tyrants" and "the most dangerous threat to our democracy." In December, Timothy Noah of The New Republicexplained
The term “deep state” is most often used to disparage the
civil service, which Patel more or less wishes to eliminate. In addition to
reinstituting Schedule F, which would strip many civil service protections from
government workers, Patel favors legislation that allows the president to fire
civil servants directly. But almost all the people on Patel’s enemies list are
political appointees.
The Definitely-Not-Enemies-List, according to Noah, includes
Michael Atkinson (former inspector general of the
intelligence community)
Lloyd Austin (defense secretary under President Joe Biden)
Brian Auten (supervisory intelligence analyst, FBI)
James Baker (not the former secretary of state; this James
Baker is former general counsel for the FBI and former deputy general counsel
at Twitter)
Bill Barr (former attorney general under Trump)
John Bolton (former national security adviser under Trump)
Stephen Boyd (former chief of legislative affairs, FBI)
Joe Biden (president of the United States)
John Brennan (former CIA director under President Barack
Obama)
John Carlin (acting deputy attorney general, previously ran
DOJ’s national security division under Trump)
Eric Ciaramella (former National Security Council staffer,
Obama and Trump administrations)
Pat Cippolone (former White House counsel under Trump)
James Clapper (Obama’s director of national intelligence)
Hillary Clinton (former secretary of state and presidential
candidate)
James Comey (former FBI director)
Elizabeth Dibble (former deputy chief of mission, U.S.
Embassy, London)
Mark Esper (former secretary of defense under Trump)
Alyssa Farah (former director of strategic communications
under Trump)
Evelyn Farkas (former deputy assistant secretary of defense
for Russia, Ukraine, Eurasia under Obama)
Sarah Isgur Flores (former DOJ head of communications under
Trump)
Merrick Garland (attorney general under Biden)
Stephanie Grisham (former press secretary under Trump)
Kamala Harris (vice president under Biden; former
presidential candidate)
Gina Haspel (CIA director under Trump)
Fiona Hill (former staffer on the National Security Council)
Curtis Heide (FBI agent)
Eric Holder (former attorney general under Obama)*
Robert Hur (special counsel who investigated Biden over
mishandling of classified documents)
Cassidy Hutchinson (aide to Trump chief of staff Mark
Meadows)
Nina Jankowicz (former executive director, Disinformation
Governance Board, under Biden)
Lois Lerner (former IRS director under Obama)
Loretta Lynch (former attorney general under Obama)
Charles Kupperman (former deputy national security adviser
under Trump)
Gen. Kenneth Mackenzie, retired (former commander of United
States Central Command)
Andrew McCabe (former FBI deputy director under Trump)
Ryan McCarthy (former secretary of the Army under Trump)
Mary McCord (former acting assistant attorney general for
national security under Obama)
Denis McDonough (former chief of staff for Obama, secretary
of veterans affairs under Biden)
Gen. Mark Milley, retired (former chairman, Joint Chiefs of
Staff)
Lisa Monaco (deputy attorney general under Biden)
Sally Myer (former supervisory attorney, FBI)
Robert Mueller (former FBI director, special counsel for
Russiagate)
Bruce Ohr (former associate deputy attorney general under
Obama and Trump)
Nellie Ohr (wife of Bruce Ohr and former CIA employee)
Lisa Page (former legal counsel for Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe at FBI under Obama and Trump; exchanged texts about Trump with Peter
Strzok)
Pat Philbin (former deputy White House counsel under Trump)
John Podesta (former counselor to Obama; senior adviser to
Biden on climate policy)
Samatha Power (former ambassador to the United Nations under
Obama, administrator of AID under Biden)
Bill Priestap (former assistant director for
counterintelligence, FBI, under Obama)
Susan Rice (former national security adviser under Obama,
director of the Domestic Policy Council under Biden)
Rod Rosenstein (former deputy attorney general under Trump)
Peter Strzok (former deputy assistant director for
counterintelligence, FBI, under Obama and Trump; exchanged texts about Trump
with Lisa Page)
Jake Sullivan (national security adviser under President Joe
Biden)
Michael Sussman (former legal representative, Democratic
National Committee)
Miles Taylor (former DHS official under Trump; penned New
York Times op-ed critical of Trump under the byline, “Anonymous”)
Timothy Thibault (former assistant special agent, FBI)
Andrew Weissman (Mueller’s deputy in Russiagate probe)
Alexander Vindman (former National Security Council director
for European affairs)
Christopher Wray (FBI director under Trump and Biden; Trump
nominated Patel to replace him even though Wray’s term doesn’t expire until
August 2027)
Sally Yates (former deputy attorney general under Obama and,
briefly, acting attorney general under Trump)
"It's nevr a good time to bow down to a dictator," asserted Jim Acosta on Tuesday in his sign-off from CNN. Nor to his prsoanl FBI director, he might have added.
In the video below from October of 2022, The Young Turks' Ana Kasparian slams Republicans because they want to force a debt showdown to cut what conservatives luxuriate in calling "entitlement programs." At approximately 1:58, she shows a graphic from New York Magazine noting
Bloomberg's Jack Fitzpatrick interviewed seven Republican contenders to lead the House Budget Committee. They all said, with varying levels of specificity, that they plan to instigate a debt ceiling standoff to force Biden to accept cuts to retirement and health-care programs.
Those would be, respectively, Social Security and Medicare, which Kasparian recognizes as vital lifelines for most individuals and families. She adds (at 14:07)
I hope people understand why it's that they spend all of their time crying about CRT, which doesn't exist in grade school. Crying about trans athletes, when they can't even name a single trans athlete that's impacting anyone in their state. The reason why focus on these made up boogie men is to scare their own voters and distract from the fact they want to rob their own voters of programs they've paid into.
So true- and yet, in their own way, Democrats do something similar. They're not trying scare people to distract the attention of their voters from what party officials want to do. However, they try- successfully- to distract their own voters from what they should be doing by giving them some red meat- their own culture war hot button issues.
Today we protected marriage equality in the U.S. Senate.
Putting aside the Senator's obvious problem with English grammar- the concern was not marriage equality in the US Senate but marriage equality in the country- the emphasis Klobuchar and some other Democrats placed on this was remarkable, and telling.
On November 29 the Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act with 61 votes, including those of twelve Republicans. The Democratic-controlled House then passed the legislation, which was quickly and signed into law by President Joe Biden at a "triumphant White House ceremony." Notwithstanding Klobuchar's boast that the action "protected marriage equality," prohibition by any political jurisdiction of same-sex marriage already had been outlawed (in Hodges v. Obergefell) by the United States Supreme Court. The Respect for Marriage Act provides assurance that if the Supreme Court were to take up the same issue again and reverse its decision, a state which outlaws the union would be required to recognize the marriage of two men, or two women, conducted in another state. The law guarantees full faith and credit for same-sex and interracial marriages, and does little if anything else.
But that didn't stop many Democrats, Biden and Klobuchar only two of them, from touting the law and ignoring a far more urgent matter. Eight days prior to the Senator's triumphant tweet, Peter R. Orazag, former director of the Office of Management and Budget and the
Congressional Budget Office, explained
In October, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)
warned that Republicans are planning to use the debt limit as leverage to
demand spending cuts, potentially including Social Security and Medicare — cuts
that President Biden will not accept. Now that Republicans have won control of
the House and McCarthy is potentially the next speaker, the threat is real....
The debt ceiling — now $31.4 trillion, a level that stands to be pierced by the third quarter of 2023 — is an anachronism. Congress enacts changes to tax law and entitlement programs (such as Social Security and Medicare), and sets non-entitlement spending each year. These decisions, in turn, exhaust the policy levers available to control the level of U.S. government debt. (The evolution of debt is also influenced by the economy, market interest rates and other factors, but those are mostly outside the control of policymakers.) So having a separate limit on the permitted level of debt is redundant.
As the Government Accountability Office has written, “The debt ceiling does not control the amount of debt. Instead, it is an after-the-fact measure that restricts the Treasury’s ability to borrow to finance the decisions already enacted by Congress and the President"....
There are two ways to de-risk the situation in the lame-duck session of Congress. One is regular order, which would require the cooperation of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and a number of sitting Republican senators wise enough to join Democrats to address the issue now. But this may well not happen.
The other option involves a new budget resolution, which would facilitate using the reconciliation process to raise the debt limit, as was done in 1990, 1993 and 1997. This approach would require two votes — the first on the budget resolution and the second on reconciliation. It would take up about two weeks of Senate floor time, but it could be accomplished with only 50 votes.
Any Democrats averse to taking such a painful vote now should consider how much leverage their party will lose once Republicans control the House — and how much higher the risk of default will be then. It’s generally not a good idea to enter a negotiation with a ticking time bomb and a counterparty willing to let it go off.
The next two years will be turbulent in any case. The president and Congress can make them less risky by addressing the debt limit in December.
Nonetheless, the President and Congress did not address the debt limit then.Instead, as was reported a few days later, Senate Majority
Leader Chuck
Schumer said last week that he would like to “get a debt ceiling
done in this work period” but insisted that it would require Republican
support, effectively ruling out a go-it-alone approach that would allow
Democrats to unilaterally raise the debt limit. Speaking to reporters on the
same day, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, said he didn’t think
Congress would take up the issue until “sometime next year”.
At that point and in the lame-duck session, Democrats- not Mitch
McConnell's GOP- controlled the Senate, in which an extension of the debt limit could
be approved by reconciliation, and the House of Representatives. Yet
Schumer said the Senate will take a final vote on
legislation to protect same-sex and interracial marriages when the chamber
returns after the Thanksgiving recess. Earlier this month, 12 Republicans
joined all Democrats to clear a major procedural hurdle that put the historic
measure on track to passage.
“Passing the Respect for Marriage Act is no longer a matter
of if but only of when,” he said in recent remarks. A version of the bill
passed the House earlier this year, with support from dozens of Republicans.
Schumer believed the Respect for Marriage Act would have passed in the
following Congress, anyway. By contrast, the earlier the debt limit is
effectively addressed, the less likely Republicans (who have taken control of the House, as was expected) will be able to hold it hostage, threatening the global economy, to cut Social
Security and Medicare.
The Republican Party is responsible for this problem. Taking
anyone or anything hostage is an impotent gesture unless the threat is credible,
and Republicans may be willing to take the economy down if Democrats don’t meet
their demands for policy which would slice and dice Americans who need Social
Security and Medicare. As Kasparian probably understands, Republicans may go on and on about critical race theory, trans athletes, or the other sexy issue of the moment, but they keep their eye on the prize, consolidation of wealth for the donor class.
The Republican Party is responsible for this problem. Taking
anyone or anything hostage is an impotent gesture unless the threat is credible,
and Republicans may be willing to take the economy down if Democrats don’t meet
their demands for policy which would slice and dice Americans who need Social
Security and Medicare.
But, hey, priorities are priorities. Democrats, who would like to protect the country from the mischief Republicans are planning, nonetheless focus on cultural issues of race and sex to keep their own base of voters engaged . And there are fewer greater priorities for them than making
sure that the sanctity of a same-sex marriage is respected.
Now, if the Supreme
Court takes up those unions, rules that states may prohibit them, and conservative
states such as Mississippi re-institute a ban, the marriage of a couple which decides to move from Massachusetts to Mississippi would still be recognized. And if next year the economy tanks or earned benefits plummet, we
can still celebrate Amy Klobuchar’s tweet, triumphantly.
In a letter to the Democratic National Committee's Rules
and Bylaws Committee on the Presidential Nominating Process, President Joe Biden properly slammed
Caucuses – requiring voters to choose in public, to spend
significant amounts of time to caucus, disadvantaging hourly workers and anyone
who does not have the flexibility to go to a set location at a set time – are
inherently anti-participatory. It should be our party’s goal to rid the
nominating process of restrictive, anti-worker caucuses.
Nonetheless, he was blowing smoke up our posterior when he
wrote (typed?)
For decades, Black voters in particular have been the
backbone of the Democratic Party but have been pushed to the back of the early
primary process. We rely on these voters in elections but have not recognized
their importance in our nominating calendar. It is time to stop taking these
voters for granted, and time to give them a louder and earlier voice in the
process.
Too often over the past fifty years, candidates have dropped
out or had their candidacies marginalized by the press and pundits because of
poor performances in small states early in the process before voters of color
cast a vote. As I said then, 99.9% of Black voters had not had the chance to
vote at that point, and 99.8% of Latino voters had not had the opportunity.
That is unacceptable in 2024 and it must change.
Who won the black vote in the Democratic presidential primary?
Since 1992, no candidate has won the Democratic nomination for president without winning a majority of black vote. Black voters are likely to account for one of every four primary ballots cast in 2020.
Year
Candidate
Eventual nominee
2016
Hillary Clinton (won 77 percent of the black vote)
Hillary Clinton
2008
Barack Obama (82 percent)
Barack Obama
2004
John Kerry (56 percent)
John Kerry
2000
Al Gore (86 percent)
Al Gore
1992
Bill Clinton (70 percent)
Bill Clinton
1988
Jesse Jackson (92 percent)
Michael Dukakis
1984
Jesse Jackson (77 percent)
Walter Mondale
1980
Ted Kennedy (45 percent)
Jimmy Carter
Source: Network exit polls
Jesse Jackson had very little money, not government experience, was running primarily to make a point, and would have lost 50 states had the impossible- as it always was viewed- happened and he won the Democratic nomination. Biden's argument that black voters have been marginalized in the nominating process is legitimate- but only if we go back to 1980, which will be a full 44 years before the next Democratic nominee is selected.
Since then, the candidate- WJ Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, H Clinton, Biden- garnering a majority of the votes of blacks won the party's presidential nomination. That's five consecutive nominees favored by the voting bloc Biden professes to believe need "a louder and earlier voice in the process."
The AP notes
In a letter Thursday to the rule-making arm of the
Democratic National Committee, Biden did not mention specific states he’d like
to see go first. But he has told Democrats he wants South Carolina moved to the
first position, according to three people familiar with his recommendation who
spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations.
After three states- New Hampshire, Iowa, and Nevada- had their say, it was unclear exactly whom those Democratic voters favored. It was, clear, however, that they wanted no part of the man who had served decades in office, whether as a U.S. Senator or as a Vice-President. However, Joe Biden procured the endorsement of US Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina. As Majority Whip, had achieved the highest-ranking position of any black person in House of Representatives history, and was the pre-eminent Democrat in a state with two Republican US Senators and a Republican governor. His support carried weight.
In the run-up to the primary in South Carolina, the cry ran out on the left's news network of choice, MSNBC, and by many pundits and some politicians: "blacks have not been heard from." They were right.
As expected, a clear majority of the votes in the South Carolina primary was cast by blacks. Biden won a strong majority of these votes, thus winning the primary easily. Thus, prior to Super Tuesday, three Democrats, most notably Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, dropped out of the race and endorsed the former V.P. On the heels of his success in the African American-dominated primary in South Carolina- and its aftermath- Biden won handily on Super Tuesday and was not seriously challenged for the nomination afterward.
Yet, Joe Biden says "we...... have not recognized their (black voters) importance in our nominating calendar." If Joe hasn't noticed, virtually everyone else has. White voters recognized "we rely on these voters in elections" and voted accordingly after South Carolina.
The President wants black voters to have “a louder and
earlier voice in the process.” Louder? A louder voice is unnecessary when “no
Democrat has won the nomination without the support of a majority of black
voters in three decades.” He claims "too often over the past fifty years, candidates have dropped out or had their candidacies marginalized by the press and pundits because of poor performances in small states early in the process before voters of color cast a vote."
Biden isn't thinking about "voters of color." In favoring South Carolina and thereby downgrading Nevada, he's little interested in Latinos (despite the obligatory nod to the group) and ignoring Asian-Americans and individuals of tribal background. He invoked "diversity" six times with nary a nod toward linguistic, religious, or educational diversity. Those latter three may pale in importance to race- but it is Biden himself who is obsessed with what he terms "diversity."
The nominating process in 2008 is telling. After Barack Obama won in Iowa, Hillary Clinton defeated him and John Edwards in Nevada. Between Iowa and Nevada, Clinton won in Michigan. Edwards and Obama had chosen not to be on the ballot there, a strong move strategically because Clinton clearly would have led the field, anyway. (Edwards already had begun to fade and Michigan's electorate was dominated by the white working class.) Thankfully for Edwards and Obama, the DNC then stripped Michigan of its delegates because it had not gained the organization's approval to hold its primary at that stage.
Clinton then won in Nevada- but was defeated in South Carolina by Obama, who went on to win the nomination. Somehow, though, we are to believe that sometime during the period when South Carolina gave its nod in 2008 to eventual nominee Barack Obama (and in 2012, in which he was effectively unopposed), to eventual nominee HRC in 2016, and to eventual nominee JR Biden in 2020, its voters, and black voters in general, were neutered.
The President could try treating his party's voters as adults and level with us: black, especially non-young black women, constitute the base of the party and the voters who most carry it to victory. We are rewarding them. Period.
The Senate on Tuesday passed a bill to codify protections
for same-sex and interracial marriages, a historic vote aimed at protecting
people’s civil rights in the event that the conservative-led Supreme Court
decides to dismantle marriage equality on the heels of gutting abortion rights.
The Respect for Marriage Act passed, 61 to 36. Every
Democrat present voted for it, and they needed at least 10 Republicans to vote
with them. They got 12...
The measure now heads to the House and, assuming it passes,
to President Joe Biden to be signed into law. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
(D-Md.) told reporters Tuesday that the House plans to take up and pass the
bill as soon as next Tuesday.
The bill does two things: It repeals the Defense of Marriage
Act, the 1996 federal law that banned same-sex marriage, and it requires states
to recognize valid same-sex marriages from other states. It also ensures the
same protections for interracial marriages.
Klobuchar's tweet is wrong on several levels: 1) "marriage equality" (i.e., same-sex marriage) already had been protected by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled in Hodges v. Obergefell that no jurisdiction could prohibit it: 2) whatever is protected by the bill is not protected merely by action in the Senate but must also be passed in the House (as noted in the ABC News video below)- which might alter it with an amendment by the chamber's Republicans- and signed by the President; 3) the bill applies to interracial, as well as same-sex, marriages.
Other than that, the esteemed Senator from Minnesota has it exactly right. By contrast, ABC News political reporter Brittany Shepherd seems to understand at least that thelegislation is limited in scope- which (presumably) Klobuchar also does, but who as a Senator has motive to hype it. However, Shepherd also referred to it as a "monumental move for Democrats" and a "magnanimous, huge win for Joe Biden and Democrats."
HuffPost explains
The bill does two things: It repeals the Defense of Marriage
Act, the 1996 federal law that banned same-sex marriage, and it requires states
to recognize valid same-sex marriages from other states. It also ensures the
same protections for interracial marriages.
Same-sex and interracial marriages are, of course, already
legal nationwide. But Congress is pushing through this bill in response to
conservatives on the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade this year, destroying
50 years of precedent, and suggesting that they could use the same rationale
for overturning landmark decisions that have established the right to same-sex
and consensual relationships.
Justice Clarence Thomas, for one, had this to say in a concurring
opinion when the court overturned Roe v. Wade in June: “In future cases, we
should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents,
including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.”
The Supreme Court already had overturned the Clinton-era Defense of Marriage Act, in 2013 in United States v. Windsor. If the current bill is not enacted into law, jurisdictions nonetheless could not prohibit same-sex marriage, thanks to Hodges v. Obergefell.
This bill would guarantee full faith and credit for intra-sexual and interracial marriages were Hodges to be overturned, such that a state enacting prohibition of same-sex marriage would be required recognize such a marriage which took place elsewhere. Good, but call me unimpressed.
Meanwhile, Republicans- including the most likely Speaker of the House- Kevin McCarthy- in the next Congress- are threatening to refuse to raise the debt limit in order to force a reduction in spending, including in Social Security and Medicare. Spending cuts would be disastrous; a default would be disastrous. But, hey, now if the Court overturns its ruling on same-sex marriage, a state banning gay marriage would be required to recognize the marriage of two men or two women married in a state permitting such unions.
Several of those twelve Republicans who voted "aye" would sooner sooner run naked through a Chick-fil-A restaurant than vote for anything substantive proposed by Democrats. But they voted for this bill. Senator Klobuchar is thrilled, but we should not be shocked by this.
Declaring "Enough, enough!" U.S. President Joe
Biden on Thursday called on Congress to ban assault weapons, expand background
checks and implement other gun control measures to address a string of mass
shootings that have struck the United States.
Speaking from the White House, in a speech broadcast live in
primetime, Biden asked a country stunned by the recent shootings at a school in
Texas, a grocery store in New York and a medical building in Oklahoma, how many
more lives it would take to change gun laws in America.
"For God's sake, how much more carnage are we willing
to accept?" Biden asked.
Quite a bit. After the massacre of six people (plus many
more injured) in Highland Park, Illinois at an Independence Day parade,
President Biden has declared "Jill and I are shocked by the senseless gun
violence that has yet again brought grief to an American community on this
Independence Day."
Of course, the President was shocked. He already had
declared "enough, enough!" And to be fair, after negotiations between
Democratic senators and Republican senators, an agreement recently was reached on a
(tepid) gun safety proposal, thereafter approved by the Senate and House and
signed by the President. About that, the former Chief of Staff for Harry Reid,
Adam Jentleson, had it right:
I think it’s important to be honest that on the scale of national policy, the bill is an admission of defeat, a marker of decline, a sign that our system is no longer capable of passing policy solutions that are on the same scale as the challenges they seek to address.
Jentleson tweeted promptly after the carnage in Highland
Park, but his observation was (or should have been) obvious once Senators Murphy and Cornyn had struck a deal.
However, as best as can be determined, it had not spurred anyone else generally
on the left to be as realistically cynical about the resultant legislation. And
still, expectations are being lifted to an unrealistic level. Promoting the need for an assault weapons
ban with Biden-like rhetoric:
More kids’ bicycles strewn in a sidewalk, grandparents lost, blood in the streets.
Enough. I have long advocated for the assault weapons ban. These weapons belong in the hands of trained military, not madmen.
Wrong, Senator. Sufficiency already had been established,
however mass shootings are calculated. . We reached the enough stage a long time ago. And because of firearms manufacturers, the firearms lobby, and Republican officials, "we" are willing to accept a lot more of the unfortunate exercise in Second Amendment freedoms
Senator Klobuchar and President Biden can ineffectually
mimic the commercial marketing of the "enough" campaign, which will
only raise expectations of ending gun violence swiftly. The slaughter, in
instances of mass shooting or more common street violence, will continue. It
will not end soon, and that's not for God's sake.
I am considering calling Commissioner Adam Silver of the
National Basketball Association and advising him that I no longer want to be
considered for the next NBA draft.
I'm too short to play professional basketball, maybe even as
a point guard. And I run as fast as an average white man of 55 years of age,
which is a little beneath my chronological age; but still. My jump shot never
was very good. Nonetheless, I expect to be lauded because I stepped aside for the
"many incredibly talented" young men whom teams could select.
If that seems a little silly- and it is- consider that, as
Politico notes
Sen. Amy Klobuchar late Thursday said she personally called
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden to advise he pick a woman of color
as his running mate, effectively announcing the end of her vice presidential
aspirations.
"I truly believe, as I actually told the vice president
last night when I called him, that I think this is a moment to put a woman of
color on that ticket," the Minnesota Democrat told MSNBC's Lawrence
O'Donnell. "And there is so many incredibly qualified women."
Prior to that call, Amy Klobuchar had as much chance of
being selected as Joe Biden's running mate as did I- or that Klobuchar had of
being the first selection in the NBA draft.
Moreover, the odds of Biden (who long ago had said it would
be a woman) choosing a black woman is roughly the same as that the first pick
in the next (presumably April) NBA draft will have spent some time in college-
or in high school.
It was nearly that great four weeks ago, before the killing
of George Floyd, a black man crudely slayed on the streets of Minneapolis by a white police officer,,
sparking an unprecedented string of massive protests focused on racial bias in
policing. Although someone progressive a heartbeat from the presidency would have
served, and would serve, the country well, the first order of business
is to defeat Donald Trump.
That priority was understood well before Klobuchar made her
empty gesture, and it was understood by most experts that the greatest
electoral benefit in a running mate would be in someone black, whatever her
ideology.
Once Floyd was killed and widespread support for the
protests became evident, selection of someone black became imperative. Whatever
Klobuchar's chances- and they were somewhere between zero and one percent- they
slid to zero because, as the Politico writers understand
as protests over
police brutality against African Americans erupted across the country following
the death of George Floyd at the hands of a Minneapolis police officer, the
traditional running mate calculus was altered. Klobuchar's credentials as a former
prosecutor with a tough-on-crime record didn't sit well as her home state
became a locus among protests and calls for structural change in law
enforcement.
Two other potential Biden picks, California Sen. Kamala
Harris and Florida Rep. Val Demings, also have law enforcement backgrounds.
However, both are black women, have more support among African-American leaders
and have been more comfortable discussing issues of race, inequality and police
brutality.
There are two relevant points there: 1) Klobuchar was a
prosecutor and this is a point in time, perhaps unprecedented in American
history, that such a qualification diminishes, rather than enhances, appeal; 2)
other v.p candidates "have been more comfortable discussing issues of
race, inequality, and police brutality."
That probably is not because of Harris/Demings/Klobuchar. The
views expressed on this issue (issues?) have been nearly identical across the
Democratic Party, whatever the ethnicity of the individual. Yet, as we all have
witnessed in the media recently, blacks simply have been more comfortable discussing these issues than have whites.
Whatever the reason(s), that is an inescapable
observation. Oh, and there is this: if
it weren't for African-American voters, Joe Biden would be back in his mansion
in Wilmington, Delaware wondering how he could have entered three Democratic
presidential races in his long political career and won zero(0) primaries or caucuses.
"Payback is a bitch," many people have said. In
this case, payback is no bitch- but vital, and inevitable, whatever Amy Klobuchar wants us to believe..
it was clear that there was no Bernie slayer at the lecterns
in Charleston, someone who alone had the time and skills to convince Democratic
voters that the democratic socialist was a radical whose nomination would
forfeit the party’s chance to defeat Trump.
Nor was there anyone with the desire to slay the
front-runner.
Give the Democratic candidates their due. They probably
figure Sanders is likely to be the nominee and viciously attacking him might
help undo their chances of unseating President Trump in November and to hold
onto the House of Representatives, the latter in doubt with the nomination of
Sanders. And if one of them brings down Sanders, it might inure to the benefit
of Michael Bloomberg- whose nomination would be dicey for another set of
reasons.
We know what the President … what Russia wants, it’s chaos.
Once this campaign is over, Buttigieg will be found on the
boardwalk either in Atlantic City, N.J. or at southern California
beaches. Inasmuch as we don't know what the Kremlin is doing, how it is doing
it, when it started, whether it is continuing or who the specific actor is, we
don't know why Vladimir Putin prefers Bernard Sanders to all others as the
Democratic nominee. We do know, however,
that Sanders has continually knocked USA foreign policy over the decades as one
which excessively prefers regimes friendly to this country at the expense of
other values. (See "Cuba, literacy.")
Therefore, assuming that Buttigieg really isn't a psychic, his remark may have reflected an unwillingness to confront Sanders here.
2) Elizabeth Warren beginning at 3:40
Look, the way I see this is that Bernie is winning right now
because the Democratic Party is a progressive party and progressive ideas are
popular ideas. Even if there are a lot of people on this stage who don’t want
to say so. But Bernie and I agree on a lot of things, but I think I would make
a better president than Bernie. And the reason for that is that getting a
progressive agenda enacted is going to be really hard and it’s going to take
someone who digs into the details to make it happen. Bernie and I both wanted
to help reign in Wall Street. In 2008, we both got our chance, but I dug in, I
fought the big banks, I built the coalitions and I won. Bernie and I both want
to see universal healthcare, but Bernie’s plan doesn’t explain how to get
there, doesn’t show how we’re going to get enough allies into it and doesn’t
show enough about how we’re going to pay for it.
There could be no clearer endorsement of the candidacy of
the Vermont senator than "Bernie is winning right now because the
Democratic Party is a progressive party and progressive ideas are popular
ideas. Even if there are a lot of people on this stage who don’t want to say
so." Moreover, while Warren's pitch
all along should have been that she is "someone who digs into the details
to make it happen," once she invoked this argument Wednesday night, it was
not heard again. Repetition works- ask Sanders, who returns repeatedly to the
same theme(s), whatever the question asked.
3) Michael Bloomberg and Amy Klobuchar, beginning at 23:23 responding to Sanders first stating
Let me just, the answer is, it’s something
that we would take into consideration. But here is the point. I am very proud
of being Jewish. I actually lived in Israel for some months, but what I happen
to believe is that right now, sadly, tragically, in Israel, through Bibi
Netanyahu, you have a reactionary racist who is now running that country. And I
happen to believe, I happen to believe, that what our foreign policy in the
mid-east should be about is absolutely protecting the independence and security
of Israel. But you cannot ignore the suffering of the Palestinian people. We
have got to have a policy that reaches out to the Palestinians, and the
Americans. And in answer to your question, that will come within the context of
bringing nations together in the mid-east.
Michael Bloomberg:
Well, the battles been going on for a long time in the
Middle East, whether it’s the Arabs versus the Persians, the Shias versus the
Sunnis, the Jews in Israel and the Palestinians, it’s only gone on for 40 or 50
years. Number one, you can’t move the embassy back. We should not have done it
without getting something from the Israeli government, but it was done, and
you’re going to have to leave it there. Number two, only solution here is a two
state solution. The Palestinians have to be accommodated. The real problem here
is you have two groups of people, both of who think God them the same piece of
land. And the answer is to obviously split it up, leave the Israeli borders
where they are. Try to push them to pull back some of those extra, over on the
other side of the wall where they’ve built these new communities, which they
should not have done that. Pull it back-
Sanders has appeared at the convention of the largest Muslim
political action committee in the nation and received its endorsement. He also
has chatted on Fox News, allegedly because he believes a public official must communicate with those he disagrees with. Yet he has refused two years running to attend the convention of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee and now has
labeled as "racist" the leader of one of the two most steadfast
allies..
No one cares what Michael Bloomberg's policy is toward the Mideast any more than voters care about Warren's 78 plans for every problem besetting the USA. The front-runner just claimed to be proud that he is Jewish- and called the leader of probably one of the two most steadfast allies of the USA a "racist." In any other context than a Democratic presidential campaign, that is called a "gaffe."
Klobuchar was no better- and should have been. According to
this report, the Minnesota senator "has a solid relationship with the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the largest pro-Israel lobby in
the country." The executive director of the Jewish Community Relations
Council of Minnesota and the Dakotas has stated "she's ubiquitous in the
Minnesota Jewish community." And last night, when Israel's Prime Minister
was called a "racist," she was mum.
4) Joseph Biden, Amy Klobuchar, and Elizabeth Warren,
beginning at 26:29 with Tom Steyer:
Excuse me, Amy. This conversation shows a huge risk for the
Democratic Party. We are looking at a party that has decided that we’re either
going to support someone who is a Democratic Socialist or somebody who has a
long history of being a Republican. And let me say that I got into this race
because I wanted to fight for economic justice, for racial justice, and to make
sure we had climate justice for the American people. And I am scared. If we
cannot pull this party together, if we go to one of those extremes, we take a
terrible risk of reelecting Donald Trump.
Here, Tom Steyer condemns Sanders as a Democratic Socialist
and Bloomberg for having "a long history of being a Republican." To the credit of Steyer- whom yesterday I
wouldn't give any credit to- he opened the floor for what should have been an
obvious point.
Three days before the debate, the front-runner lumped the
"Republican establishment" in with the typically unspecified, largely neutered "Democratic
establishment." He plans to take on the Democratic establishment this
autumn and reportedly still has not registered as a Democrat. This does not bode well for
a party which would like to take over
the Senate and at least hold on to the House of Representatives, But it did
provide an opening, which Biden, Klobuchar, and Warren ignored.
Those are four instances in which Bernard Sanders' rivals,
whose chances decline every day, failed for whatever reason to challenge the
prohibitive favorite as they should have, and needed to have. And don't get me
started on Castro's Cuba.
The Minnesota senator is too conservative for my tastes, andher vote for a controversial (anti-) Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions
demonstrated questionable judgment because of issues pertaining to free
speech. Nevertheless, she is correct
that
As staunch allies of Israel, we must also ensure that
harmful movements, like the resurgence in anti-Semitism and the Boycott
Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) Movement are not successful. The BDS movement
undermines a two-state solution and is counterproductive to both Israelis and Palestinians.
It appears unlikely that is an opinion shared by the leading
candidate for the Democratic nomination for President. And so it is that
As president, I will support the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians and do everything possible to bring peace and security to the region. 2/2
It's comforting to learn that the senator is not determined
to bring further war and insecurity to the
Middle East. However
his public refusal to attend last year’s conference early in
his bid for the 2020 Democratic nomination spurred a petition that urged other
presidential candidates to steer clear of the pro-Israel lobbying group’s event.
Things have changed since last year, but the senator from
Vermont on Sunday again denounced the conference, which he called a platform
for “leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights.” In doing
so, Sanders has reignited the debate over the lobby’s influence in U.S.
politics, at a time when some detractors have compared his supporters and
campaign victories to the rise of the Nazis.
In response, AIPAC, which calls itself a “pro-Israel lobby”
and holds substantial sway in foreign policy debates involving Israel and the
Palestinian territories, described Sanders’s position on Sunday as “truly
shameful.”
“Sen. Sanders has never attended our conference and that is
evident from his outrageous comment,” AIPAC said in a tweet Sunday. “By
engaging in such an odious attack on this mainstream, bipartisan American
political event, Sen. Sanders is insulting his very own colleagues and the
millions of Americans who stand with Israel.”
AIPAC is not Republican or Democratic, nor does it support
Likud or any political party in Israel.
A year ago, it criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for forming
a coalition with three right-wing parties in order to remain in power. Probably more than anything else, it is mainstream.
Yet Bernard Sanders won't attend its conference this year,
just as he refused to do so last year.
He did, however, recently appear at a forum co-sponsored by Emgage and earned the endorsement of Emgage Action, which "calls itself the biggest
Muslim political action committee in the country."
Sanders may be emphasizing his support for Palestinian Arabs
over Palestinian Jews as a general election strategy (read:
"Michigan"). Or he actually
may want to restructure radically American policy in the Middle East.
The Vermont senator may expect his Jewish affiliation to
blunt or counter any charge that he does not support "the right of the
Israeli people to live in peace and security," a vague phrase meaning
nothing. But he is the clear
front-runner, and without a serious challenge- beginning at Tuesday's debate in Charleston, S.C.- obviously will sail to the
nomination. And for Amy Klobuchar, that
might mean confronting Sanders on his preferences in the Middle East. It's a
risky strategy, but for her at least there probably is no other.
Klobuchar is not necessarily "dumb" nor especially ignorant. Many US senators probably know little about Mexico. And she is qualified to be President of the United States of America. The senior Minnesota senator is now serving her third term, whereas when he was elected President, Barack Obama had been a senator since approximately last Tuesday (four years into his first and only term).
Nonetheless, Klobuchar's appearance on Bill Maher's Real Time on Friday exposed her as unprepared for the presidential transition period (as probably all the other Democratic presidential aspirants are). At 8:10 of the video below, Maher can be seen broaching a subject all other interviewers havebeen too naive, timid, or cowardly to raise. After Klobuchar takes a dig at Trump, Maher begins with
So that's what we have on our side- rapier wit, sweets, very enthusiastic audiences in liberal cities. Here's what he has: miltiary, police, and he throws in the bikers. O.K., I'm going to ask this question because I ask it of every Democratic politician that comes on here. (Here, Klobuchar interjects with her talking points because she has no clue what Maher is getting at.)
That's not what I'm talking about. I'm saying you win, you win. That's different than him leaving. That's what I want to know what is the plan and I think we need to start talking about it now. It's very hard for me to imagine you winning the popular vote fair and square and him sending out a congratulatory telegram, "so great that you won, we had a good match and, uh, let me tell you where I keep the important papers."
Trump is not only not sending out a telegram, he's issuing no tweet to that effect. The host continues
He's not leaving. His people are not going to give up power. What is the plan if he says "I found irregularities. The people who ran it in Iowa screwed it up again. I have to stay. It was rigged." He's already said this many times. What do you do then?
The only question is whether Trump will be able to squeeze "Hillary" or "James Comey" into his tweet. It would be amazing that no Democrat has addressed this near-certainty (if the incumbent is defeated) except that it appears no one in the media has raised the issue. Klobuchar responds
The first thing you do is you start now. Win big, which I believe will help. Secondly- come on, you win all these states in the country and it's harder. Second, you make sure we have backup paper ballots, you push for- that's my bills. You do everything to protect elections.
Ballot security is extremely important. However, the "win all these states in the country" is not only a dangerous mind-set, it's bizarre coming from a candidate whose calling card is that she has won in a swing state adjacent to swing states. Hillary Clinton wanted to win a lot of states, to establish a mandate, and in so doing failed to secure the party's electoral base.
When Maher notes "We're living in the era of fake news. There's no facts anymore. It's just about power," Klobuchar states "we have always had a peaceful transition of power in this country."
Memo to Senator Klobuchar: this is Donald Trump- Donald Trump. "Have always had" is inoperable. Emphasizing "have," Maher responds "have had. We're now in a different world."
Languishing in the old world, Klobuchar maintains "when you have the people on your side in a big way...."
That big way would be 50%-58% of the 60% of Americans eligible to register to vote, those over 18. So that would be approximately 35% of American adults who would have voted for a victorious Klobuchar. Trump would surely stress that most Americans did not vote for his opponent.
However, there is an additional reason "the people" may not prevail, for Maher points out "oh, he has a lot of people on his side- the ones with the guns."
The Democratic nominee will need to assemble a team of lawyers prepared to do battle with a defeated Trump who would refuse to leave the White House. Promptly after winning election, the victor's team should issue press releases- in the name of "President-Elect" and signed by the 46th President. Within days, the President-elect should start announcing cabinet nominees, which would reinforce the (accurate) public perception that the incumbent had been defeated.
It would help to visit states to thank voters publicly for helping elect a new President. Rallies can be held with banners emblazoned with the Electoral College vote of each candidate. Meetings should be held with congressional leaders, though GOP legislators probably will refuse to participate. Visits with foreign leaders can be scheduled.
The ball doesn't have to be spiked in the Trumpian manner, but voters need to know the Democratic nominee has (with their help) reached the end zone. The winner must act like he/she has won and change is a-coming.
When there is only one Democratic candidate who has asserted that charges against a Donald Trump would be investigated in her administration, it isn't only Amy Klobuchar who doesn't understand on the deepest level that things have changed dramatically. As Bill Maher understands, the rule of law has given way to the primacy of power. If he loses, Donald Trump is going nowhere until and unless he is forced to vacate the White House.
