Stop Putting Up With This

In many cases, it's critical to check original sources and not omit a critical response.

Jake Tapper just put Senator Cory Booker on DEFENSE, pressing him to explain why Democrats are REFUSING to fund the United States Department of Homeland Security while security concerns remain high.

Tapper pinned the standoff directly on Senate Democrats.

TAPPER: “So in terms… pic.twitter.com/k7MtCw16fR

— Overton (@overton_news) March 15, 2026

 The tweeter's transcription of this segment of the interview, following "So in terms":

of the security of our home, there have been a number of attacks — ISIS inspired bombing attempt in New York City outside Mamdani’s house. A shooting target at an ROTC class at Old Dominion and on and on and on.”

“Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is still shut down because Senate Democrats are blocking the funding bill over the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.”

 “Given the security concerns you just expressed and given the fact that that honestly, Secretary Noem has been fired, Tom Homan took over from Greg Bovino and Noem in Minnesota you could argue Democrats won the debate.”

“Isn’t it time for Democrats to reopen and refund DHS?”

 BOOKER: “So, first of all Democrats have tried multiple times to try to get TSA, CISA, the Coast Guard funded. Republicans have refused time and time again to fund…”

TAPPER: “Yeah, they want the whole agency funded.”

"Cory Booker (pu)t on DEFENSE" as to "why Democrats are REFUSING to fund the United States Department of Homeland Security while security concerns remain high" is, well, highly misleading. And that goes beyond the reality that security concerns are high now because of the war Donald Trump launched in violation of the 1973 War Powers Resolution (and international law, for what that's worth), without consulting our allies in the Gulf or Europe and apparently without considering the ramifactions of is reckless action.

Booker's response after "they want the whole agency funded" was 

They want the whole agency.

ICE is still out there doing reckless things in communities. ICE is still arresting and detaining American citizens. ICE is still having unmasked people jump out of unmarked cars abducting people from the streets, barreling into homes. Even Americans, even veterans are being swept up in ICE's chaos.

I will not approve another dollar for ICE, given all that they're doing, but we should be funding those TSA agents that keep us safe, CISA, Coast Guard. And for Republicans to refuse to do it is unacceptable.

Out of time, Tapper then concluded the interview.

That was a good response from Booker; as good or better than most Democrats would give. And I'm not saying that because he's one of the two best Senators from my state.  However, there was an even better response New Jersey's senior senator could have made.

Objection- assumes facts not in evidence. Tapper's question "isn't it time for Democrats to reopen and fund DHS?" was less accusatory, implying that it is the fault of Democrats that the federal government isn't open and their responsibility to end the impass they've allegedly created.

In response to Tapper, the question should be reversed. He should be asked "isn't it time for Republicans to reopen and fund DHS?"  That rhetorical question probably would be mean with silence. Once Tapper regains his footing, the priority should be to point out that Republicans control the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the presidency. If the government isn't working, it's on the Republicans. It's their government!

Make sure that viewers understand that it is Republicans who are creating the long lines at the airport. Moreover, Booker- or any Democrat- earns extra credit if he or she turns the question against Jake Tapper himself.  Why are you even asking that question, Jake?   

Republicans have understood for a long time that Americans do not like the media, ever since a Nixon Administration speechwriter (either Pat Buchanan or William Safire) had Vice President Spiro Agnew refer to the "nattering nabobs of negativism" who have "their own 4-H club- the hopeless, hysterical hypchondriacs of history." (There is disagreement over whether Agnew initially was referring to the media or to Democratic politicians but it was taken up by conservative critics of the press as a blueprint.)

Although they no longer appreciate awesome alliteration, Americans like and respect the media even less than they did at that time. Democrats, seemingly unaware of the relationship between the voters and professional journalists, seem to believe that the former have some regard for the latter. Moreover, they act as if they believe the GOP myth that the media is partial to Democrats.

They must not continue to be fooled. The very promient Jake Tapper, with Alex Thompson, wrote "Original Sin: President Biden's Decline, Its Cover Up, and His Disastrous Choice to Run Again."  Evidently, they have not gotten around to writing a similar book about incumbent president Donald Trump, whose physical and mental decline is threatening not only our constitutional republic, but world stability.

Washington Democrats also mistake political epedience for dmocratic tradition.. Much tradition is good; much needs to be reversed. The obvious answer to Jake Tapper's plea that Republicans "want the whole agency funded" is that not all of it should be. The eerily-named Department of Homeland Security was created in the wake of the 9/11/01 terrorist atttacks, and should not have been. It has become a monstrosity, a ridiculous behemoth, lumping together Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, Transportation Security Administration, FEMA, and twelve other operational and support components.

Enough- actually, much too much. It's time to split off ICE, either with or without Customs and Border Protection, and not crush innocent airport travelers because congressional Republicans are unable or unwilling to rein in President Trump's anti-immigrant crusade. And it's time for Democrats to challenge media members who treat those Republicans with kid gloves and know they'll never get any pushback from the other side.

Share |

Fallen Angel

Cory Booker has joined the growing chorus of New Jersey public officials who have called for the resignation of the state's senior Senator, Robert Menendez.

NEW: Senator Booker calls for Menendez to resign. https://t.co/INebtw0Wlr

— Mueller, She Wrote (@MuellerSheWrote) September 26, 2023

There must be two (2) men named Cory Booker in New Jersey politics because shortly before an eight-count indictment was handed down for Senator Menendez in 2015

Mr. Booker held up a different New Jersey politician as a paradigm of civic virtue: Robert Menendez, the state’s senior senator.

“I knew him well when I was a mayor, because every time Newark needed something, he would show up — sort of like a superhero,” Mr. Booker told a select audience at a breakfast hosted by the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce on March 25, about a week before Mr. Menendez, a fellow Democrat, was indicted on bribery charges.

Describing the “respect and reverence” he felt for his colleague, Mr. Booker hailed Mr. Menendez as “one of the greatest advocates for justice on the planet Earth.”

A scant three years later, all had been forgiven, if not forgotten, because

Every major Democratic power broker in the state quickly endorsed Mr. Menendez for re-election in 2018: Philip D. Murphy, the governor-elect; Senator Cory Booker; Stephen M. Sweeney, the senate president; Craig Coughlin, the incoming speaker of the State Assembly; George E. Norcross, an influential political leader in southern New Jersey; and the county chairs in northern Democratic strongholds such as Bergen, Hudson, Passaic, Essex and Middlesex.

There was, however, one individual who challenged Menendez in the party's primary that June, Lisa McCormick, a virtual unknown who did not report spending any money on the race, received the support of almost 4 in 10 Democratic voters.

While Menendez, D-N.J., was never seriously threatened with losing his party's nomination for another Senate term, his performance wasn't a good sign coming on the heels of his Senate Ethics Committee admonishment and a criminal corruption trial that ended in a hung jury before the charges were dropped.

Once it was clear Menendez would be seeking re-election in 2018, the old boy network swung into action and everyone fell into line. Six years later, society has changed and it need not be a boy (man) and most Democrats would prefer someone reasonably young.

But it's the same idea, a refusal to challenge an incumbent because he or she is an incumbent.  They don't meet in smoke-filled rooms anymore but Democratic officials could have found any one of a number of legitimate individuals to run against Bob Menendez. 

Now they have found their beer muscles. Democratic U.S. Representative Andy Kim, who was first elected to the House of Representatives in 2018, has announced that he will run for the seat. With Democrats jumping ship on Menendez, the party has de facto announced that challenges to the incumbent are welcomed. In the unlikely event he actually does survive to run for a fourth full term, Menendez would be defeated in a primary.

The Democratic Party is thereby missing an opportunity to leverage to its advantage the corruption charges against the Senator. They could stand united, recommending that Senator Menendez agree in writing that he will resign- at the same hour of the same day that Clarence Thomas resigns.

Of course, the GOP would reject this arrangement. Still, it would give Democrats an opportunity to switch the narrative, diverting attention to the far more grave accusations against a far more important figure, a United States Supreme Court Justice.

And of course, Democrats wouldn't consider doing this. Turning the tables on Republican wrongdoing when they can more easily adopt virtue signaling would be against their religion of turning on one of their currently disfavored own. Fingers held in air, they have determined which way the wind blows, just as they did when they gave full-throated support to their colleague in his last re-election bid. Wind direction has shifted, and so have their principles. Menendez is reminiscent of the snake who noted "now you knew darn well I was a snake before you brought me in."

In 2015, Robert Menendez not only was acceptable, he was "one of the greatest advocates for justice on planet Earth," high praise from a powerful, black public servant. In 2023, he would be thrown under the bus- were there still room under that metaphorical bus, where lay the likes of Al Franken, Anthony Weiner, and Van Jones.

 

Share |

Beyond Smollett

On January 29, 2019 gay actor Jussie Smollett had

told Chicago police he was physically attacked by two men in downtown Chicago while out getting food from a Subway restaurant at 2 a.m. The Black and openly gay actor tells authorities the men used racial and homophobic slurs, wrapped a rope around his neck and poured an "unknown substance" on him. Police say Smollett told detectives that the attackers yelled he was in "MAGA country," an apparent reference to former President Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" campaign slogan. Police say Smollett had scratches on his face and bruises but no broken ribs or serious injuries.

There was no broken bone while there were scratches and bruises. Scratches and bruises, self-inflicted or otherwise, can heal and police unavoidably were skeptical there was such an attack.

Nonetheless, prominent celebrities and politicians were seemingly certain there had been a serious assault.  On the 29th, the tweet from national Democrats went up the political food chain, in chronological order from Representatives Eric Swallwell, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; to Senator Cory Booker; then from Senator Kamala Harris and, finally, former Senator and Vice President Joe Biden.  The attack, the account of which smelled like four-day old fish, was promptly and uncritically accepted (video below from 3-4 weeks later).

The incident was condemned by these individuals as "vile and tragic" (ES); "racist and homophobic" (AO-C); an "attempted modern-day lynching" (CB); an "attempted modern day lynching" of "one of the kindest, most gentle human beings I know" (KH); "hate" given "safe harbor" (JB).

On Thursday, December 9, 2021 a Chicago jury found the actor guilty "on five of six felony counts of disorderly conduct for making a false report to Chicago police that he was the victim of a hate crime in January 2019 ." It evidently took the jury a little over nine hours to conclude that Jussie Smollett was, literally, unbelievable, an observation most Americans probably made upon hearing of the alleged attack.

It doesn't take a genius to realize- notwithstanding apparel that is worn- that supporters of Donald Trump and of "Make America Great Again" do not refer to themselves as from "MAGA country."  Critics may- they don't. And it didn't take a genius to realize that two pro-Trump right-wingers, racists, or any such persons who would wrap a rope around a man's neck, yell out a political slogan, pour an unknown substance on the victim, would manage to break no bones. Few people are so inept at the art of violence.

This thing obviously was a hoax from first report. Yet, several of the most well-known Democrats seemingly failed to recognize that Smollett's account deviated substantially and materially from objective reality. It may have been naivete, a rush to judgement, or combination thereof; or something even worse, a sorry impulse characterizing today's Democratic Party.

It's unclear why these politicos decided to jump in and endorse the story of an individual so obviously a huckster and unclear they'll be asked, given the lack of serious journalism in the USA today. However, in a time when the Republican Party has disturbingly made clear what it is all about, the public deserves to know the same about the other Party.

 

Share |

McConnell Forgot To Say "Guys, Don't Do Anything Stupid"

This is hard to believe. En route to approving a budget resolution as the first step in passing a $3.5 trillion "soft infrastructure" bill by budget reconciliation

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) tried to offer a nonbinding change to the budget related to opposing defunding the police.

"The far-left rally cry of defund the price is not just D.C. rhetoric, they're actually acting on it," Tuberville said from the Senate floor.

Actually, they're not. Article after article trumpets the decision (or attempt) to cut funds from police departments. Typically, those municipalities have redirected funds from law enforcement needs to social service needs. But there is no recorded instance of a town actually defunding the police. So recognizing a hanging curve when he saw it

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who has been involved in police reform negotiations, gave an energetic rebuttal — urging every senator to "sashay" to the center of the chamber and vote for the amendment.

"I am sure I will see no political ads attacking anybody here over defund the police," Booker quipped.

As the New Jersey senator realizes, there still will be some ads while the ranks of Democratic members of Congress who support actual defunding of the police run the ideological gamut from Cori Bush to Rashida Tlaib, or from A to B. But few others want police departments eliminated, and fewer still are rising to the chant of "defund the police," heeding the warning of House Majority Whip James Clyburn.

Tuberville should have realized that; Mitch McConnell evidently does because

After Democrats supported the amendment, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) office blasted out a press release entitled "Democrats Are Still The Party Of Defunding The Police." And Tuberville's office sent out a press release characterizing the vote as Democrats pouncing "at the chance to distance themselves from 'defund police' rhetoric.

When you have to say "my opponent still is," the war may not be lost but the battle is. And when the Senator who (successfully) sponsored the amendment concedes his opponents (Democrats) eagerly accepted the "chance to distance themselves," the message is clear: they did.

Booker has reason to gloat. Senator Tuberville's amendment  "to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to decreasing Federal funding for local jurisdictions that defund the police." If the Alabaman had chosen not to grandstand, he could have moved "to establish a deficit-neutral reserve fund relating to decreasing Federal funding for local jurisdictions that endanger public safety by reducing spending for law enforcement and/or police." That would have put most Democratic senators in a bind, with a vote in favor leaving them open to criticism from much of their base, a vote against a liability in a general election.

But he chose not to do so, thereby enabling Democrats to stand side by side with Republicans in supporting police and public safety by merely rejecting an idea that no Democratic member of the Senate and very few in the House want to be associated with, anyway.  That may be only fitting; Republicans like to portray themselves as godlike, and Tuberville's move seems like a gift from heaven, a veritable act of grace.

Share |

Race, And South Carolina

It's on to South Carolina.

People are still buzzing about what Natasha Korecki of Politico described as "Kamala Harris’ takedown of Joe Biden." John Blake of CNN "watched Sen. Kamala Harris' exquisite takedown of Joe Biden." Greg Sargent asserted "Harris grabbed control of the debate with a simple phrase: “I would like to speak on the issue of race.”

This "takedown" was not extemporaneous, and likely not a result of suppressed memories from Kamala Harris' experience as a school-age child in Berkeley, California. Instead

Her campaign had spent months fixated on Biden, whose support from black voters has kept him atop all of the early polls. They gamed out several scenarios in which she could use her personal story as a point of contrast with his decades-long record, including over his opposition to busing.

In the debate, Harris willed her way into the conversation about race and policing, calmly noting that as the only black person on the stage, she’d like to be heard....

While walking through her planned exchange with Biden over busing, Harris’ campaign planned for a variety of answers from him, from contrition to a more measured approach to the more forceful denial of the position that he ended up giving — a stance that was called out by fact-checkers as untrue given his past quotes rejecting the wisdom of busing.

Harris herself ended up settling on a line that within minutes would appear in social media memes and just a few hours later would be screen printed on t-shirts selling for $29 on her website: “That little girl was me,” she said, of her desegregated class.

Harris knows well an unstated- but well understood- maxim of politics:no one ever lost a vote invoking "the children."  Her narrative would not have been as powerful to the coastal elites who dominate the commentariat had the Senator not invoked "that little girl," dramatically intoning "that little girl was me."

As luck would have it- and unlike Harris' strong and clear implication- placing her in a majority- white school may not have been the primary factor driving an extremely successful career governmental career. We learn

In the mid-1990s, Harris had dated (Willie) Brown, who was investigated by the FBI when he was speaker of the California Assembly and as mayor was dogged by conflict of interest, and she had benefited from his political patronage. As the speaker of the state Assembly, Brown had named Harris to well-paid posts on the California Medical Assistance Commission and Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. As mayor of San Francisco in 2003, Brown was supportive of her district attorney campaign although they were no longer dating.

Taking advantage of personal connections is just common sense, as is exploiting in a Democratic debate one's minority status. Three days after Senator Harris had skillfully done the latter, fellow candidate Cory Booker was questioned on Meet the Press about Harris' famous confrontation of Biden. The New Jersey senator maintained that the former vice-president may not be "up to that task" of being able to "talk openly and honestly about race with vulnerability."

Harris' racially-driven performance can be viewed in the spirit of Booker's call for honest dialogue.Ten months ago, seemingly before hardly anyone had realized it, David Siders wrote in Politico

In the wake of South Carolina’s pivotal role in the past two competitive Democratic presidential contests, top Democrats are beginning to rethink their traditional approach to primary season, and to focus their energy on the first Southern state to vote.

It’s a tacit acknowledgment of the essential role African-American voters play within the Democratic Party as much as it is a nod to recent primary election results. With the racially diverse Obama coalition increasingly viewed as the key to the party’s future, the two early states that have historically overshadowed South Carolina — Iowa and New Hampshire — are suddenly looking outmoded to many Democrats.

Joe Biden had held a substantial lead in South Carolina, a state in which African-Americans are expected to constitute roughly half of the Democratic primary electorate. However, perceived as black by virtue of having a Jamaican-born father, the California senator has a serious shot at winning the vote there- and a much greater chance than she had before Thursday.

Kamala Harris' statement on Thursday was not about Herman Talmadge, education, or little children. It clearly was about race, and almost as clearly about South Carolina.

Share |

The Real Problem With Joe Biden

One almost has to feel sorry for Joe Biden. Almost.

The former Delaware senator (sorry, Joe, you're not in any meaningful way from Pennsylvania) recently reminisced about the cordial working relationship he had as legislator with two segregationist colleagues when

“I was in a caucus with James O. Eastland,” said Biden, reportedly imitating Eastland's southern drawl. “He never called me 'boy,' he always called me 'son.'” Talmadge, he said, was "one of the meanest guys I ever knew."

But according to Biden, despite these differences, "At least there was some civility. We got things done. We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it finished. But today, you look at the other side and you’re the enemy. Not the opposition, the enemy. We don't talk to each other anymore.”

Pulitzer Prize- winning journalist Connie Schultz, wife of Democratic senator Sherrod Brown, denounced Biden's remark, commenting in part "That segregationist never called you “boy” because you are white."  "Joe Biden speaking nostalgically about working with segregationists is halfway to Trent Lott behavior," maintained the New York Times' Jamelle Bouie.

New Jersey senator Cory Booker, like his target a candidate for President, commented "You don't joke about calling black men 'boys.'"  Candidate Bill de Blasio charged "Eastland thought my multiracial family should be illegal &  that whites were entitled to 'the pursuit of dead n*ggers.'"  

Yet another presidential hopeful, Kamala Harris, charged "to coddle the reputations of segregationists, of people who if they had their way I would literally not be standing here as a member of the United States Senate, is, I think, it's just misinformed and it's wrong." (He did coddle their reputation and Harris is a member of the US Senate, but never mind.)

Defiantly, Biden responded "I don't have a racist bone in my body," which probably is true but- notwithstanding what he, Schultz, Booker, de Blasio, and Harris seem to believe- is not the problem with the initial statement, anyway.

Consider Booker's criticism, aside from that of Biden's comedic stylings, that "I have to tell Vice President Biden, as someone I respect, that he is wrong for using his relationships with Eastland and Talmadge as examples of how to bring our country together."

The campaign slogan of Richard Nixon, master of the Southern Strategy, was "bring us together."  Another President promised the night before his inauguration "we're going to unify our country" and in his inauguration speech declared

The Bible tells us how good and pleasant it is when God's people live together in unity. We must speak our minds openly, debate our disagreements honestly , but always pursue solidarity.When America is united, America is totally unstoppable.

That man was (and is) Donald J. Trump.

When a politician promises to unify people or the country, hold on to your wallet. He (or she) is coming to fleece you.  The danger posed by the election of Joseph R. Biden is not that he does not want to unify the nation, nor that he doesn't want to do so. It is that it his primary goal.

In early June, the ex-vice president argued "With Trump gone, you're going to begin to see things change. Because these folks know better. They know this isn't what they're supposed to be doing."  This was no slip of the tongue, for a month earlier he had boasted  "I just think there is a way, and the thing that will fundamentally change things is with Donald Trump out of the White House — not a joke — you will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends."

Now this week, evidently (to some; see above) hidden in the midst of an arguably insensitive racial remark, the candidate suggests that not only was Senator Biden able to work cordially with political opponents but that President Biden would, also.

Bipartisanship is such a charming concept, one beckoned by the allure of "shame."  Segregationist senators and Senator Biden may have enjoyed, even prospered in, the collegiality of a bygone era. However, it is decades later, and Charlie Pierce recognizes

Here with a rebuttal is an actual concept: President Donald J. Trump. Here with another rebuttal is a sadly imaginary concept: Supreme Court Justice Merrick Garland. Damn, Joe. You were there, my dude. You were doing more than just putting on the Ray-Bans in viral videos.

He is not a racist, but those Ray-Bans appear to have transformed into rose-colored glasses.

Share |

Flashback

Following Robert Mueller's statement Wednesday, a few additional Democratic candidates for President have come to the wise policy and political decision.

Senator Cory Booker tweeted "This Administration has continued to stonewall Congress’s oversight. Beginning impeachment proceedings is the only path forward." Former Representative Beto O'Rourke seventeen minutes later chimed in "There must be consequences, accountability, and justice. The only way to ensure that is to begin impeachment proceedings." Senator Kirsten Gillibrand and Representative Seth Moulton also came out definitively to start the process.

They have joined three other Democratic aspirants, including Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, and Julian "don't call me Fidel" Castro,  in advocating initiation of impeachment hearings.

If you noticed two notable names absent, you're paying attention.  Senator Sanders tweeted "Given the reality that we have a president who believes he is above the law, Congress must continue its investigations. If the House Judiciary Committee deems it necessary, I will support their decision to open an impeachment inquiry."

No Democrat, and few Independents, are arguing that Congress drop its investigations. Neither would anyone expect any Democrat, let alone one of its candidates, to oppose the House Judiciary Committee if it decides to open an impeachment inquiry.  More could have been expected of a candidate thought of as bold and candid when he challenged Hillary Clinton in 2016.

More, though, should not have been expected of Joe "fever will have broken" Biden, and he responded in character, with his National Press Secretary remarking

.@JoeBiden for President statement on Bob Mueller's comments earlier today: pic.twitter.com/dxiNl2ZmH0

— TJ Ducklo (@TDucklo) May 29, 2019

"Elect me and everything will be fine." Biden recognizes the impeachment process as viable if the Administration continues on its path, whatever he considers the path to be, and however long it would have to continue on the "path." Moreover, he does not believe it would be unavoidable, only that it may be unavoidable.

More telling, however, is Biden's fear that no one would "relish" an impeachment process- and that it would "divide" a country which everyone but Joe Biden realizes already is divided.  This is the Judiciary Committee chairperson who backed off in his responsibility to conduct a fair and impartial hearing on the Clarence Thomas nomination, instead smoothing the way for the guy who intimidated Biden by claiming "a high tech lynching of an uppity Negro."

Good ol' Joe feared being divisive. Margaret Carlson nailed it when last year she wrote

The hearings revealed a weakness in Biden that leads him astray periodically: a cloying need to be liked, more by his enemies than his own tribe. His pals Sens. Alan Simpson and Arlen Specter wanted to be done with the spectacle, by which they meant Hill and the other women with their inconvenient accusations. Biden told New York magazine that he’d given his word to then Sen. John Danforth in the gym that he’d use his gavel to make it a very quick hearing. 

In one of the upcoming Democratic presidential debates, the candidates probably will be asked whether they would agree as President not to issue a pardon to Donald Trump.  Suspense should rise as we await Joe Biden answering as most- or all- of them do, or whether he chooses to answer honestly.

Share |

He Should Know

Your mission, readers, if you choose to accept it, is to identify the name of the Democratic politician whose name I have omitted from the following excerpt from page 207 of Michael Grunwald's The New New Deal, published in August of 2012. (Unavoidable hints appear in various place.)

______ says that during the transition, he was warned not to expect any cooperation on many votes. “I spoke to seven different Republican Senators, who said, ______ I’m not going to be able to help you on anything,’ he recalls. His informants said McConnell had demanded unified resistance. “The way it was characterized to me was: `For the next two years, we can’t let you succeed in anything. That’s our ticket to coming back,’” ______ says.

______ says he hasn’t even told Obama who his sources were, but Bob Bennett of Utah and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania both confirmed they had conversations with ______ along these lines.

______, of course, has a history of outsized comments. But two former Republican Senators are confirming the gist of the charges (though both have their reasons for holding a grudge against the GOP). Meanwhile, former Senator George Voinovich also goes on record telling Grunwald that Republican marching orders were to oppose everything the Obama administration proposed.

“If he was for it, we had to be against it,” Voinovich tells Grunwald. And at another point, characterizing a strategy session Republicans and McConnell had held in early January of 2009, Voinovich said: “He wanted everyone to hold the fort. All he cared about was making sure Obama could never have a clean victory.”

As a reader of this blog, you doubtless are politically sophisticated and thus realize that the omitted name is the same as in the subject of this story from Politico on Tuesday:

Former Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday he expects Republicans will have an "epiphany" when President Donald Trump leaves office, and will embrace working with Democratic colleagues.

"I just think there is a way, and the thing that will fundamentally change things is with Donald Trump out of the White House. Not a joke. You will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends," Biden said during a campaign stop in New Hampshire. "It's already beginning in the House now ... If we can't change, we're in trouble. This nation cannot function without generating consensus. It can't do it."

Suspicion abounds that other plausible candidates (and a few implausible ones) such as Pete Buttigieg, Beto O'Rourke, and Cory Booker believe the GOP is hankering to return to normalcy, which it began to abandon (along with patriotic duty) around the time Richard Nixon sabotaged the Paris Peace Talks.

But Cory Booker and Beto O'Rourke have not been vice-president and Buttigieg hasn't even served in

Washington, D.C.

Biden has been there. And as the incoming vice-president, he was told by Republicans he trusted "we can't let you succeed in anything."

Grunwald would note 4+ years later, in December 2016- before approval of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the High Court-

This strategy of kicking the hell out of Obama all the time, treating him not just as a president from the opposing party but an extreme threat to the American way of life, has been a remarkable political success. It helped Republicans take back the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016. This no-cooperation, no-apologies approach is also on the verge of delivering a conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

Buttigieg is not in a position to know, and O'Rourke, Booker (and a few others) did not witness their own boss being sliced and diced by Republicans.  Hence, their perspective is redeemable. However, Biden, who swears that we "will see an epiphany occur among many of my Republican friends," was there for all eight years of the Obama presidency

Those are his friends, whom he appears unaware will slit his throat, politically and ideologically. That is, of course, unless he is totally aware of their intentions and quite comfortable with their agenda supporting mammoth financial institutions and  opposing the health and safety of consumers, preservation of the environment, and the rights of women and minorities.

Oh, and Merrick Garland.

Share |

In The Atlantic in mid-April, Edward-Isaac Dovere wrote "Aides say that (Vermont Senator Bernie) Sanders is envisioning himself in the Oval Office, which has been guiding his decisions on both campaign operations and policy positions."

That continued with responses to two questions (beginning at 10:52 of the video below) asked of the Vermont senator on Sunday's "This Week" on ABC.

When Jonathan Karl asked "Cory Booker says he will name a woman as his running mate, will you make the same pledge?" Sanders sensibly responded "I would give very serious consideration to that." Karl immediately followed with "person of color?" and Sanders replied "I think it's premature. It would be silly to make that statement right now."

Of course it would, as understood by anyone who believes he has a serious chance to be the Democratic presidential nominee.

By contrast, at the recent "She The People" presidential forum in Houston, Booker promised "I will have a woman running mate. To me it’s really clear that we do that.” The previous day, Representative Eric Swalwell had stated "I’ve pledged that I would ask a woman to serve as Vice President."

It's easy for them to say. Booker is a dark horse candidate, and Swalwell is no more likely to be nominated than, say, the guy or gal behind you at the supermarket checkout lane. Additionally, such a preposterous promise is a safe one to make for both individuals, given that Swalwell hails from a liberal district in California and Senator Booker from New Jersey, where being a Democrat is an increasingly distinct electoral advantage.

But Sanders is one of the two leading candidates for the presidential nomination.  No doubt it has not escaped his attention that Donald Trump, the surprise winner in the last election, did not choose as his running mate someone based on gender, race, or religion.

When in July, 2016 candidate Trump was about to select Mike Pence as his running mate, Chris Cillizza presciently lauded the choice because, he noted, Trump needed the Koch brothers, the industrial midwest, and "message discipline," as well as "to reassure the GOP establishment" and "social conservatives."

Even Pence's popularity in the Christian right community did not turn on the particular Christian denomination to which he belongs. Rather, it derived from his support of forced-birth, opposition to same-sex marriage, and dedication to "religious liberty," the euphemistic term for permitting discrimination on the basis of claimed religious belief. (It is not apparent what church, if any, Pence attends and he describes himself as an "evangelical Catholic." If you don't know what that is, you're not alone.)

The overwhelming support for the GOP nominee among self-identified (white) evangelicals very likely was determinative in the presidential election, and probably would not have come about without Pence on the ticket. Pence got the nod because it was believed that the Indiana governor and former GOP congressman improved Trump's opportunity to be elected.

And so we have Bernie Sanders properly refusing to commit himself to selecting as a running mate either a woman or a "person of color,"  preferring to wait to determine how best to get to 270. As Dovere found, he's in it to win it. He may not, but at least he didn't make the stupid promise two other Democrats have.

.

Share |

A Little More Information

Controversy swirling around the second highest elected official in Virginia may give us a glimpse into the perspective of Democratic candidates for the presidency. On Monday we were reminded by the Associated Press

Two women have made allegations against Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax. But on Saturday, Fairfax issued a statement repeating his strong denials that he had ever sexually assaulted anyone and made clear he does not intend to immediately step down....

Though Virginia's congressional delegation is split

Since the two allegations against Fairfax were made, many top Democrats running for president in 2020 have called for Fairfax’s resignation, including Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Attorneys for both Meredith Watson and Vanessa Tyson say their clients would testify in any impeachment hearing,   Fairfax has denied the charges and called for an FBI investigation, though it is more likely an investigation would be conducted by local police and/or prosecutors because the the offenses alleged are not federal crimes.  

He also decried a "rush to judgement" and that was before Politico reported late yesterday.

A woman who alleged Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax raped her in college was accused of harassing and threatening a man she had a relationship with, according to Maryland court records.

The man sought and received a peace order against Meredith Watson in July 2008, the records show. A peace order falls under the “umbrella term” of a restraining order in the state of Maryland, University of Maryland law professor Leigh Goodmark said. It is applied to situations in which a person may need to ask for distance from someone who isn't their spouse or live-in partner, he said

In a petition for the restraining order, obtained by POLITICO, the man described an incident in which Watson “was detaining me against my will ... [and] not letting me leave” a vacation house in Corolla, N.C., and “dented the trunk” of his vehicle with her fist. In another instance, Watson showed up at his house stating “she was going to kill herself” and sent “threatening text messages” to the man, who had his sister come over to persuade her to leave, according to the document.

Watson’s spokeswoman, Karen Kessler, did not comment for this story before publication. After the story was published a lawyer for Watson, Nancy Erika Smith, said the order granted was a seven-day court order and that Watson “was not in the Courtroom and did not know about the proceedings or have an opportunity to be heard” when it was issued. The man “abandoned the effort after hearing from Ms. Watson’s lawyer,” Smith said.

The dispute between the two centered around $2,000 that was owed to Watson and was resolved, Smith said, with the man agreeing to pay Watson. The man who filed the request for the order did not respond to a request for comment for this story, nor did Fairfax through his office.

It appears that, regrettably, the three presidential hopefuls who had it all figured out were not asked for comment.  Politico adds

Watson also told friends she was raped by former Duke University basketball player Corey Maggette, according to a report in The New York Times. “I have never sexually assaulted anyone in my life and I completely and categorically deny any such charge," Maggette, who became an NBA player, said...

The petition against Watson also stated that, “Within 30 days the respondent was at my home and wouldn’t leave [and] the respondent was throwing property and I had to call my sister over [to] the house to make her leave. On numerous occasions respondent has stated she was going to kill herself."

“This isn’t the first time or occurrence,” the man wrote.

The petition said Watson called the man “around 100 times a day” after the vacation house incident and sent him text messages.

“I am going to enjoy tearing you down just as much as you enjoyed tearing me down. Hang on tight because you are in for a ride!” read one of the alleged text messages that the man transcribed on the petition.

It still is possible that Watson was in fact raped by Justin Fairfax or that there was improper contact of some sort.  Even if not the case, there is still the matter of the charge made by Ms. Tyson.

However, this most recent information that has come to light demonstrates further that there needs to be a full investigation.  We probably then would learn why- in a question no one media outlet has had the backbone to ask- a woman raped by a man and one forced into oral intercourse evidently did not report the matter to either the local police department or the county prosecutor's office.

There may have been an awfully good reason in both cases. Still, it's a missing critical piece of this puzzle.

Also missing is an explanation by Mr. Booker, Ms. Warren, and Ms. Gillibrand as to whether they are convinced the allegations are accurate or instead believe that the charges themselves require Justin Fairfax to step down from the position to which the voters of Virginia elected him.  It's the least we should expect from individuals who are asking voters for the opportunity to pull us out of the mess we got into a long time ago, and which Donald J. Trump is aggravating almost daily.

Share |

An Entertainer Trump Can Relate To

We read in Raw Story

The View” co-host Meghan McCain warned Georgia’s Stacey Abrams should “be careful” accepting campaign assistance from Oprah Winfrey — and pouted when her fellow panelists unanimously disagreed.

I don't see any pouting but you can be the judge:

The Democratic gubernatorial candidate got a boost this week when Winfrey knocked on doors to campaign for her and delivered a powerful speech to encourage black and other minority voters to head to the polls, but McCain said that might actually hurt Abrams.

“Nationalizing yourself is always tenuous territory, because you don’t want to look like you’re someone who celebrities and East Coast elites like, and you’re not going around your constituents,” McCain said.

Co-host Joy Behar immediately pointed out a flaw in her logic.

“One of the biggest East Coast elites, Donald Trump, won,” she said.

Good point from Behar, who through the years has been the most lucid liberal on the program. However

McCain insisted the president was a unique case, and she warned other candidates not to accept help from celebrities.

“Donald Trump is a different case,” she said. “I’m telling you traditional candidates — I think it’s something Beto O’Rourke should be concerned right now, as well. I think when you look like you care too much about celebrity endorsements, especially after you haven’t been elected for first time, you see people like Eric Cantor, Wendy Davis, Kelly Ayotte — these are people who nationalize themselves too much.”

McCain is right, if she is suggesting that in the long term, support from pop stars helps reinforce the naive perception of the Democratic Party as elitist. However, in the short term, a widely respected (however unjustified) Oprah Winfrey helps in fund-raising and in bringing out the vote.

Disagreeing with McCain (and myself)

“I think Oprah is in a class by herself,” (Ana) Navarro said. “So many of us grew up with her in our living rooms. What made Oprah so successful is how relatable she is.”

Winfrey is not in a class by herself. She is in the Donald J. Trump class of fabulously wealthy television stars able to get over on a whole lot of people. Nonetheless, Abby Huntsman maintained

It motivates people to get out and vote. That story that she told, that moved me. That would get me off the couch. I agree with all of you guys that Oprah, it's different than a Miley Cyrus or a Katy Perry, who I love, but they're not going to get me out to vote. What's different about Oprah, we let her into our home for decades.

Huntsman and others let Winfrey into their home and thankfully, by the miracle of video, we can now be let into one of the star's six homes:

Relatable, indeed. For that matter, it appears Winfrey can relate to the uber-wealthy star in the White House. Already spectacularly wealthy, Winfrey in 2015 bought a 10% share of Weight Watchers, began doing commercials touting (without mentioning her ownership) her own success on the diet, and watched as the company's profits soared. Not surprisingly

"I could sense, maybe I'm wrong, but I could sense from Donald Trump's body language even when he came out for the acceptance speech, that brotha has been humbled by this whole thing,” she said of his election victory.

She added: “I think it's a humbling process that now you literally have the weight of the world on your shoulders.”

Don't be shocked. In the past 10-12 years, Winfrey has extended her endorsement to a few office-seekers, but working (for whatever reason) only for Barack Obama, Cory Booker, and Stacey Abrams.

Even now Oprah Winfrey claims that she's a political independent, denying that she is a registered Democrat. In that, she is honest and reliable.

Share |

Taking Offense, Once Again

Following removal of Roseanne from "Roseanne," President Trump responded not by honestly defending Ms. Barr but by proposing Samantha Bee be fired. "But," Bill Maher remarked soon afterward, "fat Donnie is not the only one that demands everyone be fired all the time."

"For free speech," Maher stated, "this has become a terrifying time in human history." He added "conservatives govern without shame and liberals shame without governing."

It's not only conservatives, though. as demonstrated by executives at New Jersey 101.5 FM, a radio station never confused with liberalism. We learn

It took just hours for a conservative radio station in New Jersey to suspend two of its most prominent talk-show hosts after the pair repeatedly referred to state Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, a practicing Sikh, as “Turban Man.”

“The guy with the turban,” New Jersey 101.5 host Dennis Malloy said on the air Wednesday, referring to Grewal. He then declared he would never learn the name of the state’s top prosecutor, a key foe of President Donald Trump.

Turban Man,” his co-host, Judi Franco, replied in a sing-song voice during a broader discussion about a recent action taken by the attorney general.

“Listen, and if that offends you, then don't wear the turban and maybe I'll remember your name,” Malloy said. “If you called me ‘Baseball Hat Man’ and I was in a culture where no one wore baseball hats … should I be offended?”....

But this latest incident, which gained widespread public attention after audio of the show was shared on Twitter Wednesday evening, was met with swift anger and, to the surprise of some, an apology and action by the station. The reaction seemed to highlight how quickly public outcry can can grow over insensitive comments in an age in which the level of political discourse has shifted dramatically since Trump became president.

Perhaps this overreaction results from an under-reaction to the President of the United States of America, who routinely ridicules andpersonally condemns individuals and faces no penalty, ever.

Nonetheless, a "that's just Trump being Trump" attitude does not justify what Maher refers to as "making every offense a hanging offense" (though unfortunately he blames liberals for an affliction spread throughout society).  While neither Mr. Malloy nor Ms. Franco was charged with a "hanging offense," they were charged with a lesser felony, for what context would suggest should have been viewed as a mere disorderly persons offense. 

 When Mr. Grewal was nominated by the govenor, Politico had reported

“Throughout the campaign, I made it clear that in selecting the best and the brightest to serve in our administration, I also would strive to ensure that our cabinet reflected our tremendous diversity,” Murphy said.

The 44-year old Grewal

is both the state’s first Sikh county prosecutor and the first county prosecutor of South Asian descent.

The Glen Rock resident said he abandoned his work in private practice several years ago to pursue a career as a prosecutor, viewing it as a way to “give back” and also to send a message.

“I wanted to give back to a country that has given us and other immigrant families like us so much,” he said, standing beside Murphy. “And, in the process, I wanted to perhaps show people that, while I and others like me may look different, or worship differently, that we too are committed to this country.”

The governor vowed to "strive to ensure that our cabinet reflected our tremendous diversity" and the then-nominee "wanted to perhaps show people that, while I and others like me may look different, or worship differently..."

The personalities at the New Jersey radio station did not identify Mr. Grewal by his ethnicity or religion- the latter and the governor already had already played the identity politics card, several months earlier. As if to confirm Maher's critique six weeks earlier of politics exquisite, un-liberal sensitivity, Governor Murphy

released a statement calling the comments “abhorrent and xenophobic” and urged New Jersey 101.5 to “hold the hosts accountable for these intolerant and racist comments.”

Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) tweeted that the “hateful rhetoric doesn’t reduce Gurbir,” but rather “reduces and disgraces the one who uses it.” He called on all to “denounce this ignorant and outrageous attack.”

Hoboken Mayor Ravi Bhalla, also a Sikh American, tweeted, “Hey Racist Man,” at the Dennis and Judi show’s account.

A flood of condemnations from civil rights groups and politicians from both major political parties spilled into Thursday, when state lawmakers spoke out on the Senate floor.

Grewal has sent a message- that religion is synonymous with national descent. When the Hoboken mayor tweeted "hey racist man," he was making the same mistake as did the Attorney General, who carelessly declared "I'm a Sikh American."

Well, no. Grewal is an American of Asian descent or, as he prefers, an American of Indian descent. His religion is Sikh. He is no more a "Sikh American" than your neighbor is a "Protestant American." She is an American Protestant (alternatively, a Protestant) and he is an American Sikh. This is not insignificant, given the importance of both religion and ethnicity in the USA.

We  have become too discomfited by insensitive speech and demand a pound of flesh, in this instance a ten-day suspension and an apology. In a rebuke to the importance of free expression, the bounds of acceptable discourse (except in the case of D. Trump) have been continually narrowed while- not coincidentally- those of action have been widened.

"Yes, you disappeared Roseanne," Maher noted in June before sarcastically adding "and that sent a strong message to all the other racist Republican TV stars who suffer from multiple personality disorder." Democrats Murphy, Bhalla, and Booker (joined by spineless Republicans) may believe the action taken by 101.5 FM may change things, but it will have little impact. It will slightly increase bias- at least that which is driven underground- while we continue to be (in Maher's observation) "too comfortable with the clean out your desk card."

Share |

Don't Call Me "Romney"

Republican National Committee chairperson Ronna McDaniel wasn't let off the hook when she was interviewed on Prime Time Cuomo last week, and never should be.didn't get off easy when she was interviewed on Prime Time Cuomo last week.  And it could have gone worse.





The CNN host asked his guest "you accused (New Jersey senator Cory) Booker of 'mansplaining' to Nielsen, (Homeland) Secretary (Kirstjen) Nielsen, who's of course a woman. Why, why did you call it that?"  McDaniel responded

Well,Chris, I just think it would have been covered differently if it were a Republican senator yelling or lecuring a woman coming before the Senate, not giving her a chance to explain herself, grandstanding, I know he's auditioning for 2020. I understand that. But he was disrespectful and he did mansplain to her and shes an intelligent woman, she's the Secretary of Homeland Security and she deserved an oportunity to answer.

Cuomo then played a tape in which Booker responded

....It's a little insulting to say I should be treating cabinet secretaries one way or the other depending on their gender. I'm standing here as a United States senator in my official capacity, challlenging a cabinet secretary who's lying before the Senate on an issue that affects my state as well as the nation, something as serious as her lying about overt bigory coming out of the White House.

The New Jersey senator was "disrespectful" toward an individual who heads a Cabinet department who, when asked "Norway is a predominantly white country, isn't it?" by another senator, responded "I actually do not know that, sir, but I imagine that is the case."  (To be fair, Kirstjen Michele Nielsen, as she was named upon birth, grew up in Clearwater, Florida rather than Oslo.)

McDaniel argued that the media gave Elizabeth Warren a break when she complained of how she was "interrupted" (by "Democrats," she said, which was probably an unintentional error).  But "they talk to men like that all the time," Cuomo explained, and noted that President Trump himself had disparagingly referred to the Massachusetts senator as "Pocahontas."

The President also recently referred to Senator Minority Whip Durbin as "Senator Dicky Durbin," the latest in his litany of disparaging nicknames, including Sneaky Dianne Feinstein; Sloppy Steve (Bannon); Jeff Flakey; Al Frankenstien; Liddle Bob Corker, Wacky Congresswoman (Fredericka) Wilson, Crooked Hillary, Little Marco, Lyin' Ted; Low Energy Jeb; 1 for 38 (Kasich); Crazy Bernie; Cryin' Chuck (Schumer); Psycho Joe (Scarborough); and Crazy Megyn (Kelly).  But Cory Booker, says the RNC chairperson, was disrespectful to the Homeland Security secretary because he criticized a woman.

It's a little hard to imagine Ronna McDaniel, even while tossing around "mansplaining," as a feminist defender of the dignity of women.  It seems that she is even more supportive of Donald J. Trump than she lets on, as the Washington Examiner in December reported

President Trump reportedly asked Ronna Romney McDaniel to stop using her maiden name, “Romney,” publicly before she took over as chairwoman of the Republican National Committee.

Sources told the Washington Post the president made the request and then, in a “lighthearted way,” told McDaniel she could make whatever decision she wanted. But McDaniel, the niece of Mitt Romney and granddaughter of former Michigan Gov. George Romney, dropped the name.

The president was reportedly happy McDaniel stopped using her maiden name publicly, a senior administration official and adviser told the Washington Post. Advisers said Trump told people the name “Romney” often led to boos during events, which prompted the president’s request to the incoming Republican National Committee chairwoman.

Now, that is being loyal to the President of the United States. Actually, it's more like subservience, and a great testament to the GOP, party of strong women and family values.



Share |

Identity Pollitics Rears Its Head

Ryan Cooper believes "we're in for a rather bitter fight for supremacy over the Democratic Party between big money elites on one side and Sanders Democrats on the other."  He criticizes the recent boomlet for Senator Kamala Harris, who is derided for her work while Attorney General of California; New Jersey senator Cory Booker, distrusted because of his connections to Wall Street; and former Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick, who is a managing partner of Bain Capital. In turn, there have been dark, even illegitimate, implications that critics of the three are opposed because they are minority. (Booker and Patrick are African-American, Harris the daughter of a Jamaican-bor parent  and an India-born parent).

David Atkins calls for an end to this "civil war," wherein "voices within the Sanders coaliton"

that actively attempt to dismiss social discrimination as less important than class war must be ostracized from within not just because they are wrong, but because they actively hurt the cause of securing economic justice against the .1% in a party whose base has suffeed greatly from that discrimination....

Meanwhile, "establishment figures"

must acknowledge the need for a much more foreceful economic progressivism and accept that economic progressives also have valid litmus tests every bit as reasonable as those of social issue advocacy groups. Individuals who insist on trying to ostracize democratic socialists and treat their anti-corporate concerns as secondary or motivated by bigotry should be gently pushed aside themselves.

He recognizes

Some Sanders supporters eagerly want to see him run again in 2020, and are actively seeking to kneecap every potential challenger to him, especially those who might be able to more easily secure Hillary Clinton's coalition of older and minority voters.

On the other hand, establishment moderates since the early days of the Democratic Leadership Council have sought a marriage of the much-vaunted "Emerging Democratic Majorty" with an educated, upper-middle class, fiscally centrist donor class. This has been to the detriment of the economy as a whole, and to the electoral fortunes of the Democratic Party in general. They have no intention of taking a sharper sand against the predatory financial sector, and actively seek to use ideologically aligned women and minority candidates as a wedge against more readical activists who might threaten to alienate the wealthy donor class they have sought to woo away from the Republican Paty since the Reagan era.

This strategy is superior to disregarding the concerns (including for gun safety legislation or protection of reproductive freedom) of social justice warriors or one in which "anticorporate concerns (are treated) as secondary or motivated by bigory."

Yet Atkins fails to acknowledge that while the Sanders camp is generally favorable to the progressive approach to sexual preference, gender, and racial interests, Establishment Democrats have catered to the interests of the donor class. They have been cool (as in the case of the Clintons and Barack Obama) or downright cold- as with Harris, Booker, and Patrick- toward Wall Street regulation and policies which would impinge upon society's upper crust.

Regrettably, Atkins himself ascribes racial motivation. He argues "making an example of the top three African-American hopefuls in the 2020 field is a terrible mistake regardless of intent. It will backfire, and tarnish the entire movement as motivated by barely-contained bigotry.  "If not racist and sexist in motivation," he adds, "this strategy is racist and sexist in its effects and will attract the worst elements of society."

I have no idea what he means by "attract the worst elements of society." But speaking as someone otherwise not immune to the tactic, contending "if not racist and sexist in motivation" is a passive-aggressive way of charging racism and sexism. And rejecting three individuals- or two or four- for ideological reasons is not racist or sexist even in its effects.

Electing a white person isn't racist. Electing a male isn't sexist. It is, of course, if it is done because the person is white or male- but there are solid reasons of principle that Democrats interested in economic justice would be highly skeptical of Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Deval Patrick. For some of us, including the vast majority of Bernie Sanders supporters, an individual's record and his or her views are more important than characteristics set at birth.

Share |