Prescient

Hillary Clinton would prove both prescient and a little generous in comments she made at a fund-raiser in 2016. In a little-reported (then or since) portion, Hillary Clinton would state in a fund-raiser

But the other basket, the other basket, and I know because I see friends from all over America here. I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas, as well as you know New York and California. But that other basket of people who are people who feel that government has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they are just desperate for change. It doesn't really even matter where it comes from. They don't buy everything he says but he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won't wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroine, feel like they're in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

That part was ignored because it was less interesting and would have made Clinton look good, which was forbidden. Instead, we repeatedly were reminded that the former Senator (referred to as "Secretary," not unlike the individual answering phones at the office) stated

You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? [Laughter/applause]. The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

Worse, but standard for coverage of her campaign, we usually (and still) heard only "you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables." There was little repetition even of her explanation because the news media would have been uncomfortable addressing the charges of racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, or Islamophobia. It

Six years on, The New York Times has reported

In the year and a half since a pro-Trump mob stormed the Capitol, threats of political violence and actual attacks have become a steady reality of American life, affecting school board officials, election workers, flight attendants, librarians and even members of Congress, often with few headlines and little reaction from politicians....

Even the federal judge who authorized the warrant to search for classified material at Mar-a-Lago, Mr. Trump’s beachfront home and club, became a target. On pro-Trump message boards, several threats were issued against him and his family, with one person writing, “I see a rope around his neck.”

On Sunday, a US Senator lusted for violence, threatening"If they try to prosecute President Trump for mishandling classified information after Hillary Clinton set up a server in her basement, there literally will be riots in the street. I worry about our country."

Two days later:

A staffer of mine—who’s 1 month into her job—received a call from a man saying he’s coming to our office w/ an assault rifle to kill me. I hesitate to share this but how else do I tell you we are in violent times, & the architects are Trump & McCarthy. Bloodshed is coming.

— Rep. Eric Swalwell (@RepSwalwell) August 30, 2022

 

A poll conducted in June of 2021 and in June of 2022 found

While 33 percent of Republicans said in June 2021 that Jan. 6 was an insurrection, that number is now just 13 percent.

While 62 percent of Republicans called it a “riot” back then, that’s down to 45 percent.

While 47 percent said it was a “legitimate protest,” that’s now up to 61 percent.

This is a slice of what most Republicans believe was legitimate protest and not an insurrection:

The sort of thing President Biden has referred to as "semi-fascism" didn't materialize overnight. It has been building for many years- perhaps even decades- and especially since the Great Escalator Ride of 2015.  

Much later in that campaign, Clinton's reference to half of Trump's supporters as being deplorable was a serious, unforced error. However, when 61 percent perceive an insurrection- however they themselves view it- as "legitimate protest," it is clear that the former Senator's comments were accurate, or at least ahead of their time.

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 |

The "We Love Our Children Less Than We Love Illegal Immigrants" Caucus

In his defense, it's difficult keeping track of things when you're on both the Judiciary and Intelligence committees of the House of Representatives in an age in which the President is trampling on the law, the constitution, and the country. If you're also running for President, it's even easier to forget and it gives you an incentive not to remember. Moreover, his priorities may be all to prevalent among other Democrats

In Thursday night's debate in Miami, Representative Eric Swalwell maintained that he is running for President because he is part of the younger generation, the one which will "end climate chaos," "solve the student loan debt" (sic), and "end gun violence.

Earlier, he had stated that if there would be only one thing he'd get passed early in his presidency, it would be "ending gun violence." When the issue of gun safety was raised, Swallwell was asked how his plan for a national, mandatory firearm buyback would work in pro-gun  states and he responded

Keep your pistols, keep your rifles, keep your shotguns but we can take the most dangerous weapons from the most dangerous people. We have the NRA on the ropes because of the Moms because the Brady Group, because of Giffords, because of March for Our Lives. But I’m the only candidate on this stage calling for a ban and buyback of every single assault weapon in America. I’ve seen the plans of the other candidates here. They would all leave 15 million assault in our communities. They wouldn’t do a single thing to save a single life in Parkland. I will approach this issue as a prosecutor. I will approach it as the only person on this stage who has voted and passed background checks–but also as a parent of a generation who sends our children to school where we look at what they’re wearing so we can remember it in case we have to identify them later. A generation who has seen thousands of black children killed in our streets and a generation who goes to the theater and we actually where the fire exits are. We don’t have to live this way. We must be a country who loves our children more than we love our guns.

If Swalwell's plan is more than talk, it would require less-than-friendly, and probably violent, visits to many homes by law enforcement personnel. However, the congressman's apparent emphasis on gun safety legislation is admirable.

Apparent- but not real.  In February the House of Representatives passed the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019, which would have would have "required background checks in private sales, including gun shows and online transactions. by a vote of 220 to 209.The bill would ensure that all sales (with a few exceptions) are run through the national criminal background check system. Having passed the House with 232 votes from Democrats but only 8 from Republicans, it was dead on arrival in the Senate.

The bill included an amendment (since reintroduced in the House by a Virginia Republican but stalled in committee) to require that law enforcement be notified "when an individual attempting to purchase a firearm fails a federal background check," which notably would have included illegal immigrants. After first being rejected, the amendment passed the House with 194 Republican votes (one against) but with only 26 Democratic Representatives in favor and 208 opposed. 

On Wednesday night, the only other US Representative queried on gun safety was Ohio's Tim Ryan, who contended "I support all the gun reforms here."

Swalwell spoke passionately about the need to end gun violence. If, however, he had been as passionate in February, he would have voted in favor of the amendment which would have helped block individuals in the country illegally from getting a gun or a rifle. He was, however, among the 208 who voted against it (along with Ryan, Gabbard, and Castro; Delaney not voting).

It seems fairly simple. Some people have no right to a firearm, and that includes people who have violated the nation's immigration laws.

Yet, some Democrats don't agree. Swalwell is probably not alone, though we can only speculate how United States senators would have voted had the bill been acted on in that chamber. Nor do we know how committed Swalwell, Ryan, or any of the other 23 Democrats would be committed to gun safety legislation if elected President.  However, if I were offered a bet by someone who believed that the next Democratic president would support gun legislation which might inconvenience an illegal immigrant, I'd jump on it.

Share |