We've Seen This Play Before

A Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor is the first Latina to serve on the United States Supreme Court. But as Mehdi Hasan understands, that's simply not good enough.

In the article in The Guardian, Hasan writes

...it is time to remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg. To recall how RBG, who had survived two bouts of cancer, refused to quit the court despite calls to do so from leading liberals during Barack Obama’s second term office. To hark back to her insistence, in multiple interviews, that it was “misguided” to insist she retire and that she would only stand down “when it’s time”. To recollect how, on her deathbed in 2020, she told her granddaughter that her “most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed” – and how it made no difference whatsoever! Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett as RBG’s replacement just eight days after her death, and Senate Republicans confirmed Barrett to RBG’s vacant seat just eight days before election day.

With Joe Biden trailing Trump in several swing states and Democrats also in danger of losing their razor-thin majority in the Senate, are we really prepared for history to repeat itself? Sotomayor will turn 70 in June. Of course, only Sotomayor knows the full status of her health, still it is public knowledge that she has had type 1 diabetes since she was seven; had paramedics called to her home; and is the only sitting justice to have, reportedly, traveled with a medic. To be clear: she could easily – and God willing – survive a potential Trump second term and still be dishing out dissents from the bench come 2029.

But why take that risk? Why not retire now? Why not quit the bench at the same age that justices in Belgium, Australia and Japan are forced to do so?

"I have PTSD from 2020 [& RBG]...The Republicans are very good at stacking courts... Democrats aren't very good at seeing the power of the Supreme Court."

I debated & defended my Guardian piece calling for Justice Sotomayor to retire so a Dem president + Senate can replace her. pic.twitter.com/JEPMWaA2g2

— Mehdi Hasan (@mehdirhasan) April 3, 2024

Unfortunately, Sotomayor could not announce a retirement effective January 1, 2025 or January 7, 2025, the day after Congress presumably will certify the presidential election results, reserving the option to withdraw her resignation if Trump prevails. There is nearly a 50% chance that Biden will be re-elected while the math for Democrats holding on to the Senate is clearly absent.

Also unfortunate: Sotomayor is unlikely to retire, in part because there will be little pressure on her to do so. Hasan notes

In 2021, the progressive group Demand Justice sent a billboard truck to circle the supreme court building with the message: “Breyer, retire.” I joined in, too. “Retire, retire, retire,” I said in a monologue for my Peacock show in 2021. “Or history may end up judging you, Justice Breyer.”

So why is it okay to pressure Breyer to retire but not Sotomayor? 

There is no good reason, but thee is a reason and

This time round, Demand Justice isn’t taking a position on whether an older liberal justice should quit while a Democratic president and Senate can still replace them and, as HuffPost reports, “on the left, there is little open debate about whether she should retire.”

Well, of course, there isn't. And the reason there isn't echoes the reason why there is no push at all for Kamala Harris to step down. Karen Finney, the Democratic strategist who is quite pleased this state of affairs, believes that the risk of losing the presidency is an acceptable price to pay to maintain demographic purity. Citing an initial interest in a presidential bid

When you had people who were trying to test the waters, the party rose up and made it clear to those individuals — who were mostly white men — that to disrespect the vice president would not be well received by women and people of color within the party. They got a little bit of a smack in the face.

There are powerful figures in or about the Democratic Party who are less concerned with turning over the presidency to Donald Trump- or losing another Supreme Court seat to a selection made by a President Trump- than they are to the idea of losing a first. That would be the first black Vice President or the chance of the first black female President, and the first American of Latin descent to serve on the USA Supreme Court.

As Hasan advocates, Ginsburg might make the courageous and patriotic decision to step down. But Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't, Kamala Harris won't, and it's not likely that Sonia Sotomayor will, either.

Share |

Twenty Seconds

It now has been well over 24 hours and we still don't know what precipitated the incident in which

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell suddenly stopped speaking during a weekly Republican leadership news conference Wednesday afternoon, appearing to freeze, and then went silent and was walked away.

McConnell, R-Ky., had been making his opening remarks about an annual defense policy bill when he stopped talking. He was silent for 19 seconds. His Republican colleagues asked whether he was OK, and a top McConnell deputy, Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, a physician, escorted McConnell, 81, away from the cameras and reporters.

Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa made a hand gesture that initially appeared to resemble the sign of the cross. Her office later clarified that she was motioning for Senate Minority Whip John Thune of South Dakota.

         

Dr. Corey Abair of the CBS affiliate in Slidell, Louisiana on Wednesday explained

So at this point what he probably had is called a TIA or transient ischemic attack. It's like of like a mini stroke but the other thing he could have had is what is called an "absent seizure" and that's a seizure like a staring spell and it's not a full seizure where you shake. It is just something where you kind of tune out for about three to four seconds and then you come right back.

The fact that he's back and they didn't rush him to the hospital thinking that he may have had a stroke means it may been an absent seizure.

According to the Cleveland Clinic, absent "seizures happen suddenly, without warning, usually lasting fewer than 20 seconds, and are more common in children than adults." Even if McConnell did not suffer this, however, he may have suffered from a different kind of seizure. Or he may have had a mini-stroke.

If Republicans are smart- as they usually are- we will never know. Tactically, the wise move is not to send McConnell to the hospital or if they do, simply refuse to release the diagnosis or lie about it.

It worked for Donald Trump. Recall when in 2018 presidential physician Ronny Jackson "gushed about President Donald Trump’s health during a briefing before the White House press corps on Tuesday, touting the President’s 'good genes,' how he did 'exceedingly well' on his cognitive test and his 'excellent' cardiac health." He maintained "it's just the way God made him."  Jackson was later found to have " berated employees, made sexual comments about a female subordinate, and violated the policy for drinking alcohol on a presidential trip."

In the interim, Jackson became a United States Representative. Trump now is the leading candidate for the GOP nomination to serve another term as President, and any comparisons to McConnell include the names of Joe Biden, Dianne Feinstein, and John Fetterman with nary a word about Trump. The "it's not the crime, it's the cover up" bromide is turned on its head. 

Democratic colleagues of McConnell, who also assure us that GOP senators don't like Donald Trump but must cater to an irrational voter base, won't question the Minority Leader's health. Neither will most MSNBC commentators. A few hours after the incident, Nicole Wallace, probably the second most popular personality on cable television's liberal, non-progressive network, remarked "I wish him well. I wish no ill health on any human being in the arena or outside of it. And if this were Joe Biden, there would be impeachment proceedings underway for sentence interruptus.”

There may be something in between calling for the impeachment of Mitch McConnell and letting him slide by wishing him well and moving on to Wallace's next daily, two-hour episode of "How Satanic Donald Trump Ruined a Great Republican Party." (Actually, Wallace has a little perspective; colleague Joe Scarborough, none.)

Wallace and others could continue self-affirming virtue signaling or instead actually commit journalism, beginning with running the full clip of the 20-second period in which Minority Leader McConnell stood silent. Earth to Wallace: this is what Fox News would do if Joe Biden had suffered a setback and stopped talking or moving for 20 seconds. The President's approval rating would plummet. 

Fox News still can't get enough of video of Joe Biden recently tripping over a sandbag left on the stage at the Air Force Academy graduation by the elite Secret Service. Merely overlooked, of  course.

If Republicans bury this incident, Democratic politicos should take a take a page from the GOP's playbook. If your loved one, or your liked one, suffered an episode similar to the one experienced by McConnell, you'd take him or her to a medical facility. If the GOP announces that McConnell has seen qualified medical personnel, the Senator would deserve sympathy and support from everyone. In the absence of that, it's a serious and significant cover-up and should be treated as such. 

 

Share |

Sunset

This is how politicians should be interviewed- not only Republicans but also Democrats, and not only by CNN's Kaitlan Collins. But in this case it was she and in the wake of President Joe Biden's State of the Union address on Tuesday, Scott was the a prime, and deserving, target.

In this interview, Florida senator Scott insists that President Biden has cut Medicare, though he is careful not to say “cut Medicare benefits.”In a fact check on Thursday, CNN noted that deputy director of the Medicare policy program at the Kaiser Family Foundation, Mark

Cubanski explained that the Inflation Reduction Act’s projected prescription drug savings of $237 billion will largely come from three particular provisions. None of these provisions cuts Medicare benefits.

One provision allows the federal government, starting in 2026, to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies over the prices of certain high-cost drugs for Medicare. Another requires the drug companies to pay rebates to Medicare if the price of certain drugs rises faster than inflation. A third provision delays, until 2032, the implementation of a Trump administration rule that had never taken effect and already been postponed until 2027. That rule, which would have effectively banned rebates from drug companies to insurers and pharmacy benefit managers, had been expected not only to increase Medicare spending but to force Medicare beneficiaries to pay higher premiums.

So, again, not even the cost-saving parts of the law are Medicare cuts. And then there are the additional provisions Cubanski mentioned above, which will add expenditures to the government but save seniors money – such as the new $35-per-month cap on out-of-pocket spending on insulin and a new $2,000-per-year cap, starting in 2025, on out-of-pocket prescription drug spending in Medicare Part D.

Scott insists that he hasn't endorsed benefit cuts. At 6:10 of the video with Collins, he states

I've been clear. I will not reduce Social Security or Medicare benefits. Alright? I've been clear. And I was in my plan. Congress needs to fix Med- make sure that Medicare and Social Security survive.

Sen. Rick Scott says "no," it wasn’t a mistake to propose a plan that would require all legislation, including that relating to programs like Social Security and Medicare, to sunset unless Congress reauthorizes them. Our full interview this morning: pic.twitter.com/wOxxApUCpR

— Kaitlan Collins (@kaitlancollins) February 9, 2023

It is an article of faith- or at least, it seems to be- of Republicans that Medicare and Social Security will die on the vine (i.e., not survive) unless benefits are slashed. There is a little bit of logic there. Scott, as with some of his GOP colleagues, says he will never vote to raise taxes. If Congress does not increase the maximum annual wage- now $160,200- that's subject to Social Security tax, the trust fund eventually, in a matter of decades, will run out.

The cap, as Senator Bernie Sanders and other Democrats have long advocated, could be increased or (as it should be) eliminated altogether. That's a bridge to decency Republicans will not cross.

Senator Scott knows that cutting, or decreasing, benefits won't fly politically. Therefore, he wants to sunset "entitlements" (earned benefits) which- in the short term- does not necessarily cut benefits.  A lot of voters don't know what sunsetting is (and it's not an actual word). Elderly individuals, the Florida senator believes, may believe it wouldn't happen for awhile, and Republicans have been trying for years to condition young people to accept as inevitable that Social Security, if not Medicare also, won't last forever. 

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, if he's not lying through his teeth, is not keen on Scott's plan. That's for now, though. Republicans in the House of Representatives, which the GOP controls, are unpredictable, and ghastly.  So it becomes essential for President Biden, as he did in his State of the Union address, to tell the public that some Republicans want to sunset the program and tie that to a decrease in benefits. And it can only help if journalists, such as Kaitlan Collins did one fine Thursday morning, persist in asking the uncomfortable questions.

Share |

"Ex-President"

The old adage goes "even a stopped clock is right twice a day." For Rich Lowry of the National Review, it's more like twice a year but we'll take it- especially because it's something so many of the journalistic and pundit class get wrong.  Obversely, even a journalist such as David Frum exceedingly skilled in both traditional and social media can get something wrong, especially on a matter so common in the political class. Here he is, being overly impressed with an article by the overly-impressed Sahil Kapur (his correspondent's report, below).

McConnell's habit of referencing Trump as the "former president" is a double-dig:

1) Denies Trump's claim to be some kind of continuing president or president-in-exile;

2) Makes clear he finds Trump so disgusting he doesn't want Trump's name in his mouth. https://t.co/HfVlNVtjBf

— David Frum (@davidfrum) December 23, 2022

I don't see it. I don't see references to the "former President" as either subtly undermining Donald Trump;s claim still to be president or only temporarily removed; nor to such disgust that McConnell "doesn't want Trump's name in his breath."  Disturbingly, Lowry has it right when he explains

The man who has spent a lifetime putting his name on everything can still keep it off the lips of people appalled by something he has said or done. It’s a GOP taboo that became so deeply ingrained during his presidency and the immediate aftermath that it will only lift slowly, if ever.

“The entire nation knows who is responsible for that day. Beyond that, I don’t have any immediate observations,” Mitch McConnell said in a statement after the Jan. 6 criminal referrals on Tuesday.

So, who exactly is responsible? Do we know anything about this person? Is there any description? Has he or she been seen since Jan. 6, 2021? In what direction did he or she flee afterward?

The Republican Jewish Coalition spoke out after the infamous dinner with Ye (better known as Kanye West): “We strongly condemn the virulent antisemitism of Kanye West and Nick Fuentes and call on all political leaders to reject their messages of hate and refuse to meet with them.”

Really? “Political leaders” — note the plural — have been penciling Nick Fuentes meetings onto their calendars? This statement would have been more accurate, if even more blatant in its evasion, if it had called on “a certain political leader” not to meet with notorious antisemites.

South Dakota GOP Sen. Mike Rounds responded after Trump suggested suspending the Constitution: “As elected officials, we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. We should never dishonor that oath. No one is above the Constitution.”

He added, “Anyone who desires to lead our country must commit to protecting the Constitution. They should not threaten to terminate it.”

This sermonette was certainly welcome and unobjectionable, except for the fact that you’d have no idea who or what occasioned it. The senator could have been making observations to mark Constitution Day.

It’s as if, after Trump’s announcement hawking his trading card NFTs, a Republican entity or officeholder called on “all of us to do better at not trading on our names in tawdry and ridiculous ways, especially by promoting trading cards depicting us as superheroes.”

If Republicans were playing by these rules during Watergate, they would have distanced themselves from “anyone” authorizing a burglary of the opposition party’s political headquarters and strongly urged all “elected leaders” to preserve audio tapes of their conversations in their entirety.

How much does this matter? On the one hand, everyone knows who they’re talking about, especially Donald Trump. On the other, avoiding his name speaks to a continued increment of fear, a reflexive cringe before the political top dog who for years could make the lives of straying Republicans miserable with a tweet or a swipe during a press conference. When this reflex finally gives way, it’ll be a sign that Trump’s grip on the party really has loosened.

This parallels a tactic employed by some social justice activists. The “Say Their Names” hashtag was created by the African American Policy Forum in 2014 and supported by the Center for Intersectionality and Social Policy Studies (CISP) to increase awareness of police violence against black females. The movement gained strength after the murder of Breonna Taylor and became identified with the killing of both black men and women, though it has faded as the nation has veered rightward and turned its attention elsewhere.

Nonetheless, the phrase, sometimes modified to “Say Her Name,” is powerful when invoked because it acknowledges and celebrates the power of a victim’s name.  No longer is she nameless and faceless; she is a human being and cannot easily be ignored. 

And so it is with the reference by Mitch McConnell- and by countless journalists and others on CNN and MSNBC- of referring to Donald Trump as "the ex-president" or "the former president." Though intentional, it is employed by the Senate Minority Leader not to denigrate Republican hero Trump, but to soften the impact of his criticism.  McConnell is fully aware that center-left media realizes he is talking about Trump, and they approve his sentiment and applaud what it regards as courage.

Most of the MAGA crowd also realizes whom McConnell is talking about, although a few will not. Nonetheless, even among the majority which harbors no illusion, the Senator's reference to "ex-president" mitigates the harshness of the attack. There is no condemnation of "Donald Trump" or "Trump" or even "Mr. Trump" to rile up the base unnecessarily.

Let's be bold and avoid references to Donald Trump as merely "ex" or "former."  Say his name, and often.

Share |

Reprehensible Does Not Mean "Deranged"

On Sunday, Donald Trump slammed Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in a tweet which concluded "He has a DEATH WISH . Must immediately seek help and advise (sic) from his China loving wife, Coco Chao!:"

Later that morning, former McConnel advisor Scott Jennings, appearing on CNN's State of the Union, recognized the tweet was "outrageous. It's beyond the pale. Every Republican should be able to say this."  Immediately prior, however, Jennings  had stated

I mean, if you read that whole thing out loud, if you were on the street and you heard someone muttering that on the street corner, you wouldn't say "here, let's hand that person the presidency or the Republican nomination for President." You'd say "Call 911 because it sounds like an unhinged, deranged person has gotten loose and is out on the street and may be a danger to themselves and others." "this is outrageous. It's beyond the pale. Every Republican should be able to say this."

In defense of Jennings (must I?), that was well over 50 hours ago when he labeled the tweeter "unhinged (and) deranged," before it was clear that no GOP official would criticize Trump for the his "outrageous" and "beyond the pale" remarks  Jennings could not have assumed (though he should have been asked) that his former employer would remain silent when confronted with a bigoted attack upon his own wife, a Taiwanese-American who is ethnically Chinese.

A little shy of Sunday afternoon, it was reasonable to speculate that Donald Trump appeared unhinged, dangerous, and "a danger to themselves and others."

Nonetheless, with the benefit of hindsight, it is legitimate, albeit politically incorrect, to argue that Donald Trump's tweet was not a tactical blunder but strategically wise.

The ex-President was able to condemn Mitch McConnell (vastly underappreciated by the Republican street;  hurling a bigoted attack against an Asian-American, which is not underappreciated by the Republican street) and reinforce the notion that he's the only man standing between the USA and mainland China.

Instinctively, Trump realized that he'd be able to get away with slamming an antagonist's wife, which normally would incur a swift response from any self-respecting man or one who respects his wife. He can do so not only because he is Donald Trump, emperor of the Republican Party, but also because in this, he has Mitch McConnell by the short hairs.

This was accomplished by inclusion of "China loving" in the tweet. McConnell does not want to risk incurring engagement with Trump on the issue of his wife being "China loving" because it is a credible accusation. In 2019 The New York Times reported

Ms. Chao has no formal affiliation or stake in her family’s shipping business, Foremost Group. But she and her husband, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, have received millions of dollars in gifts from her father, James, who ran the company until last year. And Mr. McConnell’s re-election campaigns have received more than $1 million in contributions from Ms. Chao’s extended family, including from her father and her sister Angela, now Foremost’s chief executive, who were both subjects of the State Department’s ethics question...

Over the years, Ms. Chao has repeatedly used her connections and celebrity status in China to boost the profile of the company, which benefits handsomely from the expansive industrial policies in Beijing that are at the heart of diplomatic tensions with the United States, according to interviews, industry filings and government documents from both countries.

Now, Ms. Chao is the top Trump official overseeing the American shipping industry, which is in steep decline and overshadowed by its Chinese competitors.

Her efforts on behalf of the family business — appearing at promotional events, joining her father in interviews with Chinese-language media — have come as Foremost has interacted with the Chinese state to a remarkable degree for an American company.

(In December of 2020, the Transportation Department's inspector general referred this evident malfeasance to the Justice Department, which declined to prosecute Chao.)

Viewed in that context, Mitch McConnell's silence in the face of a denunciation of his wife is shrewd, however cowardly. And if you're Donald Trump, looking for publicity and to energize his base, upbraiding a dark-skinned woman for being cozy with the Red Chinese and her husband for allegedly playing ball with Democrats is not the work of a lunatic yelling mindlessly on a street corner.

 

Share |

Everything But Crazy

A member of the California delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives is, obviously, justified in condemning Donald J. Trump's latest tweet, although I'd be a little less concerned about the "Coco Chow" racial bigotry (or xenophobia) than about the death threat.

More insanity, lies and racism from the former President. Elaine Chao is an American. https://t.co/ujlfikt6DK

— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) October 1, 2022

 

Of course, Donald Trump wouldn't himself gun down Mitch McConnell, though the did once warn us that he could do it to a random stranger on Fifth Avenue and not lose any votes. Maybe, just maybe, Trump will be sufficiently persuasive that instead one of his disciples will take down the Senate Minority Leader, after which the ex-President would deny  responsibility.

Unsurprisingly garnering the greatest criticism was Trump's last remark "must immediately seek help and advise (sic) from his China loving wife, Coco Chow." Also not surprising is that the reference to the "China loving wife" has summoned relatively little attention. (The video below is from 1/19.) Last year, Voice of America reported

The Transportation Department's watchdog asked the Justice Department to criminally investigate Elaine Chao late last year after it determined she had misused her office when she was transportation secretary under President Donald Trump but was rebuffed, according to a report released Wednesday.

The report said the Justice Department's criminal and public integrity divisions declined in December to take up the case for criminal prosecution following the inspector general's findings that Chao inappropriately used her staff and office for personal tasks and to promote a shipping business owned by Chao's father and sisters. That company does extensive business with China...

The watchdog report cited several instances that raised ethical concerns. In one, Chao instructed political appointees in the department to contact the Homeland Security Department to check personally on the status of a work permit application for a student who was a recipient of her family's philanthropic foundation.

Chao also made extensive plans for an official trip to China in November 2017 - before she canceled it - that would have included stops at places that had received support from her family's business, the New York-based Foremost Group. According to department emails, Chao directed her staff to include her relatives in the official events and high-level meetings during the trip.

Above all, let's keep (the Secretary) happy,`` one of the department's employees wrote to another staffer regarding Chao's father. ``If Dr. Chao is happy, then we should be flying with a feather in our hat.''

The report found that Chao also directed the department's public affairs staff to assist her father in the marketing of his personal biography and to edit his Wikipedia page, and used staff to check on repairs of an item at a store for her father.

Elaine Chao was corrupt, which merely placed her in the mainstream of President Trump's employees.

*It was a strategic choice, especially the obvious clowns like Pruitt & Zinke, neither of which lasted his full term but provided early headlines in the Beltway press while Trump, Jared & Vanky were digging into the 'good stuff' like selling state secrets to KSA. @GOP

— NoelCaslerComedy (@caslernoel) September 19, 2022

 

Being surrounded by ethically vacuous managers served an additional purpose. Thus compromised, these individuals posed little threat to Trump's own underhanded and unscrupulous dealings, both past and present. They could not afford to blow the whistle on the man they served lest their own dealings be exposed.

No doubt President 45 ached for a way to insert himself into the national conversation, currently dominated by the devastation of Hurricane Ian, a tragedy so enormous it may preclude success for this effort. However, Trump famously ridiculed the looks of the wife of an enemy, Ted Cruz, and there is no downside to him attacking Mitch McConnell's spouse.

Which is to say: Donald Trump is not crazy. He knows that dishonesty, crudeness, and bigotry, mixed in with right-wing ideology, took him to the Oval Office.  If his behavior is "crazy," insanity has its upside.

 

Share |

That's Not It, Mr. President

Surprisingly- if one attributes any credibility to Mitch McConnell- Uvalde, Texas was an outlier.

On Monday, President Joe

Biden, speaking to reporters after his return to the White House, was asked if he believes talks between Republicans and Democrats could produce bipartisan gun legislation after the latest tragedy. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell tapped Texas Sen. John Cornyn to work with Democrats on the legislation.

“I don’t know, but I think there’s a realization on the part of rational Republicans — and I consider Sen. McConnell a rational Republican, and Cornyn is as well,” Biden said. “I think there’s a recognition on their part … that we can’t continue like this. We can’t do this.”

Two days later, responding to a question (video below) from a local television reporter in Kentucky, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

We have, uh, led by Senator Cornyn, and Senator Murphy on the Democratic side, discussing how we might come together- target the problem, mental illness and school safety.

We've found the problem- but it's not that too few Republicans are rational, as seemingly understood by the second tweeter of the two  below.

And… They're going to vote GOP regardless of whether the GOP supports these policies or not.

— Pé🌻 (@4everNeverTrump) June 2, 2022

 

Republican leadership, centered on the Senate Minority Leader, is rational. McConnell understands that ultimately, Republicans and conservative independents are going to vote for GOP candidates because Democrats are perceived as unpatriotic, weak, or excessively favorable toward blacks, immigrants, or elections.

Following the horrific event in Uvalde, McConnell needed only to project the message "we care." That could do with the magic phrases "mental health" or "school safety," the latter popular with conservatives because it conjures up the image of a police state (black lives matter, indeed). And so, mental health and school safety.

There is no standard definition of mass shooting. According to this chart, however, in 2022 there have been in the USA 13 instances in which ten individuals, not including the perpetrator, have been shot and ten instances in which four or more individuals (again excluding the perpetrator) have been killed.

"School safety," emphasizes the Minority Leader, and the massacre in Uvalde did in fact take place inside a school. However, in no other of those ten cases was a school involved in any way.. For those keeping score at home, that makes 9 out of 10, or 90%, which could not have been prevented or mitigated by anything related to school safety.

Of the 17,813 murder victims in the USA in 2020, 13,663 occurred by rifle, handgun, or some sort of firearm. There were 3,167 victims of murder by all other identifiable causes, with 983 not clearly identified. Thus, at least 76.7% of the deceased succumbed to someone wielding a firearm, with those outnumbering persons killed by other means by a factor greater than four.

It's difficult to outlaw hands used in strangling (58) or suffocating (71) people, and law enforcement already aggressively addresses narcotics (113). But we can do something about people getting blown away. Mitch McConnell knows that, and his unwillingness to engage effectively is not irrational but a conscious, rational decision made to enhance the chance that "Minority" in his title will be replaced after November by "Majority."

Share |

No Counterattack

The morning following unexpected release of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito's unpopular draft opinion which would overturn Roe v. Wade, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell strategically tweeted "by every indication, this was yet another escalation in the radical left's ongoing campaign." Senator Marsha Blackburn tweeted  "I have no doubt that the Chief Justice will work to root out the radical activist" (who)  must be immediately removed from their position and exiled from the legal community."

McConnell and Blackburn both speak as if it is understood that the culprit is of the left, with Blackburn assuming also that he or she is a lawyer. The latter is unclear, the former far more doubtful. The remarks of U.S. Representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas best encapsulate the GOP's strategic tactics of distraction, ad hominem, and straw man remarks.  At 1:06 of the video below, he charges

Let's be honest. What this leaker probably believes is that they're gonna be made a martyr. They're gonna get a great gig on MSNBC. They might be disbarred but they're gonna get a great gig on the left. They're gonna become a spokesperson for the pro-abortion movement....

We know a couple of things, one of which is "they're gonna." Also, that Republicans will be- already are- dictating with careful, yet scorching, language the terms of the debate. Crenshaw surmises that the leaker of Alito's draft majority opinion is someone of the left, who then will get "a great gig with MSNBC." 

It likely that the leaker was of the right, with anti-abortion rights activist and right-winger Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, the most likely culprit. However, we probably will never learn the identity of the leaker because Chief Justice John Roberts would prefer he or she remain anonymous. The New York Times reports

Gabe Roth, the executive director of Fix The Court, a nonprofit group that pushes to make the Supreme Court more accountable to the people, said the leak investigation amounted to a massive task for the Supreme Court marshal, a job he described as ​​“more administrative than investigatory” in nature.

“The marshal’s like the C.O.O. of the Supreme Court,” Mr. Roth said. “They concern themselves with overseeing the police, overseeing hirings. They’re involved in the budget proposals that are released every year. They’re involved in ensuring decorum is maintained during an open Supreme Court session.”

Consequently, it's a no-risk proposition for Republicans to allege, with affected certainty, that the culprit is a leftist. They knew Democrats would not challenge the narrative.

Two can play at that game but it's only one when Democrats are unwilling to charge that a member of the GOP is at fault. Democrats can defend themselves only by reversing the charges, a risk worth taking. Conservatives have stronger motives than liberals for the draft opinion to be leaked well before the elections in November.  Yet, they are demonizing the Democratic Party as the villain and the subject of the smear has not responded..

Crenshaw additionally refers to the pro-choice position as "the pro-abortion movement," both in the clip beginning at 1:04 and when he alleges (at 3:45) ".... and you noted something about the- they call it the pro-choice movement. It is a pro-abortion movement."

Very few people are actually pro-abortion. You know it, they know it, but anti-abortion ideologues do not, and demagogues are going to demagogue. There is no way to stop the right from invoking the spurious term "pro-abortion."

Nor is there a way to stop conservatives, who generally oppose universal pre-school, paid family leave, and low-cost birth control for the needy, from calling themselves "pro-life." So the left should refer to anti-choice people as "pro-forced birth." That has the advantage not only of being a negative characterization but also of being accurate.

The opinion that was released prematurely on Monday may or may not mirror the actual decision when it is handed down.  What surely won't change, though, is the GOP's effort to vilify the left, whether as criminals or as baby killers.  "When they go low, we go high," Michelle Obama once stated. That was bad advice then and is even worse advice now.

Share |

Mitch McConnell's Suspicion

John Berman is a fine anchor person (anchorman, anchor, whatever) who generally listens to the guests he interviews and responds accordingly, at least compared to most of his peers on our two cable news networks, MSNB and his own CNN.

Not always, however. In the video below, Berman, responding to Donald Trump's latest pro-Putin remarks, can be seen asking CNN legal analyst Gloria Borger

I want to lay Trump aside here and talk about what Mitch McConnell said. How much do you think the messy withdrawal from Afghanistan is shaping the Administration's approach here?

That would have been a good question had the Senate Minority Leader been attributing the Russian invasion of Ukraine to the "messy withdrawal from Afghanistan?"  Rather, the clip shown immediately before Berman's query depicts McConnel stating

I don't believe Vladimir Putin would have a couple hundred thousand troops on the border of Ukraine had we not precipitously withdrawn from Afghanistan last August.... It looked not only chaotic but it looks weak and so they are pushing the limits everywhere, reacting to the perception of American weakness and loss of resolve.

Weakness and loss of resolve. McConnell did note that the withdrawal looked chaotic. It was easier for television news, cable and over-the-air, to focus on the 13 USA service members (and dozens of Afghans) murdered during the withdrawal by Islamic terrorists than on the 120,000 Americans, civilian and military, and Afghans who were safely evacuated.

The media knew there were many tens of thousands brought out safely and characterized the mission as chaotic. They learned of the killings and had pictures of hundreds or thousands of Afghans desperately trying to get on the airplanes so they could get out of the country. The media were not impressed by the impact of American withdrawal- unavoidably leaving thousands of Afghans to the whims of the murderous Taliban. Instead, after 19 years of war which ended in an American defeat, the media were exorcised by our inability to rescue everyone without the appearance of a fire drill gone haywire.

Something was out of whack there and Berman, who actually believes it was the "messy withdrawal" which may have shaped President Biden's response to Putin's aggression, seems not to have noticed. While the decision to leave Afghanistan may have had no impact. the nature of the withdrawal almost certainly had none, and the Minority Leader knows it.  Otherwise, he wouldn't have cited "weakness" and "lack of resolve," which he likely believed would resonate with many voters.

Neither the war in Afghanistan, the American withdrawal, nor the manner of withdrawal probably has had any influence on Vladimir Putin's strategy or tactics in Afghanistan.  But if it did, it wasn't the hyped "messy withdrawal," whose importance the media has exaggerated ever since the exit of the US forces.  The policy decision was of far greater importance but was unexamined and largely downplayed by the media, perhaps because it was presumed to be universally popular. Not with Mitch McConnell it wasn't, and he may speak for far more people than is assumed.

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 |

There For All To See

press: why can’t Biden cut a deal??? https://t.co/CweKOWKlqz

— Eric Boehlert (@EricBoehlert) May 5, 2021

 

McConnell is too smart to reprise his “single most important thing” line - that was a Kinsley gaffe. But this is pretty darn close. https://t.co/RKSoYBBKEO

— Adam Jentleson 🎈 (@AJentleson) May 5, 2021

Boehlert's point is, however obvious, an excellent and critical one. However, Vote Vets and Jentleson actually are incorrect.   The Washington Post's Fact Checker noted that in the infamous interview of October, 2010, Senate Minority Leader McConnell stated

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president... If President Obama does a Clintonian backflip, if he's willing to meet us halfway on some of the bigest issues, it's not inapppropriate for us to do business with him.... I don't want the president to fail. I want him to change.

Of course, McConnell was lying. He wasn't willing to meet  Obama halfway and he did want the President to fail.That's why he bragged (video below) as Majority Leader "about how he blocked former President Barack Obama's federal judge picks for two years,'' including refusing even to hold a hearing for the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. He nonetheless pushed through the elevation of Amy Coney Barrett to the High Court a few days before the 2020 election and in the lame duck session successfully rushed approval of several individuals for lifetime appointments to the federal bench.

McConnell's message on Wednesday was more explicit than his responses in the 2010 interview. Responding to one question, he stated

One hundred percent of our focus is on stopping this new Administration. I think the best way of looking at what this new Administration is- the President may have won the nomination but Bernie Sanders won the argument about what the new Administration should be like. We're confronted with severe challenges from a new Administration and a narrow majority of Democrats in the House and a 50-50 Sentate to turn America into a socialist country and that's 100% of my focus.

Asked a follow-up, the Minority Leader replied

One hundred percent of my focus is on standing up to this Administration. What we have in the United States Senate is total unity from Susan Collins to Ted Cruz in opposition to what the new Biden Administration is trying to do to this country.

No longer can anyone legitimately claim, as Kessler did in his GOP-freindly fact check of the 2010 statement, that McConnell is speaking in "a political context.."  The Majority Leader has laid down the gauntlet: it's a "socialist" Administration and everyone in his caucus, from Collins to Cruz, is unified in opposing the President's agenda. All of it.

"What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." Mitch McConnell set out to deceive people during the Obama Administration, and succeeded with an important Washington Post reporter and a few others. At least now, as Boehlert's sarcastic retort indicates, the jig is up.

 

Share |

And He Says It With A Straight Face

 OMG @therecount! Can't make this shit up

(BTW: Ds are open for business, leave the dark side & come grow w us) https://t.co/72eF60B3cI

— Rachel Bitecofer 📈🔭🍌 (@RachelBitecofer) April 6, 2021

Senate Minority Leader (and how nice it is to say the middle word) Mitch McConnell says "and I found it completely discouraging to find a bunch of corporate CEO's getting in the middle of politics.  My advice to the corporate CEO's of America is to stay out of politics." One tweeter appropriately snarked "...except when you contribute to my reelection fund to a tune of $4.3M over 5 years.  Thank you.  Otherwise stay out."

He was remarking narrowly about corporate contributions to the Minority Leader but could have been speaking (and probably was thinking) broadly about McConnell's role in lending a bullhorn to corporations to control American politics.  Last September, a columnist for The Michigan Daily explained that McConnell

has collected millions of dollars in speaking fees, personal gifts and campaign contributions from his “special friends” at R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company.

Then, inconspicuously, the senator filibustered several tobacco regulation bills and cast doubt on the negative health effects of secondhand smoke. This trend set McConnell on a direct collision course with another prominent Republican figure: the late Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz. The two warred over campaign finance reform for years with McCain partnering with Democrat Russ Feingold to create the McCain-Feingold BCRA in 2001. After introducing the bill several times and having it filibustered time and again by McConnell, the pair finally passed the bill with the bare minimum 60 votes in 2002. However, McConnell, ever the snapping tortoise, sued the Federal Election Commission based on constitutional grounds.

This case became McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, in which McConnell's attorneys filed an amicus curiae brief and for which in 2003 the Supreme Court

largely upheld the BCRA's limits on "soft money" and electioneering communications, but overturned its ban on party committees making "both coordinated and independent expenditures on behalf of a candidate after that candidate's general election nomination." As a result of the ruling, parties were no longer required to choose between one or the other. Upholding the First Amendment rights of minors, the Court overturned the BCRA's restrictions on contributions from individuals under the age of 18.

That decision in turn paved the way for the Court's 5-4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which "overturned election spending restrictions that date back more than 100years" and invited an explosion of dark money in politics.

We now have a system Mitch McConnell fought for, has supported, and has thrived in.  So when the Senate Minority Leader advises corporate bosses to stay out of politics, the nod and the wink is understood by everyone.

 

Share |

Consequences, Even For Trump

Well, he certainly got religion, seemingly. The New York Times reports

Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, said on Tuesday that the mob that stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 had been “provoked by the president and other powerful people,” stating publicly for the first time that he holds President Trump at least partly responsible for the assault.

“The mob was fed lies,” Mr. McConnell said, referring to attempts by Mr. Trump to overturn the election based on bogus claims of voter fraud. “They were provoked by the president and other powerful people. And they tried to use fear and violence to stop a specific proceeding of the first branch of the federal government which they did not like.”

Mr. McConnell made the remarks on his last full day as majority leader, speaking on the eve of President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s inauguration and as the Senate was bracing to receive a single article of impeachment from the House charging Mr. Trump with “incitement of insurrection.”

The Kentucky Republican has indicated privately that he believes that Mr. Trump committed impeachable offenses, but he has said he has yet to decide whether to vote to convict the president, and many senators in his party are awaiting a sign from Mr. McConnell before making their own judgments. 

Awaiting a sign, no doubt, to determine what principles they have. It's critical for McConnell to signal flexibility on the impending Senate trial because he is currently negotiating with Chuck Schumer the details on control of the Senate.

New: McConnell wants Senate power-sharing deal to protect legislative filibuster.

In an email obtained by @NRO, McConnell wrote to GOP colleagues: "I believe the time is ripe to address this issue head on before the passions of one particular issue or another arise."

— John McCormack (@McCormackJohn) January 19, 2021 

However, Senator McConnell probably is genuinely considering voting for conviction of Donald Trump.  The Times notes that at Trump's trial after he was first impeached

Mr. McConnell acted at the White House’s behest to set trial rules that would favor acquittal. Now, he has told allies he hopes never to speak to Mr. Trump again and is doing nothing to persuade senators to back him, instead calling the impeachment vote a matter of conscience.

McConnell hopes never to speak to President VL because the former is no Joe Biden, who has put a heartbeat from the presidency the politician who once called him, in Jill Biden's reckoning, a racist.  By contrast, McConnell is not inclined to reward an individual who successfully cut his legs out from under him.

It took the Senate Majority Leader six weeks to acknowledge that Donald Trump lost the presidential election to Joe Biden. Within five weeks later he had indicated that he might vote to convict Trump, stated that the Capitol riot was "provoked by the President and other important people," and has promoted a leak that he doesn't want to talk to Trump again.

Something happened in the interim. That something was the run-off election in Georgia for dual Senate seats. Instead of conceding his own race, the President argued vociferously that he had won and aggressively spread the myth that he would return to office. Not only did the GOP lose both races, but barely so. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will become Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell because of Donald Trump. 

Believing Joe Biden might not become President, Republican voters were less motivated because they thought Trump might return to office, making the idea of a Democratic-controlled Senate more palatable. Independent-minded voters found it unnecessary to ensure Republican control of the Senate as a check on the liberal Democrat in the White House.

Mitch McConnell has not undergone the "epiphany" Joe Biden expects from Republicans.  Rather, McConnell knows the GOP lost its majority in the United States Senate because of Donald J. Trump.  This does not endear the latter to the former, who will pay at least a small price for his single-minded devotion to self.  It should be a reminder to Chuck Schumer and Joe Biden that they will be facing off against a ruthless rival, not a partner.

 

Share |

Handing Trump And Pence A Gift

This is an interesting argument by Will, whose last name is not "Bunch sign up for my newsletter":

The thing that's driving me crazy about the impeachment coverage on TV cable news is that the primary goal isn't getting him out of office these last 12 days (although that would he helpful). It's all about banning him from running in 2024 and removing him from public life

— Will Bunch Sign Up For My Newsletter (@Will_Bunch) January 8, 2021

Surely, as Bunch suggests, the primary goal should not be getting Donald Trump out of office in the last few days of his presidency. That's especially true given that President Pence's first act would be to pardon Donald Trump in what would be for once, a President actually doing something on "Day 1."

Unless the US Constitution was, unbeknownst to the public, changed overnight, neither Donald Trump nor anyone else can be "removed from public life" except by incarceration.

Donald Trump could be impeached for a second time or be removed via the 25th Amendment, the latter highly unlikely, though it would let congressional Democrats and Republicans off the hook.

Yet, there is little chance Democrats will be officially in charge of the Senate before January 20 and thus there will be no conviction, if even a trial, of the President before that date. Obviously, then, he would not be banned from running in 2024 because he'd first have to be convicted by the Senate; nor removed from public life, whatever that phrase means.

Once he leaves office, Donald Trump could be impeached and tried in the Senate. The former may well happen; the latter will not, given that conviction requires a two-thirds majority and the distribution of power in the next Congress between senators Schumer and McConnell is yet to be determined.

If the Senate were to convict and- as is uncertain even in the next Congress- then rule that Trump could not again run for public office, it would be a punishment akin to that rendered upon more than 99.9% of Americans. Donald Trump could not enter another presidential race, just as you, I, and virtually every other individual will never even sniff the presidency.

This would not be a fate worse than death, the latter a far more likely condition for what in 2024 would be a 78-year-old man who has made at least two trips to the hospital in the past 14 months.

Nonetheless, there is an action which Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi and other Democratic officials, and much of the media realize holds greater peril for Donald J. Trump. That is prosecution, and not of the variety being investigated by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office nor the New York State Attorney General but that which would be pursued by the Justice Department.

Joe Biden- and probably Merrick Garland, the presumptive upcoming Attorney General- would like to go in another direction. It would be easier for them to fulfill their fantasy of moving on or "not looking backward" were ex-President Trump to be impeached, thus "punished enough already," as we might hear.  Paradoxically, that may be why House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, her caucus, many Senate Democrats, and Democratic-leaning legal analysts see impeachment, if the 25th Amendment is not invoked, as the easy way out.

 

 

Share |